Tuesday, June 27, 2017


The observations on the ego structure or personality characteristics which I present here have been forced on me both in the field of psychiatric practice as well as of social and administrative interactions in general. They may have no more validity than some of the early psychoanalytic formulations. Planned, prolonged research work is essential to refute or substantiate these statements. But, it is one aspect of the culture I belong to, that it is not considered essential for any particular scientist to be at any particular post for any foreseeable length of time in order to implement certain tasks, nor has indispensability and essentiality any value as applied to a person or a work. All I can say is that my work and nerves suffered before I made a conscious dissection of my experiences. Both have been better after I understood certain elements of our  personality structure.

The following are some of the important items of background in which in individual develops in the Hindu joint family. 

a. Exposure to social relationships is spread over a number of persons - grandparents, uncles, aunts, parents, sibs, etc. The parents do not have the explicit and implicit privilege of being the sole agents for structuring social relationships and regulations for the child.

b. As the individual grows up he or she progresses through an unending series of dependency relationships with a large kinship circle although with varying degrees of intensity and duration. There is no point of time at which one can look forward to relatively free and full independent individual responsibility. 

c. Marriage does not connote a landmark to the development of a fully independent unit. It marks the beginning of a new set of relationships - the recurring decimal of dependency relationships.

d. The everlasting and ever recurring dependency relationships are governed by concepts of inhered status. A relatively rigid status concept is divorced from the concept of role.
This dissociation between status and role runs through the whole social fabric. A status is sought after because of its inherent advantages rather than because of one’s fitness to play the corresponding role. A person might like to send his son to the medical college because of the status attached to it rather than because of the son's essential fitness for it. An attendant will not sweep and a sweeper will not attend. There is little incentive to play more than one role, thus considerably limiting total energy output.

e. A people evolve a philosophy and a philosophy conditions the people. A child in the family is inevitably, if never persistently or systematically, exposed to certain concepts about life, existence, death, etc. Very rarely is a child excluded from participation in the full social life of the family - discussions, quarrels, compromises. A very deceptive permissiveness in the manner and method of exposure covers up the tenacity with which these concepts influence a person from birth to death, especially in moments of crises. The Gita and Ramayana display the ideal. Pseudosophisticated denials of allegiance to this ideal or the concepts they illustrate, especially by certain intellectuals in their contact with Western colleagues, does not alter this point of reference from the lowest to the highest in the land: Concepts of Dharma, Maya, Karma, Atma or Soul, God. Rebirth and the great legends of Ramayana and Mahabharata have great relevance to understanding of the Hindu personality - much more so than is the understanding of Greek Mythology or the Bible for assessing the British patient. 

f. Sex differences operate within the above concepts. As of old, so today, a variety of attitudes is possible and prevalent. It can produce a Prime Minister or an extremely docile, tyrannised servant of the joint family.

This background has a bearing on the personality characteristics that develop therein. The description requires clarification of the orientation, the point of view from which the description is being made, since all description is comparative. The description here is from the point of view of characteristics that have bearing on psychotherapy and possibility of group cohesion. No more value judgement is implied. Moreover, it must be remembered that each culture produces plus characteristics and cues and minus characteristics and cues when viewed from particular points of view. In general it is also true that there will be a larger number showing the negative rather than positive features from point of view of personality maturity.

The Ego-Structure

In an earlier paragraph I had already pointed out the disadvantages of describing a personality structure in terms like the ego developed in a different set of referents. However, for the present, I shall content myself with proceeding on the existing pattern.

Ego boundaries 

I. The concept of ‘mine’, ‘not mine’ is poorly developed. In an average, large, joint family what rightly belongs to one and what does not is never clearly demarcated. Such insistence will be branded as selfishness. When this person comes out, as in hostel life and so on, two opposite trends come to the fore: very defensive hanging on to one's own self and possessions or a very liberal misuse or overuse of one's own and other’s time and property. As stated, this question of ‘mine’ - ‘not mine’ boundary applies not only to material possessions but also to the time, thoughts and emotions too. This attitude can be quite stressful for group existence where all have similar anticipations. 

Another corollary to this is that one's efforts need not be commensurate with the rewards. There is no relationship. You may earn more, but you may eat less. Those who work less and eat more are naturally more numerous. You need not work if you so choose. A detached, efficient work ungeared to the benefits from it becomes the ideal. The cultural enforces it, the philosophy supports it. If you work ten times harder then the next, then it is no special virtue.

II. Basic strength of the ego: In the joint family the child, then the adolescent is a uniquely valued one. The child is rarely exposed to the need to wait for anything or to stand any frustration for any length of time. Any educative frustration attempted by one member of the family is soon mollified by the protective attention by another member.

Moreover, someone or other is always telling the child that it is the best - if not really the best, then the neighbour’s children are not so good either.

In later life this leads to:

Saturday, May 20, 2017


I. Transcultural psychiatry is a concept that should yield dividends​ to the extent that it implies a real two-way transaction if not integration. In practice, for a variety of historical reasons, this transaction might degenerate into a one-way induction of conceptual frameworks, axioms and implications that have acquired prestige in the economically well developed countries. This pitfall is all the greater when all the participants have had their basic training in these countries and when their very fitness to practice the profession and expound it had to be so certified in terms of the text books, teachers and concepts of these countries. This is not to preach chauvinism but to pinpoint a fact of essential importance to trans cultural transactions in mental health. It requires conscious, sincere efforts to overcome this. Otherwise we will be manufacturing mental health concepts about whole masses of peoples by distortion at more than one level - at the level of language itself whereby all real transactions with these peoples is first translated into a different language and then this material is further tortured into concepts and terms that are presently acceptable semantic currency in the West.

No wonder, then, when quite a number of psychiatrists​, not only psychiatrists​, but other technologists, too, in the economically backward countries face frustration when their jargon fails them in day-to-day contact, and when their value systems, lightly worn as one wears a suit, rarely apply to themselves or to the persons they contact. Dr Bulatao’s concept of split-level personality in the Filipino has some reference to this state of affairs.

II. There is an implied belief that the many ills of the economically backward countries are due to some sort of cultural deficit and that we have the authority or the power to change this. It is sometimes taken for granted that that technologic progress  induces large scale changes in the cultural and personality characteristics. This is very doubtful. It is only necessary to visualise the large scale technologic progress and yet note the very material differences in basic cultural and personality traits that have persisted. Culture subdues and masters a technology; technology merely touches the superficial aspects of behaviour. It is true that many Indians today sit at table and have their dinner instead of squatting on the floor. It is also true that many of them ride in a car instead of in a bullock cart. All this does not automatically make them German or American riding in the automobile.

The rapidity with which a technology spreads in a culture depends on leadership which can consciously utilize the available cultural cues for adequate motivation. One cannot import leadership as one can import radar equipment. Not only for the purposes of psychiatric practice, but for the larger purposes of leadership training cultural studies are imperative. They are also imperative for transcultural integration and creative resolution of transcultural conflicts.

III. Apparently scientific and objective papers from Western authority on transcultural matters are loaded with terms, words, and implications that are value laden. This is unavoidable, perhaps, but indefensible and requires conscious effort in the interests of both science as well as transcultural understanding. Some examples follow:

  1. Literacy is unconsciously permitted to be an index of positive cultural maturity. Events of the Second World War, for instance, the concentration camps and brutalities and psychopathic murders, the emergence of dictatorships go to show that literacy is desirable but has no relevance to positive cultural maturity or even to sound democracy.
  2. The adjective “superstition” is applied to beliefs that are not current in one's own culture. The fundamental, basic fact is denied, pushed away, that all normal perception is based on  omission and addition of objectively non-existent data. The respectable words ‘selectivity of perception’; ‘mental set’; ‘situational set’; anything but hallucination is used for this purpose. Each culture chooses its own areas of selectivity of perception and experience, and their own criteria of reality. Greater care is needed in using such words as superstition, hallucination etc., in reference to cultures and peoples as a whole.
  3. The word “primitive”, too, requires some care when being used to apply to a people or culture as a whole or even to generations of the past.

IV. Some transcultural studies seem to be mainly occupied with the study of behavioural abstractions derived from the study of:
  1. so called average representatives of a people;
  2. from clinical populations;
  3. paranormal phenomena in the culture.

This would be an excellent thing in itself if merely  some kind of observation was the sole aim. If the aim, however, is to obtain abstractions, extract principles that should help in the positive changes in the people or in the patient, if the aim were some kind of preventive or curative action then one should consider more deeply the adequacy of this approach.

Each culture provides positive and negative cues in modes of reaction leading to integrative and creative behaviour in the culture. It also provides how positively and negatively to meet threatening changes. But, in all cultures a majority of the people can only represent the negative or lower levels of behaviour - so to say a vast majority become reflex victims of their own culture. Only a minority are the reflective, conscious representatives of the best in their , so to say the leadership. The codes are provided by the religion, philosophy and such other structures.

There has been a pronounced tendency to studiously avoid the study of the successful leaders and representatives of a culture. If one were really concerned with studying how people fail, it is one thing. The picture would be incomplete if one also did not study how people succeed. To say that we should only study the rock bottom average sample of a culture is statistically sound but it would be like studying a car by its average parts and neglecting its engine. The successful leadership in a culture, the ideals that have grown in the culture and thrown them forward are the engines of a culture.

I humbly suggest that a concentrated anthropological study of the elite of a culture is an urgent necessity.

The dynamics of adaptive failure have to be studied against the dynamics of adaptive successes.

V. Most transcultural studies involve the use of questionnaires arrived at in a Western setting, and sample areas of behaviour meaningful to them. Such questionnaires are then applied to a different culture. A concession to culture is made by conceding a translation, often laboriously arrived at. However, mere translation does not solve the problem: For example, questions on psycho-sexual maturity, management of hostility and so on. But it is conceivable that a particular culture does not give the same emphasis or significance to this zone of behaviour.

More damaging is the interpretation placed on such grafted questionnaires, whether in terms of pathology or diagnosis.

VI. Equally unhelpful are the studies that laboriously demonstrate the similarity between all cultures. Such spurious similarity is reassuring about possibilities of transcultural cooperation and harmony but hardly convincing in the face of hard realities which abound with differences in their implications as evidenced by our present world.

It is of utmost importance to our existence that real differences are apprehended and understand. Whenever a transcultural study highlights the similarity one must seriously ask:
  1. Is it an artefact of the questionnaire;
  2. Have we omitted significant areas, that is to say significant to a particular culture.

Having arrived at conclusions by use of one-way loaded questionnaires the situation is made worse by implying remedial actions based on experience in the dominant culture.

VII. For transcultural study I might be permitted to suggest (all suggestions are only too easy, I know!) the following:

Whenever transcultural study is presented, let us say an American Psychiatric or Psychological study of the Japanese character structure, the same team should study a comparable American group, and preferably by questionnaires drawn up by a Japanese team as to what they consider is a proper character eliciting questionnaire. Whenever situations permit, this would be the ideal way of extracting meaningful variables and differences.

VIII. The true value of transcultural studies will evade us if such studies were to occupy themselves with attempts to reduce all phenomena encountered to words and terms already accepted and familiar to us. This is very necessary, no doubt. But, the qualitative richness of phenomena is lost if some energy were not expended in understanding the differences in the phenomenon encountered.

In constructing or operating personality theories it is highly uneconomical, and unproductive and even disadvantageous to start with well developed concepts imported from outside and then to attempt laborious amendment and annotation. This does not touch even the fringe of the problem. One has not to neglect the broad high roads of thinking, acting, theories of personality, one's own culture has accepted - one has to travel this road and by intensive and extensive interaction with the people make the necessary amendments and deviations. The tardiness with which our (Indian) technologic leadership moves is because of this perpetual activity of amending borrowed conceptual plumes instead of walking, so to say, with one’s people before pretending to lead them.

I can not enough emphasize this point. For example, even the word ‘ego’ is too much in current respectable use to be challenged as a concept. However, one should not forget the whole network of associations and uses this word has acquired are rooted in a socio cultural historic setting and philosophies and practices relevant to that. The word ‘Aham’ in Sanskrit, is not an equivalent. An Indian operates with this word, its implication and anticipations. The Indian Psychiatrist who tries to interpret Indian personality and interacts with the whole conceptual head loads based on the word ego can hardly have transactional influence on questions of mental health of his people. This is but one example. The Indian psychiatrist (with the split-level personality) finds it natural and incumbent on him to laboriously get his whole people measured on the Procrustean bed of the concept ego to get the word Aham and its implications across.

This is no mere verbal jugglery - but has interactional reality. And this is but one example.

IX. In the universe of possible experiences each culture seems to be influenced by definite sets. Within each culture there might be subgroups which share ways of experiencing with another major culture. It is unfortunate, but true, that cultural practices and modes of experiencing that acquired dominance tend to suppress other practices and experiences. The Malleus Maleficarum for a long span of history successfully suppressed scientific thought in Europe. Subtly but equally successfully the present day scientific fashion blocks all thinking that is outside its technologic and methodologic sovereignty.

Some cultures are deeply influenced by experience of and belief in forms of consciousness and powers that may be beyond our sense-limited universe of perception. Serious students of mental health cannot avoid discussion of this area. However, most research in transcultural fields take it to easily for granted that such experiences are merely psychological artefacts and expend the whole of attention in reducing observations on these experiences into accepted psychological terminology.

It will be naive to decry the scientific method. It would be equally naive to ignore the heavy cultural bias that certain lines of scientific inquiry acquire during the course of history. It would be very deep detrimental to the progress of the scientific understanding of human behaviour. In the field of transcultural mental health it is premature to lay down binding dicta on what should be the criteria for calling a work scientific. It is too easy to deceive oneself into thinking that one’s preferred mode of perceptual organisation is the only valid one especially when international organisations and funds in the field of research have a heavy bias with certain dominant trends. Conscious effort is needed to overcome this.

X. As a continuing student of psychiatry and presently involved in teaching I may be permitted to remark as under:

We psychiatrists have taken great pains to point to the dehumanising pseudo-scientific influence to which the medical graduate is subjected during his medical college career. But somehow, looking at the zeal with which psychiatric research uses the word ‘detached’ ‘objective’, ‘statistical rigour’ and installs them as exclusive criteria for respectability in psychiatric research one wonders if we are not letting the devil in through the back door the very one which we exorcise in public with trumpets and fanfare. The orthodoxy of the newly converted is well known. The so called idolatry of the ‘detached observer’ is having baneful effect on the trainees from the developing countries. Their medical college education has already dehumanised them. The further from their people the better is ‘scientific detachment’. Their psychiatric training should help to correct this. But psychiatry’s new found enthusiasm for ‘detachment’ produces further grotesque departures and when they come back to their operational work in the field their respect for statistical tables and dessicated formularies regarding human behaviour is truly amazing and the zeal for getting into print doing research is hardly matched by the patience and perseverance necessary to understand and help. I have great respect for the ‘scientific method’, but I also plead against the subtle implication that all workers and work in the field of mental health that do not fit in with this is somehow automatically an inferior zone. Senior teachers in psychiatry have a duty to seriously ponder over this - the sociology of research respectability.

Friday, May 12, 2017


Concentration exercises of some kind or the other have a favoured place in the pursuit of self-realization.

I find that all these exercises require a great deal of preparatory training in order to avoid some fundamental pitfalls.

Constriction is man's basic disease. Basically man is constantly on the defensive against the world. His defensive reactions are most often a response to the aggressive designs he himself has against the world. Each one of us has a certain view of what we want from the world, and how the world around us should run. The world rarely collaborates in this: in fact, it tries to protect itself from the attentions of the person concerned. Whenever the world refuses to accept your wishes, and this is so often, you can examine the content of your consciousness, and see its very aggressive and destructive quality. In the so called excellent persons, this hatred of what one does not like may put on internally and externally the crusaders garb. But the body’s response is in this sequence: The world or the other fellow does not fall in line with your desire, however well meaning it might be: this poses a threat: frustration, anger, aggression, remorse, depression - in varying type of cycles result. Whatever the origin, the responses is almost instinctive constriction - mental, muscular and vascular. This constant, unchecked constriction caused by the fundamental hostility of man to his environment is at the base of most of man's chronic diseases, and disabilities that cripple; and of the miserable three score and ten allots to himself.

Expensive polygraphs are not needed to appreciate this process.

Now this constricting reaction has so ingrained itself in behaviour, that as soon as a person sits down to meditate or concentrate, a powerful constrictive reaction sets in. Many even measure the intensity of their meditation by the degree of type tension they experience.

It should be seen that the object of self-realization is to liberate man from the stifling, tight knot into which his ego-isolation has landed him. The aim of all the methods suggested is to loosen up and widen himself to wider and wider awareness of the universe. Concentration is one of the methods. But unfortunately, many look upon concentration as a means of shutting out the world; of reducing inputs, of constricting awareness. This might be a necessary part of the technique, but not the object. This must be remembered.

Concentration that is accompanied by, or that leads to perceptible constriction of one's body, or a perception of intense ‘effort’ should be discarded. It is another of the ego-tricks of self deception, giving a spiritual cloak to its habitual isolation from the world, or infantile grasping reactions.

It should be emphasized that if this care is not taken, concentration exercises can lead to trouble. This is understood, when we know note that no great spiritual leader ever recommended a technique of concentration to any person who has not undergone a lot of preliminary discipline in his relations with the world, without the disciple having become clear in his mind and behaviour with regard to the goals.

Enlarging one’s self in ever widening circles of compassion, joy, harmony and oneness with the world around is the goal of spirituality; and spiritual practice is to train the body to express this all-embracing wideness which is diametrically opposed to the responses of man as he is today. This training or retraining may be aided by many ways - conscious control of behaviour aided by creative imagination for one example.

Concentration is one technique - whose aim is to liberate the awareness to wider, deeper and higher circles of effectivity. Narrowing the awareness is perhaps a phase of the technique, but not its goal.

It can be undertaken with safety by one who has come to a disciplined and relaxed agreement with the world around him by a process of prolonged​ discipline. A person who has not come to terms with the world around him or acquired the simple skills of cooperative and harmonious relations with the ordinary world around, and with his ordinary perceptron and awareness of this world is, very often, fortunately for him, unable to acquire the full capacity for concentration. But if he does, and new levels of awareness descend on him, he has not the skill to handle the material, as his body has not even learnt to deal with the ordinary things around, and damage of some kind is the result.

The safe rule is - not to forget your aim of realising the oneness with the world. If you cannot feel a sense of perfect relaxation when sitting down in concentration, give up the goal of concentration and examine the reasons behind your tension, and take measures to get over the constricting tension and the underlying ego-needs behind it.

This unconscious jargon is bunk. You don't require an analyst's​ couch to know what you are thinking feeling or desiring. To get as much as possible at the cheapest price is one root of trouble. Thus you have not succeeded in the world's market. So you come to the spiritual bazaar - you want to get tremendous powers and experiences and recognition as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Remember the Sufi saying:

'Oh, you, who build a tall house on foundations of sand, tremble while you enter it!’ I should add, ‘if you unfortunately succeed in ever building it! God protect you from your own greed!’ exclamation mark