Monday, January 02, 2006

whats the hangup?

Jerry Seinfeld has this terrific observation about answering machines/voicemail. There are times when you call people and hope you get the automated message and are bitterly disappointed when a real human picks up the phone. Not only do these anthropoids lack the sacharrine politeness of a voicemail message, there is no beep after which you are given freedom to talk. Conversation with human beings takes so many twists and turns, many of which you'd rather avoid. Given a chance, humans just want to talk about the things they are interested in. Who wants to listen to others troubles. I've got enough of my own. I dont need to listen to how your lovelife is on a downturn or how many bottles of beer you hammered last week. The only solution for misanthropic sick people like me is voicemail. Firstly, it limits my talktime to about 45 seconds which works perfectly since I usually cant talk sense for much longer than that. Secondly, I am not rudely interrupted in transit and my idiocy exposed. Thirdly, I have completed my duty of calling up and "keeping in touch". Now the ball is in his court. I can sit here, like a king and remorselessly wait for the other person to call and then, of course, shatter his hopes by picking it up.

The deeper insight which Seinfeld draws is that, people are expected to call a lot of people for social courtesy or whatever, and in reality, we have very little to say to this group of people. Similarly they have very little to say to us. But we've got to call each other to "maintain contact" and not appear rude. So, at xmas or new year's, with a horrid hangover from last nite's merriment, you need to pick up the phone and begin the ceremony. Since you have nothing to say, you call up at 6 in the morning or 11 in the night and just leave a message. The queer thing is, as much as we hate this stupid game, we absolutely love receiving messages from faraway friends. Just messages, mind it, because a call will put too much strain on our conversational skills. These messages make us feel popular and powerful. As Seinfeld says, "Humans want to be popular amongst a group of people they dont care too much for".

Thats one helluva observation. That really drives home the point that in a relationship (I dont mean just the cootchie coo - I love you - you broke my heart types) which involves two humans, there has got to be a clear definition of where each person stands. Sweep aside all that crap about "Friends are equals". Most human interactions have a dominant partner and a recessive partner. And funnily enough, a lot of recessive partners are quite happy with this scheme of things. They feel protected and honoured to be in the company of the dominant partner. They dont care too much about asserting themselves or losing their identity or self esteem. These are the people who are ready to do more than their bit to improve their image in the eyes of the dominant partner. One example that springs to mind is the friendship of van gogh and gauguin. Gauguin was a stockbroker who had quit his job in London and arrived in Paris to look for solace in art. He was completely immersed in himself and his art. Van Gogh regarded Gauguin very highly and was almost obsequious in his admiration. The relationship reached its torrid worst when they lived together at Arles. Gauguin, was dismissive of Van gogh's admiration and was lost in his single minded pursuit. Van gogh, unable to bear this rejection, cut his ear off and even attempted suicide. But the strange thing is that, even after being rejected, Van gogh bore no bitterness towards Gauguin.

Needless to say, all of us want to be dominant partners. This completely explains the remark "Humans want to be popular amongst a group of people they dont care too much for". We want to be dominant partners and hence, we'd like to be the guys receiving the calls, not making 'em. Like movie stars, we want to be relentlessly pursued and stalked by this army of fans and then brush them aside remarking, " oh! all this public attention! Its a hard life". What roobbish! Not being famous and spending time writing articles like this, thats the hard life.

And then my alter ego replies "Not being famous and READING articles like this. Thats the hard life!"

6 Comments:

Blogger doppelganger said...

Aw........ come on! I am sure Seinfeld's word is not gospel. We can prove him wrong.

About calling me up, I'll be waiting like a hawk to pick the phone. (laughing like a hyena)

And finally, that part about writing cos I have nothing to do, was just ME. I'm sure others have more meaningful lives.

8:01 AM  
Blogger Artful Badger said...

I think you are being too cynical.
I really don't agree with you. I think your dominant-passive roles goes only into relationships which have some amount of dependance and hence some kind of inherent pressure - romantic, parents, and brother. I don't think it even extends to most same sex friends (atleast for guys).
As for doppel, intern, historically he hasn't be known to pick up his phone.
I don't write because I have nothing better to do. I think it's more like a hobby, I love my hour of tennis and I like the 30 mins or so I spend every other day blogging.

10:37 AM  
Blogger Artful Badger said...

Also, why do you have to be famous or have something super significant to do in your life. You may want to. But you don't have to.

10:40 AM  
Blogger Prashanth said...

I do write because I have nothing better to do... or rather, I don't want to do the other better things I'm supposed to be doing. Thats why I'm dropping this comment :D

1:03 PM  
Blogger Artful Badger said...

I write because it better than a number of things I could do with my free time.

9:27 AM  
Blogger TenG said...

What is infinitely harder is actually trying to digest articles like this. Nevertheless, you seem to have deceived yourself into believeing your own philosophy on your non-existent relationships, and saved us from having to do that.
Your comments about all of us wishing to be dominant partners is hogwash. Where does that leave the Marquis de Sade and von Sacher-Masoch then?

7:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home