Coffee, Cup, Marketing, Competing Narratives of Ego and Soul

This morning I received a video from my friend Prof JK Mitra titled ‘God’s Coffee’.The following is the transcription of the same:

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor.

Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.

Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups.

Porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite

Telling them to help themselves to coffee

When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said:

“If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress.

Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases it is just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink.

What all of you really wanted was coffee not the cup. But you consciously went for the best cups…And then you began eyeing each other’s cups.

“Now consider this, he continued. Life is the coffee. The jobs, money and position in society are the cups.”

I see this story sitting at an intersection of competing narratives,

They are just tools to hold and contain life, and the type of cup we have does not define, nor change the quality of life we live.

Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us.

God brews the coffee, not the cups…Enjoy your coffee.

The happiest people don’t have the best of everything.

Live simply, live generously, care deeply, and speak kindly

And leave the rest to God.

This, it seems to me, is sitting at an intersection of two competing narratives: that of capital, market and consumer on one hand and  happiness, joy and  inner self on the other. It is about contestation between two ideas, the one propagated by the marketing forces and the other that belongs to religion and spirituality. The two opposite forces are in the form of:

• Image and substance
• Container and content
• Letter and envelope
• Use value and exchange value
• Journey and destination
• Body and soul

The resolution of the dialectic between coffee and cup is not as simple as it appears. The choice here rests on an intersection of world view and self- view.

World view: World view shapes the perception of reality including personal, social, physical reality and attends to deeper questions like what is life and where we are headed. This is determined by beliefs and assumption of an individual. Essentially thoughts are the bedrock on which our world view is constructed.  In the Buddhist tradition it is observed that:  We are what we think and with thoughts we make our world (Byrom 1976). In Critique of Pure Reason Kant seems to use the term ‘Weltanschauung’ in this context. The view of reality is not direct, rather it is mediated by world view and hence makes it subjective. It acts like a lens through which reality is viewed which colors the perception of what we see. But how does our world view get formed? It is through cultural imprints, through stories, rituals, songs, and interactions. World view is not entirely about bigger questions, even smallest of experiences are influenced by it including the mundane cup and coffee.

 It is not unfair to suppose  that Western and Eastern worldviews are unlikely to be similar. These differences may impinge upon choices that are made. For instance, a house could mean place of individual indulgences or institution of togetherness. A piece of apparel could be about modesty or attraction. Food could be benign gift and godly or pleasure and market transaction. A mountain could be high rock to be climbed and conquered or house of God and grace.

The question is what is the lens through which a cup of coffee is perceived. Which space does it dwell in:  internal or external, personal or social, consumption or exchange?

Self- view: It is how one views oneself or totality of perception on different aspects. The idea of self is in terms of physical, social, psychological, geographic, nationality and religion. The question of self- view is likely to differ based on whether the lens is superficial and based on attachment or deeper understanding based on attachment less perspective. At the heart of self- view is the question: ‘Who am I’. In the Hindu philosophy the ‘I’ has two layers: soul (jiva or spirit) and body (dwelling). The body is physical manifestation of consciousness and it belongs to the physical world and is subjectto lifecycle. The soul however is eternal beyond the cycle of birth and death. It is beyond measure. The Buddhist idea of self is that of ‘no self’, something un-definable. The attachments on ‘no self’ are meaningless. The self is reason of suffering and attachments are the roots and therefore we must let go. It is illusion.

The Western notions are  different. The self is construed as things or attachments connected to body (hence mind). The mind creates connections with objects, beings, land, property, etc. These create the notion ‘I am what I have’. For instance, Peter, the CEO of XYX company, owner of an island and ten luxury cars married to a gorgeous miss something. All this is very comforting because they are measurables and put Peter on a scale of relativity with respect to others.  Happiness is sought through these attachments. A sense of superiority, the ego, assumes the driving position. Greed becomes the fuel and destination sought is envy of others. The Gita, the Indian notion however is opposite. It propagates renunciation which is gateway to joy or ultimate bliss. The ego or body consciousness (with all its attachments) are obstacles to true happiness.

Coming back to the question of coffee and cups is that choice is both easy and difficult. It sits at an intersection of individual’s world view and self- view. The situation (friends, coffee, cups and teacher) for someone could be pure play, an egoless moment of joy filled with love, generosity, empathy, selflessness and sense of unity. Here the choice would be to reach out for the least attractive cup, giving precedence to others as an act in nourishment of soul. It is a kind of relinquishment, surrender, detachment and renunciation, for the cup does not matter.

On the other hand, for another person this situation (friends, coffee, cups and teacher) is an avenue of contestation governed by greed, self- aggrandizement, gain, power, positioning. For him or her the choice is likely to be for the cup for it would play same role as a Lamborghini or a mansion plays. The axis here shifts from absolutism to relativism,from measure-less to measurement.  Here the cup is seen as an instrument and raw material for self- construction and signification to build superiority. The content in this perspective is rendered useless but cup assumes value  not for the coffee but the meaning that it contains. Body is the playground with all its attachments rather than the soul. The extension of the self is sought by reaching out for the best cup (leaving the inferior ones for others) to secure momentary superiority in service of the ego- greed, grabbing, gain, selfishness and superiority instead of joy of togetherness, connection and conversation. The pleasure is not coffee but cup for it creates differences (inferior and superior, higher and lower, rich and poor) and reinforces notions of and ‘me’ and ‘others’ (envy, jealousy) .

Choices are critical. In marketing choice and choice heuristics sit at the center. The ideology is that markets are places through which path to happiness goes. The self has to be identified with the body and it is playground of happiness through senses and attachments.  The promoted narrative is you are what you have. You are the cup, you are the body, you are the ego.

As a result, the seeker is killed by the sought! It is a complete reversal. Take a pause and reflect: are you the empowered chooser of products and brands? It may be the reverse. The products and brands choose you. A famous apparel brand exhibited a young woman in contemplative pose looking at a dress and the headline went as follows:

‘I can’t fit in this dress’