On Virginity, Money, and Democracy

It seems to me that the strength with which a matter can afflict someone is contingent on the meaning they have associated with the matter. In this way, meaning seems to be the ultimate shield and sword alike. When one gives meaning into something, they have deemed it either important or unimportant, and both of these can be used to propel or to harm the arbiter of meaning. Take for example virginity, money, democracy, and death.

1.3 billion people are accounted for within the borders of India. Undoubtedly, based on the industry profits, Bollywood presents as a highly popular industry amongst the nation's people. Undoubtedly, viewers are exposed to the way virginity is sometimes portrayed in these dramas and films. It is not uncommon to see a man present himself as superior to another man for having taken some central woman's virginity. Sometimes a mere photograph of a man and woman together is enough to tarnish the woman's reputation as chaste. Many times a woman character is shamed and manipulated for having lost her virginity. Usually, the female characters agree, and often understand the consequences of their actions, voluntary or forced. They are part and parcel of the system that condemns them and they recognize when they have crossed a boundary, even if they sometimes are shown to regret it and sometimes shown to be unaffected. It is very interesting watching these scenes play out on Western TV in front of a Western audience. While the Western viewer laughs or views with disgust these depictions, they fail to remember that the woman whose sexual liberty they feel has been transgressed commonly disagreed with the viewer, and amidst fault, more importantly, indeed feels shame. The just Western viewer may then claim that the woman is only a victim to her backwards culture. In this way, the third party observer has encountered a great truth about society: two birds; two cages; each bird only ever sees the cage of the other.

What meaning can we extract from this about meaning itself? It would seem to me that both the Indian woman and the Western viewer feel shame and empathy, respectively. Quite interesting that one action can yield two polar opposite emotions when the changed factor is only the observer. It seems plainly evident to me that the Indian woman feels shame because she has assigned a certain meaning to the idea of virginity. Interestingly enough, the Western woman also has acknowledged meaning into the idea of virginity — indeed to choose to view something as meaningless is meaningful itself, for their very choice implies the existence of two meaningful stances.

This then leads to the idea that to feel shame or to feel empathy are contrived emotions, based not consciously, but consequentially as a result of meaning one has assigned to an idea. It seems then, to me, Sisyphean folly to assign right or wrong when the question is not "who is right?" but in fact "who is viewing?"

Let us now look at money. In many ways, what is money but a tangible testament to a global agreement. An agreement simply that this paper one might hold is worth the amount stated on it. Its meaning is itself self-referencing, recursive, and we have chosen, agreed, to assign meaning to the paper. A $10 bill is worth $10 not because it cost $10 to make, but because we — arguably the Fed — has said so, and we have agreed. Before we agreed on the fiat system of money, we used the gold standard. Why is gold valuable? Because it will run out? So will cobalt, nickel, silver, and oxygen some day. The simple answer is because it is what everyone agreed to pick as the tangible representation of "value." There is nothing special about it outside of the special meaning we had chosen to surround it with. There are yet uncontacted tribes that live in remote islands — do we think they care about the gold standard or fiat money? They would first offer you a bow, before shooting you with the arrow for handing them paper.

Democracy, too, is no different, in my eyes. What is it but the collective agreement between people of many minds that the cost of war is higher than the cost of tolerating an elected official that was the choice of the 51% but not of the 49%? Democracy is then inextricably based on the agreement to tolerate, and on the agreed meaning on the merits or demerits of war. The day one begins to prefer fighting over tolerating is the day one has decided that democracy is not worth it. Democracy is then nothing more than an agreement amongst the varied people of a nation that slow change is better than rapid change, for any party, for slow change is more tolerable than war and fighting. One can imagine then, how the Chinese viewer might view Western democracy? The question, again, is not of "right" or "wrong" but of "who is viewing?"

While I make these arguments, I must concede that they are potentially perilous. Such thinking can lead one down a path of meaninglessness. I prefer, indeed I choose, to view my arguments from a different perspective. I advocate not for a meaningless view of matters, not for a disregard for justice and righteousness, but for a cultural humility that is built not on making statements and allegations, but on asking questions and seeking understanding. This view opens one to the beauty of all the societies around the world. It opens one up and allows exposure to the wide array of ways in which different people have tried to make sense of the complexity of their societies and indeed ultimately of the uncertainty of life. What folly, then, to bicker over differences, when one can ask instead why and how they arose in the first place?