Another soul ripping murder & rape case has been reported, this time from Kolkata, on 8th of August 2024, in a Hospital; the victim being an on-duty doctor. The horrific case reminds us of the brutalities of Nirbhaya and Asifa in the recent past. We need to note few important points in this regard which keep evading our larger public discourse.
The first problem that warrants our immediate attention is the state of denial where people/audience, upon hearing such cases, simply and immediately classify the culprits as monsters, ‘janwar’, ‘darindey’, etc. Yes, the act is dastardly; but this easy condemnation is too lazy. This problem demands a proper and a rigorous attention and thinking. The point that is constantly missed in the popular discourse is what Hannah Arendt would refer to as the “banality of evil”. That is, upon her observation of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the holocaust, Arendt was taken aback by the glaring normality (rather than abnormality) of the supposedly evil figure.
What is more horrifying about criminals is not merely their dastardly (non-human) criminal act but rather precisely their normal state of affairs. The terror and horror of evil is not that it has horns on its head — in which case it becomes easy to distance ourselves from it, putting all blame on it — but rather what is truly horrifying is that (majority of the times) the culprits are quite normal common human beings like most of us who would fade away into the background of a crowd.
This is well established by a good amount of serious research on this subject, like that of Madhumita Pandey, who carried out interviews of hundreds of convicted rapists. What is the point to be noted here? The interviews reveal that the rapists carry exactly the same ideas and beliefs about women, sexuality and clothing, as do most of our people within our popular discourse. The rapist mindset, to put it bluntly, is harboured, celebrated and regurgitated by the larger public discourse which then ironically distances itself away from the supposedly monster aliens living amongst us. “Ladhki mithaayi ka dhibba hai, agar khulli raheygi toh cheettiyan toh aayegi hi”, “argued” the infamous Nirbhaya perpetrator. A large percentage of our society not only holds such beliefs but even mouths them whenever discussions around such subjects are held.
Research reveals that most rapists superimpose the blame on the victims. When we go through their mindset, their beliefs and thinking processes, they are no different from the pervasive popular mindset. Blaming the victims; claiming that the victims deserved it as they were roaming around in inappropriate clothes; the victim was bad charactered and invited the rape; they wished to be raped, etc. Rapist mentality has been shown to be completely different from that of the murderers where victim blaming is largely absent, except the exceptions. This mentality of substantiating rape by invoking inappropriate clothing, besides other personal traits of the victim, is what is actually monstrous. Let us briefly rebut this popular & baseless ideological belief/claim which bears absolutely zero understanding (rather extremely dangerous misunderstanding) of sexuality and its relationship with clothing.
The first point to note is that human sexuality is radically different from that of the plant and animal sexuality. Human sexuality, by virtue of human being’s being in language, is inherently perverse and pervasive. As Freud noted, human sexuality is unlike other animal sexuality where we witness fixed mating seasons and fixed significations of sexual expression, say for example, a fixed routine bird song or a bird dance. Human language, in contrast, is inherently malleable and not fixed. When we say, for example, “someone is cool” in American English, it does not necessarily mean that someone is “cold” (as if the word “cool” must have a fixed meaning) but rather it could mean that someone is classy or stylish.
Human sexuality is part of human reality which is a reality within language and language in turn is inherently perverse (& pervasive); as in for human beings, even words have sexual/seductive power. Sexuality here spills over from fixed sexual organs to the whole body (in the reality of “fetish”, for example), and then to the whole language as every sexual act is supported by a phantasmatic support of some imagined meaning, narrative, story, language, words, fantasies and what not. This is what the famous Lacanian Psychoanalysts, Slavoj Žižek and Alenka Zupančič, try to establish in their works. In other words, human sexuality is not merely a raw, brute, direct, mechanical, reproductive act. But rather it is evoked and then sustained by a certain seductive fantasy/meaning/narrative/language structure. Now, since human language/narrative has no limits, human sexuality as a result breaches fixed animal biological expression.
This perverse (& pervasive) human sexuality spills over to not just the rest of the non-sexual body (like touching hands or lips – having nothing to do with the brute specie reproductive act) but rather to the sphere of even clothes. This point is completely missed within the popular discourse. Even clothes per se are part of the narrative structure within human sexuality. Veils are, therefore, no different. Veils too can evoke their own phantasmatic narrative structure. In fact we do not have to go too far in our speculation, since we have the (not yet extinct) Orientalist narratives and the associated phantasmatic imaginations of the Arab women clad in veils. Therefore, the simple (but quite often missed) point to note is that clothing per se is part of sexual narrative structure which, as established above, is not fixed but perverse and pervasive. It is not as if certain clothing would mathematically equate into a non-sexual narrative/appearance.
Therefore, a fixation over clothes (as responsible for rapes) is deeply problematic. It shifts blame on the victim. Besides, Dr Madhumita’s work, among others, dispels the myth of pure sexual motivation behind rapes; having otherwise also to do with power and domination, asserting authority, a mark of punishment (not different from acid attacks), etc. The other complicated motivations and personal histories of different rapists is a complex matter that cannot be debated here owing to the limitations of space.
The point is that our society should collectively (but consciously) accept an axiom & that is, rape is simply wrong, no matter what. This needs to be established as the primary foundational axiom of our collective existence. Under no circumstances whatsoever should this axiom be violated. This axiom should be completely independent of the reality of clothing. Our elders, popular discourse, extended families, schools, parents and friends should collectively help establish this point, that is, rape is categorically wrong no matter what.
No amount of inappropriate clothing, personal traits of women and other contingent factors are in any way sufficient to substantiate or rationalize this act in any way whatsoever. “Consent” has to be established as an axiomatic foundation for any human social contract whatsoever. Woman is not a property or a thing that we may (ab)use. She is not a mere walking flesh that cannot say no. The root of the violence against women has larger societal genesis (rather than token rapist occurrence), the kind of mindset society nourishes: “how come she said no!”; “who is she to say no?; “she deserves to be punished!”; “how dare she roam outside!” It is precisely for this reason that women apparent on social media are usually bullied and trolled. Sexual violence is a “continuum” as pointed out by L Kelly. “If these everyday misogynistic behaviours and attitudes towards women are not addressed, how are we planning to address a problem as grave as rape?” (Pandey)
As far as the religious disciplining and regulation of sexuality is concerned; it has a certain logic of its own, which warrants a separate treatment, not possible here. Neither can we discuss the philosophical and psychological dimensions of sexuality per se, its flux with civilization and resulting discontents. However, one critically crucial point needs a brief passing mention. Since human sexual pervasive expression has no fixed defined normativity, as explained above, it borders on playful aggression/punishment/violence (between consenting partners) as well. This, however, is a spectrum, not far off from the violence of the rape, as we can anticipate.
A rapist might say that his act is a (legitimate) expression – a part of the normally abnormal human sexuality. Since the illegitimacy, illegality and the inner ugliness of the violence such as rape or acid attack is part of our axiomatic foundation, therefore, sexual expression cannot be completely liberated or left open. It is for this reason that a completely open and free pornographic culture is highly problematic. We cannot afford to completely liberate human sexuality precisely for the reason what it inherently is: perverse and pervasive.
Coming back to the original point, few closing comments on the subject of clothing are in order: within religious universe of meaning (which has major disagreements with secular perspective), clothing primarily focuses on modest dignity. Clothing is supposed to reflect human dignity as a dignified being – one of the foundational beliefs of religion regarding human beings, setting them apart from the rest of the animals. However, the popular un-nuanced religious discourse reductively treats clothing as primarily a method of averting sexual attention.
This is a completely short-sighted & a foolish way of thinking to say the least. This, as discussed above, is a complete misunderstanding and miscalculation of human sexuality where a full covering in and of itself can evoke a new appeal of its own as it bears a mystery element now; it throws the viewer into a new narrative structure, the narrative of “mystery” evoking its own kind of interest and attention. Rather, it is human thinking/understanding and emotional/psychological maturity that should be the focus of attention &education and not mere clothing.
In fact, veil has deeper dimensions which are completely missed within the popular discourse. The point is that the treatment of women within human collectives across cultures has oscillated between worship and abuse. Veil, within traditional cultures, constitutes sacred mystery. Woman as the origin of life (mythically speaking) represents sacred mystery. Sacred as something “unknown”, hidden, unconscious & “other”. It has led to two extreme interfaces with women; on the one hand the feminine as Sacred has evoked religious emotion which we see fructifying into a galaxy of feminine divinities/goddesses whereas on the other hand, the feminine (as Sacred/mystery) has posed a certain threat to the brute rationalistic masculine principle and thus as a result has been loathed, tabooed, feared, segregated, viled, ignored, ridiculed, stereotyped, masked and what not.
Reducing the (traditional/conventional) reality of ‘veildown’ to mere sexual discipline is tantamount to the popular “chewing gum cover” logic which is the rapist logic par excellence. This is what it is. A rapist logic! It needs to be called out for what it is. Only after accepting this, we may proceed towards a completely structural change in our thinking towards women.
(Author has done masters in philosophy from JNU and is pursuing PhD from the same institution. Feedback: [email protected])
