At a time when globalism is rapidly being institutionalized through multi-national corporations and local organizations, and the line between local and global blurs into a myriad of conveniences, it is alluring to assume homogeneity, uniformity and sameness is a force for good. This assumption seriously contradicts natural law, and is detrimental to indigenous people’s culture and way of life. Homogeneity supports reducing human cultures ability to multiply and celebrate their diversity while erroneously projecting an exclusive world of monoculture. Naga culture contains a rich treasury of multiplicity and diversity in geography, geology, culture, arts, peoples, languages, bio-diversity, and so forth. Do we want to become homogenous where we are reduced to everyone looking, thinking and acting alike?
Advertising and marketing campaigns dominate all forms of the media and public space in the rush to corner the market. This campaigning creates a thirst or wanting for something that is lacking which is bound to become the source of unhappiness and dissatisfaction because of wanting something we don’t have. This makes us feel inadequate, as if we are incomplete or unsuccessful when we don’t have the particular things being marketed. This is particularly dangerous when children become the primary marketing target. When we don’t say ‘no’ to our children we are actually contributing to the next generation feeling inadequate and unhappy, as well as modeling negative behaviors of consumerism and accumulation.
The danger of these marketing campaigns grossly oversimplifies issues and problems, condensing them into a quick fix, while simultaneously taking our resources. The question of whether to oversimplify has become acute because people are too busy and have insufficient time to analyze the issues beyond buzz words and headlines. The predicament of oversimplifying is compounded by the interplay of State and corporate behavior. Complicity on the part of individual or a people has strengthened this interplay as ordinary people feel pressed because of having little time and wanting to appear successful, as well as please their loved ones. They think that they are taking the easy way out, when, in fact, they are continuing to support the accumulation model and decreasing their personal and monetary wealth at the same time.
It is crucial to recognize that general, uniform standardized response models are being promoted to address varying sets of problems. The inherent fault line existing in such a generalizing approach lies in its basic assumption, that, what has been successful in one situation will prove to be successful in another, one size fits all. This reveals a lack of insight and insensitivity to inherent diversity within indigenous cultures in particular.
Dissenting against such approaches and attitudes is necessary because we need to have the freedom to define and address our circumstances in a way that rightly meets our needs in a dignified way. Yes, learning from the experiences of other people is valuable as long as we engage our critical thinking and we remain true to our own core values and identity. Having external experts recommend solutions to local problems may provide immediate or temporary relief. However, in the long run, the solutions offered up may prove to be counter-productive and not address the root causes because the so-called solution did not emerge from within our own knowledge base, wisdom and lived experiences.
Without shared ownership of solutions, the people will have no power, no land and no voice. The challenge is not to be seduced by materialism and consumerism, but to rise above corrupt and complicit practices in order to seek locally relevant and contextual solutions that promote the quality of life, well being and dignity for all people.
