Don't be so Paranoid — II

Paranoia has no limits. And when you are paranoid, everything and everyone is dangerous. Everyone is targetting you; you are the victim. Ah! This feeling of self pity. Ask Americans and Israelis and if they are honest they will tell you that the reason behind their oppressive belligerance is deep-seated paranoia. Well! We need not go so far looking for credible examples of paranoia in order to understand it.
A year ago or so, a hard-working and honest Tehelka journalist who is now with NDTV and doing pretty well was working on a fairly known, but untouched, story about the financial embezzelments committed by the owner of Amity, Dr Ashok Chauhan, and how he had been evading a red corner notice issued by the Interpol. Chauhan got a wind of it and panicked. He rushed to the Tehelka office and hugged the reporter. "Arey aap to mere bhai hain. Kahiye hum aapke liye kya kar sakte hain." The reporter did not budge. He offered ads but Tehelka did not relent and the story was published. Chauhan still had a few tricks up his sleeves. He picked up all the copies from the stands. So the story was published but no one read it. For the next one week, Chauhan was the butt of jokes at Tehelka and elsewhere. Precisely because it was laughable to see a man with so much money and political connection be so scared of an adverse press report, which would have anyways gone unnoticed owing to Tehelka's poor circulation at that time. And even if it was, it wouldn't have had much effect on his flourishing business, leave alone leading to his arrest. As it was fairly clear when later certain TV channels picked up the story, made popular by Chauhan's over-reaction, but nothing happened and the matter was settled on the margins of full-page Amity ads in mainstream newspapers.
But Tehelka, probably, picked up a lesson or two. A few hours ago, a friend (also a bitter ex-employee of Tehelka, now with India Today) posted her personal rantings on her blog, which is hardly read by anyone—I am one of the few forced readers. Certainly, a few harsh words for Tehelka. Some unparliamentary too. Tehelka gets a wind of it. The news spreads like fire in the kitchen garden. Panic calls.

"Does India Today have a blog."
"Is she writing on it."
"Tell her to stop all this."
"What is her problem."

Dr. Chauhan! You have company.

The Argumentative Indian

One thing most of us like to do is argue. Many of us have come across situations when in the middle of a conversation, our boss, our parents or an elder has shot back, “Do not argue.” Almost suggesting that argument in itself is bad. Much of civilization is based on argument, like government and courts. Almost all philosophers, from Aristotle to Marx argued in favour of their point of view which later became the fundamental principles of many revolutions and States. Argument, many maintain, is an art. And like all fine arts, it needs talent. Also, there is good art and bad art. So, positive argument and negative argument. Many of us argue just for the sake of arguing; to prove that the other person is wrong. Winning an argument is always a good feeling. And when an argument ends with your opponent crying “There is no point arguing with you”, you know you have won it and you happily end it with a sarcastic smirk. Here it doesn’t matter whether you had better logic or your opponent, what matters is you forced the other to bow out. That’s the sheer power of talent. However, it should not be believed that only talent can win an argument or winning the argument is the triumph of the idea. Hegel was never known to be a great communicator. Many of my friends, whose knowledge about political philosophy is as much as Bush’s about principles of peaceful coexistence, would beat Hegel hands down in a one-on-one argument. But it was the power of his idea that mattered. And that is exactly what matters in a positive argument.
However, it’s negative argument that most of us indulge in most often. Most of the arguments start positively but turn negative or worthless as they progress. It usually happens because of limited knowledge, reluctance to cede ground in favour of the better idea or being intrinsically opinionated. Two of the three should apply to make an argument negative. Once that happens, our soul aim is to prove a point irrespective of the nature or worth of it. We make unnecessary statements, veer away from the central thread of the argument, try our best to scuttle it altogether, and at the end the winner is the one who can shout the loudest.

Here, I am reproducing excerpts from an article by friend and senior journalist Vijay Simha on the phenomenon called argumentation:

In the Indian context, argument can often be overused. People argue because it feels good and useful, and because there is no alternative. A person in argument often feels he has something to say, and can get carried away by this feeling. This feeling of adequacy has often prevented the development of better methods. The history of argument has been traced to the time of Socrates, and the Church later powerfully adopted the method. The Church needed something to counter what they called ‘heretics.’ Argument is used when an idea needs changing. An idea you believe is wrong. Or when there is a case, a claim, an opinion, or an activity you wish to oppose. So the attack is set up. From the ferment and clash a synthesis is supposed to emerge that combines the best of both sides.

This rarely happens.

Primarily because there is very little action or motivation on the part of either side to pick out the best in the opposite view. At best, what emerges is a grudging compromise or a retreat from position. What usually happens is that one or the other side wins and the other is defeated – in a simple trial of strength. The end result is the strength of a point of view, not the excellence of that view. The defender gets much more rigid and more definite about what is being defended. The exploratory feelers are withdrawn, and the rigidity gets worse. The attacker gets more strident and fiercer. But he has to become more focused and can’t afford explorations.

Basically,

1. Each side gets more rigid.
2. Neither side makes an attempt to develop an idea different from the two that are clashing.
3. An indefinite amount of time, energy, maybe even costs, is held up in a standoff that may continue for a long time.
4. The creativity and ingenuity of each side is not directed at improving their idea, but in securing the defeat of the opposite side.
5. In the end the idea which triumphs is the stronger but not necessarily the better idea.

There is another method, which some Indians and Japanese, in particular, seem to adopt. The feudal societies of both India and Japan were full of protocol, respect, and what they called manners. In these quarters it was seen as extremely bad manners to tell a person that he was wrong, or his idea incorrect. So they never chose verbal attack, or argument, as a form. They usually told each other ‘that is wonderful and perfect – now let’s explore.’ Women, who were at the receiving end of this feudal society, almost perfected the art of exploration. While exploring, both parties are looking for better ideas. They are interested in seeing the good points in the ideas of the other. In short, there is exploration instead of argument.
Should the joint exploration result in an idea which both parties like, there can be a switch to that idea. The old idea is left unchallenged and undemolished but no longer used. Thus the best way to get rid of an idea is used – ignoring it. If a better idea is not found we can simply revert to the earlier idea, which is still undemolished. This is in contrast with the concept of argument that concentrates on demolishing an old idea.

The crucial thing to understand is that an idea need not be right at each stage for the final idea to be right. Exploration does away with one of the main purposes of argument: to be negative. In either case, it also helps to think carefully about what we are going to say because it is liable to attack.

Argument is generally used for a few things.

1. To prove that someone is wrong.

2. To show someone up to be stupid or ignorant, and therefore all that he or she says is worthless.

3. To make an impression on others.

4. To set the emotional mood that will then become part of the negotiating scene: the mood setting may be tough, strong, bullying, or obdurate.

5. To cast doubt on the certainty of a particular interpretation.

6. To force an exploration of an issue.

7. To bring about insight, and a change of view – to help someone see something quite differently.
When done in a negative air, as arguments usually are, we may be incapable of constructive thought. The whole purpose is then defeated.