Duryodhanization Read online

  Further, qualitative parochialism refers to the fact that ‘science has reflected primarily the American cultural values of rationality and free will’. Qualitative parochialism occurs when theories are either not based on universal values or when those values do not have an impact on the overall social behaviour of individuals. For example, Hofstede (1981, 32) found remarkable differences in focus according to the particular researcher’s background. According to Jones and Nisbett (1971), qualitative parochialism is a natural outcome of an attribution error. They quote:

  . . . the fundamental attribution error posits that individuals are prone to view the behavior of others as determined by their individual characteristics and motivations rather than by characteristics of the environment.

  Therefore, scholars subconsciously underestimate the extent to which their perceptions, interpretations and knowledge building are influenced by their cultural environment rather than the environment of the subject they are studying.

  Another theory describing the systematic deterioration of an image is ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism was introduced to sociological literature nearly a century ago and is defined as:

  . . . the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it . . . Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders (Sumner 1906, 13).

  Ethnocentrism is not confined only to tribes and nations. It reveals itself in all kinds of social groups—developing into family pride, sectionalism, religious prejudice, racial discrimination and patriotism. It is argued that ethnocentrism is a part of human nature. According to Levine and Campbell (1972), properties of ethnocentrism include the tendency (1) to distinguish between various groups; (2) to perceive events in terms of the group’s own interests (economical, political, and social); (3) to see one’s own group as the centre of the universe and to regard its way of life as superior to all others; (4) to be suspicious of and have disdain towards other groups; (5) to view one’s own group as superior, strong and honest; (6) and to see other groups as inferior, weak and dishonest troublemakers.

  The final theoretical background that describes and analyses deliberate deterioration of a subject’s image is orientalism. In one of the most influential academic works of the twentieth century, Edward Said (1978) coined the term orientalism. He used it to refer to a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between the ‘orient’ and the ‘occident’. In the words of Said:

  . . . a very large mass of writers, among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists and imperial administrators, have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, ‘mind’, destiny and so on.

  . . . Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.

  And finally, orientalism is:

  . . . systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage—and even produce—the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period.

  Orientalism occurs in phases. Phase one is the systematic examination and theorizing of a subject. The definition and characteristics attributed to the subject are not necessarily present in the subject. They are created by the imaginations, perceptions, prejudices and ideologies of influential scholars engaged in the examination of that subject. In the second phase, the process of orientalism is reinforced by multiple studies. These are conducted by disciples and scholars from various scientific disciplines, who are interested in understanding the subject by referring to the first phase of orientalism. In the third phase, the definition of the subject becomes substantially legitimized. An authority is bestowed on to the definition, initiated primarily on imagination. And finally, in the fourth stage, the originality of the subject is lost or becomes significantly limited. Thus, according to Said, orientalism is defined as the systematic creation and manipulation of knowledge by the ‘occident’ about the ‘orient’.

  We have discussed above a systematic and intellectual degradation in the meaning or status of macro-level phenomena such as caste, nation or historical periods. However, individuals are also subject to such scholarly treatments.

  There are several reasons to believe in the possibility of significant differences in reality and the popular knowledge or image of an individual. To put it simply, according to different scholars of different times, the Earth was believed to be of different shapes—ranging from flat to oval, to finally, as we now know—partially round.

  Scholars in the field of personality and individual differences suggest that no subject is completely negative or positive in its effects over other subjects. They suggest that at low to moderate levels, some positive characteristics associated with an individual may add to positive inferences by others. However, the same characteristics may be viewed by others as highly counterproductive. For example, honesty is a highly acceptable and preferred trait in an individual. But it is not always productive or beneficial. Suppose a compulsive psychopath rapist is chasing a girl who is hidden in a stack of wood. He asks an onlooker about the girl’s whereabouts. Honesty from that onlooker is absolutely undesirable. The same concept may apply to negative characteristics. For example, excessive narcissism as a personality trait is generally associated with negative behavioural outcomes such as self-centeredness, arrogance, manipulation and exploitation. However, low to moderate levels may be considered beneficial due to other associated dimensions such as charisma, fearlessness and boldness.

  Scholars (Grant and Schwartz, 2011; Pierce and Aguinis, 2013) in the field of personality and individual differences refer to such paradoxical outcomes as TMGT (too-much-of-a-good-thing) effects. TMGT refers to an apparent contradiction where the presence of a characteristic in an individual at low or high levels may have paradoxical effects on certain behavioural outcomes. Therefore, a person with negative characteristics may also exhibit positive behaviours in certain contexts, though these are scarcely highlighted.

  Another issue associated with the negative image of an individual lies in the theories of personality development. Researchers in the field of developmental psychology have long debated whether a person is born with a personality attribute or develops with various experiences—the nurture vs nature theory. Behaviour-genetic models (nature) focus on the degree of biological relatedness and specific markers of genetically linked characteristics between individuals. The developmental models (nurture) primarily assess variations in personality according to differences in the environment. Further, a more contemporary interactionist approach studies the interplay between genetic and environmental factors. The interactionist approach measures whether individuals with shared genetics respond differently to similar environmental conditions. The personality dispositions observed in an individual may be an outcome of either the genetic composition, the environmental surroundings or an interplay between the genes and the environment. Thus, a critical examination becomes essential to hold the individual responsible for his or her negative actions.

  Considerable research has focused on explaining human behaviour. Research on genetics has built a strong case for the importance of genetic factors in many complex behavioural disorders, and also in the domains of psychopathology, personality, cognitive abilities and overall human behaviour. In particular, the role of familial influences on human behaviour has been studied extensively. Rhee and Waldman (2002) undertook a meta-study and found significant effects of dysfunctional familial influences—such as psychopatholog
y in the parents, coercive parenting styles, physical abuse and family conflict—on human behaviour.

  In addition, several statistical models have been validated to assess the effects of genetics on human behaviour. Jinks and Fulker (1970) highlighted the usefulness of several of these techniques. According to them:

  There are currently three alternative approaches to the genetical analysis of human twin and familial data. There is the classical approach. This involves correlations between relatives and the culmination of various estimated ratios describing the relative importance of genetic and environmental influences on trait variation. This approach leads to ratios such as the // of Holzinger (1929), the E of Neel and Schull (1954) and the HR of Nichols (1965). Each of these measures an aspect of the relative importance of heredity and environment. There is the more systematic and comprehensive approach of the Multiple Abstract Variance Analysis (MAVA) developed by Cattell (1960, 1965). This leads to the estimation of nature: nurture ratios as well as an assessment of the importance of the correlation between genetic and environmental influences within family and within culture. This approach is based on the comparison of within and between-family variances of full and half-sib families, as well as monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Finally there is the biometrical, genetical approach that was initiated by Fisher (1918) and applied by Mather (1949). It includes the first two approaches as special cases. And then attempts to go beyond them to an assessment of the kind of gene action and mating system operating in the population.

  Further, the association between troubled parental marriage and children’s psychiatric disturbance is well established. Children living in disharmonious homes show more emotional and behavioural problems than children living in harmonious homes. A study of 119 families (from the general population) with a child aged between nine and twelve years was carried out. Jenkins and Smith (1991) found parental conflict and disharmony as the strongest predictor of children’s problems. Discrepancy in child-rearing practices was also a factor. These were obvious from the parents’ and children’s accounts of emotional and behavioural problems, such as indiscipline, insecurity, excessive competition, rivalry between children and social maladjustment.

  The final complexity associated with the building of a negative character lies in the fact that the image of a subject is often an outcome of parochial, ethnocentric and orientalist viewpoints. In other words, it can be argued that historical or mythological villains might also have been treated in paradoxical manners. Their negative characteristics would have received much more attention by dominant intellectuals than their positive traits.

  Another line of thought that may not directly apply on a macro level but has vast implications on individual behaviour comes from the Pygmalion effect. The Pygmalion effect refers to a phenomenon where people behave as expected of them. In a seminal study, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated experimentally that a simple manipulation of teacher expectancy could improve pupil achievement. For example, in their experiment, the teachers were required to show higher expectations from certain students. This led the students to perform better.

  In sum, drawing from the nurture vs nature theories, parochialism, ethnocentrism, orientalist perspectives and the Pygmalion effect, it can be argued that villains are either born, developed or simply made up. Therefore, Duryodhanization refers to the process of birth and subsequent development of a villainous character—whether in history or mythology. The larger questions that this book attempts to answer are:

  Among various Duryodhanization processes, which ones explain the development of a particular individual as a villain?

  Who are the beneficiaries of Duryodhanization?

  What are the causes and processes of selection of a Duryodhana by the beneficiary?

  What are the mechanisms that govern the process of Duryodhanization?

  How does the beneficiary suppress resistance by a Duryodhana?

  What are the advantages and disadvantages of such Duryodhanization?

  Some critical disclaimers

  Firstly, this book is a humble attempt to understand the process of Duryodhanization using certain historical or mythological characters. No differential treatment has been given to any character. In a sense it is unnecessary, at least for the purpose of this book. In fact, sometimes such common treatment is critical for philosophical inquiries. In the words of Munz (1956):

  In common usage the two words ‘myth’ and ‘history’ are used as if they denoted contradictories. A story is, so we are likely to be told, either true or false. If it is true, it is history; if it is false, it is a myth. Historians are inclined to call the version of an event which they consider untrue, a myth. They aim at replacing the products of human phantasy, mythology, by the products of historical research, history. There is no doubt some sense in such a simple distinction between history and myth. But it is apt to obscure a very important fact which has only too often been neglected. Myth and history, in a very special sense, are interdependent. They fertilize each other; and it is doubtful whether one could exist without the other.

  Secondly, this book does not aim to establish any justification for wrongdoings by any mythological or historical villain. It is not even a process of falsification. It is simply an inquiry into certain processes that are theoretically and scientifically well-established explanations for the systematic image deterioration of certain macro-level phenomenon, (e.g. Indian caste system, nation, or a historical period) applied to mythological or historical villains. Additionally, the possibility of genetic and experiential development of villains is recognized.

  Lastly, the book randomly selects some villainous characters from mythology or history. No scientific sample selection has been applied. This builds focus by narrowing the scope of the book. Nonetheless, three limiting mechanisms are applied in the random selection of characters. Drawing from history, characters are chosen from broadly defined historical periods: ancient history, the postclassical era and modern history. The second limitation is that the book only considers characters from Indian mythology and history. This is mostly convenient sampling. However, it is critical to avoid controversies. Readers are required to be mindful of the above limitations.

  References

  Boyacigiller, N.A., and Adler, N.J. (1991). The Parochial Dinosaur: Organizational Science in a Global Context. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 262–90.

  Cirincione, J., Matthews, J.T., Perkovich, G., and Orton, A. (2004). WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 2(1): 51–55.

  Curtius, E.R. (2013). European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton University Press.

  Dodds, K. (2005). Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War Films (1962–67). Geopolitics 10(2): 266–89.

  Gandhi, M.K. (1966). Collected Works, April–August 1921, Government of India. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Trust.

  Gimpel, J. (1977). The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages. New York: Penguin Books.

  Grant, A.M., and Schwartz, B. (2011). Too Much of a Good Thing: The Challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 61–76.

  Hofstede, G. (1981). Culture and Organizations. International Studies of Management and Organizations 10(4): 15–41.

  Jinks, J.L., and Fulker, D.W. (1970). Comparison of the Biometrical Genetical, MAVA, and Classical Approaches to the Analysis of the Human Behavior. Psychological Bulletin 73(5): 311.

  Jones, E.E., and Nisbett, R.E. (1971). The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

  Kavoori, P.S. (2002). The Varna Trophic System: An Ecological Theory of Caste Formation. Economic and Political Weekly 1156–64.

  Kull, S., Ramsay, C., and Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly 118(4): 569–98.

  Lee, J. (2007). North Korea, South Korea, and 007 Di
e Another Day. Critical Discourse Studies 4(2): 207–35.

  LeVine, Robert A., and Campbell, Donald T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.

  Munz, P. (1956). History and Myth. The Philosophical Quarterly 6(22): 1–16.

  Pierce, J.R., and Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing Effect in Management. Journal of Management 39(2): 313–38.

  Rhee, S.H., and Waldman, I.D. (2002). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Twin and Adoption Studies. Psychological Bulletin 128(3): 490.

  Robert, J. (2010). Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.

  Shin, B., and Namkung, G. (2008). Films and Cultural Hegemony: American Hegemony ‘Outside’ and ‘Inside’ the ‘007’ movie series. Asian Perspective 115–43.

  Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways: The Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn and Co.

  Figure 1

  I

  THE USUAL SUSPECTS

  Personality Traits Responsible for

  Villainous Behaviour

  ‘Personality is something and personality does something.’ Allport’s (1937, p. 49)

  In modern psychology and behavioural sciences, the study of personality traits or dispositions is a well-acknowledged method of studying human personality and behaviour. Traits can be defined as habitual patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion.1 As per this definition, traits remain stable over time, differ amongst individuals and affect human behaviour in public and personal lives. Gordon Allport was amongst the first few recognized psychologists to advance the study of traits and dispositions. According to him, ‘cardinal’ traits are those that influence a person’s behaviour and their ruling passions/obsessions. These traits can be positive or negative.