Enter the Facebook

A few days ago, my wife and i had an almighty row about something i put on facebook.

now, before i begin, both of us don't particularly like facebook. i could have used hate, but we don't really hate it. we see it for its benefits, such as the ability to be in touch with people we have been far removed from in time, geography, culture and directions. we like that we can get connected to a virtual flowing river of thoughts, and responses, and so on and so forth.

but then again, facebook seems to get under our skins and freak the fuck out of us.
i get seriously disturbed by how people are so feverishly fervent in consuming such copious amounts of details about EVERYONE else's life. once i saw someone update their status as "just got back from dinner, loved for the yummy food" and about 12 people had 'liked' it. what is there to like, what is there to appreciate in such a banal statement? yet i don't judge it really, i get overwhelmed by it, that virtual river slamming down on me and pulverizing me into its bed.

as for my wife, she despises how people turn into vapid sheep blindly embracing the latest 'it' thing on facebook with over-exuberant, psychotic and hollow passion. to quote an example, remember when israel bitch-slapped gaza, and facebook was inundated with status updates 'donated' to the plight of the palestinians? these were the same people who had been under blockade for almost a year at that point, and yet it was only when the showbiz happened (the ka-booms and the bleeding children) when people suddenly became infatuated with fatah and hammy over hamas.
so this was her retort to them facebookers back then.
of course, it was only fitting that no sooner had she done that (the links are all to stories about swat which back then no one gave a fuck about) people began to be interested in her opinion as well, because facebook junkies love to follow anything and everything.

ironically, her rant brought little attention to swat, but a facebook viral video turned out to be the gamechanger in the whole politics of that region.
which proved the power, and emptiness of this whole facebook phenomenon.(on an aside, i love how the earliest status created responses absolutely unconnected to the content, as if the controversy of it had forced a response, but the addiction to banality did not allow any acknowledgment of it.)

now what both of us were fighting about was my decision to post my film on my profile page. she felt that i was whoring out because things that existed on facebook immediately lost all gravitas, all purpose, all integrity. she complained that i was denuding my work of art, robbing it of its purity. that which existed on facebook was meant to be consumed, like a can of pepsi or a box of detergent. it was consigned to be eventually relegated to the trash.
i argued that by being on facebook, i was creating buzz about myself as a film maker. in a country without a breathing institution of cinema, a new comer would need to have people know about him, to have seen his work, to have heard about his reputation in order to be convinced to go out and watch his work. facebook is where viral happens, especially in pakistan. by being there, i was reaching out to an audience i couldn't otherwise reach. my blog for example, generates hardly a pittance in terms of viewership, while my completely meaningless profile page gets a lot more. in essence, what i was arguing was that i needed to 'brand' myself as a film-maker, generate buzz about my brand, so that when my 'brand' offered new products, it would have loyal consumers already present to spread the gospel.
i can feel you cringing.

if you are at this blog, you are probably inclined to have a knee-jerk aversion to brands, and corporations, and marketing and all such concepts.

let me enlighten you.

your aversion is surface deep. you are already a brand.

no, i'm not getting all naomi klien on your ass. remember your university applications? remember how you wrote essays about what drives you as a person, and attached certificates of sporting and artistic achievements which provided proof that you were a well-rounded person, and recommendations from experts who attested to your qualities? that was you branding yourself.

in fact, it's not just university applicants. job applicants do the same. and so do rishta applicants.

it permeates even further than that. foucault had argued that modern society was one ruled by discipline. but one of his contemporaries, deluze, reasoned that modern society was not about discipline, but control.

it is a subtle distinction, but a poignant one. deluze felt the reason behind this was that the institutions which governed society, had in contemporary times become highly diffuse, in the form of corporations. hence instead of the omnipotent state you have the omnipresent corporations.and a society of corporations consists of brands.

you present one brand to your parents, another to your grandparents. another to your first cousin, a far more liberal one to your friends, a far more devious one to your lovers, a far more honest one to your siblings, a restricted and much convoluted one to your boss, a domineering one to your subordinates, a squeaky clean one when you are at a religious ceremony, an unabashed one at the party you were dying to get invited to and so on.
it is far more easier for girls in pakistan to relate to this, as their brands have to switch rapidly depending on who can see them or hear them, and they are constantly on display, within their homes, on the street, in their rooms, on their profile pages, and ultimately, alone in front of the mirror as well.

and so, you are left with the essential question at the heart of this debate - is there a stable core sense of self beneath these ever fluctuating identities, brands or masks that we present to the world? or is our sense of self really an amalgamation of the cluster of brands we are putting out there?

is it possible to know one self, or are there too many selves, each fighting for dominance, each arising when needed, discarded when out of fashion, or possibility of use?

to paraphrase pink floyd, is there anybody 'in' there?

Foreigner

When i was younger, my parents would come back from parent-teacher meetings sick of stories about how their son kept claiming to everyone who bothered listening that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. in many respects, i really haven't changed that stance on myself.

partially it is because i am a glutton for attention. you can pin that on having working parents, or a quiet childhood in an obscure gas producing hamlet in balochistan, or the fact that i am a glutton full stop.

but part of the reason is also because i am supremely talented across a range of fields.

take blogging for example. unlike most people, i don't blog about my day, or my friends, or link some bull shit article and make a few comments about it. i blog about stuff that makes you think, that takes your breath away, that puts your life into perspective. mostly, i plagiarize it off stuff my wife tells me, but that really doesn't make me any different from millions of other men, so i'm not going to be too hard on myself.

when i started blogging, and even now, i really cared about the number of hits and comments on each post. its such a sense of validation. soon though, i realised that absolute bullshit bloggers get millions of people going ga-ga over their inane drivels which lack any sense of intelligence. it made me quite sad, since i never stooped to such levels.

but then again, over the year and some that i have been blogging, i have actually had moments far more valuable than any number of bullshit comments by teeny-boppers bemoaning the loss of our soverignity to the US and praising ahmed quraishi. a lot of people who i respect as writers, bloggers, and even as people, have been quite enamoured by what i write (people such as sherry, awais aftab, tazeen, imran yousuf etc). when ahsan compared this blog to Mother Love Bone, it was quite a thrill. when i found out that Mohammad Hanif knew about my blog, i was over the moon.

i have known that writing is something that comes naturally to me, and i have been told that i am quite the master at narrative. i know also that i have a knack for taking disparate ideas and linking them together in a way you would have never imagined. i know that i can be witty and incisive in equal measures...

...i also know that i can be modest, but then i'd just be lying.

anyways, recently my life took several important turns. one of these turns involved a rather drastic decision regarding my future career. i am beginning to do something i have always dreamt of doing, though i am not sure how good i will be at it. (ok that's a lie, i'll be fucking good at it.) its something that i will do in pakistan, which poses a far greater deal of uncertainty than anything else. and its something that i plan to be just as good at as anything else i have done, which may not equate to a lot of financial or material success.

but those of you who have been kind enough to follow the travails of this blog, and to appreciate my work, i would like to show you where this new direction has taken me.

here it is, my first film (video really) "foreigner".

Foreigner HD from ahmernaqvi on Vimeo.

the entire thing was made as a project for the film degree i am currently doing, and was made under several specifications.

1. it had to be shot on DV cam only
2. no special effects were allowed, not even fades
3. the audio and video had to be synchronous i.e. we could only use the sound that had been recorded with the video, couldn't record it later, or use other sound, or use anything as a soundtrack
4. it had to be a profile of a person, place or event

as you may be able to tell, i have cheated a couple of times, but not by much. also, let me know if you didn't get the end, and whether i need to change the last shot to make it more obvious. i doubt i will, but it would be instructive to hear nevertheless.

To Look or To Love - Voyeurism in Pakistan

This was meant to be a blog post - I had even written out the first para... then i decided it would do better as an idea for my first academic paper in like two and a half years.

so while the writing is not of the usual brilliance you have come to expect, and my non-plagiarized academic work is quite shabby, the contents are pretty contemporary and happening, so as the wise man said, "Enjooay..."

The aim of this paper is to use psychoanalysis to read two pieces of text in the form of e-mails. Both were written by students at a Pakistani university denouncing what they described as the “public display of affection.” But while the authors claimed that their protests were based on their values, this paper asserts that they were in fact a manifestation of their own voyeuristic tendencies.

I
A few weeks ago, one of Pakistan’s premier universities, the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) made global headlines after its administration decided to “ban kissing on campus.” Many of the international newspapers covering this story chose to focus on it as an example of cultural clashes within a country fighting “terrorism.” However, the entire issue speaks of a lot more than a simplistic cultural divide in Pakistani society.

The controversy began with the e-mails themselves – the first text chosen for this paper was the one that sparked the debate. Entitled ‘To Love or not to Love’ it was sent out to all the university’s students. It sparked a huge reaction from the students as well as staff, and the second chosen text was one of the earliest responses to the original e-mail.

(both e-mails are included at the end of this paper in their original format)

However, before turning to read these texts, we must familiarize ourselves with the concepts that inform their reading.

Jean Michel-Hirt, drawing on Freud, describes the concept of voyeurism as a “a deviant manifestation of sexuality that involves looking without being seen in order to obtain sexual pleasure.”

II
Voyeurism however is not merely the act of looking at what is illicit – it actually inhabits a far wider and more complex range of actions. Thus it can also be understood as a “…‘refusal’ to be seen as an object and, thus, a negation of object loss. It is an exclusive concentration on visual mastery, on the first position.”

This drive to gain ‘exclusive concentration’ of looking has been identified by scholars as prevalent in the process of narration. The narrator, by removing itself from the narration, gains the ability to see (and tell) without being seen itself. Hence, scholars posit, “that narrative is fundamentally voyeuristic, concerned with the veiling and unveiling of objects.”

Now let us turn to the texts in question. The first e-mail, which began the controversy, opens with the following lines:

“I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.”

An initial reading would suggest that the author is merely bringing to attention a case of widespread exhibitionism (‘physical consolation’) and its consequent voyeuristic behavior (‘where EVERYBODY can witness it.’) However, the first act of voyeurism is actually the very process of putting this incident into a narrative form. It is this e-mail which establishes a narrator, and hence a voyeur, and through its dissemination, invites others to partake in this voyeuristic act.

In fact, the dissemination of this narrative is also an important facet of both texts. In the first e-mail, after providing graphic details of various incidents the author has witnessed on campus, she goes on to issue this warning:

“…If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)”

The author of the second text expresses her agreement with this threat, and also promises to carry it out as well.

“Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.”

Now, the very act of narration had already turned the authors into voyeurs in an academic understanding. By expressing their ability to take photographic evidence, they seem to be coming across as voyeurs in the popular understanding of the term as well.

But more importantly, it is the dissemination of this narrative which transforms the authors from voyeurs to pornographers, since according to Charnon-Deutsch, “The narrator is the voyeur, the one who becomes a pornographer in his role as witness and distributor of the story.”


III
Originally, Freud had expounded upon the idea of voyeurism, and its counter-part exhibitionism, as part of a dichotomy based on gender. Thus the male was the voyeur, the female the exhibitionist, and woven intrinsically into this idea was the notion of the voyeur seeking "to resolve the problem of dependency by possessing or controlling the other … by making the other person an object." Furthermore, “in psychological terms narrating means seeing… in order to avoid being seen, exerting power over an object in order not to be mastered by it.”

Thus we understand that narration and voyeurism are in a fundamental way related to power, and the ability to exert control over the object of the voyeur’s sight. In light of this relationship, the authors’ threats of taking photographs, and the very narration of the incidents, can also be seen as their ability to reduce those indulging in exhibitionist behavior as mere objects, over whom they seek to exert control.

And this idea of asserting power over the objects is reinforced multiple times in both texts:

“I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus…”
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt…”

The author also incorporates another traditional method of differentiating and objectifying those subject to her looking by describing them as

“…people who [are] involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man.”

The idea of comparison with animals has been traditionally used to deny the object “participation in civilization (language, thought, culture) which differentiates [it] from whomever is seeing...”

IV
But further our reading of these texts, it is also necessary to understand the dynamics of the voyeurism. Davis, drawing upon Lacan, writes, “seeing is but a function in a largely unconscious discourse that can be glimpsed in what Lacan calls… the ‘Gaze,’ and… the subject who looks is the one who precisely is ‘seen’ by the nonvisual Gaze.” Silverman further expounds this Lacanian concept by writing that “it is precisely at that moment when the eye is placed at the keyhole that it is most likely to find itself subordinated to the Gaze.”

The reason it is important to understand the relationship between the voyeur and the Gaze is because of the reaction the Gaze produces within the voyeur. Continuing with Silverman, who writes that once the eye is subordinated to the Gaze, “the Gaze surprises the [subject] in the function of the voyeur, disturbs him, overwhelms him, and reduces him to shame.”

And it is this idea of shame that is an integral part of establishing both these texts as voyeuristic.
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out… so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.”

The author expresses a double set of voyeurism here, firstly by witnessing the acts of exhibitionism and finding herself subordinated by the Gaze, and hence reduced to shame. The second act is of seeing her father seeing as well, thus turning his voyeurism into an exhibitionist act for the author, and once again transforming into the Gaze which reduces the author to shame.

This idea of shame and voyeurism is expressed more explicitly by the second author, who writes that:

“The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!”

Here, the author has identified herself as the ‘onlooker’ and is surprised and angered by the shame she feels in looking. Rosenman quotes Sartre on the subject, who writes that “I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the Other… I am put in the position of passing judgment on myself as an object…” Rosenman writes that according to Tomkins, the origin of shame also lies in “the failure of distancing that ought to mask an intense investment.”

Thus the shame provoked in the authors is not due to the idea of such acts occurring, but rather by having witnessed such acts and being reduced to shame by the submission evoked by the resultant Gaze.

Furthermore, the idea of distancing oneself from the object is also apparent in the chosen texts. The first author suggests that the ‘offenders’ should find more surreptitious locations for their activities:

“Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?”

The suggestion makes clear that the author is not opposed to the acts themselves, for they obviously satisfy the voyeuristic urge, but that she rather opposes their being carried out within such immediacy, which confronts the voyeur’s ability to see without being seen.

V
Despite the various nuances with which this paper has attempted to show these texts as voyeuristic, a certain protest can be anticipated, namely that the authors were not seeking to derive any sexual pleasure from their acts of looking.

Hence we must also understand how a voyeur experiences pleasure from his acts in order to understand these texts more properly.

According to Blank, “The voyeur achieves gratification in a complicated way. He looks at the forbidden, expresses aggression in his defiant behavior, avoids any commitment to interpersonal intimacy and, all the while, in his passive fantasy needs not surrender one iota of his ideals and imagined assertiveness.”

Blank’s definition largely encapsulates the actions of the authors as described in the text. As is clear, both authors admit to having witnessed ‘forbidden’ behavior. Their various threats, most notably that of producing and distributing photographic evidence, can be read as manifestations of their aggression and defiance. And finally, their numerous appeals to ideals of cultural and social values make clear that they do not feel the need to apologize for their voyeuristic acts, or even concede the higher moral ground. In fact, as one of the authors writes the offensive actions are leading to rumors that “most of the girls in the university are not virgins” and it is leading to the university’s “credibility” being challenged. This can be read as a justification proffered for the voyeuristic act within the garb of protecting ideals.

Therefore, we can see the how the authors were able to achieve voyeuristic gratification in accordance with the formula that Blank provides.

VI
In conclusion, our reading the two texts seeks to confirm the voyeurism of the authors. In order to do so, we have looked at how the act of narration is fundamentally voyeuristic. We have seen how narration and voyeurism are about power, and how the voyeur seeks to exert dominance over the object. We have also explored the idea of the voyeur being seen by the Gaze, and how that provokes a sense of shame. And finally we have seen how the voyeur gains gratification. With each intellectual leap, we have been able to read how the texts themselves conform to these facets of voyeurism, and how they can be understood as primarily voyeuristic pieces.
VII
As an afterthought, it is interesting to note that the university decided to ban “kissing on campus.” Since voyeurism is associated with power and control, it is probably no surprise that the exhibitionist act was ‘punished’ and the voyeuristic one ‘rewarded.’


Bibliography: Ahmed, Issam. "Top Pakistan university to ban kissing." Csmonitor.com. Christian Science Monitor, 14 Oct. 2009. Web. 31 Oct. 2009.
Benjamin, J. "The Bonds of Love: Rational Violence and Erotic Domination." The Future of Difference. Eds. Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 41-70.
Blank, Leonard. "Nakedness and Nudity: A Darwinian Explanation for Looking and Showing Behavior." Leonardo 6.1 (1973): 23-27. Print.
Charnon-Deutsch, Lou. "Voyeurism, Pornography and "La Regenta"" Modern Language Studies 19.4 (1989): 93-101. Print.
Davis, Robert C. "Lacan, Poe, and Narrative Repression." MLN 98.5 (1983): 983-1005. Print. Freud, S. ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. and ed. James Strachey, 24 vols. [London, 1953-74], 7:167).
Hirt, J-M, Voyeurism. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Ed. Alain de Mijolla. Gale Cengage, 2005, eNotes.com. 2006. 31 Oct, 2009
Press Trust of India. “To kiss or not to kiss keeps Pakistani Tweeters busy” Hindustantimes.com, Hindustan Times, 19 Oct 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.
Rosenman, Ellen B. Unauthorized pleasures: accounts of Victorian erotic experience. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2003. Print.

Appendix:
(Text 1)
Subject: To Love or Not to Love
Date: Sep 11 2009
Dear All
I have been reduced to throw this out there because of what i have been witnessing in Lums for around a month now. What has to be kept in mind here is the fact that the following has nothing to do with "religion" or with anybody's personal beliefs so please,refrain from sending any emotional "liberal" emails in reply to this.
Public Display of Affection.
I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.
Quoting few instances: (Readers' Discretion is advised)
1) Standing at the main entrance,a girl stands on tip of her toes and kisses a boy good bye.
2) Lying in the lawn in front of the library,a boy rolls over the girl lying down beside him and remains in this posture.
3) Sitting in the academic block, a boy constantly rubs a girl's leg,which are already half bare,with his hand inside her capries.
(These are just few instances,i have no reason to make these up.If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)
Our (people who aren't involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man) parents come to lums to pick us up and they have,i can gladly say,some sense of social (MIND YOU,i didn't say religious) sentiment intact so they get offended. Our crediblity, and the credibility of our institution in our society is challenged when aunties spread rumors of most of the girls in lums not being virgin spread all over the city. Even my parents were reluctant to send me to lums just because of the "enviroment" here.
I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus.If irreligious,uncultured (by this i mean those who don't respect a culture's values),unsocial have the need to be tolerated and have "sentiments" which need to be respected,then so do religious,cultured and social people.
This "tolerance" for each other has to be mutual.If we give some,then these people need to do it too.Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?
I have never seen a religious person reading their holy book out in the open then why can't they hide their anti social and irreligious practices too?!
I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt and so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.
I am hoping that the OSA will look into this so i have not cc-ed this email to the VC.
regards,
Tajwar.

(Text 2)
Subject: (Re:) To Love or Not to Love
Date: 13th September 2009
Thank you so much Tajwar for speaking out.
The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!
This is a "STUDENT AFFAIR", OSA stands for OFFICE OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS. I hope those cc-ed in this email can see the OBVIOUS reaction this issue has raised and can respond and do something about it.
Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.
regards,
Nabiha