This is a 9500-word essay, (divided in three parts) that I submitted for a course in EFL University, Hyderabad. Read Part I and Part II here.
The Necessity of Apoliticism - Part III
The existentialist argument
The existential argument may also be understood in a twofold sense; one, on a personal, individual level, and the other being in the global, species-like level of all of existing humankind. We shall begin our analysis on the individual level.
The school of existentialism has been developed by minds that have differed in its core tenets. While Kierkegaard focuses on the individual’s relationship with God as a standpoint of deriving meaning, de Beauvoir focuses on existential feminism; Camus undermines any meaning by his prioritization of the absurd, etc. Instead, then, of discussing the nuances of specific existentialists, it would be wiser to abstract from them and, instead, apprehend existentialism in a more general sense.
This, I think, can be found by the Sartrean postulation19 that the meaning of life is to create one’s own meaning. The reason why such a postulation can find generality, I think, is because it can be compatible with any existentialist philosophy. If, for instance, one chooses to find meaning in their life through their relation with God, that would also satisfy Kierkegaard’s principle. Thus, it becomes the liberty as well as the responsibility of the individual to derive singular or multiple meanings in their own life on their own terms; through God, the self, education, employment, family, politics, etc.
It was earlier mentioned that the actions of those interested in politics are directed to the aim of attaining continuous peace and prosperity. Let us also consider those who, while acknowledging the cyclical patterns of history, yet choose to act as political agents in both meanings of the word. After all, apoliticism is not the only and necessary end-result to the acknowledgement of the historical argument. That argument was merely a form of rational analysis, of which the potential fallacies have already been illustrated.
For these individuals who have acknowledged the larger forces of history, politics can still exist as a dimension from which they can derive their meaning. That is not to trivialise their meaning to be as bland as Sisyphus’ rock, for it could easily be argued that activism may directly influence food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc. It is, for them20, an important use of their valuable time.
However, it is to say that, similar to each and every activity in life, the choice to engage in politics is a purely private, non-binding affair that only the individual is accountable for. Let it not amongst these arguments be forgotten that the life of the individual is as trivial in the larger scope of humankind, as it is precious to the individual enjoying it. Existentialism, in spirit, acknowledges this finite sum of an individual’s life.21
If we reasonably assume reincarnation to be impossible, then the preciousness of the individual’s life, due to its sheer irreplaceability, increases tenfold. Can we, then, begrudge, belittle or completely invalidate a person’s right to live their life in the manner they choose, especially when it does not appear to violate the norms of contemporary morality?22
We can reasonably observe, after considering the historical and rhetorical arguments, that—even for those individuals acknowledging history’s cyclical nature—the efforts of those who make politics an object of their life is bound to frustration.23 A person who pledges their life to politics must reconcile with the likelihood that events will not always pan out in the manner they wish. Just as they are privy to a sense of happiness when a progressive bill is passed, or when their trusted politician comes to power, they are also certain to face conflict from opposing ideologies, be victim or perpetrator to primitive rhetoric, or continually worry over the state of their polity.
This is, one would presume, an obvious and acknowledged inevitability of individuals acting of their own free will. It is their form of meaning that they have exercised according to their suitability. They have, then, acknowledged the fact that investment into politics comes with its highs and lows.
However, I think that the unrealism attached to their goals of continued peace and prosperity (or even, for individuals who simply want to make things better within the short scope of their lives) means that people in politics misalign their conceptions of highs and lows.
An example of the current state of Indian politics may clarify this point. Consider a Hindu nationalist who wishes India to be free of religions other than their own. For them, CAA, NRC and NPR is a perceived achievement of politics; a step in the right direction under the larger goal of a land without Muslims. It would be reasonable to assume that the passing of this law delights them; it is a moment of high. However, despite it being an achievement, it is not yet the final step for the attainment of their paradise. It is one piece of the puzzle, albeit a major one. The high, then, must be tempered with the acknowledgment that the journey is yet incomplete.
Now, this drastic action of the government has led to a not insignificant number of critics and protestors of the law. With their larger goal (say, of a secular India) being at odds with the goal of the Hindu nationalist, to them the situation appears as a moment of low.
Initially and objectively, since the stimulus is common (i.e. enactment of CAA/NRC/NPR), it appears logical to appropriate equal proportions of ‘highs’ and ‘lows’ to the Hindu nationalist and to the secular respectively. It is presumed that, on a collective average, however happy the nationalist feels, the secular would feel equally sad. This, of course, cannot yet be empirically verified, since emotions cannot be quantified.
However, there is, I think, a slight difference between the lows of the secular in proportion to the highs of the Hindu nationalist, which can be understood by the concept of stasis, or of being static. Humans engaged in politics assume and take for granted, understandably, a minimum and mandatory amount of service from the state. A middle-class man engaged in politics does not jump in joy and praise the state every time the milkman arrives at his doorstep, or when the government provides his home with electricity. He assumes, over time, that these services afforded by the state are to be expected and, therefore, does not perceive them as a high. Even when, objectively speaking, the state is providing the person with facilities, the person has understandably taken them for granted. This sense of neutrality—this absence of a moderate or visceral reaction to a real event in politics—may be said to be a static one.
However, if from now until the end of time, the material conditions of all middle-class people do not change by an iota, the middle-class will not remain in a state of perennial stasis. This is because any person engaged in politics (middle-class or otherwise), does so because they aim to better their material conditions.24 Any system, structure or scenario that remains the same for a long time is, in the mind of the person engaged in politics, a failure. If, for instance, humankind perennially remained in its hunter-gatherer state, or if slavery was never eradicated, then the point of politics is defeated.
The real neutral feeling of the individual, then, is in fact a reaction to a static polity. However, that very static polity is, in fact, a satiation of the absolute expected minimum highs of the individual. Any action by the government that adds over and above that minimum sense of high, is appreciated as a substantial enough movement toward prosperity.
Let us now return to the example of the Hindu nationalist and the secular. We can now observe that the nationalist who experienced the high when CAA was enacted, accepts a minimal part of that high as a given result from politics. That minimal part, in this instance, is satiated from the fulfilment of the Hindu nationalist’s requirement—that the Indian government ought to side with fellow Hindus. The pride or the real sense of high that emerges is surplus. It is perhaps owing to the magnitude of the decision taken by the government; a decision that transcends the Hindu nationalist’s expectations.
It is now that the low of the secular is fully understood. While the nationalist’s sense of high is from a surplus gain in the direction of their paradise, the secular’s sense of low is proportionally worsened.25 This is because, that what the secular considered as the bare minimum from an Indian government (that it ought to be, officially, a secular state) is robbed, and along with that is added a surplus low owing to the dramatic nature of CAA/NRC/NPR. In an age when it is neither uncommon nor unjust to worry over stagnancy in politics, the perception of going backward appears to be much worse.
These are the conclusions we can derive, from this brief analysis, about the emotions of people engaged in politics, in simplified binary terms of happy/sad:26
1. People are happy only when the realm of politics affords to them a surplus high.
2. If politics is in stasis, people are for the time-being neutral.
3. If politics remains in stasis, servicing the minimum high for too long, people experience a low due to their rightful mandate of demanding prosperity. They therefore begin to become sad.
4. Any amount of perceived low in politics makes people sad.
We see, then, that the bar of happiness is tall, the realm of stasis tends towards the bar of sadness, and that the bar of sadness is, overall, the likelier outcome.
If, then, a divisive act like CAA is passed, that same action creates a larger amount of sadness in relation to the amount of happiness. The matter does not end there. The secular naturally engages in fierce conflict with the Hindu nationalist. The nationalist’s initial sense of high, being threatened by the actions of the secular, begins to diminish. Both parties are dragged into the arena of primitive rhetoric where they lobby constructed truths at each other; in all probability ending up incurring more lows than gaining highs.
These subjective levels of frustration that an individual who engages in politics makes themselves vulnerable to is, I think, a pitfall of politics that has been largely unacknowledged. While it is the free will of the individual to engage in politics, one must admit that the chances of frustration are greater than that of satisfaction. When politics has become as complicated and decayed as it currently appears to be, renunciation from this entire realm needs to be an option no longer stigmatized or scorned upon, but viewed as a pragmatic, mature choice for the subjective peace of the individual, who only has one life to live.
Let us consider the other aspect of the twofold character of human existence. The existence of humans on a universal, species-like level is under increasing threat from the effects of global warming. An argument against apoliticism, then, is that their inactivity hampers humanity’s chances of survival.
The pressure for political involvement of biologists has not always been as great as it is now. When NABT [National Association of Biology Teachers] was created, neither its leadership nor its members could have anticipated the magnitude of current biopolitical issues. Population growth had not led to serious pollution problems or crises regarding the allocation of natural resources and energy supplies as it has today. (Creager 405 – We Cannot Be Apolitical)
However, not only does this argument assume the global crisis to be amendable, it also affirms that the individual’s investment into politics is the sole or rightful path. Politics, when it denounces the viewpoints of the apolitical as ‘irrational’ or ‘impossible’, does not consider that these claims are espoused not by an authority figure, but by someone fundamentally alien to the apolitical person. Just as the liberal is untrustworthy of the postulations of the MAGAite, so too is apoliticism untrustworthy of the postulations of politics.
Even if the apolitical individual goes against their own wishes for distancing from any primitive rhetoric on climate change, and lends an ear to politics, they can doubt this assertion on reasonable grounds. If, for instance, those interested in politics are either promoting, or are unable to suppress, the powerful narrative that climate change is a hoax, how is the forceful inclusion of the apolitical individual into this realm meant to repair that? What is the concrete plan for snatching unity from the cycles of history, when even a pandemic was unable to manage that? Is it not forcing them to choose a side at the potential cost of their personal happiness?
The celibate does not doom humanity because they do not force the rest of the population into celibacy. In the same way, the apolitical individual exercises their private liberty of abstinence. They can either plant a tree in their own backyard, or acknowledge humanity’s war against global warming to be a lost cause, enjoying the moments of their life in acceptance rather than in disbelief. This element of choice that is the liberty of the individual, is precisely why apoliticism is a necessity in the political sphere.
Conclusion
I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that, sometime in a theological state during the Middle Ages, atheism was once claimed to be an impossible stance. It may have been argued that since God is omnipresent, atheism cannot exist. Today, due to the development of the history of thought, atheism may be seen as a perfectly rational and mature choice, and atheists have been able to live their lives with dignity.
Let us, then, end from the beginning by revisiting the first criticism toward apoliticism with the context of atheism. When there are other salient features of apoliticism more worthy of discussion (some of which have been part of this argument), why is the most common criticism toward apoliticism still relatively underdeveloped?
Part of the reason that apoliticism is often not even considered a choice, I speculate, is due to the fact that the apolitical person, on principle, chooses not to enter primitive rhetoric. They decide to neither justify their standpoint, nor attempt to manipulate the narrative. The effects of this speculated decision ranges from the absence of apolitical thinkers in canonical philosophy, to the Wikipedia page on Apoliticism being barely two-hundred words. It is because of this abstinence (of which, of course, this argument is an exception) that politics is free to construct the narrative of the apolitical individual as ungrateful, idle, indifferent or pseudo-intellectual.
This is, of course, understandable. When politics becomes the central dimension for an individual to derive meaning from, it could come at the cost of not realizing that it may not be central to everyone. However, none of these arguments can discount the fact that apoliticism, much like politicism, is a choice equally informed with rationality. Just as a perceived way of increasing the quality of primitive rhetoric is to acknowledge the validity of the viewpoint of the other, similarly it must be within the bounds of rationality of the person engaged in politics, to comprehend apoliticism as a realm for those who desire an escape from the highs and lows of politics.
The object of this essay, then, is not only to focus on the hitherto unexplored positives of an apolitical life, but also to serve as reminder to those engaged in politics. They must realize that no substantial body of philosophy, research or literature may ever exist in support of the true spirit of apoliticism27. They must accept that the decisions of apolitical people are fundamentally different to politicism, and that little reminders can be offered regarding the reasons behind those decisions. Apoliticism is not superior to politicism, but it deserves to exist as a kind of safe haven for those who wish to make the conscious choice of abstaining from what they perceive to be a stressful, decaying state of affairs.
Footnotes
19. “The essential consequence of our earlier remarks is that man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being.” (Sartre 553 – Being and Nothingness)
20. Another argument that exists from this acknowledgement is that it is the duty of all individuals to maintain, contribute and expand these conditions for the betterment of humanity. Since apolitical individuals do not, they are likened to idle, bourgeois intellectuals. While the cyclical nature of history is intact, let us picture a linear upward curve of history pertaining to real human invention and discovery. Humans progressed from the Stone Age to agriculture, industry, technology, etc.; most of which was possible because of people’s involvement in politics. This seems true. What is also true is that, at this present moment, humanity is at its very peak of this linear upward curve. As time passes, of course, the magnitude of invention and discovery will increase, presuming that linear curve will maintain its upward trajectory. This means that at this present moment, history is at her highest point, closest to achieving that abstract land of permanent peace and prosperity. The individual, then, has a choice: either to engage in politics and push for a higher point at the risk of their personal happiness (a point which will be discussed anon), or be grateful for, and enjoy the current feats of humanity. The so-called idle bourgeois intellectual simply chooses the latter. They appreciate the list of movies available on their television, or the fan over their head. Was this idyllic sense of peace, prosperity and happy compliance to the state, not the ultimate aim of politics all along? Was it not the object of politics to reach such a state of satiety, that the constant interrogation of their leaders, constituents and brethren appear superfluous, and compliance to the codes of the society is deemed acceptable?
21. Even if reincarnation is a minute possibility, the likelihood remains that an individual will not retain the memories of their past life. This absence of continuity means that, if a person engages in politics with the intent to improve their conditions seven lifetimes from now, then they will not recall this larger design when that time comes. They will relapse into improving their conditions again, and thus never actually find time to reap their rewards. This makes the possibility of reincarnation redundant to the larger argument.
22. This is to say that the individual practicing apoliticism does not directly impinge upon the rights of the other. They are not comparable to the rapist, the paedophile nor the serial killer, who manifest their beliefs into actions that contemporary morality judges as abhorrent.
23. According to Kisker, “Frustration is psychological state which results from the blocking of a goal-directed activity…” (Singh 39 – The Relationship Between Frustration, Academic Alienation and Scholastic Achievement in Undergraduate College Students)
24. That is why, aside from continued peace, continued prosperity is also acknowledged as an objective of politics.
25. Statistics may bear this out; for instance, while approximately 15 institutions have openly proclaimed their support for CAA/NRC, 57 institutions have vocally denounced it. Approximately 685 protests were carried out against CAA/NRC, while 117 demonstrations were carried out in support of it. Of course, setting statistics aside, this is more of a personal observation than a divine law.
26. Happy can denote being cheery, proud, grateful, hopeful, etc. Sad can denote angry, frustrated, hopeless, disheartened, etc.
27. We may say that any person who repeatedly makes public their apolitical stance with the active intent of entering into the discourse of politics is, needless to say, not promoting a true stance of apoliticism. Due to the extensive realm of politics, apoliticism must always be as private an affair as possible.
Date of publication: 13 May 2020
Comments