POWER IN THE NATURAL WORLD

Some thoughts that came to me, after watching the documentary 'A Plastic Ocean': 

Power is an inseparable element of every natural conflict. “A Plastic Ocean” reminds us, yet again, of the power structures in the natural world. Just like the omnivores that Guha and Gadgil describe in ‘Ecology and Equity’, who exploit resources excessively but rarely face the deadly consequences of their actions; ‘A Plastic Ocean’ takes us into a world were all humankind are merciless omnivores, while the animal kingdom bears the brunt for our actions. 

We consume tonnes of plastic as packaging in our daily lives for the sake of ease and conveniently dispose of these, into the open; clearing up our kitchen, our houses, and our neighborhood. Though we like to believe, these plastics are no longer our problem, once they are out of our sight, this is far from the truth. Traces of these plastics will exist on the phase of earth, even longer than our time on the planet, and most of it eventually ends up in our oceans, which are home to mute sea creatures. 

Plastics never completely decompose on their own. However, they break down into extremely small pieces that cannot be viewed easily nor removed from the environment. These are called microplastics. Though micro in size, they are creating macro problems in the environment. According to a 2018 UN report, there are more than 51 trillion microplastic particles in the sea, more than 500 times the number of stars in the Milky Way. Unlike macro-sized plastic waste, microplastics are insidious as they are invisible to us. They are said to be washed out of cosmetic products with microbeads such as face washes and scrubs. Research into microplastics and their effects are still very much in its infancy. These microplastics are readily ingested by small aquatic organisms like shellfish such as oysters and clams, which recent studies have shown to damage the gills of these species. 

A Plastic Ocean touches upon the problems faced by oceanic life due to the rise of plastic in our seas. One of the most affected species of marine life are whales. Beaked whales and sperm whales are amongst the most affected, both species known to consume squid. Due to the close resemblance of plastic bags to squids, these animals are seen to consume large amounts of plastic. Plankton, known to be the primary food source for many aquatic species, is now getting tough competition from plastic. Recent estimates suggest that Plankton is now at a 2:1 ratio with plastic and if current trends of plastic growth and disposal continue, this will result in plastic outweighing the number of fish in the ocean by 2050. 

Over the past decade, numerous whales have washed up on shores across the world, starved and dehydrated, with their stomachs strangled with plastic waste. Scientists have found plastic bags, gloves, snack bags, and even large tangles of nylon ropes and nets used by fisherfolk in the intestines of whales, resulting in them strangling to death, unable to eat anything. But whales aren’t the only victims of the plastic crisis. It is their large size that makes the issue visible; smaller creatures also ingest plastics in the form of microplastic in large quantities. However, the smaller the species, the lesser we know about the effects that have played out on them. This is reflective of the power dynamics in nature.

Though the ocean is the world’s largest landfill, animals on land are not safe from the menace of plastic waste created by omnivores. These are concerning times were animals fiddling with plastic bags and containers has resulted in viral videos. Food containers were generally made for knives or spoons to be dipped into them, or to have their contents poured out and certainly not for serving up to hungry animals. An animal with its head stuck in a plastic food container may suffer from overheating, suffocation, dehydration, starvation, and eventually even death from these elements. Amongst animals that live in close proximity to plastic waste and human settlements, consumption of plastic packaging while eating left-over packaged food is also a rising issue. This has resulted in the death of many wild animals in the last decade. However, with the closer proximity to human settlements, the plastic consumption by animals has been taken note of, by forest officials, across the globe. To prevent such hazards in most protected forests, visitors are not allowed to carry plastic bags or bottles into the forest. In the pyramid of power, in the natural world, terrestrial animals and wildlife are still bearing the brunt of our actiopns, but are comparatively well off to marine life. 

Towards the end, A Plastic Ocean shows us the impacts of plastic waste on human life in different parts of the world. Islands like Tuvalu in Polynesia, are reminders for us omnivores, of what is going to happen to our lands soon, if we don’t act fast. Borrow Pit area in Tuvalu, occupied by just 30 people, is drowning in plastic waste. Since 2010, among the 30 inhabitants of the island, 5 have contracted cancer, signifying the level of toxicity in the area. The natives are not the primary creators of this waste, most of it is oceanic waste, which rushes up against the island. These people are bearing the brunt of our actions. Tuvalu is not alone, many other third world countries are today becoming landfills. International news agencies have also reported shipping of plastic waste from richer countries to the poorer, further reflecting the power dynamics of waste. 

Halfway through the documentary, I wasn’t alone in feeling relieved that I was an omnivore, living my best life in the Global North, free from the effects of plastic waste and toxic chemicals. However, like me, none of us are completely free of the impacts of plastics. Some of these after-effects will be borne by every citizen on the phase of this planet. Like, air pollution affected the rich and the poor of Delhi on varied scales, the same applies here. Nobody can escape scath free from this mess, we’ve created for ourselves. BPA or Bisphenol A is a popular chemical found in plastic food containers, baby toys, and hygiene products. When BPA products are made, not all of the BPA gets sealed into the product, allowing parts of it to break free and mix with the container’s contents. BPA is said to mimic the structure and function of the hormone estrogen, due to its estrogen-like shape. BPA can bind to estrogen receptors and influence bodily processes, such as growth, cell repair, fetal development, and reproduction. Studies have found high levels of BPA amongst people consuming packaged food items, resulting in further health complications. 

Though all may seem grim in ‘A Plastic Ocean’, the documentary also offers some hope of sustainable plastic management strategies. Pyrogenesis seemed to provide the most practical solution. Pyrogenesis is a company that uses a plasma torch for the destruction of combustible waste including plastic. The only residue produced is ash, while the heat produced by the machine can be captured and reused by the community, being a completely sustainable solution to the plastic crisis. However, the private company is still struggling to take this technology globally and has a long way forward to solving the problem. If they do become successful in doing so, this could improve lives worldwide. 

Watching ‘A Plastic Ocean’, is truly an experience that will shape your values and habits. It drives in consciousness, of using plastic use and management, and serves its purpose well. It reminds us once again of our omnivorous lifestyle, without concern for those below us in this power hierarchy of nature. As the creators of this problem, we need to hold ourselves responsible for these effects. As the most powerful community of consumers, only we can work together and solve this crisis before it impacts our lives and livelihoods, the way it has taken over islands like Tuvalu. “Plastic packaging destroyed our paradise,” said an elderly woman from Tuvalu, it won’t be long before Our beautiful planet meets the fate of Tuvalu if we don’t act soon. 

RECEPTION, TRAVEL AND THEORY

Critical thinking, unlike thinking in general, refers to the ability for realizing the differences and similarities between the objects of analysis – from the academic to one’s everyday surroundings, empathizing with the Other(s), and most importantly evaluating things from multiple viewpoints and perspectives. It is a deeper thought, processed through your heart, rather than just your brain, that involves putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes and thinking using all your senses.

Critical thinking is about material things that you can touch, feel, and visualize. You can merely think through texts, you cannot make a direct emotional connection with the printed word. Reading texts is more about following the author’s biases while artefacts and images are raw and give you the whole picture. You get to visualise perspectives and find your truth, which resonates with you and only yourself.
For instance, horrifying images from war have a significant impact on society. If a newspaper published an image of a war-torn of a kid, it wouldn’t let the viewers know what exactly happened, but the photograph would create an emotional connection in the minds of the viewers and stimulate empathy.  Similarly, visualize the same war was featured in the same newspaper, in a report form - It would give you knowledge about the event, but it wouldn’t create feelings of empathy, the way the image of the young kid did. This verifies that the language of form is superior to the language of words, as it allows you to communicate emotions, rather than just facts. 
The case of an artefact or an object is especially significant in that, when apprehended it evokes in the perceiver a certain attitude towards the reality which resonates with the maker’s attitude. This work of art can be treated as an autonomous artistic sign which acts as an effective link with the culture that called it into being, because of our shared physiological experience as perceivers and our sensory overlap with the maker. Studying artefacts allows you to avoid and step out of the confines of your own cultural biases. Undertaking cultural interpretations through artefacts allows you to engage in another culture not with your mind but with your senses. This allows us to put ourselves in the skins of individuals who made or used these objects, to see with their eyes and touch with their hands. Unlike texts, which merely give a superficial understanding of things, artefacts can give you a complete picture. This complete picture is a prerequisite to critical thinking.
 Getting a complete picture is not about being deeply absorbed in the environment; this is not the way to theorise. When it comes to theorizing about one’s objects of observation,  it is thought that theoretical ideas are traced to and seen embedded in experiential fieldwork – when you ‘are there’ - this exercise is however, more about the practice of comparative theorizing. And to theorize in this manner, a critical distance is a necessity. This critical distance is what helps an ethnographer distinguish between the familiar and the unfamiliar, helping us arrive at a different perspective and thereby prompting us to think critically. While ‘being there’ makes possible a certain way of thinking, it is ‘not being there’ that opens the doors to thinking critically. 
Theorizing is a work of critical thinking and perspective analysis. And these perspectives come to life only when we take the time to reflect between differences and similarities. In Nietzsche’s words, only through “the other shore,” and the worlds less familiar, will a traveller come to understand his or her own culture fully. And these perspectives will become visible to our minds only by maintaining this critical distance. Another peculiarity about this reflective exercise is that every individual reflects differently and arrives at different theoretical ideas. And these may even depend on the individual’s specific time and place. These reflective activities are drivers of high order thinking skills. 
This critical distance required for realizing differences can be achieved in numerous ways.  And, not being there permits us to take multiple perspectives and viewpoints, consciously or unconsciously, allowing us to dissect ideas, which physical presence may have left unnoticed. Not being there is your brain’s natural critical thinking mechanism, which drives creative thought and vicarious travel, making your mind aware of various new and unexplored dimensions.  
Critical distances are an essential part of thinking critically. These distances can be of any form, physical distances, emotional distances and even ideological distances. One’s response to difference, is how you react to this distance. One who lacks higher order thinking abilities, will recognise differences and then alienate oneself from the distances. While a critical thinker, will acknowledge the differences, and use this critical distance to his/her advantage. 
The act of acceptance is all about acknowledging the differences and tolerating them while focusing on the similarities. The similarities may be small and minute, but prioritizing them over the differences, is the key to acceptance. Even though it can be universally agreed upon that no two people are the same, as a community we possess common traits of humanity within us which cut across divisions of race, ideologies, culture, and creed.
Meanwhile, rejection is an outright dismissal of similarities, and not being able to look past the differences. Over-emphasizing the differences and failing to look at the commonalities is the basis for rejecting something. Rejection comes from a lack of critical thinking. It usually leads to marginalization and discrimination and the root cause for it is usually the belief that one is superior to the ‘other’.
Acceptance is about accepting somebody for who they are and acknowledging the “Otherness” in them – that makes them different from you. Acceptance is often confused with appropriation. Like the Jews in France, who are forced every day to become less Jewish and more ‘French’. In their race to gain acceptance, and no longer be discriminated against, they are forced to lose their true identity- as Jewish people. However, what they gain is not acceptance. They may be allowed to become a part of this society, but they are no longer themselves - their differences have vanished, and they are just one among the millions of Frenchmen who speak one language and follow one lord. They are no longer the “other” among the crowds.
Acceptance is not about reducing these differences, but about recognising the differences as a part of the person. Somebody who has been accepted into a particular community will never hold the same status as a native member - they will always be the “Other”, who is perceived as being in the group but not of the group. George Simmel describes a stranger as one who unites distance and closeness. The stranger's distance renders anything close distant while his closeness renders everything distant close. He is an insider and an outsider at one and the same time, an advantage only the accepted members receive. And this is what the ethnographers need to possess while theorizing: A critical distance while remaining immersed.
This is where appropriation differs from acceptance - it crushes the differences and the critical distance that those differences brought with them. This critical distance is what promoted critical thinking and gave the stranger the possession of objectivity and a bias-free thought process. This objectivity is what allows him to be open and free, both intimate and withdrawn, close yet far from the people of the group. The idea that you can accept a person despite their differences is what counts as true acceptance. That said, you can only receive and be open to the idea of acceptance if you are able to rise above the differences and see the similarities. Between any group of people, things or ideologies, there are a set of similarities amid the existing differences. And these similarities are what as human beings we can empathize with.
Many may argue that acceptance is impossible in circumstances where the ‘Other’ is one’s enemy. However, an enemy is somebody who you have a difference of opinion with. Being an enemy doesn’t extinguish the idea that you may have similarities with the person. Above all, you are people who share common traits of humanity. Regardless of the person's background and ideology, if you get a complete picture of a person and recognise why they follow such an ideology, you are sure to express humanitarian concerns for each other. You may not agree with any of their views and you may even still think of them as your enemy on some grounds, but after critically thinking about it, you will eventually come to terms with it, and choose the path of acceptance. 
Individuals who are able to see similarities in the midst of the differences, have the capacity of empathizing with different others. They possess critical thinking capacities, to accept and humanise. As a professor, I hope my students come to accept my ideas on reception, travel and theory, as one of the multiple viewpoints that they shall visualise through thinking critically. I hope that this critical distance from my biases, that the lockdown has given them, pushes them to think critically, beyond me and their classroom. They shall be a part of the classroom but not in the classroom; They shall have classes on zoom and I aspire that they shall think using all their senses, respond and accept their classmates' viewpoints and above all learn, to accept each other for their thoughts. 

IPL: Non-Disruptive Innovation

 IPL as a non-disruptive innovation

The Indian Premier League is an example of how all innovation is not necessarily disruptive. 

IPL cannot be considered a disruptive innovation because it does not disrupt any existing market. Yes, it did postpone the releases of many Indian movies. However, rather than disrupting an existing industry, IPL is creating a new market of its own and seizing an opportunity. It changed the way cricket was perceived in India and brought onboard numerous segments of the society that traditionally, never found cricket interesting. Truly innovative, IPL formed a niche of its own in the intersection of cricket and Bollywood in cricketainment. Although disruption is certainly a driver for market creation, there are considerable opportunities to create new markets and industries without disrupting or displacing the existing order, and IPL proves this case. 

Today, every new innovation which has become widely adopted and successful is considered as a disruptive innovation. However, Clayton Christensen who coined the term ‘disruptive innovation’, in his 1997 book ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’, disagrees with calling every great innovation a disruptive innovation. The theory of disruptive innovation goes that a smaller company with fewer resources can unseat an established, successful business by targeting segments of the market that have been neglected by the incumbent, typically because it is focusing on more profitable areas. IPL does not meet any of the criterions of a disruptive innovation coined by Christensen. I neither unseated any established business nor did it target audiences that were neglected earlier. 

Traditionally, cricket was played to test the players’ physical and mental strength instead of creating a chilling and thrilling competition. The IPL changed this and shifted the focus of the cricket match to the viewers and offered what they valued. By doing so, the IPL created the league of cricketainment, innovating a dynamic sporting event that combined the gentleman’s sport of cricket with Masti filled Bollywood entertainment. And changed the way cricket is perceived within the country, and even around the world. What the BCCI did by launching the IPL is to create a new and dynamic market of its own. 

 Before the IPL came about there was nothing even remotely similar to it of this grand scale. It did reduce the viewership of movies, during a few months of the year and television programs lost out on views, during the IPL season. However, the impacts were not large enough to proclaim IPL destructive. Every innovation has direct and indirect impacts on different markets. These effects of innovation, do not necessarily make it disruptive. For IPL’s arrival did not majorly impact Bollywood, to an extent that they stopped producing movies, hence it would be incorrect to consider it disruptive innovation. 

A true example of disruptive innovation is the online streaming platform Netflix which disrupted the movie rental industry, headed by Blockbuster. They initially started by offering mail-in subscription service for movies, online. However, this was a truly low-quality product, compared to the on-demand movie rentals provided by Blockbuster offline at the time. Only customers that  Netflix obtained were online shoppers, and people who did not particularly care about new releases. These were customers who were overlooked by Blockbuster, who chose low quality and low-price. Eventually, Netflix moved upmarket and started offering mainstream products for all customer bases, and completely disrupted the former industry giant Blockbuster, forcing them to eventually shut down all operations. The Netflix example shows what true disruptive innovation is and how it differs from creative non-disruptive innovation. 

IPL has been successful in creating a new requirement and an adequate solution for the newly created requirement. It created a need for an entertaining sporting competition and created one that was filled with glamorous cricket matches alongside performances by Bollywood stars. According to Christensen, a truly disruptive business starts with a low-quality product, then ultimately covers the mainstream market by improving quality. Innovations like the IPL and the taxi-booking app Uber don’t meet this criterion, they are truly innovative but not disruptive. They are non-destructive creative innovations. And are disproving the myth that you have to disrupt, to not get disrupted.