A holy fuck

by night, i might be a blogger, but by day i slog through the hours at a shia channel in the UK, where i produce two shows covering politics.

i had tweeted a while back about callers who would shout "youse all are kuffar" before hanging up, but recently something new has started happening.

one of my shows has the blessedly generic name 'behind the headlines' where i round up a week's worth of stories relating to islam and muslims and then three hosts discuss them while taking calls.

last week, we did a show discussing the comments of Jack Straw, a former Labour cabinet minister, that Pakistani men "are preying on white women." the hosts then asked the audience if the statement was a valid one. they also made mention of the fact that Straw's own brother had been put on the sexual offenders list.

now the response was beyond anything our show had seen. pakistani callers of both genders nearly melted the phone lines as they chimed in with their vitriolic responses. but they weren't only concerned with Straw's comments, they were mega pissed that the channel had even brought up the question. in fact, days after the show we were still receiving emails literally bursting at the seams with venom over how our show sought to repeatedly bring up anti-pakistan stories.

now this was something i have long held disdain for. back in pakistan journalists would forever get pillored for promoting a 'negative' image of the country. in a month where pakistan remained in the news for blasphemy rows ranging over issues such as water glasses, business cards and posters, culminating in a brutal murder which was roundly appreciated by all and sundry, it's really not my fucking fault if pakistan is 'looking' bad.

and as my forays into both news and non-news media have blatantly illustrated, everyone loves the controversial, shocking, 'negative' stories far more over any uplifting, positive ones. moreover, i am sick to death of this refrain because if these problems do exist, the worst thing possible would be to start pushing them under the rug.

take the Jack Straw story again. he made his comments a week or so after pakistani gangs who ran prostitution rings got busted. now the stories in all the papers were about how they were using white women. no one bothered mentioning that there were a lot of asian women involved as well. why?

because for people like Jack Straw, the question is one of an event reconfirming a bias brought about their own anxieties. the bias being that pakis are up to no good. the anxiety being that these good-for-nothing pakis are ruining our beloved Blighty.

its not like Straw is alone on this.

for starters, without resorting to anything more than anecdotal evidence and personal experience, there is a impulse, nay a raging desire, amongst pakistani men to fuck white women. its not that they are the most obvious cultural marker of beauty of our globalised society, although its that also, but because of something simpler.

men like to play out their politics on women's bodies.

for the colonised brown man, the pain of being politically subjugated seeks relief through the physical conquering of the coloniser's woman. for the downtrodden minority, doing someone from the majority is meant to alleviate all other miseries.

of course, in actuality this far too often leads to self-hate and eventual acting out etc.

but that never subverts the desire to play out your ideology via a vagina.

take the partition for example. for so long, i have tried to rationalise or attempt to understand why the announcement of a homeland being broken led to a mass explosion of unrestrained sexual violence. i mean we all know about looting, plundering and raping hanging out in the same crowd. but widespread lopping of breasts and collecting them in sacks? forced circumcisions by the dozens? rape at such magnitudes that the governments for both the new nations actually had to develop policies of how to deal with rape-concieved-children-of-the-wrong-faith?

the only answer that makes sense is that the helplessness felt at being uprooted and having your home torn apart was alleviated by forcibly imposing a grotesque level of control through rape.

and its not like this, as we so often like to delude ourselves, was a one-off.

even now, our allums (you know, the big-ass flags you carry in war) are adorned with women. when the woman is aasia, her feminity and humanity are torn off and she is presented simply as evil incarnate. when it comes to aafia, her feminity is ramped up through the selective lens of mehramness, and she ascends as the daughter of the nation. no one has any clue about who they were as people, or even as women, yet deranged fanatics continue to projects their beliefs amidst their breasts.

because when women can be objectified, as a hole to put your dick into, an image to spill your semen on, a symbol for your desire to crawl back up the uterus, a standard bearer for all your morality and anxieties, it allows you to cloak yourself from the actual responsibility of dealing with them.

what do i mean by "dealing with them?"

well, i mean realising they are human.

now, i know you know that. but let's take this conversation down to a basic level. let's take it down to sex.

because you can say whatever the fuck you feel like, and your brain can make as many logical and rational and intellectual arguments as it wants, but your body and its urges always act in what you truly feel. and so its one thing to say platitudes about women, quite another to make love to her in a way which is equitable and enjoyable.

its an idea i have thought about often, even making a short film about this.

and i returned to it in quite a staggering manner. a person i interviewed told me about how in iran, the middle class families would snap up the books by the Imams on jurisprudence and the hijab, but no one would buy the books on sexual advice. and by that, i don't mean stuff about chastity and what not. i mean details on how to find the g-spot, on techniques of love making.

holy fuck, emphasis on holy.

and if you think that this is just khatmal mythology typical of this kuffar sect, check out what the Prophet had to say on this matter.

The Prophet said, "Three people are cruel: . ..a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.'' (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 40) Another hadith equates sex without foreplay to animal behavior: "When anyone of you has sex with his wife, then he should not go to them like birds; instead he should be slow and delaying." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 82) The Prophet said, "No one among you should have sex with his wife like animals; rather there should be a messenger between them." When asked about the messenger, he said, "It means kissing and talking." (Tahzibu'l-Ihya, vol. 3, p. 110)

as i was saying, holy fuck.

because it got me thinking, do all these doyens of religion, and those champions of equality and rationality, ever allow these thoughts into their bedroom? do they ignore the imperatives of their raging hard ons to try and get their wimmin hot and spicy? do all those millions who massed for upholding the Prophet's sanctity and protecting the daughter of the nation, do they try and see if their tongues and their thumbs can locate clitorises (or is it clitori?) does maulana fazlur rehman consider that reverse cow-girl might not be as fun for him, but it could be more fun for his zoja? or do our chest-thumping, equality now bloggeratis pause their impending premature ejaculations in an attempt to at least try and ensure that the match doesn't end with the female orgasm stranded on a golden duck?

cause eventually, all this talk of politics and rights and ideals are smokescreens obfuscating your own agendas, insecurities and beliefs. stop the talking, let your actions (and i mean this in the most colloquial sense of the word) prove your worth.

Blaspehming Blasphemies

A version of this post was originally published here.

The Blasphemous Blasphemy Law
i usually don't do smash and grab super quick blogs, and i try and avoid politics and internet activism like the plague. however, a couple of days ago i was asked by ahsan butt of fiverupees to do a post, and since ahsan is the dawood ibrahim of paksitani blogging* i couldn't say no.

*(if you don't believe me, check out the untimely demises of Aslam Kana'a Senior, Chotta Bubs and Nithoo Bhola to see what i mean)

the post in question is to talk about the upcoming rally to protest the blasphemy law. in case you don't know about it, check out the details here. (Ed: the protest has since been cancelled until further notice)

but in order to avoid this event becoming a glorified GT, we have to get our heads wrapped around what argument we are proposing to place on the agenda. as mosharraf zaidi pointed out in his excellent article, the for and against camps in the blasphemy debate are often speaking at cross currents.

for many of us, the blasphemy law is abhorrent because it is so frequently misused and abused. however, we can't expect to present this argument, because it shifts the focus away from the legitimacy of the law to a question of how it is being enforced. which leads us into the cesspool of arguing over how to implement laws properly in pakistan.

for others, the blasphemy law needs to be repealed because it is a violation of freedom of speech. this is the exact point (you might as well mark it and take a picture with it) where the anti-blasphemy law campaign finds itself being portrayed as a bunch of 'liberal-extremists' licking the soles of western boots.

why does that happen?

if we are to accept freedom of speech as a valid value to cherish, then it means that we believe that we think everyone has the right to say what they feel. that's great in theory, but in practice it boils down to two things.

first of all, it ignores the fact that in pakistan, by and large, you don't have rights, you have power. if you have power to say what you feel like, you might pretend you are exercising your rights, but in reality you are flexing your considerable muscles. which means those without power are by and large without rights.

secondly, it implies that the only thing sacred is the right to free speech, and the sanctity of that right exists above and beyond anything else which might be held sacred. for the pro-blasphemy camp, this essentially translates into saying that people 'should' have the right to trash all that is sacred.

i might be wrong here, but i can sense that you are tensing up a bit. fear not - for many of the 'progressive' crowd, words like sacred and holy are immediately problematic and uncomfortable.

unfortunately, the problem is that until we can frame our debate in those very contexts of religion and things that are sacred, we are always opening up ourselves to be outflanked by claims that we are brainwashed from abroad and that we have no clue about what it means to be a pakistani.

so why don't we take this debate on in a religious context?

the reason we don't is that we seem to imagine islam like a supercomputer which we can only use once we have learnt C++ and Java and other more complex languages.

let me explain myself.

a few weeks ago, there was this thing on twitter where everyone was tweeting as their 16 year old selves. my favourite tweet of that day was by someone who wrote "one day i am going to learn arabic, interpret the Quran the right way and then all our problems would be solved."

i know a lot of people who can relate to that feeling that there is a truth out there that we can get to if only we are learned enough.

however, we grow up and come to assume that the supremacy of islamic knowledge lies with those whose day job it is to memorize it, and thus we can't hope to enter into a religious argument with them without resorting to non-religious points of views.

well that's just bullshit.

because if the blasphemy debate is to be won over, and i am talking in pragmatic terms here, it has to be framed in the context of religion itself. whether we like it or not, that is the context wherein the majority of our society can converge upon. that is not to say that we are all rabid fundos or enslaved by the opium of religion, but rather the fact that it is the most widespread mode of articulating ideas in our society.

and there is no reason we can't frame a progressive argument in religious terms. this doesn't mean looking up ayahs and tafseers and hadith, but employing some basic logic.

the problem with the idea of blasphemy, particularly at the level of personal insults, is that it implies that the Prophet or God or the Book are some sort of virginal brides in see through chemises whose honor can be irrevocably slighted with even the smallest speck of dirt.

unleashing the law to punish business card trashing and water bringing betrays a supreme sense of insecurity about the perceived value of that which is meant to be sacred, because it implies that something as mundane as those actions would bring the whole edifice of faith and religion crashing down.

so we need to ask the pro-blasphemy camp - is the Prophet an idea, an example, a person so weak and defenseless that even the naming of a teddy bear will tarnish his image? is your faith so weak that it needs to kill an impoverished woman to save itself? is your religion so wobbly that a business card can bring it down?

even if you don't believe in the sacred history, the more or less accepted versions of historical islam admit that the Prophet bore some hardcore persecution of his people and his self without feeling the need to avenge them. so why is it that his followers 14 centuries on feel so insecure about any criticism thrown his way?

the blasphemy law needs to be repealed because it is a blasphemy in its own self. it reduces that which is supposedly sacred into an idea so weak and powerless that only the most violent action can seem to save it. the blasphemy law is an insult to anyone who has faith, because it claims that an idea which requires blind belief can be shattered by something inconsequential.

you might not agree with me, and you might not feel that you can carry this debate with anyone armed with tafseers and hadiths. that might be true, but i honestly believe that even if this is a losing argument, it is not a futile one. because it zeroes in on the realm of religion - the very realm the pro-blasphemy camp seems to believe it owns, and can thus manipulate it for its own purposes.

at the end of the day, the reason we should wish to repeal the blasphemy law, or amend it is not because we would like to see the triumph of our own political belief and agenda. we should wish to take this stand because we don't want to see innocent, powerless people be mercilessly persecuted and murdered.

the reason we should wish to make this argument should not be about politics, but about humanity.

On the Murder of Salman Taseer

most of the time, i write blogs because they give me a chance to show how smart i am, to validate my intellect amongst a handful of people who read them. some days, they even make me think that i am a 'great' person who is affecting change.

that's bullshit. one blog post doesn't change shit.

but perhaps a consistent, constant and clear stream of conscience-based ideas can, over a great length of time, get people to start thinking differently.

even then, change doesn't come about through thoughts - its when those thoughts become actions that we get to see change.

but consistency is a fickle monster to tame.

when i logged on this morning, the chattering clouds were awash with the flood of salman taseer's murder.

and many of us, petrified by the killing of someone who held the same vices as us chose to don the cloak of sanctimony, and condemned the heinous acts of those who were celebrating this death.

and in doing so, we all willingly waded into the already rancid cesspool of contradictions which is our society.

for starters, celebrating deaths is a pretty shitty act.

but if we start thinking that it is a refuge only taken by the stone-age , FATA-living, honor-killing, beard-measuring fundamentalists, we need to think again.

for starters, one of the reportedly eight fan pages of taseer's killers had over a 100 fans. when i clicked through their profiles, they were also fans of stuff like Enrique Iglesias, Family Guy, 300, Coke Studio, the Godfather.

a prominent ahmed qureshi-clone blogger, dan qayyum, constantly tweeted that it was time to take out all the liberal extremist cunts. his previous tweets had been about how roy hodgson wasn't good enough his beloved liverpool.

see the contradictions here?

unfortunately, its not like those of us who stood under the banner of liberal or humanist values have never done the exact same.

honestly, did you go around feeling horrified when people celebrated the death of baitullah mehsud? or have you been one of the many people who tweeted or facebook statused or whatever that it is horrid to speak ill of the dead, before unleashing a tirade against the still-dead zia ul haq for his murderous policies?

i don't want to speak of ill of governor taseer, but i also don't want his death to be a moment where we whitewash the past.

his death was barbaric, and there is no denying that.

but if we feel sick, its also because we fear that we are going to be killed too. not because of how we feel for asia bibi, because if we truly cared we would have taken to the streets a long time ago.

but because like the deceased governor, we enjoyed the acts our state holds illegal, and like the governor we could enjoy them because of the power we wield.

the problem with pakistan is extremism, but let's not fool ourselves that its only one side that's extreme. we keep running further to the side of intolerance, we keep getting more and more bigoted. and then we tell ourselves that only the other side is to blame.

to be honest, i can't say much for the future of pakistan etc, because what is the point of that debate? we can't even have a moment of understanding anything amongst ourselves. we can't even look into our own contradictions in an honest way.

i am not trying to hold onto my usual blogging alter-ego of being holier than thou. and i am frankly sickened by all that has developed today. but somewhere, i can also see that i am not sickened because of my principles but because of my fears.  and i'm not alone here.

when we act out of fear, we act in a fucked up way. the guard who shot taseer knew deep inside that he wasn't doing so for the sake of the Prophet - he knew he could just use that as a cover up. he did so because he feared the kind of pakistan where salman taseer could fulfil his ideals. he was afraid.

and now we are just as afraid, because we fear a pakistan where malik qadri's ideals are going to get fulfilled.

i want to write something authoritative like 'we must not act out of fear' but i know that's me trying to act all cool and brave. the reality is that i am not sure i can start expunging such deep seated fears from my self. i can't really ask you to do the same.

[edit: i have removed the following lines  "he took a stand yes, but in light of all his other stands, it was more in line with his constant stance of needling the provincial government of the PML-N rather than his own belief in the ultimacy of human rights." because as @mypplwannajump and @sisyphusgrey point out, its unfair to reduce his stance to just that. fair point in my view. i would still implore against letting our anger blur our vision of the past, but still the governor had a strong principled background on this issue.]

Stabbing Lions in the Skull is the path to Salvation

look at this picture.

no really, take a look at it.

are you suppressing a giggle, or perhaps recalling the awesome article on cracked.com that showcased this once?

this picture, and i am not mincing my words here, explains why the burqa/hijab and its politics are such a huge issue in our modern world.

no really, take a look at it, and you should see be able to see it.

still don't get it, do you?

let me tell you a story.

there used to be two tribes, one in the east and one in the west.

the men of both tribes would gather every day to perform their rituals. in the east, they would inhale gas. in the west, they would imbibe liquids.

the men of the east said that our faith is in something that can not be seen or measured readily, but can be felt. so our ritual centers around gas, because it is what exemplifies our faith.

the men of the west said that our faith is in something we can see and know and measure, so our rituals are based on liquids.

one day the men in the east realised that the tribes of the west had built big buildings and fancy roads and phones you could touch instead of tap, and it made them very upset.

some of them thought, hey, why not give this liquid idea a try. so with heads filled with up with gases they started to give this liquid thing a shot

but other men of the east got really pissed, so pissed that they started filling themselves up with gas until they blew up. they didn't realise that they were in on the liquid too, because their denial was so powerful.

interestingly, the women of the east had no choice on the matter but to keep up the rituals that had always existed.

one year the tribe in the west started running out of its liquid, and suddenly there was great commotion and despair. some of them shouted that the men in the east had probably finished off all their liquid, siphoning it into their dirty gaseous minds. all hell broke lose, as the tribe vowed to get their liquid back, and to make sure that no gas-guzzling easterner would ever get to sip any liquid until they provided permission.

cue chaos and confusion.

cue, this picture.

why do i keep returning here? well, i had seen this image a few times on the web, and my reactions had ranged from the incredulity of being confronted with pakistanica, to embarrasment at our tackiness, to titlation based on my desire to feel different. but i'd never quite understood it.

then, i visited the british museum, and suddenly i saw this, and it floored me.

to be honest, i actually saw a version of this image where the king was actually stabbing the lion through the skull with a dagger, but even here, you can make out the fight with the lion resulting in a stab wound for the beast.

suddenly, as cracked.com would say, something punched my brain in the face. the sultan rahi poster was not some example of deranged pakistani violence fantasies, or the poster that hate mailers send to PETA.

it made a very strong and obvious point - this image is of a hero.

heroes in all mythologies kill lions to prove their valour. in one image, that poster tells me everything i need to know about who sultan rahi is, and the moral world he inhabits.

now, perhaps it seems like a huge leap to link the persepolis image with the pakistani one as either ends of a tradition, but i have reasons.

you may claim i am simply doing so to root this piece of faux-art onto a venerable tradition. you may even say that the reason i do so is to find a rooting in history for my country and its culture, which suffers from such absurd amnesias in definig its own past.

but i am doing it because it makes sense. it makes sense because of trucks.

truck art has become this symbol and motif of showcasing non-terrorist pakistan.

its this idea that 'we have culture too', although most people who use it do it to add some ethnic flavour to their own ideals. they do it without ever understanding it, but only showcasing it like a circus shows a bearded woman.

infact, if i may say so, truck art is the most exoticized pakistani object after mathira's body.

what makes things interesting is if you try and investiage why trucks in pakistan are decorated the way they are, you find something revelatory.

almost every aspect of truck art, from the way those giant d-shaped crowns are created, to the patterns and motifs inscribed, to the very idea of decoration itself, stems from traditions in islamic art.

essentially, artistic traditions organic to this area and region which have just morphed from buildings and canvases onto truck bodies.

which is why the sultan rahi poster itself fits in with the persian king - both of those are part of certain ideas and traditions.

what is worrying is that i had no idea about any of this.

and i'm not alone here.

we've all found ourselves in the position where we are unsure whether to take gulps of gas or shots of liquid. and by we, i don't mean western-boot licking liberals, i mean all the tribesmen of the east, because when you use a mobile phone to blow up the infidels, well you're using the products of liquid faith.

but as we rushed to bathe ourselve in liquid, we did not consider that perhaps liquid and gas could have a synthesis, or that gas may have something to say about liquid or vice versa. so eager were we to reap the benefits of liquid that we felt the best way forward was to pretend gas never existed.

which is why a 27 year old film graduate had no way of understanding the imagery of a local film, because that whole world view had been replaced a long time ago.

and unfortunately, while the men of the east gave up their traditional forms of dressing and their traditional occupations and thoughts, they could never really let go of the idea of tradition itself. they just reduced it to certain symbols that proved to themselves that they were still a gas.

and so, cue the hijab, cue halal kfc, cue men dressed in jeans and working in investment banks who feel that women who don't cover up are asking to be raped.

in this post 9/11 climate of mosques floating upon grounds of zero and sikhs being thrashed for their turbans and newspaper comics becoming nuclear bombs, we find ourselves in an odd position.

the west doesn't 'hate' us, it just doesn't get us.

and they don't get us because we don't get ourselves. the reason we don't get ourselves is because we don't know what was ours to begin with. like this image.

i'm not trying to make this a pedantic debate about islam and the west, or the perils of modernity, and i am certainly not advocating a return to the stone ages.

what i am trying to say, is that when you and i don't know what sultan rahi is doing stabbing two lions in the head, its not because we were never interested in that lollywood crap to begin with, but because we have no clue how to decode and interpret the symbols that are organic to us.

because somewhere in the past few centuries, we oscillated between trying to buy into modernity and trying to retain our own identity. and in doing so, we made the disastrous decision to ape the liquid drinkers in the areas we needed to, and spurn their logic when their ideas meant our own privilieges would be threatened. that meant that our own traditions and logic and worldviews literally vanished in thin air, leaving us gasping for breath.

and in today's world, where suddenly all of us - from the talib in swat to the student in swarthmore, are finding ourselves like the kawa with the peacock feathers, we have no idea where to turn and what to look at. because what we see, we don't understand.

and if we can't understand our own selves out, no amount of development funds, sympathetic op-eds, well meaning NGOs and facebook protests can save us from our self-inflicted destruction.

Middle Class Canines

it seems strange to base your world view on a music album, but if the album in question is animals, and the band is pink floyd, you can at least premise an argument around this far-fetched concept.

the album consists of three epic songs titled 'pigs' 'dogs' and 'sheep' based loosely on george orwell's animal farm.

i used to listen to this quite regularly while i was a student at a curious university in pakistan.

why was it curious?

well mainly because it seemed to incorporate an evolutionary process within its students that i had not observed elsewhere.

to put it simply, when you joined you had a very high probability of evolving into one of three distinct archetypes - the mullah, the commie and the charsi.

of course, there were those who were unaffected by this process, but those were either day scholars* (non-hostel students), extraordinary variants, scholarship students, or nerds.

*(since day scholars by and large had the rest of the lives and social circles accesible as soon as they left the university, they were less prone to this evolution. the hostelites on the other hand, whose entire universe was the university were a lot more vulnerable)

no one necessarily entered the university as any of the types i mentioned. the existential transformation seemed to strike after a year or two into the four year program, and once the student became hyponotized by one of the three types, it was often irreversible during the entire period at the university.

the transformation would be violent in nature, necessitating a drastic change in outlook, clothing, hygiene and sleeping patterns.

i was myself a fully paid member of one of these variants, and during the time, the vast gulf between each group seemed insurmountable. sure you had friends who crossed over - charsis would often be with commies until they became insufferable, and both commies and mullahs could link up on the moral decadence and decay symbolised by the charsis.

each group reserved infinite scorn and condescention for the others, each was completely committed to their belief, and each group was relentless in its zeal for conversion.

commies would be found arguing loudly over obscure texts which they would reverentially quote. mullahs would often hunt in pairs, forcing people to get up and join them when the azaan rang out. charsis would enter a room on the pretense of asking for a cigarette, and end up questioning entire moral systems while forcing someone to have just one puff.

yet for all their chest-thumping bravado, they were also extremely testy and defensive when questioned over the apparently obvious contradictions inherent to them.

how can someone holding meetings in colonial mansions claim to feel the pain of the proletariat? how can buying expensive foreign made mobile phones be reconciled with the spiritual austerity you preach? how can you claim to be ridding yourself of all pretensions and hypocrisies when you can't even admit that you are addicted to what you just smoked?

in response, the archetype being questioned would eventually shake their head and leave you to your apparent ignorance.

once i graduated, these variants were at first ornaments of my nostalgia.

slowly, as we all started earning and making the salaries our fancy-pants university guaranteed, one would hear of deviancies amongst these archetypes. the charsi who one day broke his family television set and started growing a beard. the commie who decided to take up the corporate job because they wanted to change the system from within. the mullah who decided that he would shave off his beard for his the sake of his promotion, because religion is a private matter.

but i never really understood why we all became those archetypes in the first place.

the epiphany that led to this blog happened last week.

i recently found work as a producer for a tv channel. however, i didn't mention this new job either online or to any of my friends. the reason being that it was for a 24 hour Muslim channel.

i knew i wasn't completely ashamed, and i wasn't exactly proud. i was definitely confused.

then i met perhaps the most intriguing muslims i've ever come across - mohammad sulayman - a convert from st. kitts who works with troubled youth, speaks in an amazing rasta accent, and quotes both the quran and malcom x with liberal abandon. his ethos continues to be 'if i find that there is something in islam i don't agree with, i'll leave this religion.'

the reason i had went to him was because i was doing a story on whether young Muslims in britain are getting radicalised through the internet, and he told me something quite fascinating.

a host of recent headlines grabbing stories - such as the underwear bomber, the times square bomber, the MP stabber - all had protagonists who were not the downtrodden, marginalised, poor muslims from the ghettoes, but rather university educated middle class muslims.

and according to sulayman, they were driven to those acts because of their socio-economic situation. this is how he explained it:

a middle class child is brought up in a culture that places great pressure on achieving a good education, finding a stable and succesful foothold in society, managing to provide and support the family.

but for all these essentially material aims, the middle class provides its children with lofty ideologies as justifications.

do this to be a good person, do this to be rewarded in heaven, do this to live with honor etc. all these things which are essentially subjective and unknowable are sought to be validated through decidely material and objective goals.

when the middle class child, especially a talented or high achieving one, enters university or the workplace, they get a chance to be away from their middle class culture and become exposed to a greater spectrum of ideas and expereiences. and at this point, the chasm between the material aims they strive for, and the ideas that are meant to supplant them, become glaringly obvious.

they become exceedingly frustrated that their entire lives were premised around contradictions and as a reaction, they embrace a certain set of ideals with unwavering ferocity (which as i saw at my alma mater translated into the three archetypes i mentioned above.)

if we return to the pink floyd reference, the middle class child begins to see himself as different from both the pigs above and the sheep below.

and so he starts to growl at the pigs to protect them from the sheep, and then he barks viciously at the sheep to get them to rise from their slumber. he doesn't want to be a pig, but he doesn't want to be a sheep even more.

the problem is that the middle class child never quite realises that he is, at the end of the day, a dog.
now, there is nothing wrong with being a dog.

but if one never realises that fact, they get caught up in a web of frustration. and when they do so their venting can get quite dangerous.

all too often, the middle class vents their vitriol at the excesses of the rich, but when the poor eventually take up arms and respond to their calls, the middle classes are the first to shirk away.

all too often the middle classes decry the illiteracy of the poor, and yet when they are asked to accomodate their needs, they decide to hide elsewhere.

unfortunately, no matter how noble or base the intentions, dogs can't transform themselves to become either pigs or sheep, and neither can a dog save the pigs or the sheep.

it just doesn't work like that.

what does work is shedding your preconcieved ideologies, and accepting those held by others.

what does work is reserving judgement, yet having the guts to call out right from wrong.

what does work is focusing on your own biases, your own failings, your own impotencies before railing at others.

in other words, o children of the middle class, if you want to stop being a dog, start being a human instead.