This is from an email widely circulated in the days after the Mumbai attacks. “I humbly submit that signature campaigns, candle-light vigils and other such woolly-headed sentimental symbolism will not help… Changing something is hard work, whereas symbolism is a mere feel-good factor, or in this case a feel-bad factor!”
Responding to the last in the mail, someone on the list sent a reply-all saying: “Maybe the idea is that if we all feel bad together, it’ll start to feel good after a while!”
An insensitive remark to make at a time like this? Possibly. But possibly also an accurate one. Experience tells us that people — especially those who haven’t been personally affected by a tragedy — allow their attention to wander once they are given a relatively undemanding outlet for rage or frustration.
The real question, as a Facebook acquaintance put it: “How many people are going to walk away from these vigils thinking that, having added their small voice — or candle — to this big tragedy, they can get back to their lives?”
Still, the therapeutic value of participating in a symbolic act mustn’t be underestimated, especially at a time when almost everyone in the country (or almost everyone who doesn’t have to worry about such things as where to get their next meal) has been shaken up, and when even the most proudly cynical of us are feeling depressed and scared in varying proportions.
“Some of the little things that touched me,” says blogger and social media consultant Dina Mehta in a CNN.com commentary (http://tinyurl.com/5pqlfb), “were people all over the world volunteering time, love and attention through hugs and words of solace.”
Either way, the amount of clutter on the Internet has been staggering. Here’s a short sample of requests that anyone with an email ID or Facebook account will have got: — “Capture your emotion and come to [insert venue of choice] with your form of expression. Showcase it through a painting, elegy, poster, a lit candle, or by just holding hands.”— “Wear a badge that says ‘Enough!’ for the full day on [insert date of choice].”— “Wear a white shirt on [insert date].”
To the last, a Facebooker solemnly responds, “Will a shirt with cartoon figures on it do? It’s the only white one I have.”
“I’m mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!” is the title of a fiery online column by screenwriter Suparn Verma (http://tinyurl.com/62vbz3). But what do these words (or the popular slogan “Enough is Enough”) really mean in practical terms? demands a commenter.
“If terrorists attack again in 10 days, will it mean that for all our posturing, enough wasn’t enough? Or will it mean that while we were busy warming our hearts at vigils and protest meetings, we forgot about concrete measures?”
But surely symbolic gestures can coexist with concrete steps. Like the Facebook group which invites suggestions based on the idea that “having a new political party with good and like-minded people is the only way out”. Another email doing the rounds reveals a constitutional provision that allows people to officially vote for “Nobody” — apparently, if enough such votes come in, it could lead to a re-polling and the removal of the candidature of those who had contested the earlier poll.
“Expressing your desire not to vote for anybody can be even more powerful than voting,” says this mail, adding for the couch potato’s benefit: “Of course, you will need to make a trip to the voting booth.” But you can do that on your way to the next candlelight vigil. n
