Witoubou Newmai
People are confronted with challenges of social issues or any other community demand on one hand. On the other hand, challenges and demands of different dimensions await us when we go home. We find it extremely hard to compromise either of the demands. But the complexity of unfurling situations is such that the task of balancing the two hands is increasingly tough with time.
Looking not to miss all the easy-way gains and comforts, and at the same time, trying to engage with issues confronting the society, many people ameliorate this daunting circumstance by conveniently splitting (one) self into required numbers of personae. As such, one tries to conveniently co-exist with his/her own church persona, a public persona, a wealth seeking persona, a persona of electoral politics, a comfort or luxury seeking persona, a business persona, a Good Samaritan persona, a persona of activism of different issues, a hawkish contractor persona etc., etc. If we are to see from different standpoints, we notice that one single person’s personality or life is harmoniously riddled with contradictions.
There is nothing wrong to seek all the gains and comforts. However, the concern is the culture of easy-way or short-cut gains and comforts rampant in our society. In our situation, and given the mechanisms or apparatuses, without the involvement of quid pro quo, such gains and comforts are uncommon.
We really do not know how to express and explain about this perplexed trend. However, experiences tell us that if one who engages issues confronting heartily seeks to gain all available comforts and conveniences, then there will be imbalance.
Here, we are not talking about any sort of schizophrenia or the case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We are simply saying that issues are being diluted with the changing times and situations.
Integrating ‘individual interest’ and issues confronting the society into a seamless discourse is never going to be possible. However, it is imperative to make the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’ co-ordinate with each other well, so much so that issues are diluted at minimum degrees.
But how do we begin addressing this striking fact? Before anything else, it is important to find out the reasons why our ‘individual interest’ often is not determined or affected by the grand decisions of the ‘public discourse’.
Regarding the ‘public discourse’, right from the top apex body/tribe hoho level down to the colony level, their stand is against corruption, for clean election, for protection of our environment, for solidarity to the society and so on. However, once outside the ‘public discourse,’ our individual concerns, consensus and principles seem to dissipate.
Is this because the grand decisions of the ‘public discourse’ are never close to home and are impractical? The flaw reflects a profound and troubling reality. This is where one shudders to ponder about our destiny. We need to ask whether there is an absence of a sense of allegiance to the issues which is responsible for the stark contrast between the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’.
Is this because the grand decisions of the ‘public discourse’ are never close to home and are impractical? The flaw reflects a profound and troubling reality. This is where one shudders to ponder about our destiny. We need to ask whether there is an absence of a sense of allegiance to the issues which is responsible for the stark contrast between the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’.
