Visiting a country for short spells, no matter how frequently they occur, can leave you unsure if a social behaviour or condition in that society is entrenched or not. The disposition to rancour, or angry outburst, for example, that one sees in Guyana on a visit, may well be dismissed as a transitory thing; to live here permanently is to see that the condition is in fact entrenched.
It was not always thus, but it is now clearly part of Guyanese culture to row, to rail, to denigrate, to dismiss and, furthermore, the hostility – for this is indeed what it is – is not trammelled by subject. It exists across the board. We are clearly at a stage now in this country where rancour is usually the only road we take after disagreement.
This reaction of outburst instead of outreach, of rail instead of reason, of dismiss instead of discuss, is rampant in Guyana. I would go so far as to categorise it as a feature of our society. Whether it’s a next-door neighbour with cackling fowls, or politicians cackling in Parliament, we go from minor altercation to war declared in one fell swoop.
I grew up in a Guyana where people would argue over things – we are a high-spirited people – but the tolerance of the other view was always at play. Not any more. Now the other view is seen as opposition, or threat, or worse yet, attack.
A case in point is a recent article by Stabroek News columnist Al Creighton reviewing a comedy presentation at the Cultural Centre. The article appeared to be a reasoned unravelling of the direction of comedy presentations in the country, but it generated a vitriolic response accusing Mr Creighton of “personal attack.” The columnist’s suggestions for artistic improvement were brushed aside. Instead of reasoned discussion of the theatre critic’s points, disagreement had produced only invective.
It is a reaction that obtains everywhere, and it is troubling for the closed-mind it projects. The psychologist, or perhaps the sociologist, might help us unravel how we got to this unsavoury state, but it is a prevailing attitude and a worrying one.
Political behaviour is sometimes given as the fuel for this particular fire, and it is admittedly the nature of partisan political systems, such as we have here, that confrontational or even acerbic exchanges are a matter of course. The cliché expression, “cut and thrust of debate,” conveys the picture. But it is also the nature of such systems in most countries that the actors in those exchanges are able to show respect and even amiability to each other after the performance. Here, the vitriol continues unabated and will even carry over to subsequent performances in disparate venues, and, even more perniciously, with the rancour persisting over time.
In those displays, our immaturity as individuals is revealed for all who care to see.
The common man, often having more common sense than he is credited with, is often ashamed by these excursions. He may not be able to frame his discontent impressively, but he is dismayed. From the narrow experience of his personal life, he knows that such railing is not productive behaviour. I have heard those expressions of regret from the lawyer in Georgetown, from the farmer in Berbice, and from the soft-spoken man cutting bush in my yard.
I have long contended that the damage of economic exploitation in our early history is nothing compared to the damage to our self-worth that took place in those colonial years. Many of us went through wrenching times trying to overcome those impediments – I know I had mine – and there are signs that the trauma continues for many of us. The refusal to admit wrong; the volatile reaction to criticism; the resistance to consider the differing view are signposts of self-doubt or insecurity, or, in the extreme, even paranoia. There is example after example demonstrating that many of our people seem incapable of being tolerant or magnanimous, and it is particularly distressing to see the impediment showing up among the more enlightened among us.
Building self-esteem is a process covering decades, and that evolution will be helped greatly by the exertions of our artistes, our special athletes, our gifted individuals, who can help generate in us the confidence to be flexible, to debate without anger, to consider other opinions, and not to be threatened in the process. The psychologist will contend that it is fear of ‘the other,’ or fear of failure that propels these polarizing outbursts.
Letter writers and columnists are frequently telling us what’s wrong in our society and often end telling us what we “should do” with all of us nodding in agreement. It is, however, in the next step, that the exercise disintegrates; we all murmur our agreement on the “should,” but when we get to the “how” the conversation fades into awkward silence. In that context, I must confess to some pessimism. How do we turn around this attitude that seems to have permeated our society to the point where it has become an ingrained and even accepted behaviour?
As a starting point, among those who issue proclamations or take stands in this country, whether politician, media critic or private person, some consequences of this behaviour are worth considering:
In the process of these rants, given our fervent and frequent commitment to freedom of speech, we seem to want to deny others the freedom to speak unless they speak to praise us.
In the process of these rants, we are losing advantage of the synergy that flows from differing concepts contributing to a beneficial holistic result.
In the process of these rants, when the protagonists are from different racial groups, they are contributing to the widening rather than narrowing of our problematical racial divide.
Finally, and probably most significantly, in the process of our closed-mind ranting, we are proclaiming our immaturity loud and clear to the watching world. Anywhere this behaviour occurs it is troubling, but no more so than when it is displayed by those deemed the most enlightened or gifted among us.
It might help for those involved in the process of these rants to consider the reaction of many but expressed by the Pomeroon farmer: “It does mek mi shame.”
