CONFRONTATION VERSUS COMFORTABLE COCOONS
Of George Carlin, Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo, Temple Monkeys, Plip Plip, AND Some Nonsensical Belief Systems
There were a couple of conversations — one interesting and one intriguing — I was a part of over the course of the last three days. The first one was on another post I wrote, which compared the plight of Sean Abbott with Kanika Kapoor. A close friend, let’s call him K, immediately called out the bullshit in that post. In fact, that particular WhatsApp conversation starts with him saying, “The comparison is unfair”. He agreed with the bottom-line — “Nobody deserves to die” — but still went ahead and criticized the way that conclusion was arrived at. Later, K and I had a discussion about a Medium article and a video he shared on some policy ideas for education; this time, I called out the wannabe utopianism in those, stating educational policies in India are never focused on people who should be working with diverse downtrodden communities. He did not seem convinced but nevertheless it was a great argument of different perspectives. Later, we talked about a couple of funny tweets and had a great laugh, eventually sharing pictures of what we cooked during yet another day of lockdown.
The second incident is exactly contrasting to the one earlier. Person X writes a critique of a book and shares it with Person Y, who then shares it with Person Z. Z happens to be a stalwart in the world of literature, and laughs the critique of X, stating it is bullshit. Now, until that point, it is a feedback. Anybody can give feedback — positive or negative — on anybody else’s art/craft, preferably (but not mandatorily) with reasons substantiating the claims. However, what follows after that bit of criticism is at best an uncalled-for rant and at worst a tirade of sorts. Z goes ahead and claims X has received unfair recognition in the literary circles because of the influence of one other stalwart in the world of literature. Y receives this message in WhatsApp from Z, and passes on the message to X, warning it might be too much of a ‘criticism’ to take in. X reads it, feels traumatized and talks to me about it. I ask X to confront it with Z, because X holds Z in a position of high regard and follows almost all of Z’s literary work. I tell X that the absence of confrontation would lead to X getting a negative bias for Z’s literary work, and that in order to get a closure, it is important to sort it out rather than sub-consciously form a probably unreasonable hatred, because Z and Z’s work are two different entities, and they deserve to be treated separately. X denies, and since X is one of my relatives, I ask if it would be possible for X to share Z’s phone number with me, with the promise that I would talk politely. X hesitates, saying the confrontation should not happen, NOT BECAUSE X is afraid or wants to stay away, BUT BECAUSE X feels the literary stalwart — the one who was accused by Z as aiding X in climbing the ladder — would be tainted due to the confrontation. Now that, to me, is hugely problematic. X, I can see, is feeling bad, but lamenting to me or Y or anybody else would not solve the problem at all. And worse, whenever X decides to write hereafter, X would always have a sword of doubt dangling over the head, questioning the self whether writing is even a thing X should be focusing on. Which is definitely not healthy.
The mental trauma that builds up within oneself is really scary, and I have witnessed the explosion of this trauma in the form of unruly violence, extreme self-inflictions and more; it has happened to my sibling. The whole family went down an unending spiral for around three to five years before slowly rebounding. All of that happened because none of us in the family had the guts to question what the hell went wrong after two years at a residential school, the period immediately after which there were traces of a different behavior.
Mental health is highly underrated in our society. Most of the cases of mental disorders stem from a lack of confrontation. People think they can work around their issues by engaging in other worthwhile hobbies or work or whatever else, but little do they realize the wounds of the issue heal only when the issue gets confronted. I had a problematic work experience with the first ever company I worked for, immediately after college. I quit and moved on to a second organization and involved myself in neck-deep work, thinking the issue had passed. After nine months, I was invited by a friend from the first company to attend the marriage of her brother. I replied in the affirmative and was all set to go on the day of the reception, when something hit me hard. I somehow did not feel like going. Dressed up, all set, but not ready. A dam was bursting within. I went back inside my room and cried for a while, and realized this issue was not sorted until I addressed it the way it had be. Hence came a Facebook post, which then got the attention of the top brass of the org that promptly fired the Manager who was responsible for my mental well-being being compromised. Now, we can debate on the choice of medium I chose to go ahead with, to voice out what was a personal problem, or at best, a problem of a small cluster. And in my defense, I would give a thousand justifications, and this would go on and on. But, it had to be sorted for me. I sorted it out; the Manager actually works in an even higher position today in a different company.
This brings me back to the second conversation (the one with X, Y and Z). When I tried to go public with that scathing ‘feedback’ given to X by Z via Y, Y promptly resisted it, stating a private comment should be treated with privacy, and that going public with it did not make sense. Maybe, Y was right. Maybe, I was right. But it was ridiculous. X did not want to confront the issue because another stalwart might get tainted, Y did not want to confront it because Y and Z are friends, but the issue remains unsorted, as such. Which nudges me to the topic of why confronting important issues aids positive mental well-being.
I still remember how my mentor decided to confront the issue of differences of opinions in a three-member team of teachers that included him, myself and another teacher. It was very simple, straightforward and on-the-face, or more decently, to the point. We went for lunch together; the third teacher — a lady — felt we were not keeping her in the loop, and that we took most of the decisions by ourselves. She felt that she was not doing enough for the students, while she wanted to. My mentor put forth a series of steps — and later adhered to it — so that all three of us knew what was going on, and the displeased teacher also felt involved in the process. Of course, the lunch went bad; we did not step out all smiles. In a couple of days, though, we realized the issue was closed, and that there was a new, fairer system in place. We were mentally at peace, worked to our fullest extent, and completed the year in style.
This makes me segue into a bit of George Carlin. Carlin, for all practical purposes, is what a standup comic should be/aspire to be. It would be a gross understatement to call him a ‘comic’; if you watch a couple of videos of his acts, you would see an outpour of questioning what he calls ‘bullshit’ in the existing system. These include the assumed self-importance of human beings in ‘Saving The Planet’, where he says, “The planet is fine; people are fucked”. Obviously, the first instinct would be to cry foul, but coming to think about it, how can a four and a half billion year-old planet be damaged by a few thousand year-old species? Humans want to save humans, not the planet. Makes sense, right?
There is one more on Rights, where he says, “Rights are just ideas; they are imaginary”. This struck a chord immediately with me after the XYZ scenario; who is Y to tell me which is private or which is public? Which is to be disclosed and which is not to be? I am not saying this is a particularly correct line of argument, but after all, the message in question had been forwarded to my inbox, which meant surely there was already a breach of privacy. If the message was meant to stay between two people, and it went to three or four or four hundred or four billion, the breach is a breach. Sounds like a complicated schism, doesn’t it?
Confronting situations, especially uneasy and uncomfortable ones, is a highly underrated skill that has to be instilled in our society (not through classes and curriculum, by the way. Had to spell that out unambiguously because all those wannabe educationalists would then indulge themselves in framing a goddamn curriculum with modules for Confrontation 101, and impart it to the most vulnerable sections of the society, who need Math and Language firstly, and not Confrontation 101). Which leads me to Ala Vaikunthappuramuloo, a Telugu commercial flick (unarguably the best soundtrack thus far from S S Thaman, but more on that probably in a different post) I watched very recently. For all the commercial melodrama and some obviously cringe-inducing ideas and visuals in it, one particular event in that movie really fascinated me. If I were to make someone watch the movie, it would solely be for that one scene (I could not get the exact video of the scene online).
A billionaire business tycoon couple has not engaged in a meaningful or intimate conversation in about seven years. The whole extended family knows the reason for the spat, but pretends not to know. They are confronted with the harsh reality when the protagonist breaks open the whole episode that had rocked the boat seven years ago — the male’s affair with another woman. The protagonist gets slapped, and with flair, says, “It is okay. But, madam, this is over by today, right? OR, do we more of this drama in another episode?” Then, he walks away, having sown the seeds for the stakeholders involved to confront and sort the situation out by themselves. The whole family is in a state of tizzy, because they cannot pretend they do not know about the incident anymore, and the couple cannot pretend anymore that all is well. The confrontation happens, there is an outpour of emotions, after which things are back to usual.
Such simple things, don’t you think? It just takes people to talk openly. Agreed, it is easier said than done to break the ice and initiate the most uncomfortable conversations. This is one — and probably the only — reason I like YouTube channels like Temple Monkeys and Plip Plip. Seemingly taboo conversations and cuss words are just addressed on-the-go with assault and audacity in both these channels (I am not veering into the territory of the supposed male chauvinism ingrained in their content). They criticize people who are unnecessarily idolized, and shatter quite a few social taboos, at least. Like Vijay Varadharaj quips in a video, “There is no communism in cuss words”, in the context of why certain words are used to denote certain things, OR what George Carlin puts succinctly, “Words, by themselves, have no problem. It is the context that matters. I hate people who categorize words as bad. As a society, we cannot be afraid of words. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.” (The words are not exactly as told by Carlin, but the context is correct, by the way :P), right words — if necessary ‘harsh’, ‘bad’, ‘unacceptable’ ones — need to be used in times of confrontation.
When someone says I am using a lot of cuss words, and that those words dilute the essence of the argument I am putting forth to confront an issue, I just smile at the person and continue giving feedback the way I usually do. Because, I know for a fact that the usage of strong language could only strengthen the degree of seriousness the argument is supposed to convey, and never the other way round. Finally, I hate summarizing my pieces in bullet points, but since this is supposed to be something we all need to practice day in and day out, here we go:
Do not work around uncomfortable thoughts/events/incidents. They will eventually come back stronger at you. Confront them.
When confronting, make sure to keep your language strong and if needed, politically incorrect. It is okay to be criticized, but definitely not okay to lose an opportunity for confrontation. Do not prefer staying inside your own comfortable cocoons.
Call out bullshit. Do not idolize anybody. Learn to differentiate between a person and his/her work (For example, I love the audacity of Temple Monkeys, but I am one of the people who oppose the adult comedy movie that witnessed the directorial debut of Vijay Varadharaj. Personally, I am of the opinion that Indian directors have never understood the idea of an ‘adult comedy’). Understand that those are two different entities. Sometimes, the person is flawed. Sometimes, the work is. Sometimes, both are. It is important to criticize whenever, wherever required. Just because someone is your friend does not mean you cannot criticize a stand he/she is taking. On a similar note, it does not hurt to endorse an opinion of someone who you do not get along well with, if the opinion, according to you, is right.
P.S.: I am not some self-help writer or a motivational speaker. So, please do not expect a sequel of sorts to this piece. There is no “Sign up to receive my newsletter” bullshit as well.
P.P.S.: I stand by everything I have written in this post, including my stance on trying to publicize what was meant to be a “private matter”.
First published in Pens Turf on April 2, 2020.
