To everyone’s surprise, only two people in the class were on team “Smart Work.” 🙃❤️

AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool

If you use AI to brainstorm, your brain is not storming

The Great Debate | III BA English

12th February 2025

Report by Ms. Lekhaa MeenakshiSundaram

The topic of the day: Does AI scuttle or enhance creativity and critical thinking. The class divided themselves into two teams.

“Mind Wins” claiming that AI scuttles creativity and critical thinking, and “Smart Work” claiming that AI enhances creativity and critical thinking.

To everyone’s surprise, only two people in the class were on team “Smart Work.”

The photographer for the debate was Catherine and the time keeper was Libby. Lekhaa recorded the proceedings.

Team Mind Wins won the coin toss and opted to dispute. Gouri, from team Smart Work started the debate, talking about how AI began. She said that “AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool.” She said that we don’t know how to use it properly, which is why problems arise. She stated that no one, including the companies that create AI systems say that it is replacing human intelligence.

Ilfa, for team MW, disputed this when she spoke about generative AI. She asked why there are so many artists talking about how their work was stolen by generative AI. She said that people are not willing to think about the ethics surrounding plagiarism. She said that art has been “commodified” and used to build tools further. She also said that if people stop to think and talk to other people, they can figure out the things that they need AI to do. For example, if one wants to know what places to visit in a place, say Chennai, they can do so by talking to the people around them.

Thang, for team SM, asked whether Ilfa – or people in general – had the time to go figure things out in person. Even if they did, he asked if they really would go talk in person, or ask Google, or call other people. He believed that they would use Google or a similar search engine, as it is the best way to find places. He claimed that indirectly, people who claim to dislike AI rely on it.

Shauna, for team MW, said that the best place to actually see a place is to go there. She said that human experience can explain things that AI cannot. She said that “AI is a tool for submission or subjugation, which obstructs our thinking process.” She also came back to the argument that AI takes artists’ work and turns it into something else.

Gouri, for team SM, challenged Shauna – and the others – to try to live without AI or the internet for one day. She said that technology structures society and that we need it for societal survival and progress. We cannot move on without technology, and a huge part of technology is AI. However, behind it is a human working for the future of the society.

Shauna, for team MW, countered with the difference between AI and technology. What makes AI different is that it is artificial, not backed by human intelligence. She said that we can not progress without water to drink and the drinking water is being used to cool down the AI systems. She agreed that the society needs technology to progress, but what if there is no world to progress on?

Thang, for team SM, reasoned that if AI is a threat, why do global powers depend on and fight for AI. He talked about how AI could be a destructive weapon. Then, he said that AI can be a threat or be good in warfare, and that is both a threat and redeemer. It depends on how it is used.

Shauna, for team MS, said that global superpowers are afraid of AI because such systems pose a threat, referring to the Epstein files. Then, she said that they support something destructive, like AI, just like they have supported other outrageous things in the past.

Gouri, for team SM, said that AI is a tool, but it depends on ethics and the person using it. Anything can be used in a bad way. She said that everyone uses AI, but asked if that puts a lid on creativity.

Shauna, for team MW, countered saying that an ultimatum was needed. AI as we now know it uses tons of water and harms the environment. Instead, there are AI systems that run on data, and that to expand such systems would be the way forward for the good of the environment.

Ann, for team MW, added that AI does not have a mind of its own. She talked about Intellectual theft and the consequences of stealing ideas that AI can not comprehend. She said that people are blatantly stealing ideas and styles. Similarly, Humanize AI (AI Humanizers) do not really humanize things, but instead they are what AI thinks a human thinks like.

Gouri, for team SM, talked about emerging intellectual property rights. She said that they can be used to counter the negative aspects of AI that Ann talked about. She reiterated that AI is a tool and assistant and that rights can be protected based on how people use AI

Megha, for team MW, revealed the harsh truth that our legal system is very slow. She said that many more important problems are not solved, and that those rights do not work. By the time the verdict in the court comes out, one’s idea is already stolen and there is going back. She said that in an ideal world, AI could be an assistant, but that it is not being used as such.

Eshal, continuing for team MW, talked about the damages caused by AI, such as picture morphing. She reiterated that we do not live in an ideal world. Often, the damage is done and people are suffering. Even if justice is served, it is still out on the internet and tarnishing people’s reputations. She said that the benefits do not outweigh the damages.

Gouri, for team SM, talked about free will. She said “if you are scared of it, just don’t use it.” She said that AI is a learning system, which will obviously take things from the internet. She said that we should be vigilant. Then, she said that if AI is so dangerous, we should use our free will and use it in a non-dangerous way.

Catherine, for team MW, said that the whole point of laws is because of the misuse of AI. She said that intellectual property rights have not caught up to ethics and that subjective morality comes into play when it comes to free will, not societal ethics. Without that boundary, it is hard to understand what’s right and what’s wrong. She said that only a small portion of people use free will correctly.

Ilfa, continuing for team MW, said that the creation of art is political, not small scale. It reflects the society we live in and that we should want to live in a world filled with creativity. Without the process of learning, unlearning, and relearning, we hinder human empathy. She said that AI does not do this and that it’s recreation of art does not represent society.

Gouri, for team SM, countered that AI is not everything. AI cannot completely disappear. It can help as an assistant and to brainstorm. She said that it is not our whole life, but it will be a part of life.

Shauna, for team MW, concluded saying that “If you use AI to brainstorm, your brain is not storming. For critical thinking to work, you need to think yourself.”  

PS: You may want to look up an exciting debate on a similar topic, in the II MA English Class, three years ago, HERE on our blog. 

"The video captures the “quiet voices” of students through the books they love" | Happy Feet @ MCC ❤️❤️❤️

MCC | A Place Full of Stories

And the First Place Goes To…

Ascentana & Soumya

Among all the student assignments, two deserve particular mention on our blogpost for today.

That’s because they are among the early birds - the very first to submit their vlogs - last evening to me.  

Firstly, Ascentana’s lovely vlog on dance, titled, “Between Culture and Content: What Dance Means Today”.

This YouTube Vlog is part of her vibrant YouTube Channel, that showcases her passion and love for dance. It explores the evolving role of dance in contemporary society, by contrasting traditional views of dance as a cultural and emotional expression with modern perceptions of dance as fitness, entertainment, or content for social media.

[On an aside, Ascentana has also been instrumental in coming up with a Dance Club in College, called Happy Feet, that she’s been doing consistently for the past one year].

Many interviewees who have been interviewed by Ascentana in this particular vlog have opined that, dance serves as an important emotional outlet to them at all times.

One participant even describes dance as “food for the soul,” that helps a great deal in relieving work pressure and stress. Yet another participant notes that dance provides a sense of freedom and a way to express emotions that are otherwise hard to communicate.

Some of the participants feel that, dance is often seen as a platform for self-discovery and building a social circle. It helps individuals overcome loneliness and provides a unique identity in schools, colleges, or workplaces. For many, the “dance community” offers a supportive environment that feels more “colourful” than their everyday routines!

One interesting take that I observed was on how social media has changed the perspective on dance. While it has increased visibility and traction for dance, some feel that it has shifted the focus toward popularity and attention-seeking (reels and likes) rather than pure artistic expression!

Yet another interesting part of the vlog is the shot that features a discussion on the role and importance of dance in Tamil culture.

Ancient Tamils used dance to return to a “middle state” when emotions like extreme joy or sorrow threatened their mental states, says the participant. The speaker also mentions how the patterns in Bharatanatyam mirrors the orderly movement of a nucleus, a concept even studied by organizations like NASA.

The vlog is a thoughtful reflection on how dance remains a crucial part of the human experience, bridging the gap between ancient traditions and the digital age.

Kudos, Ascentana.

You may want to access her vlog HERE.

Secondly, kudos to Soumya for her captivating vlog titled, “A Page from MCC: Conversations with Readers” - a video featuring interviews with students from Madras Christian College (MCC) about their favourite books and the impact of reading on their lives.

The vlog introduces MCC as a place full of stories, whether spoken in classrooms or written in books. Added, the video captures the “quiet voices” of students through the books they love!

Around sixteen students share their favourite books across various genres, including Contemporary Fiction, Classics, Plays, Adventure, Philosophy, Non-fiction, etc.

Some of the titles that they have shared are –

Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin

It Ends with Us by Colleen Hoover

The Tempest by William Shakespeare

1984 by George Orwell

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

The Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

One Piece manga series

The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom

The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank

The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Highest Duty by Captain Chesley Sullenberger

Soumya has asked some thought-provoking questions like, why these books are special, how they relate to the characters, and whether the stories changed their perspective on life!

Soumya concludes her vlog by noting that, while many students prefer globally popular Western literature, reading is a personal journey that reflects the reader’s emotions, interests, and values. As such, she highlights on the fact that, books, regardless of their origin, have a lasting impact and become a part of who we are.

I’m hopeful that the vlog would serve as a tribute to the diverse literary interests of the MCC student community and remind us all, on the power of books to offer escape, comfort, and insight into reality!

Kudos, Soumya. You may access her Vlog HERE.

OMG! SUNSET YEARS? SERIOUSLY? 💜

OMG! SUNSET YEARS? SERIOUSLY? 💜

Why It’s Time to Retire Such Ageist Metaphors

#newspaperinlearning

I guess, in a long time, I’ve given the title for this post in All Caps!

With a purpose at that! 😊

In the context of digital communication (be it texting, email or social media), using all capital letters while texting or blogging, is widely understood as “shouting” or “expressing annoyance”.

For example, if someone asks Kumar, “Where are you?” and Kumar replies, “I am COMING,” the emphasis on “COMING” suggests that Kumar is annoyed by the question.

So yes! why did I then use All Caps to the Title of this blogpost!??? 😊

Well, I happened to read an article in today’s Chennai Edition of The Times of India, on the rapidly ageing demographic shift in Tamil Nadu. Although the article is in good taste with a gentle tone, the use of the pejorative label, ‘SUNSET YEARS’ to refer to the elderly, isn’t!!!

Academics and research scholars working in the field of Literary Gerontology, I’m sure would find the phrase highly ‘outmoded’ and lacking in empathy!

Hence this post!

Based on the theoretical postulates of Literary Gerontology – an interdisciplinary field of study that examines how ageing is represented in texts and cultural narratives - this news analysis in today’s Times of India, offers a fascinating, albeit troubling, case study on the elderly population in Tamil Nadu.

The metaphor of “Sunset Years” is testament to the generic construction of old age in popular media.

The metaphor tends to associate adulthood and productivity with “Day” (light, visibility, activity) and old age with “Sunset” (the fading of light, the onset of darkness/death), thereby subtly implying that, the older person is ‘exit’ing the stage of productivity, utility or relevance.

What’s more shocking is that, it comes from The Times of India – India’s largest circulated English daily! ☹

A sunset connotes a steep decline or descent, thus mirroring the society’s treatment of our elderly people – not as active agents, but as passive recipients of care, victims of “cyberfraud,” or subjects of “exploitation.”

Literary gerontology looks out for how texts construct the “Old” as fundamentally different from the “Normal” (usually defined as young, able-bodied, and autonomous).

I was particularly miffed at the line, “A digital-first society is too complex for thousands who lack the experience or even the tools.”

Shocking to the core! It frames the elderly as highly irrelevant, lacking the “cultural capital” to survive in the modern world without paid help, wherein their identity is defined by their lack - lack of family (living alone), lack of health (infirm), lack of digital literacy, etc. It is all the more sadder to note that, they are not portrayed as possessing wisdom, experience, or resilience, but only needs.

Moreover, the article uses the phrase “The silver streak in demographics.”

This is again a variation of the “Silver Tsunami” metaphor we had discussed in our past post a week ago!

From a literary gerontology perspective, the use of “Sunset Years” is not just a cliche; it is a narrative frame that signals the social death of the elderly before their biological death.

So what then, is the way forward?

Well, this post would like to suggest a few ways in which ‘language’ can prove to be a powerful tool to redefine the narrative in a holistic and empowering way!

In this particular article, the language needs to move from a Deficit Model (what old people lack) to an Asset/Agency Model!

I would then love to suggest a linguistic shift in their representation as follows -

Firstly, the current language treats the elderly as objects. Instead, the language can be used in such a way, that helps the elderly to gain their agency!

Secondly, there needs to be a shift of emphasis from a hierarchic use of language, to a language that emphasises on partnership / camaraderie.

Instead of using pejorative expressions like “The Third Age,” or “Fourth Age”, expressions like “Maturing Demographics”,  or “Intergenerational solidarity”, can be used!

The takeaway?

Well, Peter Barry, in his Beginning Theory states that, “Language constitutes / constructs our reality for us. Ultimately, then, the language we use to describe ageing needs to undergo a significant transformation.

By framing our elders as living in their “Sunset Years,” we are subtly telling them that their day is done, and that their value is fading with the light.

Ageing is not a sunset; it is a journey! A beautiful journey!

That is hence, we need a linguistic shift towards a language that is sensitive to the dignity of the elderly!

A language that stops viewing the elderly as a “burden to be managed” or a “market to be mined”!

A language that starts seeing them as individuals with a right to autonomy, dignity, and continued growth!

Into that heaven of freedom my father, let my people awake!

PS: You may want to read our past post based on an article on Kerala’s elderly in The Indian Express, from the perspective of Literary Gerontology, HERE on our blog. 

"It is only when you have no love that you have an ideal" ❤️

On Why the Teacher Needs Teaching More than the Student

#lovelyreads

Today, I got a lovely book as a gift from my vibrant colleague, Dr. Nirmal. It’s by J. Krishnamurti, and it’s titled, Educating the Educator. The book is a collection of reports from meetings that JK had with teachers and parents in India in 1948.

One uniqueness about this book is that, unlike most educational books that focus on child psychology or teaching methods, this shifts the entire focus to the transformation of the teacher.

We spend all our energy trying to “mould” children, but we ignore the fact that the person doing the moulding is often flawed, observes J. Krishnamurti.

So it is the educator, not the student, who is the central problem in education.

And I quote –

So our problem is not so much the child, the boy or the girl, but the teacher, the educator, who needs educating much more than the pupil.

So why does JK recommend the education of the educator?

Well, that’s because JK feels that, teachers and parents are often “set” or fixed in their ways, making them harder to educate than the children they teach. Having such “set ideals” - like trying to mould a child into a specific pattern - actually prevents a teacher from understanding the child as they currently are.

Ideals then, act as barriers. When we look at a child through the lens of an “ideal”, we stop observing the child as they actually are. That’s hence Krishnamurti calls ideals a “cheap escape” because it takes patience, care, and love to study a child’s behaviour, whereas it takes no effort to simply force them into a pattern of “truth”.

Liberating! 😊

And I quote JK–

“If I want to understand a child, I must not have an ideal of what he should be. To understand him, I must study him as he is.”

Moreover, J. Krishnamurti opines that, the reason for all the current crises that we find in the world - like war, conflict etc., - is a result of wrong values and education. In fact, he feels that, the existing education systems have failed miserably, because they have produced “the two most colossal and destructive wars in history”.

Interestingly, JK does not approve of state-controlled education. He warns that governments often don’t want people to think, arguing that, governments often want to create “perfect machines” or “automatons” rather than free, independent thinkers.

And I quote JK -

“Right education is obviously a danger to government, so it is a function of government to see that right education is not imparted.”

“They don’t want people to think, they want people to be automatons because then they can be told what to do.”

To conclude, we spend a lifetime trying to mould children into ‘good’ citizens, ‘successful’ professionals, or ‘ideal’ students. Krishnamurti suggests that we stop doing that! 😊 Instead, he opines that, the most profound act of education isn’t about moulding the child, but to break the mould of the educator.

Until we are free, we cannot teach freedom!

All we have are imperfect, conflicting cultural scripts, hinting at the terrifying “unpredictability” of the Real 💜

Today’s Newspapers in English

#newspaperinlearning #litforlife

How to Separate the Narrative from the Story!

‘Doing’ Literary Theory through the Daily Newspaper

8th February 2026

Well, three news reports on the same story, have been ‘presented’ to the reader in today’s three reputed Newspapers in English, namely, The New Indian Express, The Hindu, and The Times of India.

Or rather, three distinct “narratives” of the same “story” - have been presented.

While the core story - a driver died after his truck fell into the sea at Chennai Port - remains constant, the “truth” of how and why it happened shifts dramatically depending on which report (narrative) we read.

We find that, each of the three reports differ significantly, in their ‘narrative’ style to the story!

The New Indian Express specifically states that, the container was transporting solar panels; returning to Tirunelveli, and also mentions the legal specifics like BNS Sections 281 & 106 (1).

The Hindu mentions that, it was a pick-up a container; meant for Thoothukudi.

The Times of India states that, the truck unloaded a container; entered a restricted/unauthorised area, and claims that workers “warned him not to proceed.”

The New Indian Express presents the narrative frame from a labour perspective or a working-class perspective! By citing “fatigue” and his “return journey,” it paints a picture of an overworked driver. Also, it is the only report to cite the specific new criminal laws (BNS), and it also cites the police, as sources.

The Hindu presents the narrative from a bureaucratic perspective. It is quite concise and detached in its tone. Notably, it contains a significant factual discrepancy regarding the day (Thursday vs. Saturday), suggesting it may have been based on preliminary or unverified inputs., and doesn’t quote or cite its sources as well.

The Times of India presents a ‘dramatic’ narrative from the corporate perspective! It uses terms like “freak accident” and details much on the “cabin detaching.” It also introduces a “blame the victim” narrative by stating he entered a “restricted area” despite warnings, which contradicts the “fatigue/wrong turn” narrative of the Indian Express. It also cites port authorities as its sources.

So why-oh-why do they carry such different / differing views of the same news story?

In literary theory and in journalism, there is no single, objective view from nowhere schema!

So what then is a narrative? 

In literary theory in general, and in narratology in particular, the term narrative represents two distinct layers of a text - the distinction between content (what happened) and form (how it is communicated).

The story refers to the raw material of the events in their chronological sequence. It is the timeline of actions as they presumably happened in the fictional reality, irrespective of how the author chooses to reveal them. 

The narrative is the specific way the author or creator chooses to present the events to the audience. This includes the ordering of time (flashbacks, flash-forwards), the point of view, the medium (text, film, oral), and the pacing. The structure is often non-linear or artistic!

Coming back - 

Variations in the narrative might have occurred due to several factors -

The Indian Express musta spoken to police officers filing the FIR (hence the BNS codes). ToI likely spoke to port workers or eyewitnesses on the ground (hence the detail about the cabin detaching and workers warning him). The Hindu likely relied on a preliminary press release or a brief police update!

Added, usually, it is the Editor who finally takes the call on what is “newsworthy,” and how it has to be presented to the readers.

Hence, while, ToI prioritises the “freak” nature of the accident to grab attention, Indian Express prioritises on the “fatigue” angle, perhaps to highlight labour conditions. The Hindu probably doesn’t seem to prioritise anything here. 😊

Now let’s try and look at the presentation / representation from the viewpoint of literary theory - 

Well, post-structuralists argue that a text (or news report) does not have a fixed meaning or truth. The “signified” (the actual accident) is obscured by the “signifier” (the words used to describe it).

The fact that the driver is 35 in one report and 36 in another, or that the accident happened on Thursday in one and Saturday in another, destabilises the reader’s trust in the ‘truthfulness’ or the ‘reality’ of the presentation.

The “texts” given here to the reader prove that we cannot access the absolute reality of the accident, only “versions” of it. That’s because none of us saw the accident. We only see the “texts”. Therefore, for the public, the texts are the reality. The original event has dissolved, replaced by these three competing simulacra.

Jean Baudrillard in his seminal text titled, Simulacra and Simulation (1981) argues that in the postmodern world, the representation of reality replaces reality itself, which he terms the Simulacrum. And the state of existence where this substitution is complete - where we can no longer distinguish between the reality and the representation - is what he calls Hyperreality.

The news report simulates a “truth” to hide the fact that there is no single truth to be found. In essence, then, when the Simulacra (the news reports) become more real to us than the physical event itself, we are living in Hyperreality.

Three distinct “realities” now exist in the public imagination. Did he die because he was tired? Or because his truck broke? Or because he went where he shouldn’t have?

All three are now “true” in the datasphere.

The New Indian Express has written a legal/human interest story. The Hindu has come up with an administrative report, while The Times of India has got a sensationalist feature.

This collection of reports is a perfect example of how media does not just reflect reality - it rather “constructs” reality for us!

Now, and finally at that, let’s do one last theoretical “work” on the “texts”😊

Let’s for a moment try and connect the three news reports to Catherine Belsey’s lovely book titled, Culture and the Real (2005).

Belsey’s work focuses heavily on the Lacanian concept of The Real - that which is outside language, unrepresentable, and traumatic.

To Belsey, culture (including news reports, language, and art) exists to shield us from the Real, or to try and make sense of it, even though the Real always resists symbolisation.

To Belsey then - interpreting Lacan, as a Lacanian devotee herself – the Real is the raw, unmediated, traumatic event itself - the physical moment the truck hit the water, the metal crushing, the water entering the lungs, the cessation of life. This is the trauma that cannot be fully expressed in words. It is absolute, terrifying, and resists meaning.

However, culture (journalism, language, literature) tries to “paper” or “text” the horror of the Real by turning it into a story we can understand by means of language.

The news reports turn the traumatic Real into a narrative.

That’s hence Belsey argues that, culture works to tame the real. By naming the driver (Muthu Marriappan), giving his age (36), and citing the law (BNS 281), the newspapers are trying to bring the terrifying chaos of death into the orderly world of language.

Belsey argues that culture always fails to fully capture the Real. There is always a “gap” or a “lack” (Reminded of the Lacanian ‘lack’, here, anybody?) 😊 where language falls short.

When we observe carefully, we can also notice how the reports contradict each other.

Was it Thursday or Saturday?

Was he 35 or 36?

Did the cabin detach or did he take a wrong turn?

These contradictions, to Belsey, are the fissures where the Symbolic order fails. The “truth” of the accident escapes the journalists. They cannot pin it down. This “slippage” of meaning (where the signifiers don’t match the signified) is exactly what Belsey and post-structuralists highlight.

The “Real” of the man’s death is absent; all we have are imperfect, conflicting cultural scripts, hinting at the terrifying “unpredictability” of the Real. That’s hence Peter Barry in his Beginning Theory would have us believe that, ‘reality is relative!’

To sum it up then, the three news reports are in fact cultural mechanisms attempting to “symbolise” through “language” a traumatic event (The Real). However, their contradictions and variations prove Belsey’s argument that, Culture can never fully grasp the Real. The “truth” of the driver’s death is lost in the gap between the three different stories, leaving us only with “culture” (text), not reality.

What, then, is culture? 😉 

Finding "Soulcraft" in a Bucket of Water ❤️

Of Chloroform & Chemistry, Frogs & Football 😊

MCC School Days

7th February 1995 (31 years ago!)

#memoriesfromdiaries

MCC School today [clicked last month - January 2026]

On this particular day - we had Zoology practicals. Since the lab attender (LA) didn’t show up with the frogs on time, our Zoology Master asked us to write a test instead. And right when we were about to start the test, bang came the frogs! 😊

The LA had collected 50 frogs for our class, at Rs. 10/- per frog. All 50 of us, dissected a frog each. It was indeed quite interesting to dissect the live frog, that was sedated with chloroform. Our Zoology master was a very conscientious teacher. He came up to each of us, and pointed out the mistakes that we had made. The lab class spilled into the Tamil class, and we were late to Jayaraman sir’s Tamil class.

And I remember this interesting incident that connects to our frog dissection!

When we had our frog dissection, usually the frogs were given chloroform, and we had to pin its legs to the dissection board.

All was well, for my friend Jaison, who was busy taking out the dissection board to pin the frog to the board, when, suddenly, to everyone’s shock, the frog suddenly having come out of its stupor, pounced out of the dissection board, and into the huge sink, kept in the table.

Jaison yelled out a shriek in his distinct nasal voice, which caught the attention of our Zoology master in no time! He came straight up to Jaison’s table, and gave him minus marks for shouting! Albeit for no fault of Jaison, the poor boy was awarded a punishment!

Post-lunch session, classes resumed. You see, hostel days were also days when boys always wanted money in our wallets. So it was, that my bestie and hostel mate Sunil had borrowed Rs. 100/- and he had just then returned Rs.70/- I was so happy to get the money back, and I was dreaming about how to spend it on a movie at Ega theatre for the weekend, when Prince gently approached me, and got Rs. 20/- from the returns. Yes, those were lovely days, when we all indulged in this borrow, repay, borrow, repeat schedule! 😊

MCC School - Football Ground

Our school was known for our football team. So during PT hour, we all played football in the F1 ground.

In Chemistry class, we were taught about Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - organic compounds containing only carbon and hydrogen, structured in straight chains, branched chains, or non-aromatic rings.

Those were days when our teachers did not like students skipping classes, even for NSS or College events. They ensured that all students turned up for their classes. Nedumaran master was one such conscientious teacher!

He asked the class, “Is anyone here attending the NSS Camp?”

Nanda stood up politely, raising his hands.

You could have missed getting an observation sign from me, he remarked.

Don’t believe these politicians. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, once said, ‘Be Indian, Buy Indian’. But he himself took an Italian wife. Also, he always used to wear expensive foreign brands like Adidas and Reebok. So don’t be corrupted by the cheap words of the politicians, he quipped. The politicians and ministers declare that they serve the country, but in reality, they were only exploiting the country, he said, in a portmanteau word – which we call – structural nativisms, or regional idiosyncrasies in language usage – soranding! 😊

After school was over, I washed my clothes – from 3.25 pm to 4.20 pm - a habit that I meticulously follow all these years. I never give my clothes to the laundry. I ensure that I wash my clothes. Something that I also advocate in my students.

While delegating chores can save time, there is a unique set of benefits that come along with handling these tasks by ourselves. It also provides us with a “mental reset” in a high-speed world.

Moreover, manual labour speaks a lot to our personal character.

Matthew Crawford’s 2009 book titled, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work is one of the best books that speaks to the importance of the value of personal labour and personal accountability!

He discusses how fixing a machine provides “objective” feedback to us – and reinforces the idea that doing your own maintenance forces you to confront reality, building true self-reliance.

The book also discusses on how modern consumer culture always encourages us to be passive and dependent.

Modern devices (cars, iPhones, appliances) are designed to be sealed shut. We aren’t supposed to know how they work; we are just supposed to buy new ones when they break. 

To Crawford, this makes us feel fragile and dependent. When we don’t know how our own world works, we lose agency (the feeling that we can impact our environment). However, learning to fix things (doing your own chores/maintenance) restores that agency. It transforms you from a passive “consumer” into an active “master” of your own stuff.

So in essence, Crawford argues that, when we stop doing our own maintenance, we don’t just lose out on money (by paying someone else), but also lose a connection to the material world. We become “ghostly”.

One thing that I particularly love about the book is the differentiation that Crawford makes between Autonomy and Agency.

In modern culture, we define freedom as Autonomy. This is the ability to make choices without interference. It is “freedom from constraints.”

We say, “I don't want to be tied down. I want to buy what I want, live how I want, and outsource the things I don't want to do.” And, we think buying a new car makes us free. We think paying a maid service makes us free.

Crawford argues this is a fragile freedom. You are “free” only as long as you have money and the system works. If your car breaks and you can’t fix it, your autonomy vanishes instantly. You become dependent on a tow truck, a mechanic, and a credit card. You are a passive consumer of your own life.

On the other hand, agency is the capacity to act on the world and see a result. It is not about escaping constraints; it is about mastering them.

You cannot “talk your way” out of a pile of dirty laundry. You must accept the laws of physics and the nature of the task.

When you submit to the task and complete it, you gain genuine power. You are no longer dependent. You have the competence to sustain your own existence,

he observes. 

This, then, is the icing on the book’s philosophy: You only gain Agency by giving up some Autonomy.

Crawford signs off by saying that, Autonomy makes us lonely and anxious because it disconnects us from reality. Agency makes us grounded and confident because it connects us to the world - we live in reality.