Angkor wat
Monday, April 14, 2008
Why get angry??
‘Why are you getting angry?’ seemed the almost disturbingly constant refrain in response to these two observations, both from TV-
1) NDTV had its usual ‘Back to x years ago’ news item playing. This time it was set in Iraq when U.S occupation was ‘legal’. It showed three soldiers sauntering by; one stopped next to an obviously local child and held a gun airily against its head. Close-up- the child froze, pupils dilated, complete silence. After some seconds, the gun was withdrawn and the soldiers walked away with much hilarity. Turned out the child was one of two survivors from a war ravaged family.
If this incredibly callous behaviour is not cause for anger, what is?
2) CNN-IBN- Somebody’s died under tragic circumstances. The body’s being removed. A journalist thrusts the mike almost literally under the nose of one of the pall- bearers.
Do we celebrate on-the-spot reporting?
I’ve come across two types of responses to an expression of anger on my part-
a) One is the pacific ‘Its ok, don’t be angry’. To which my response would be that I see no merit in not being angry when there’s every reason to be! A general ‘chalta hai’ attitude suggests either inability to discriminate or plain laziness- neither of which is appealing.
b) The other response is ‘Why are YOU getting worked up?’ implying that all of us have our own headaches without taking on the world’s worries. This I can swallow when someone’s particularly fed up for some reason. But to live by this as a general principle? How insensitive are we getting as a people?
I may be over-reacting, but seems to me if pain, sorrow, hate, anger all have to be felt firsthand and shoved in our faces to appreciate, then would we ever generate writers, actors, artists of any calibre at all?? Incidentally, there are a set of nerve cells called ‘mirror neurons’ which fire (show a response) the same way when a monkey is subjected to some task as when its neighbour is subjected to the same task (say, tearing paper).
One could think of them, with some license, as ‘empathy neurons’. Are we on the way to a generation entirely lacking in ‘empathy neurons’? I find this a very disturbing thought..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Laas, I'm GLAD you posted this one. Or else, I would've done that. Recently, I spoke to someone who wanted to know how "I" felt about the inaction of people around me! And well, I had to REALLY tone my words down! Where there's something wrong happening somewhere and you feel to empathize, I think you need a brain check! And particularly, when this injustice is happening to a child who may live with the trauma for all his/her life. Reminds me, I saw Shaurya, a MUST WATCH. I think you will appreciate it. Well written and a very sensitized approach! I don't see any merit in not getting angry either! Well done!!!! (clap, clap, clap)
And also, reminds me of this Scarlett incident. It made me furious when the investigations began! Instead of working on finding out who was the culprit, the Police actually goes around hunting for evidence for the "immoral character" of Scarlett Keeling and her mother!!!! And as you told me the other day, one reporter actually commented on "bad mothering" and hence, the rape happening! I mean, just because a woman is not to "puristic", she deserves to be raped and brutally murdered?
As though you getting angry or not changes a bit of any of those things which you got angry for....
Either do something to change the situation, or simply assimilate it as another incident that has happened. Get angry when you know you can change something; atlease the suffering you go through by getting angry will get a return or satisfaction of having done something.
Jab bhooka kutta paas aata hai, usko khana do, pyaar nahi. Pyaar se pet nahi bharta.
Well written, Laasya!
On the flip side, temporary, selective desensitisation is often a survival strategy. A person who doesn't show ostensible signs of anger and pain on noticing something unjust around him may actually be an extremely sensitive person just trying to keep himself from going out of his mind.
We all hold small stations in society. Often, in order to carry out our role, which by themselves are pretty hard, requires us to shove certain issues out of our view, particularly those which are outside the circle of our influence.
This world is a complicated place. How complicated? No idea! For instance, we, as researchers, are respected for serving the society. Are we doing so, really? We don't know! May be, by being complacent about the virtuousness of our role, we are inadvertently becoming agents of a villainous project being orchestrated at such a high level that we can't see. Isn't that a possibility? I say, it is! Remember, many of the people who killed millions (Hitler, Stalin etc.) had a strong team of scientists backing them. The worst part is, the scientists didn't know who and what they are working for.
It is impossible to ascertain at each step that we aren't becoming agents of destruction by doing the very thing we love. Trying to duly react to all stimuli of pain may often render us completely paralysed.
One who understands and appreciates this complexity will realise that how much one keeps one's eyes and ears open of the white noise of distress signals emanating from every corner of the universe is a completely personal choice. It ranges from complete callousness to going berserk with pain on seeing the suffering around. None can claim higher virtuousness over another. It's just -- a choice.
I would say, when you see someone not reacting angrily to a scandal of social dimension, give that person another chance before tagging him as callous. He may just be trying hard to keep his sanity!
On seeing something wrong, an artist may come out a painting; an actor may come out with a play; a poet may come out with a poem on that situation. May be, the person who failed to get angry on the situation did so just because his mind is also trying to come out with something less artistic but more useful -- the solution! :)
In the same vein, I agree that getting angry is also an equally valid reaction. It's no one's business to question: 'Why are you getting angry?' But I don't think that 'getting angry' is the only valid reaction; 'keeping quiet' may also be a valid reaction. But, as I said above, none can claim higher virtuousness over another.
Thanks for the comments ppl! Sujit,quite a blogpiece again! I completely agree that selective desensitisation is a survival strategy and a v important one too! I'm talking about people I know well enough to know that when they mean 'Why should I care?' thats exactly what they mean :> The alternate outputs you suggest again I couldn't agree more..and I do hope there is a large subclass of such people or like I said we're in danger of losing writers, poets what have you.I wouldn't want to brand anyone 'callous' without trial, definitely not :>
Sathya, I see your point but I can't agree that anger should only be felt when you can change things. By extrapolation, you shouldn't spend any emotion while reading, watching a movie, listening to music, whatever. I think all tears of joy or pain that these media draw are precious..emoting helps you grow, as a person and as a member of a society (I think!).If bhooka kutta is paas then yes, I'd lend a tiger biscuit hand and feel some satisfaction, but if its at a distance I can at least shed, well, not a tear in this context (being from IISc I'd have to be crying all the time emphasizing Sujit's point..:>) but say a mental tiger biscuit ;>
Very well written article (includes Sathya and Sujju's comments), tempts one to write a response and I'll fall for it.
Your initial point of concern is about callousness of people who remark 'Why are you getting angry?'. I think this is mostly because everyone wouldn't watch / perceive these events and what they see is only an angry face. And their solution to the problem is to allieviate your anger. As typical of most of us, we tend to solve symptoms rather than the problems. In this case, it is more practical to calm to you down rather than sue a TV channel! On the other hand try telling the same in a more composed manner and people would probably suggest feasible solutions.
Sujju very well put across the point of one remaining 'untouched' by these events for the sake of their own sanity. Sathya made the same point at the other extreme of not bothering if you can't help it. Both are valid responses depending on how you relate yourself to the society. Getting angry at these incidents is a very good reaction if it eventually leads to a solution - it helps you acknowledge the issue and keeps it alive in your memory to act when opportunity arises. But at the same time its not worth losing your 'cool' if you can't help the situation - it might only lead to hyperacidity!
The other point is about the form of expression usde by the TV. The increased commercialisation of the media has forced them to make the maximum impact in the shortest possible timeframe, because people don't really hear them out completely. Its common to show breaking news in every channel about mundane events. In the end it is all about public appeal. I agree about the 'empathy neurons' but I think we're in that generation already - as usual in varying degrees.
Pritesh mentioned the Scarlet case and I think this incident would not have given rise to public awareness of the apathy of the police and even the media, but for the media themselves. If all there had been was a reportage in a small column in the 3rd page crime section of a newspaper, it wouldn't have evoked such public response and action.
My conclusions: getting angry is good, but not excess of it. If you think the media is not doing something on public interest, write to the editor. If you don't get a response write to the press council (not sure if they address grieveances appearing in forms other than print!). Voicing your opinion makes all the difference.
Regarding empathy neurons, we would have to create a evolutionary change to stop it, the Papal might not like it!
Hey I think there should be some signature style to tell which Sathya is which!! (though looks like I guessed right)
V true Sathya (the second)..nobody wants hyperacidity :>.But have to say usually by the time I talk to anyone there's not much angry face left, though again v true that ppl look at symptoms. Yup the Pope may not like the change :> And I can at least claim that voicing has never been an issue..I suspect TOI and Deccan Herald have blocked my email id after 6 years of lettering to editoring..
The comments seem to be a lot longer than the post:) This comment is in response to the post!
Nice post. I find it especially annoying when the misfortunes of others are hyped-up and telecast as hot news. The reason I think is 24-hr news. When you don't have enough worthwhile new-news to keep telecasting thru the day, you end up looking for eye-grabbing nonsense to generate more content.
In any case, I believe getting angry is good,healthy even , as long as you also do something to change the situation. Otherwise I think there's no point in cribbing.
Post a Comment