The Illusion of Superiority

                                                     The Illusion of Superiority 

Freud’s theory was that the fundamental struggle for human beings is with the sexual instinct. His disciple Alfred Adler proposed, instead, that the struggle was to overcome feelings of inferiority. He coined the term “inferiority complex”. Eric Berne formulated this as the near universal presence of I’m Not Ok ━ You’re Ok life-position held by people. 

This is why, whatever one achieves, wherever one arrives, however one is esteemed, people never feel satisfied with themselves. The arrogance of many people, sometimes called “superiority complex”, is but a reaction to their inferiority feelings. The near-universal phenomenon of comparing oneself to others━ always those in a better position━ is a consequence of the unhappiness induced by inferiority feelings. 

The rat race to “success” continues: I’m Not OK, but I’m OK if…. The if can be money, fame, possessions, respect from others, having a beautiful wife, the list is endless. However, the if, when attained does not produce lasting OK-ness, because the basic Not OK endures, never to go away. And so life goes on in an endless pursuit of goals, climbing mountains, only to always find another mountain on the horizon.

The only way to find lasting OK-ness is to find it within oneself, through self-acceptance, self-esteem, self-love and self-respect. That is what is meant by the teaching of the great, viz., happiness is within. (How to achieve that? Well, that is another story, for another day. For now, the idea pursued is another.)

This being so, the claims of superiority advanced about one’s nationhood, language, culture, caste, race, religion, colour, gender and other such are also attempts to overcome inferiority feelings and feel superior to others who are different. Feeling happy about some or other quality of oneself is one thing. Feeling superior about it is another. Feeling others to be inferior in that respect goes yet farther. 

Viewed in this light, the chauvinism of us, the Tamils, with regard to our language and culture is entirely understandable. It is but a repetition and perpetuation of the childhood game, “Mine is bigger!” Those of us most vociferous about the superiority of the Tamil language, literature and culture are often those barely acquainted with these. Many of us claim greatness of our language with little effort to learn and use it correctly, hail the glory of our culture but scarcely follow it, talk proudly of our ancient literature but make no effort to become learned in it.

A marked indicator of this desperate need for borrowed superiority is found where we are expected, nay, forced to swallow everything, every tiny thing, in our language, literature and culture. To take but one example, it is claimed that the Tirukkural is a universal scripture, equally applicable to all nations and perpetually relevant since ancient times till now and in the future. It is quite an obvious fact that the maxims of the Kural apply primarily to the Tamil culture of that century and, to a considerable extent, to the whole of our country. When it comes to the whole world, it is the preeminent ethical treatise with most principles relevant to other peoples, but certainly not in its entirety. Even amongst us, can anyone claim with the straight face that the Kural is completely true for us today? A patient reading of the entire work will reveal dozens of kurals not relevant to us at present. Further, our people are notorious for rejecting two of Valluvar’s fundamental principles, not eating meat, and shunning alcohol. As with Mahatma Gandhi, we throw away his principles but raise statues in his honour! 

Another example is the inability of most of us to pronounce correctly the letters zh, ll, and l, the three n-s, light, middle and heavy, as well as the two r-s, light and heavy (ழ், ள், ல்; ந், ன், ண்; ர், ற்). The less said about this, the better. It goes on merrily, even at the ever-present risk of conveying wrong meanings.

Last, but not least, what was the concept of love in ancient Tamil literature? A previously unacquainted pair must meet by divine providence, fall in love instantaneously and, if possible consummate it sexually there and then, if not soon. Thereafter, it is a series of clandestine meetings for carnal purposes, aided by the confidante of the heroine, impediments from parents, the public and calls for duty, martial, commercial or educational, calumny by the public, delays by the hero in marrying the lady since he is quite satisfied with things as they are, the distress of the heroine….the list goes on. If this is Tamil culture of yore, is it even remotely acceptable today? Today, a culture with similar values will be considered most indecent and immoral. And, even in ancient times, was it really the order of the day? Unlikely, considering premarital pregnancy was apparently never a problem then! Or, were they, as is claimed for so many areas, very advanced in contraception even in ancient times? 

Many are fond of quoting Bharati’s line:

Of all the tongues that we ken of

None becomes so sweet as does Tamil

Two points are noteworthy here. Bharati did not claim Tamil to be better than all the languages of the world. He spoke only with reference to what he knew━ remember: he was a polyglot himself. And he did not claim that Tamil is superior to others. He only declared it sweeter than them. Lastly, he did not assert Tamil to be superior ab initio, but only indicated it will become sweet, not on first acquaintance, but only with long and arduous learning. Our people claiming Tamil to be the greatest language and seeking reflected glory simply on account that they speak it borders on the ridiculous.