Ground Report

J Bronowski’s elucidation of man in a segment of his work: The Identity of Man, is worth giving a thought. He simply starts with a neutral proposition ‘that man is a part of nature’ which none of us would deny and can go on to argue that how actually ‘he’ is. Bronowski assimilates the categorical kinds of people living in the world as: the Bible readers and the agnostics, the Sunday strollers and the earnest haunters of the museums, and states none of the above mentioned category would deny the primal proposition. Truly, neither a religious person nor a person who lives with a dilemma of God or no God, neither a man who lives his life enjoying every bit and piece, nor a person who spends his days searching for newer truths that lie beneath the historical garb, will deny this seemingly self-evident fact. Who can dare to say that man is not a part of nature, just as ‘stone is or a cactus or a camel’? Because there is no logic against this we tend to accept that man is a part of nature.

This very primal proposition is a ‘bland proposition’ because it has become a taken for granted verbatim but, it has the ability to rift our speech from our feelings. Because, ‘to assert that man is a part of nature (is to) deny that he is unique’. At a surface level this second assertion also seems to be true but in our deeds it never gets reflected. The ancient man always wanted to underscore that he is ‘unique’, ‘cast from birth in a supernatural mould’, ‘larger than life’, ‘larger than nature’ and what not. For him this primal bland proposition was a heresy, and to subjugate it he made many men to end up their life-journey at stakes. This ‘renaissance extravagance’, as a thought, is now part and parcel of the commonest registers of the world. The modern man accepts that man is not unique he is not larger than life neither is he cast out from a supernatural mold, but does not agrees when it comes to deeds.

Just imagine accepting that you are equal to dog, pig or any animal on this planet because of the fact that you are not unique. Argument against this could be that just like the parts of body, they are many and have different roles to play; we also co-exist: then co-existing must not mean any kind of discrimination. If our mind places more importance to face than to our foot than mind has no right to do so because it itself is a part of body, just like hand, feet, face etc. I cannot advocate what should or can be done to eliminate discrimination, I have no intentions to debate either but the question is about man’s hypocrisy. Why should I emphasize and neutralize a sentiment when I have to shun it midway because it cannot be accepted in terms of universality. Man says that he is equal to all things in nature but decides the destiny of trees, of mountains, of rivers, of animals and of… . Why can’t he simply accept that he is unique and larger than life, whom is he trying to fool and get be-fooled in return?