A string of events has led to the situation where I have a Secret Santa who is sending me rather pleasant and thoughtful gifts, without having a giftee allotted to me, essentially allowing me to free-ride the exercise. One may wonder why I’m complaining about this, and that would be a reasonable question to ask. The problem is that this makes me think of the person who is unhappily wondering why he/she has not received any gifts yet. Hence, the moral dilemma.
There remains a large amount of ambiguity when it comes to determining if one is supposed to find out the identity of one’s Secret Santa. Somewhat extensive research involving asking bleary-eyed and possibly inebriated Cauvery residents at 4 in the morning and a perusal of the rules of the exercise has failed to settle the question of whether one is supposed to find out who one’s Santa is. If one is supposed to uncover the identity, it makes it a bond-building-with-strangers exercise. If one is not supposed to know the identity, Secret Santa would become a personalized gift-giving system without the hassle of uncovering identities and generating any social obligations between the Santa and the giftee. Ultimately, the unanswered question is this: whether Secret Santa is supposed to provide one with thoughtful gifts from a stranger with the intention that such personalized gift-giving lead to a friendship or is it merely to provide the giftee with thoughtful gifts that may be desirable without the hassle of obligations?
Let’s examine the first case, where one is supposed to discover the identity of one’s Secret Santa. This would make Secret Santa a community building exercise, which is a very laudable objective. However, one must also keep in mind the potentially undesirable consequences of this noble objective. If one were to discover that their Secret Santa or giftee is somebody who they generally dislike, one may resent the obligations that the Secret Santa system has created, for one may not wish to establish any sort of relationship (along the lines of an acquaintance) with their Santa or giftee. So instead of creating a sort of camaraderie between people, it has created the possibility of placing people in very awkward situations. Imagine drawing the name of your ex-girlfriend, that one person on campus whose nose you broke or that one night stand you never spoke to again.
In the second case, which in my opinion is the idea behind Secret Santa, the point of Secret Santa, when the identity of the Santa is not to be revealed, is to provide participants with personalized gifts, from what can be called as “the universe,” or a secret benefactor, with the sole objective being to provide those who have signed up for the exercise with a pleasant experience and thoughtful gifts without the obligations that would accompany identity-revealing. This would not be unlike the belief of children in the magnanimous (yet morally judgemental) Santa Claus. This would make Secret Santa a co-operative scheme, relying on the cooperation of participants to establish a sustainable good trip-generating system, by gifting their giftees things that they would like. Now the problem with this system is the inevitable creation of free riders that accompanies every scheme that is based on co-operation. These free riders can be created due to multiple reasons, with a couple off the top of my head being one such as signing up for the exercise and then backing out, but the same not being reflected in the picking up of chits with names due to say, a problem in communication. This would lead to a situation in which someone is receiving gifts without having a giftee to give gifts to. This creates some sort of moral obligation to find the person who still hasn’t received any gifts due to his/her name not being picked up by the free rider. The other reasons being the simple ignoring of one’s duty as a Secret Santa due to reasons of laziness or impecuniousness. The writer strongly condemns those who fall in the second category. In either case, a free rider has been created (refer: R. Arneson, The Principle of Fairness and Free-Rider Problems), which endangers the sustainability of such a cooperative scheme. This leads to the question of possible sanctions that can be imposed on the free rider, which can fuel a debate for quite a while as to the nature and severity of intended punishment.
It is fairly clear from the above analysis that there is no way to settle the debate. The first option will lead to unwelcome potentially awkward situations, but can be used to eliminate free riders, while the second will eliminate this awkwardness, but will potentially lead to existence (and thriving) of free riders.
So the next time you sign up to participate in Secret Santa, enquire first as to the nature of the scheme. It is quite possible that you may end up with a person who you may not wish to be obligated to send gifts to, or a Santa who may not send a single gift your way. Or you could end up like me, receiving gifts, without being anyone’s Santa yourself. To whoever had a lousy Christmas and a crappy new year, the unintentional free rider apologizes.
This article was written by Sregurupriya Ayappan (Batch of 2020).
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres in your skull.” -George Orwell
The principle that governed Bentham’s architectural plans for the ideal prison would ensure that even the few cubic centimetres were not your own anymore. The Panopticon was a mode of “obtaining power of mind over mind”. It consisted of an annular building in the periphery that was divided into well-lit cells which held prisoners and could be observed by a supervisor from a central tower. The prisoners’ inability to determine whether they are being watched at a given point of time and the apprehension that they are under surveillance causes them to constantly police their own behaviour. The Panopticon assures that the automatic functioning and actual continuous exercise of surveillance is rendered unnecessary due to perfection of power which is disindividualised and automatized.
Foucault coined the term ‘Panopticism’ to describe this discipline mechanism which amplifies the effectiveness of power and penetrates through society using a “faceless gaze that transforms the whole social body into a field of perception.” Sartre theorised that the apprehension of the ‘look’ forces the observed to occupy a certain position and holds them captive without any escape due to the vulnerability of being seen. The ‘look’ both creates and invades physical spaces, thus trapping the prisoner psychologically. Every person by virtue of being a temporal-spatial object fears the value judgements and unknowable appraisals of the observer. The faceless gaze succeeds in enslaving people and enforcing discipline by keeping them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The Benthamite physics of power is also used in Law School. The NLSIU Act identifies the end to be producing research scholars with a strong sense of social responsibility who will use their skills in legal services, litigation and law reforms. However the ecosystem cultivated by students in Law School, in the form of senior advice and RCC incentive structures leads to students joining the corporate world. This difference between the declared and latent objectives of the institution helps obscure where the power is actually centred. It implies the power comes from without the system and extrinsic factors inuence the power dynamics. It abstracts and makes it dicult to identify the institutional interests, as driven by the actions of stakeholders in the Law School environment.
The faculty, while at first, are accomplices in setting up the system, unwittingly become its prisoners. Their subjectivity is moulded by the internalisation of the externally imposed norms. Their freedom to design their own course outline, mode of instruction and schedule extra classes makes them monitor their own performance in pursuit of achieving total quality. The principle of the Synopticon, in which ‘many’ watch the ‘few’, also influences their behaviour. While they deliver lectures, they police themselves because of the apprehension of being monitored (e.g. Heard In Law School). If their rhetoric reflects that their ideology is contrary to institutional interest it may invite sanctions.
The architecture of the academic block and the presence of security cameras also resemble the Panopticon. Instruments like curfew for the first years, the institutional e-mail interface and the library register also effectuate enclosure. Ironically, in addition to the insidious action of self-monitoring, there is overt self-policing as well. The various student bodies implement a set of rules and regulations, most of which have been drafted by the students themselves, through systematic allotment of sanctions and, rewards in the form of considerable freedom.
This freedom is itself illusory and confines students by forcing them to modify their behaviour in a manner reflective of the free environment. The changes in dressing habits and the manner of speaking are illustrative of this as in many cases it is compelled by the value judgements the student fears are passed by his/her peers. A number of activities are given the status of rituals or unwritten rules by packaging them as ‘law school tradition’ in discourse which helps in indoctrination. Traditions like treats where seniors take it upon themselves to introduce juniors to the great joy of consuming alcohol, the awkward isolation felt due to being surrounded by others who are partaking in the said activity subtly coerces the student into succumbing to it.
The most important panoptic mechanism is the cut-throat competition between the students to achieve an extra line in the list of accomplishments that will adorn the curriculum vitae. This is not limited to the examination system alone but also extends to extra-curricular activities. The CGPA system is perhaps, the metaphorical watchman. The high rate of failure in some courses creates stark inequalities that play on the insecurities of the students. The lack of prior exposure to academic failure heightens their insecurities and spurs self-policing behaviour to increase productivity.
As in George Orwell’s Oceania, the greatest danger of detection does not lie with the Thought Police, hidden microphones or televisions but with fellow citizens. The resistance to the surveillance mechanism in place is limited to a small percentage due to presence of peer inmates. This manifests itself in various forms – fear of being overtaken, exposed or the intricate web of peer politics, self-image or reputation and rumours. This apprehension in itself is effective in regulating behaviour, instilling docility, conformity and productivity.
The residential nature of the university enhances the visibility of the students and it is not feasible to maintain the secrecy around their actions. The few locations are inhabited by other students and hence, each student becomes both the observer and the observed and consciously monitors and modies his/ her behaviour. Visibility is the trap.
“Is it surprising then that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”
– Michel Foucault
The word ‘faff’ is a part of law school’s collective vocabulary. Exclusive to this community, it forms a part of our popular culture. Not only is it used to discredit specific statements (Gaganjyot’s use of the word discourse in his 19(1)(a) post was faff) but also to describe academic works (Ghanashyam’s project is faff) and even individuals (Nayan is faff(y)). It is important to note that the word faff is generally not used to describe activities. In such cases, the term scam is preferred. (Incorrect usage: Prem has an amazing CV on paper, but it’s faff!; correct usage: Prem has an amazing CV on paper, but it’s a scam!). Although the word forms an integral part of ‘law-school culture’, -if one exists at all- there has been no systematic attempt to define its exact meaning and scope till now. This is the first.
Definition: The Starting Point
I define faff as a term, which does not have a defined, ascertainable meaning, that is introduced by the speaker into an ‘idea-flow,’ either deliberately or unintentionally, and is meant to serve the purpose of ‘creating an illusion’ of the speaker having contributed meaningfully to the idea-flow in the mind of the listener.
Explanation of terms
Idea-flow: A communication between multiple individuals on a particular subject, via any medium (a mess table conversation between two second years on the feminist perspective of law school vandalism). It includes uni-directional flow (since Varun did not pay attention in the consult, his Evidence Law project is a uni-directional idea-flow between him and Prof. Kunal. Not the ideal situation, for somebody aiming to get a good grade) and multi-directional flows (any GBM).
Creating an illusion: The defining characteristic of faff is the fact that although it sounds meaningful, it actually is not. Hence, it allows the listener to, deliberately or unintentionally, prescribe a meaning to the term or not prescribe a meaning to the term, but presume it has value. (Viraj used the term semi-optimal rationality matrix in his speech against the first years, Basu realizing Viraj is losing by a margin of 1 decided to prescribe that matrix, along with a couple of arbitrary sentences thrown elsewhere in his speech, the meaning of an effective rebuttal to the first year’s primary argument to avoid a politically incorrect decision, Shukla presumed that it had the same meaning without realizing it had none, and gave the debate to Viraj. Viraj won in a 2-1 split, Aniruddha Basu dissent).
Completing the definition
Although this definition adequately covers the “discrediting statements” function that faff serves in our popular vocabulary, it does not explain the other two functions, namely, description of academic works and individuals.
To understand works being labeled as faff we must understand the concept of ‘idea-flow-faff-capacity’ or IFFC. A necessary assumption premised in the previous statement is that idea-flows have the capacity to sustain more than one faff. IFFC is the quantum of faff that a listener can identify and raise an objection to in an idea-flow. It is determined mainly on the basis of the attentiveness, prior knowledge and inquisitive nature of the listener coupled with his desire to arrive at a definite conclusion. These factors vary according to circumstances (Debaters have amazing IFFC while in debates, but they somehow presume that outside a debate, everybody else’s IFFC is really low).
As the quantum of faff (referred to as f.q.u) crosses the IFFC, the idea-flow is polluted beyond its critical threshold and as a whole, transforms into ‘faff’, i.e.:
In an idea-flow, where f.q.u. = n.
If , n > IFFC
Then, as a whole, idea-flow = faff.
(Wow, I can’t even remember how much faff Sounak had in his speech, in fact, it was faff).
Similarly, to understand individuals being labeled as faff, we must understand the concept of “pleading ignorance” (or P.E.E). When an individual acts as a speaker in an idea-flow and realizes that he no longer has any valid contribution to make to sustain or develop the flow, she faces a choice: she can either P.E.E. Or she can faff. Given this, an individual who is more likely to prefer faff over P.E.E becomes faff herself, if q.f.u introduced is greater than IFFC. To explain with an illustration,
In 100 idea-flows that X spoke in,
she faffed in 63,
In fact in 51, she introduced so much quantum of faff that the idea-flow itself became faff.
Therefore, X is faff(y).
(“All junkies are faff” said the alcoholic). An individual may be faff in a particular environment (“Only when they are stoned”, replied the smoker) but not in others (all of us are faff in Socio class, but only some dare to faff in History class). The important distinction between terms as faff or works as faff on one hand and individuals as faff(y) on the other is that although intention is irrelevant for the first two, a person cannot be faff unless he intentionally faffs (Rudro is not faff, he is just crazy. But Badri, he is faff).
And this is my definition of faff.
Utility of a working definition: Academic diarrhea or tangible benefit?
There is no doubt that all academic and quasi-academic literature has utility. Therefore, this proposed definition is beneficial simply as it adds great value to the discourse surrounding faff in law-school.
Further, this inquiry serves another function. It provides all listeners with a working definition of the term faff. The said definition can act as a framework which can be used to determine the legitimacy of its own usage. This allows the listener the ability to ascertain whether the use of the term faff itself was faff, automatically rendering that person faff, forever. (Shiney thinks everything Kapur says is faff, even when it’s not. What Faff! Shiney is just faff(y)!)
Even if, one were to adopt a higher threshold of utility, i.e.: only those things which have foreseeable, tangible, beneficial consequences have utility, I submit that this inquiry also fulfills this unreasonable -but somehow, still popular- standard. For, I propose that there exists a possibility that the word faff has another underutilized, yet logically consistent meaning.
The possibility of labeling communities as faff, must be explored and discussed. A community would acquire the character of faff, if the probability of a stranger with the IFFC of an average reasonable person(AvR) listening to an idea-flow emanating from a member of the community (the speaker) ascertaining that the idea-flow itself, is faff is more than 0.5. This probability is the community’s Collective Faff Capacity (or CFC).
If X (a person with IFFCAvR) engages in an
idea-flow with Yrandom (a randomly selected member of a community Y),
CFC = probability of q.f.u > IFFC
IF CFC > 0.5
Then Y is faff.
So What?
This is only meant to be a working definition of the term faff, and its corollaries. It provides enough tools for empirical research into one of the most important questions facing us today- Has law school become faff? And its variants: Was law school always faff? Is it not faff yet, but surely heading in that direction? Is it impervious from being faff?
In fact, I propose that such research can also be conducted for other communities: BJP? AAP? Politicians? Economists? Although such external application would be colored by ethical issues. Labeling a community with a term that is not a part of that community’s popular vocabulary would deprive its members of a true understanding of their own character (some meaning is always lost in translation). However, if the issue is tackled, this framework has great potential for application outside the law-school context.
After graduation, Viraj has dedicated his life to the deeper study of Faff in the professional sphere. He is currently employed as a consultant with McKinsey & Co. He can be contacted at [email protected].
]]>In the 11:00AM break, one is often faced with the vexing problem of the inevitably large line at the Kanchika Canteen (yes, that’s the name). Three options run through one’s head:
A: Stand in line
B: Cut the line and
C: Give up on that delicious combination of oily vada with toxic Coca Cola that you are craving even though you are really not hungry
The first is what society would have you believe is the morally correct option. Queues are made to be followed, not cut. They bring order and fairness to human activity and ensure that ultimately it is merit that stands through and not favouritism or strong-arming.
As for the second option, if you were to listen to society, it would not approve. You should not cut the line. One feels this societal pressure everyday when eyeing the canteen line. When the line is too long, one often ponders whether to take the brave step and go talk to that batchmate you haven’t spoken to since first year and slyly hand over a grubby twenty rupee note. However, the costs of doing this also weigh on the mind. The reputational loss in the eyes of juniors who have till this point revered you (or so you think), the reputational loss in the eyes of seniors who considered you their equal (or so you think), the reputational loss in the eyes of batchmates standing in line who also had to make the judgement call and ultimately chose the morally correct option. Observation has shown that while many people do stand in line due to thisequal number of people also make the call to cut in line, favouring their base cravings over any reputational loss that may arise as a result.
However this blind acceptance of the correctness of standing in line has its faults. For one, it does not take into account the different starting points that various students face in accessing the canteen. Third Years, for example, have an obvious advantage in accessing the canteen, their classroom being a short 20 second staircase run to the canteen counter. First Years also have an advantage here, the canteen being a short 20 second run from the entrance of their classroom. Fourth Years are less advantaged than Third Years and First Years. However, if a Fourth Year is determined they can leave class immediately after the bell rings and utilise the potency of gravity to accelerate down the two flights of stairs necessary to reach the canteen gate quickly. Thus, Fourth Years also have an advantage in reaching the canteen line quickly.
The people who truly suffer are the Second Years and Fifth Years. Fifth Years not only have to make the same walk as First Years but also have to climb the same amount of stairs as Fourth Years after the walk (is it a coincidence that 4+1 = 5? I don’t know). The Second Years have a whole quadrangle to cross in order to reach the stairs leading to the canteen.
Here we have a clear distinction between the batches. The Fourth Years, Third Years and First Years clearly have a leg-up and are likely to get to the canteen when there is a minimal line or no line at all while the Fifth Years and Second Years are likely to stumble upon a long queue. What’s more, the Second Years and Fifth Years have to travel a longer distance to get back to class in time for attendance. The cruel result of this is that not only do they have to stand in long queues but this also increases their chances of missing attendance. A horrible situation. It’s not their fault. It was architectural design and administrative arbitrariness that resulted in their disadvantage In this regard I would say that it is justifiable for Fifth Years and Second Years to cut in line and there should be no moral opprobrium attached to such an action by a student of these batches. Cutting in line is merely equalising opportunity for people treated unequally. I must make an exception here for Fifth Years who don’t have class from 11:20AM to 1:30PM. For this class of Fifth Years there is no major disadvantage as they can simply wait till 11:20 before swooping into an empty canteen. For First Years, Third Years and Fourth Years there is no justification for cutting in line. If they find themselves in a position where they face a long queue then they need only blame themselves for squandering this golden opportunity. If you are a Fifth Year (with 11:20AM class) and a Second Year, you should always exercise Option B and cut the line, there is no moral wrong in doing so. If you are in the other three batches you should always exercise Option A: standing in line, as it would be unjust for you to cut the line.
However so far we have only dealt with Option A and B and neglected Option C. In our opinion it is Option C that should be exercised, no matter what batch you are in. You only have one heart and one pancreas. Don’t screw with them. Also there’s always the New Juice Shop. •
The author would like to thank Shivam Singla, a fifth year student at NLSIU for telling him why its important to talk about the canteen line
]]>