OBITUARY

How Robert Pirsig’s ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ changed the way I think

The American author, whose 1974 part-autobiographical philosophical novel became a cult hit, died on Monday at the age of 88.

It was a purple paperback that sat on my father’s bookshelf for years before I picked it out one summer afternoon, having finally overcome my resistance to its peculiar title and to the ugly-sounding name of its author. I was 16 or maybe 17, which was the perfect age to read Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Had I tried a year or two earlier, I’d have been bored by its verbosity and probably never given it a second go. Had I waited for a couple more years, I might have been less receptive to its message, having developed the capacity to see through its less tenable claims and being turned off as a result from its most interesting bits.

I picked two pop science books from the same shelf that summer, which also had weird titles and author names: Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav’s The Dancing Wu Li Masters. They shared Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’s interest in synthesising East and South Asian mysticism with science and rationality.

Pirsig’s interest in Zen philosophy had been sparked during a holiday in Japan. He also studied for a while at Banaras Hindu University, although Indian thought does not feature too prominently in this novel. Pirsig, Capra and Zukav were tremendously influential in their time, required reading for thinking adults and adolescents, but their influence waned rapidly, suggesting their best-known work was tied strongly to a particular historical moment. All three books were published in the 1970s, and marked a mid-point of sorts between the hippie philosophy of the previous decade and the consumerism of the 1980s. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was the only one of the three that spoke to me strongly enough to leave a lasting imprint on the way I interpret the world.

RobertPirsig/via Twitter
RobertPirsig/via Twitter

The question of quality

I recall relatively little of the book now. It is about a motorcycle road trip across the United States taken by the author and his young son, who are joined for part of the course by two friends with a very different philosophical perspective. The gap between the intuitive, instinctive personalities of the friends (which Pirsig terms “romantic”) and the author’s own logical and pragmatic tendencies (which he calls “classical”) occasions a series of philosophical meditations.

We are also introduced to a character named Phaedrus, who is the author’s alter ego or earlier self and whose philosophical journey parallels the author’s physical one. The central question Phaedrus ponders is that of quality, which is something essential that all of us recognise, but eludes definition.

At the time I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I was certain I would go on to work in a scientific field, but soon switched to the humanities, studied English Literature and then focussed on visual art. Phaedrus’s enquiry has resonated through much of my writing, even as the concept of quality has become virtually redundant in contemporary evaluations of art.

Until a few decades ago, few people questioned the idea of artistic or literary merit. There were well-written books and badly written books, good paintings and bad paintings, and the job of experts was to help members of the public distinguish between the two and improve general taste. Starting in the 1960s, however, a theory took hold in academia that artistic merit was more a matter of privilege of birth or institutional backing than of any features intrinsic to artworks. That explained why so many of the world’s most renowned writers and artists were European males.

I’ve never believed this to be wholly true. Take the case of Pablo Picasso, for example. Sure, he was a European male, and a macho egoist who treated his lovers terribly. But he was also a boy from Andalusia, out of place in sophisticated Barcelona and even more of a hick in Paris. If success were merely a matter of privilege, there were hundreds of European male artists with better claim than Picasso. If he became the most important artist of his generation, it was largely due to the freshness of his vision, the ferocity of his imagination, the quality of his painting and sculpture.

One could make a similar argument for MF Husain and dozens of other artists who would not be automatic choices for inclusion in a canon based on privilege. But adjectives of the kind I just used to describe Picasso’s work, words like “fresh” and “ferocious”, don’t cut it any more. They appear hopelessly impressionistic and subjective.

The question of politics

For a while, the obvious subjectivity of art criticism was shielded by the exclusive nature of publishing. The rise of the web broke through the shield, and more or less ended the reign of expertise. Everybody can now publish their opinion and everybody’s opinion is equally valid. To argue otherwise would be dreadfully elitist, especially in the absence of any objective or measurable criteria for excellence.

The discourse in art, therefore, has shifted away from questions of merit to those of politics. One can make statements about a work’s politics that appear far more rigorous than anything one might say about its aesthetics. A dense theoretical language far more formidable than that of conventional art criticism has gradually become dominant. It has the advantage of not being replicable by laypeople publishing on the Web. I think of it as a Terminator tongue, superior in most respects to the all-too-human writing that preceded it.

The central problem with the new language is that it completely ignores what draws us to art in the first place. When it does venture into that territory, it loses its rigour the way Superman loses his power in the presence of kryptonite. I have written and lectured on this crisis of language a fair amount and at the end of one talk an art historian took me aside and said, “I understand what you’re trying to get at, but why do you use the word ‘quality’? Surely there are better words for what you’re trying to express.” I replied, “I use the term because of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.” I gathered from her blank look that she had never picked the purple paperback from a bookshelf.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.