Let me begin from the unlikely context that sparked this thought. Mohanlal’s Drishyam 2. I thought the film was a poorly-written, with the character becoming inseparable from the pandering that’s required for the star’s fanbase. Most of the world thought otherwise. While I agreed that I too wouldn’t have liked to see the character lose a cat-and-mouse with the police, there are ways to script a win-win – Ayyappanum Koshiyum being a case in point. But it made me wonder about the kind of cinema that is unlikely to get made based on the will of the majority.
The will of the majority impacts other things too – for instance, politics. My Twitter feed is abuzz with people who call out the current government. It has perfectly executed the Fascism playbook of dismantling not just opponents but the architecture of institutions and culture that creates a free society. But in the larger world, one has to acknowledge that it got democratically elected, and that the people who do not like the Modisatva are still a minority.
It reminded me of how the market works. I found this insightful take, credited to Friedrich Hayek, from Michael J. Sandel’s fantastic book “The Tyranny of Merit” – Market outcomes have nothing to do with rewarding merit. Merit involves a moral judgement about what people deserve, whereas value is simply a measure of what consumers are willing to pay for the goods and services sellers have to offer. Isn’t this true of all spheres of life now?
I acknowledge that a certain level of privilege is required for the luxury of moral evaluation. People whose income and lives are tied to their expression do not have the privilege – from movie reviews to politics. But while it could be dismissed as an elitist perspective, its intent is exactly the opposite. As the will of the majority exerts itself in multiple domains, is it always aligned to common good?
In all the above examples, it is very clearly not. Markets favour revenue, never mind if it comes from gambling online, manipulating human behaviour, or extracting from gig workers. Majoritarian politics is trampling human rights. And while this might be not deemed as serious as the other two, artists and writers are forced to bend to commercial will, long tail of internet distribution be damned.
In this wonderful post on imagining the future of society, Christopher Butler writes about how “the “world” of Star Trek is, fundamentally, the result of a culture unencumbered by scarcity. It’s what would happen if people didn’t have to work to earn money to buy the things they need to live.” And how it “was smart enough to both believe in the viability of a techno-utopia while also questioning it.” Further in the narrative he writes about how The Amish life is based on the choices they make, and the idea that progress isn’t complete if it’s not experienced by everyone.
But I have to wonder if we will ever get there. And if I have to honest about it, it’s probably not even completely about the will of the majority, however all-encompassing its influence. Despite not allowing lifestyle creep and trying to keep things simple, I cannot even be sure I will ever get to a point at which I will be willing to give up my creature comforts. Even if it is for someone who does not know where their next meal is coming from. Or someone who does not know whether they can survive another night without a roof over her head. What will it take to change my thinking? That’s the question I need to answer for myself before I can have a view on why the world can/cannot change. It is a matter of conscience.
