‘Primal scream therapy’ is a nontraditional form of psychotherapy which encourages patients to vent and express their emotional and mental pain by screaming.
Tune into any Pakistani news channel during prime time and it would appear that the entire nation is engaged in a collective bout of scream therapy to deal with the emotional and mental pain of living in Pakistan. Every anchor, politician and pundit is trying to out-scream the other in nightly screaming matches on prime time television. Why does everyone on television feel the need to raise their voice in order to get their message across to the Pakistani people?
That’s because everyone knows the dirty little secret of prime time television in Pakistan: someone must lose in order for you to win. And screaming matches are relatively easier to win compared to the daunting task of winning over your audience with substantive arguments. In this landscape, no matter what your position is on an issue, there is a ‘made for television’ label that can be screamed enough times to redefine your position.
For example, if you believe Pakistan must crush militancy with military action, your opponents simply have to call you an American or Israeli agent enough times to drown out any substantive arguments you may have. On the other hand, if you believe in negotiating with the militants, you might as well be as naïve as Taliban Khan.
If you’re an advocate for the separation of religion and state, you’re a godless secularist or a liberal fascist. If you believe Islam should have a role in the state’s policymaking structure, you’re as dangerous as Ziaul Haq, whose policies are the root cause of extremism and every other dark force in Pakistani society today.
This is the beauty of screaming matches: they naturally gravitate towards extremes and paint a black and white view of the world. We often talk about a trust deficit in Pakistani society and how that gets in the way of developing a consensus to solve national problems. We must understand that this ‘trust deficit’ is firmly rooted in a surplus of labels that are screamed on television every night. I’m fairly confident that every player in Pakistan’s cricket team has an individual opinion on game/team strategy but can you imagine what would happen to the team’s performance if the players started screaming at one another during a match?
Team motivation would plunge, the team would begin to fracture into subgroups and winning as a team would take the backseat to winning influence as a group within the team.
One of the most insightful moments of the recent US elections was the concession speech that Mitt Romney delivered after he lost a hard-fought election campaign to President Barack Obama. The speech almost moved me to tears as a close observer of the political conversation in Pakistan.
“I’ve just called President Obama to congratulate him on his victory ... I so wish that I had been able to fulfil your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader. And so Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation.”
This speech inspired this article with one key question in mind: can we create a national conversation in Pakistan that encourages opposition leaders and their supporters to congratulate a newly elected prime minister and publicly pray for his success? Fortunately, this isn’t as hard as we imagine it to be. As a first step, we need to lose the labels we use to characterise people we don’t agree with.
Would the heavens fall if we concede that every politician in Pakistan isn’t corrupt? Or that most religious people in the country aren’t closed minded, armchair Taliban sympathisers?
If only we could look beyond our self-imposed labels, we would see a startling vision of Pakistan; one that isn’t as fractured as we imagine it to be during our screaming matches.
Incidentally, when we finally stop labelling others, we will begin to listen to them. And when people feel listened to, they eventually stop screaming.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2012.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ Doom
Appreciate your different take on the issue . However , I do hope that we have identity
of views on one point : the politicians who participate in talkshows brazenly display
their lack of respect for truth , facts , objectivity and decent and rational dialogue .
Thus they provide the people a good chance to know the reality of their leaders .
@shakrullah: Not really. Passionate self-righteousness is not the most common reason for the screaming. It is mostly just to literally drown out your opponent. If your opponent has a really valid point and is likely to pwn you, scream loud to drown them out and scream long to hog all the air time.
And in part one has to blame the media people. If they really wanted a proper discourse they could make it happen. e.g. why don't they simple have mics that they can turn on/off or pass around so everyone is not audible at once. But no, proper discourse would be too boring.
@Shah: Please read the article one more time. He has not lambasted Imran as you seem to think.
@ Author
I see things a little differently than you do . . People in our talkshows don't scream for
self-health . In fact they shout at each other with passionate self-righteousness . We
don't find them seeking self-cure or enlightenment , we find them driven by the passion of
curing others of their sicknesses and ignorance . People who have recourse to primal
screams are aware that they are sick . But people who shout madly at others
are unaware of their sickness .. Their sickness is such that it does little
harm to them , but it does makes them a menace for the society ,
Incidentally, when we finally stop labeling others, we will begin to listen to them. And when people feel listened to, they eventually stop screaming Can't agree more with the author.
Romney and Obama did not stop from pulling any punches in the run up to the election. Labels are used to distill the opponents' position to a digsetible soundbyte. This happens throughout the world. What is missing in Pakistan is the faith that democracy with all its flaws has a self correcting mechanism, if it is allowed to continue and is better than other alternatives. In Pakistan, I do not believe there is still any clarity about what is best - a technocratic dictatorial set-up (hithrto run by army) or a democracy or a caliphate. And of all the people wanting a caliphate, no-one has articulated quite how the caliph would be selected. So while many complaints of lack of governance can be laid to PPP's door - the fact that a disproportionate amount of energy was wasted in just surviving malafide arrows, certainly explains some of the shortcoming, though not all.
The funny thing about scream therapy is that it doesn't actually work. Screaming fires up your endorphins which is essentially your bodies reward system for doing things (like eating or running) which means that everytime you get angry you'll be more likely to scream and lash out. Its more effective for people to find nonviolent ways of channeling and controlling their anger. This includes being honest with yourself and finding the root of your mental problems like the author is suggesting. Melodrama and histrionics have never cured any patient.
@ali akbar: He said "almost." He was also clearly speaking figuratively.
Intresting; but can you convey this message to dr Danish who is master of screaming.You have to screame much louder,can you?:
Writer's Words.''Ziaul Haq, whose policies are the root cause of extremism and every other dark force in Pakistani society today'' .....Now this is something very biased and reflects that very Scream mindset where everyone is labeling and blaming others for all the Problems......Afterall We all belong to same society :)
Bilal - Very objective analysis of the situation. My only counter-argument is against the corruption bit. See people need to have a common ground to agree upon. The lowest common denominator in any conversation between people with diametrically opposite views is sincerity to the cause. When the person advising you on an ideology is also the one who is cheating on you, he loses the moral credibility to defend his point of view (even when the point of view might be correct). May be this is not how things should be, but that's how all human relationships and communication are. Everything can be addressed but not trust deficit. Romney is fine with leading Obama because he too would agree that there might be badly designed policies but at least no corruption happening from the other side.
Romney's concession speech moved you to tears? Seriously?