There has been — quite rightly — widescale condemnation of the brazen display of power by Jeffrey Epstein and his coterie. But what we need
to understand and find an explanation for is why do some among the rich and
the powerful need the exertion of force and wrongdoing to display who they are.
We need to ask what in the
nature of power and wealth influences such vulgar displays of exploitation. It is often argued that rape is not as much about sex as it is about force and control over someone else. The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, had argued, somewhat sensationally, that rape is no different an offence from that of punching someone in the face. Both count as
an offence because of the force/power exerted against someone’s will. In treating sexual offences as a crime of a different order, society is actually controlling the victim by subjecting her to
the ideas/practices of chastity and virginity. Courts often punish sexual offenders for violating the chastity and the virginity of the victim/survivor. If it is then not about sex but in using force on and humiliating someone that power reproduces itself, we will have to ask a deeper question: why is power dependent on humiliation and causing moral injury?

Friedrich Hegel had
argued that recognition is
the driving force of human societies. In the process of finding selfhood and self-realisation, human beings require fuller acknowledgement of their moral worth. This, Hegel argued, is only possible through a sense of reciprocity. The sense of respect is only possible among equals, which is what Hegel explained through his famous Master-Slave dialectic. A Master may extort ‘respect’ from the Slave through force and fear but the former knows that fear and respect cannot co-exist. This dynamic, Hegel felt, has the universalising potential of
creating solidarity and burying hierarchies. One possible explanation for the dependence on fear and force by
the affluent is that solidarity in such an ecosystem is
replaced by cosmetic relations that are empty of meaning and compassion. But
the cultural theorist, Andrew Sayers, argues that the rich replace larger solidarities by forming exclusive clubs. They thus enact solidarity within exclusive and not universal sociality. But this kind of solidarity is still bound by toxic cost-benefit propositions. The Apprentice, the film based on Donald Trump`s rise to fame, captures the way the rich forge friendships that often turn toxic when class and status change.

Alongside the missing dimension of solidarity is the absence of self-esteem. In capitalist societies, realisation is contingent upon merit. Merit requires exploring rare talent and inner potential. But to be in a position of power without unique talent can be potentially devaluing and can lead to psychosis.

What, then, is the way out? We have two broad alternatives. One is suggested by Gandhi where passion is directly linked to violence. Gandhi suggests great self-restraint and the taming of the passions by converting the energy into soul-force. For that, we need to find meaning (god/truth) in everyday activities and obligations. Gandhi, who blamed the lack of purity of his intention as a cause for the Noakhali riots, detected a metaphysical bond between bodily control and the body polity.

The other option is that of the Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, wherein he suggests that digging deep into the self is the only way to affix a purpose around which one generates meaning and commitment.

Existential philosophers forewarned us of a delicate irony: human life has no pre-given meaning or essence, while human beings are conditioned to search for meaning and purpose. It is this void that is a
deep source of violence. It is this emptiness, combined with the need to exercise control, that often takes the form of sexual violence at and sexual objectification of women. The Epstein files signify the problem of recognition as lack of fulfillment and the emptiness it brings with it. Redirecting ourselves to a collective-purposive life could be a reasonable starting point to address such violent perversion.

Ajay Gudavarthy is Associate Professor, Centre for Political Studies, JNU