Over time, I have noticed a pattern in the people I like to listen to.
They come from very different backgrounds. Some are scientists, some historians, professors, writers, activists, journalists or public intellectuals. Some speak about religion and mythology. Others talk about politics, war, society, media, science, economics or human rights.
Yet I find myself returning to a similar kind of voice.
I like people who make me think, rather than simply telling me what to think.
Curiosity before certainty
I am particularly drawn to speakers who are willing to question things that are normally accepted without examination.
Religion.
Tradition.
Nationalism.
Political ideology.
History.
Social customs.
Media narratives.
Even our own assumptions.
I don't necessarily need the speaker to reach the same conclusion that I would.
What matters more to me is the process of getting there.
What is the evidence?
Where did this idea come from?
Who wrote this history?
Why did people start believing it?
What changed over time?
Who benefits from this interpretation?
What happens to ordinary people because of it?
Those questions are often more interesting to me than the final answer.
Science and the human mind
This is one reason I enjoy science-oriented speakers such as Vaishakhan Thampi.
I am fascinated by the way science can be used to examine things that otherwise appear purely philosophical or religious.
The brain.
Consciousness.
Belief.
Superstition.
Evolution.
Human behaviour.
Why do human beings believe in supernatural explanations?
How does the brain construct meaning?
Why do societies preserve particular stories for thousands of years?
Where does genuine knowledge end and speculation begin?
These are fascinating questions because they connect science with everyday human life.
History is not the same as mythology
I am also attracted to thinkers who examine mythology and religion historically and culturally.
This is where speakers such as Sunil P. Ilayidom become interesting to me.
The Ramayana is a good example.
I grew up thinking about "the Ramayana" as though there were one fixed story.
But there are many Ramayana traditions across India and Asia. Even Malayalam has different Ramayana literary traditions.
Then another question emerges:
How did these stories change?
Why does one version describe an event differently from another?
Why does Sita have different theological meanings in different traditions?
Why does one version emphasise Rama's humanity while another emphasises his divinity?
Why do later traditions introduce ideas that aren't present in earlier texts?
These questions don't necessarily require us to either worship the story or reject it.
We can simply study it.
A great epic can be simultaneously a religious text, a literary work, a cultural memory and a historical object of study.
That complexity interests me.
People who examine power
My interest isn't limited to religion.
I also find myself drawn to people such as Arundhati Roy, Teesta Setalvad and Ram Puniyani, who examine questions of power, communalism, human rights, state institutions, inequality and political narratives.
What interests me isn't simply agreeing with them.
It is the willingness to ask uncomfortable questions:
What happens when governments become too powerful?
What happens to minorities when political identity becomes more important than citizenship?
How does propaganda work?
How does communal fear develop?
How are historical memories used politically?
What happens to people who don't have institutional power?
These questions matter regardless of which political party happens to be in power.
Media and manufactured narratives
This is also why I find Prof. Deepa Kumar interesting.
Her work on media, Islamophobia, the Middle East, imperialism and political narratives provides another lens through which to examine how public opinion is constructed.
The interesting question isn't simply:
"Is this media outlet right or wrong?"
It is:
"How does a particular narrative become normal?"
What gets repeated?
What gets omitted?
Which images are shown?
Which vocabulary is used?
Whose suffering receives attention?
Who gets described as a victim?
Who gets described as a threat?
Once you start looking at information this way, media itself becomes something worth studying.
I also like voices that explain ordinary people
Another part of my taste is people who can take complicated subjects and connect them to ordinary human experience.
This is where people such as Neha Bora appeal to me.
I enjoy speakers who can take a subject that initially appears abstract and make me think about it in terms of actual human beings, relationships, society and everyday life.
That quality matters.
Intellectual discussion doesn't have to sound like a university lecture.
Sometimes the most useful thinker is the person who can explain a complicated social question in a way that makes you recognise something you have seen in your own life.
But I don't want an echo chamber
There is one important qualification.
I don't want to listen only to people who agree with me.
That would be intellectually comfortable but intellectually dangerous.
Someone can be correct about one subject and completely wrong about another.
A historian can have political biases.
A scientist can make philosophical claims beyond their scientific expertise.
An activist can overlook inconvenient evidence.
A journalist can have an editorial perspective.
A politician can manipulate facts.
A religious scholar can interpret tradition selectively.
And a person whose politics I strongly dislike can occasionally make an excellent argument.
So I don't want a collection of people who provide me with a ready-made worldview.
I want a collection of people who provide me with different lenses.
My intellectual bookshelf is therefore somewhat unusual
If I were to describe it roughly, it might look something like this:
Science and scientific temper
Vaishakhan Thampi and other science communicators.
History and civilisation
Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and historians who examine evidence rather than simply repeating inherited narratives.
Religion and society
Ram Puniyani and thinkers examining the relationship between religion, politics and society.
Literature, mythology and culture
Sunil P. Ilayidom and scholars who examine epics as evolving cultural traditions.
Human rights and civil liberties
Teesta Setalvad and others documenting the consequences of violence, discrimination and institutional power.
Politics, inequality and state power
Arundhati Roy and other writers willing to challenge powerful institutions.
Media and geopolitics
Deepa Kumar and thinkers examining propaganda, representation and international politics.
Everyday society and human behaviour
Speakers such as Neha Bora, who bring intellectual questions closer to ordinary human experience.
And beyond India, there are people such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, David Graeber and others whose work opens different windows into power, history, economics and society.
These people are not one school of thought.
That's precisely what I like about them.
What I am really looking for
Perhaps my taste can be reduced to a few principles.
I like evidence over assertion.
Questions over slogans.
Human beings over ideology.
History over invented memory.
Scientific curiosity over superstition.
Human rights over tribal identity.
Critical thinking over blind loyalty.
And most importantly:
the freedom to change one's mind when better evidence appears.
I don't want someone to give me a complete worldview and ask me to accept it.
I would rather listen to someone who gives me a new question.
Because sometimes a good question is more valuable than a confident answer.
The kind of intellectual I want to keep listening to
Not necessarily the person who agrees with me.
Not necessarily the person who is famous.
Not necessarily the person who calls themselves rational.
Rather, the person who makes me pause after the video ends and think:
"I had never looked at it that way before."
That, more than anything else, is probably the kind of speaker I enjoy.
Comments
Post a Comment