he twentieth century was an era of transition. Victorian ideas were put to question and the stability perceived by the nineteenth-century writers was nowhere to be found. British Empire collapsed, world wars ensued, and the way of life radically changed. New ideas emerged challenging the ideologies of the old institutions. Such developments manifested in art, including the English novel. The techniques utilized by the Victorian writers were criticized. Consequently, the writers of the modern world came up with new methods to articulate their expressions. Among the many influential names was a brilliant lady plagued by her own mind, known to many as Virginia Woolf.

Examine for a moment an ordinary mind on an ordinary day.”

Adeline Virginia Stephen, born in 1822 London, was, as she describes it, “born into a large connection, born not of rich parents, but of well-to-do parents, born into a very communicative, literate, letter writing, visiting, articulate, late-nineteenth-century world.” Her sophisticated background and her brother’s circle of intellectual friends after their parents’ death aided her inclination towards writing since her formative years. The circle of friends, famously known as the 

, displayed an interconnected similarity of ideas that reflected in their works, including that of Virginia Woolf’s.

As a novelist and critic, Virginia Woolf lambasted the then-popular form of the novel. In her essay, 

 Woolf elucidates upon her understanding of modern fiction. She writes: “

The writer seems constrained, not by his own free will but by some powerful and unscrupulous tyrant who has him in thrall, to provide a plot… Is life like this? Must novels be like this?”

Virginia believed that the traditional form of the novel restricted the writers with its sequential mode of narrative-building. Instead, she rebelled by writing novels that were less rigid, less plotted, and more naturalistic in form. Her first novel, 

 though less audacious than her later works, experimented with narrative perspective. It revolves around Rachel, a young sheltered woman on a voyage to South America. As Rachel’s ship moves away, the passengers perceive their life in England differently than when they were in its midst. Distance gives them a new outlook; the destabilizing tendencies of modernism – its questioning of Europe as the essential center of world culture, its interest in how a certain angle of vision shapes subjectivity – begin to appear. In contrast to the plot-driven Victorian novels, Woolf’s debut novel did not have any mystery to solve or any revelations to make. The one serious romance is disrupted by a sudden death and the narrative is denied any structural closure.

Woolf’s characteristic method made its first complete appearance in her third novel, 

. This novel marked a shift in the writer’s bibliography. It employed the modernist technique of stream of consciousness more boldly. The novel follows Jacob’s life, but he is seen mainly at a distance, through the eyes of other characters. The narrative itself is quite fragmentary so that the reader experiences the same problem faced by Jacob’s survivors—how to piece together his life. The momentary impressions, which shift and dissolve with the bewildering inconsequence of real mental processes, are revealed by the use of the internal monologue. This same method, handled with greater firmness, is again used in 

 one of Virginia’s best works, is essentially without plot; what action there is takes place mainly in the characters’ consciousness. Woolf blurs the distinction between direct and indirect speech, freely alternating her mode of narration between omniscient description, free interior monologue, and soliloquy. Maureen Howard, an American novelist, writes that if ever there was a work conceived in response to the state of the novel, a consciously modern novel, it was Mrs. Dalloway.

 shows a firmer mastery of stream of consciousness. The relationship of the Ramsay family achieves greater artistic unity than that found in her previous novels. She pays more attention to her characters’ mental processes. There is hardly any dialogue in the novel. It seems that the writer breaks from prose and becomes something closer to poetry. The most striking example is the title itself; the lighthouse is a poetic symbol that takes on different meanings for different characters. The use of poetic symbols suggests a more indirect, oblique, and tenuous approach to reality. For a writer such as Virginia Woolf, who has no definite vision of reality, the suggestiveness of these symbols is an essential part of her art.

 The novel, perhaps her most experimental work, follows the consciousness of six characters with six internal monologues. She creates a six-sided lyrical impressionism to illustrate how each experiences events – including their friend’s death- differently. British author Amy Sackville remarks, “As a reader, as a writer, I constantly return, for the lyricism of it, the melancholy, the humanity.”

 were mainly preoccupied with the transformation of life through art, the themes of flux of time and life, and a symbolic narrative. They were, however, not as brilliant as her previous creations. Among all her novels, 

 stands alone as the only fantasy. It describes the adventures of the eponymous poet who lives for centuries, meeting key figures in English literary history. 

 is considered a feminist classic for exposing the artificiality of gender prescriptions.

Virginia’s works are presented through a carefully operated lens. Her narratives are without clear demarcations, moving from the inner to the outer to the characters fluidly. In her essays, Virginia condemned the novel of social manners, the kinds written by Bennett and Galsworthy. It wasn’t that she was not concerned with the realities of life. For her, the reality was inward and spiritual. Although the characters would follow their consciousness in search of the truth, Virginia did not end her novels with a solution. Her nonlinear forms invite reading not for neat solutions but an aesthetic resolution of “shivering fragments”. French director and screenwriter, Jean Guiguet remarked on the distinctive nature of Woolf’s reality:

Her reality…is all that is not ourselves and yet is so closely mingled with ourselves that the two enigmas—reality and self—make only one…To exist, for Virginia Woolf, meant experiencing that dizziness on the ridge between two abysses of the unknown, the self and the non-self.”

Human consciousness is a chaotic welter of sensations and impressions. It is trivial, fleeting, evanescent. Woolf encapsulated it through the stream of consciousness. Although the technique was not new when Virginia came into the picture, it was through her works (along with James Joyce) that it became popular and vogue. Her lyrical style, with a keen sense of rhythmic and musical potentialities, is richly figurative and the images are precisely in keeping with the delicacy of her character analysis. The equilibrium between the lyrical and narrative art shows how the writer brilliantly achieves the telescoping of the poet’s lyrical self and the novelist’s omniscient point of view. It is a case of unified sensibility, that is, a blending of the objective and the subjective.

Among the many achievements of Virginia Woolf, perhaps the one she might be most proud of is her contribution to feminism. Long before the second wave of feminism, she had argued that women’s experience could be the basis for transformative social change. It is her success in contriving thoughts and ordinary actions, sound of the city, memory and the present, privacy and communion, bringing them all to life in the moment that distinguishes Virginia Woolf as a novelist. Her haunting language, her percipient insights into historical, feminist, and artistic issues, and her revisionist experiments with novelistic form during a remarkably productive career altered the course of Modernist and postmodernist letters.

A Mind of One’s Own: Virginia Woolf’s contribution to the English Novel

Quarantines, lockdowns, and pandemic fatigue could be considered things of the past by many of us now. However, what about those whose lives it changed forever? Or those who are still living with its consequences? Depending on where we come from, our reality differs. The Coronavirus shutdown looks heavily different when viewed from the class perspective.

It would not be an inappropriate analogy if one were to compare today’s world with a shopping mall. A global economic system, which has thrived on exploitation since its emancipation, has reduced the vision of the world to the pursuit of profit, even when humanity gets ambushed into taking refuge in their houses. The lucky ones could still pursue a career, access medical care more easily, and get out of the hushed mayhem safely. But there were people already at a loss, off the back of their social standing, who witnessed the pandemonium racketing at the highest pitch, which shaped the grim reality of their lives during the pandemic.

 (I have not watched the film) illuminates the chaos that ensued after the abrupt announcement of lockdown all over the country. There was no time given to prepare or secure some funding. Of course, the most vulnerable classes took the worst hit. Left with no income or aid, migrant workers decidedly trudged back to homes on foot, travelling thousands of kilometres without food, water, and shelter. But instead of experiencing relief at finally reaching home, the suffering did not end as the workers took with them the infection that engulfed all aspects of their lives and life itself.

Besides the unemployment caused because of the inefficient strategies of the government, the health sector also faced a crisis. The pandemic witnessed the dangers of an unequal society where generic public health decisions are made at a highly centralised level and applied universally to people and communities in all sorts of different situations. 

 reports highlighted the lack of preparedness as one of the significant factors in the struggles experienced by healthcare facilities. Items including PPE kits, hospital equipment, and sanitization supplies were in short supply. Many healthcare workers surrendered to the virus as waves came one after the other. There was stigmatization and a lack of psychological support in addition to the lack of infrastructural support.

Despite the dismal scene in the hospitals, some people made fortune during the lockdown. The likes of 

 each day when the incomes of 99% of the world’s population reduced from March 2020 to October 2021. On one hand, the ten richest men in the world saw their global wealth double following a surge in share and property prices that further widened the gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, 

 people had been driven below the poverty line. Only the haves were benefitting from the stimulus provided by governments to mitigate the impact of the virus.

 elaborate that pandemic policy has a major role in creating inequalities that did not exist before. It privileges a ‘

’. People who can work from home, consume online, have the resources to self-isolate and are involved in ‘checking’ themselves and others (in terms of complying with the advice) are considered the ideal middle-class subjects of the pandemic response. On the contrary, people who work outside or with others, consume in shops, can’t comply with isolation for economic reasons and don’t ‘check’ themselves and others are the working class ‘

’. That is not a result of the pandemic but that of pandemic policy. New class inequalities are created by the action of government, businesses, and even charities.

 most famously put forth the theory of Disaster capitalism, which states that neoliberalism is composed of ‘

’ policies, which would otherwise be unacceptable under ‘normal’ conditions, steer through in times of crisis. The theory shows us that there is nothing that cannot be exploited to turn a profit. While the public is too distracted to respond adequately, shocks and disasters will – given half a chance – be turned into opportunities for profit-grabbing and the corporate restructuring of societies. That is what happened during the pandemic too.

The general public got distracted while tackling the conspiracy theories about the virus that abounded here and there. Conspiracies arise because of the lies our governments concoct, including the promise about prioritising us foremost. Similarly, by preventing people from meeting their needs collectively through property laws and repression of movement, the state creates conditions which produce individualistic subjectivities. Thus, it becomes clear that:

“Disasters serve to magnify crises of capitalism, but it is capitalism that produces disasters, not the other way around.”

Covid-19 highlighted the disguised realities of social and economic life that often skip our attention. Despite the metamorphosis of contemporary capitalism and the ease it offers a certain section of the society, the 

 crisis served as a stark reminder that the crux of human activity is intrinsically material and embedded into the socio-economic basis of production. The failings of capitalism as a system based on the material exploitation of nature and of racialized global working classes were made distinctly perceptible.

The inequitable allocation of resources simply renders the vulnerable sections of society more vulnerable in situations such as the Covid-19 lockdown. Particularly in a country like ours where the majority is dependent on daily wage on-site work. Even the health sector came crashing down due to the inefficacy of the state to provide relief timely. If anything, the pandemic relied more on self-organised volunteers and individual and collective actions to prevent the spread of the disease, such as wearing masks, avoiding crowds, and respecting others’ space.

A Class Perception of the Pandemic

his year, India celebrated the glory of its athletes at the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, but also saw the significant exclusion of the All India Football Federation from FIFA. What makes sports exhilarating and the center of attention? Individual striving or the allegorical status associated with nationalism? Winning a World Cup fills the chest with pride and losing the same has to be coped with the memories of the glorious past. Sports and nationalism possess identical features: myths, fervent fever, fostering a common identity, and most of all, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ narrative.

Fans would disagree with George Orwell’s famous aphorism, which defines sports as “

”. They would argue that their source of recreation has nothing to do with politics. Let alone war. But it is historically clear that both nationalism and resistance to nationalism have accompanied the evolution of modern sports. Everyone knows 

, for he represents a remarkable brand of patriotism. Everyone also knows 

, for he resisted serving Vietnam in 1967, becoming the icon of the civil rights struggle and the anti-Vietnam war movement.

 intertwine. Since sports are popular culture, politicians try to create a likeable persona by showing interest, hence using it as a political resource. Sometimes to deflect conflict, other times, to ease diplomatic relations. For instance, US President 

 maneuvered a visit to China when the latter invited the American table tennis team to compete against the Chinese team. The tactic, however, does not always end well; as with President 

. He credited US military action in the Middle East for the success of the Iraqi soccer team in the 2004 Summer Olympics. He was severely criticized, and rightfully so, for making such a rash statement.

While elected officials use sports for somewhat selfish reasons, the players use their bread and butter to highlight what is wrong with the system. But it often comes with collateral damage. As mentioned above, Muhammad Ali refused to draft into the army because he did not endorse war. He “

used violence inside the ring to promote peace and justice outside of it

). He was imprisoned, fined, and stripped of his championship. Similarly, the International Olympics Committee dismissed 

 in 1968 for their protest against racism. It was not until decades later that these athletes found support for their political stand.

We are familiar with the idea of sports fostering national identity. Most games begin with national anthems of the playing teams. The gesture is taken for granted as if it were part of the sport itself. The media contributes to the narrative as they eulogize sports-people as mythical figures who accomplish grand achievements for the sake of their fellow citizens.

What has made sport uniquely effective as a medium for inculcating national feelings, at all events for males, is the ease with which even the least political or public individual can identify with the nation as symbolised by young persons excelling as something practically every man wants to be good at. The imagined community of millions (nation) seems more real as a team of eleven named people.

The most prominent example of this obvious relationship is the quadrennial event of the Olympics. The opening ceremony traditionally involves a 

. Athletes cannot enter the competition as individual competitors, but can only participate as national representatives. Olympics, therefore, laminates individuals striving as worthy of appreciation only when it brings laurels back home.

The problem with sports becoming a national identity lies in its equating a good fan with a good citizen. Fans are still expected to root for their favorites’ when a team does not play well. If we were to apply the same logic to politics, would then a good citizen be obliged to accept the decisions of its government without questioning its soundness? Is then the criticism of a public policy enough to condemn a citizen as anti-national?

Besides, it is the athletes who incur a loss in any given scenario. Be it when a nation withdraws from international competitions for political reasons or when the players express their critical view of the status quo. Even the romanticism of them as heroic figures is problematic. It is commonplace to send death threats to sports-persons, who are also human and inevitably bound to fail sometimes. After all, losing a game means embarrassing the nation in front of the entire world.

Not to mention how loss in sports is usually attributed to historically disadvantaged groups. When the Indian women’s hockey team lost to Australia in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, two upper caste men were quick to reproach 

”. Of course, sports can divert one’s attention from real issues. But the very same sports often involve the problems that we desperately wish to escape from.

n India, cricket takes the crown as the ultimate “

). Imagine watching cricket and not rooting for India, but the opposing side. Even the idea of it sounds utterly perverse. That is because patriotism in our country is synonymous with cricket.

Is then there a way to enjoy sports without the national lens shoved in front of our eyes? Perhaps one would mention club and franchise sports, a consequence of contemporary capitalism. The 

 is a domestic event primarily meant for Indian spectators. It has gained immense popularity since its advent in 2008, particularly for the team spirit displayed by players, irrespective of their nationalities. Could IPL, ridiculed for being theatrical, actually be more professional than the less profitable international competition? The answer could not be more distant from a yes. Militaristic chauvinism is just as home at IPL as it is during the World Cup season. The 

 suffers from the same fate. No national teams, but nationalism remains intact.

The Politics of Sports

Indians may not be familiar with the term, but they mention affirmative action in at least one conversation a day. Amidst ever-rising competition and a lack of employment, someone needs to be held accountable. And most Indians in the UR category put the blame on people from the reserved categories. Should it be called indignation or yet another symbol of privilege? Affirmative action has been one of the most controversial political issues since its inception. It is worth deliberating whether the subject matter will ever reach a consensus or not.

 describes a set of policies that grant special concessions to underprivileged communities who were stripped of adequate opportunities in the past, particularly due to racial bias and apartheid. In a multicultural society like ours, affirmative action forms a significant part of politics. It plays an essential role in the endeavour of redistributing opportunities more reasonably. Affirmative action is, hence, a means to this end that has manifested as a result of the prolonged discrimination of ethnic, racial, and gender minorities.

, affirmative action is an American dilemma. To 

, it is exclusively a manifestation of the centuries-old caste system. However, it is interesting to note that such remedial action is found all around the world. Group preferences are present in most modern nation-states with entirely different histories and ethnicities. What is called 

 of the country in Nigeria. All these different nations are under peculiar circumstances, but such circumstances are dealt with similar programs or policies.

Since affirmative action emerged out of the struggle to combat discrimination, it relies upon efforts to combat historical patterns of racial injustice. Compensatory justice has evolved as a core argument in defence of the policy. 

 an American political scientist, draws an analogy of a race in which two runners are competing but one of them is forced to bear a heavy burden. After the race begins, the unencumbered runner moves far ahead. According to Krislov, you cannot say to the runner cumbered under burden that you see their suffering and ask them to leave their burden at the side of the course. That does not make the race equal. Restitution has to be made for the prior injustice.

“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.”

– rests on the belief that integration within organisations and society at large ensures constructive outcomes. This is because identities carry with them distinctive socialisation experiences that often result in diverse perspectives. The third argument is that of democratic values. 

 has argued, for example, that the dismantling of barriers to opportunity, which has worked to the disadvantage of minority groups, is essential for the promotion of a democratic civil society. In the context of government bureaucracy, democratic values enhanced by inclusiveness are all the more important.

But not everyone is up for such policies. The most common argument against affirmative action is that individuals should be evaluated based on their personal merits. Opponents argue that giving special preference to some groups because they have suffered or continue to suffer, is simply substituting one form of inequity for another.

Another argument made to attack the notion is that preference is often given to the wrong people; “

the most fortunate of the least fortunate groups

less qualified minority group people in contrast to more qualified majority group people.

(a) Not all members of the disadvantaged community need preferences, and (b) More qualified individuals deserve selection over less qualified ones, irrespective of their background.

Affirmative action not only benefits the wrong people but also that it is at the cost of innocent non-minority individuals who may have never been guilty of discrimination themselves. This has come to be known as reverse discrimination. As society moves from a system that advantaged majority groups, say, white men, to one where a greater share of opportunity is available to previously disadvantaged groups, say black men and women, it is inevitable that opportunities for white men will be reduced.

“To equate the efforts to remedy the plight of racial minorities with the actions that produced it is to twist history.”

Fish’s opinion notwithstanding, it is further insisted that affirmative action is, in fact, not needed at all. That we could do away with it. It is vigorously argued that the minority groups are now well represented in the areas of education, employment, and the establishment. Hence, we can let go of institutions like these because the goal has supposedly been achieved.

The debate centres on the two competing values that are fundamental to democratic culture: 

. Supporters of the policy accentuate equality of opportunity for groups historically disadvantaged, while opponents lay more stress on liberty in the sense that employers should have the choice to select whoever they deem appropriate for a job role instead of focussing on their identities. Resolving this debate is a Herculean task, one that scholars have not been able to and don’t seem to achieve any time soon. Nonetheless, there is one point where both proponents and opponents of the policy would agree. Affirmative action, when first conceived, was supposed to be a transient tool. It was hoped that one day we would not need it anymore. However, what segregates the two sides of the issue is the question of when we will reach that day. For those against it, the time from when onwards we don’t need it has already arrived. And for those who continue to root for its presence, we are yet to arrive. Consequently, the day we reach a consensus on the preferential policies of affirmative action is yet to arrive too. Perhaps one day that goal will be realised, but in the interim, the argument continues.

Articles by Alisha Uvais

A Mind of One’s Own: Virginia Woolf’s contribution to the English Novel

A Class Perception of the Pandemic

The Politics of Sports

Affirmative Action: An Insoluble Debate?

A Mind of One’s Own: Virginia Woolf’s contribution to the English Novel

A Class Perception of the Pandemic

The Politics of Sports

Affirmative Action: An Insoluble Debate?