Not yet

I know it's been almost a month with no word, but I'm not stopping blogging. A combination of my MA dissertation, my final move out of Norwich and various festivals/ultimate frisbee tournaments has meant I haven't had a moment to even think about something worth saying, let alone find the time to scribble it down. But: new domicile, MA is all over, summer ends with Bestival next week. Normal service WILL be resumed. Cheers to all those who've waited.

The Listeners

When it comes to human relations objectivity is a tough concept to apply. We are subjective beings at heart, always influenced by our emotions and drives, which are in turn the work of our unique and very complicated biology. It’s pretty difficult to separate yourself from a situation that involves you even indirectly, and to view it in a purely objective, logical manner. We’re all ‘Bones’ McCoy rather than Mr. Spock, even though we know it’s not always the best attitude.

It’s a lot easier to remain objective if the situation doesn’t involve you at all. Although you are still likely to be affected by your own views and prejudices over a particular subject, you ought to be able keep your own emotions out of it.

This latter point is based on the assumption that you might have to provide an opinion at some point; to empathise with one or more parties and advise as objectively as you can. This is where it normally gets tricky but it’s important to remember that in many cases, no advice is necessary. The term ‘objective’ in these cases may not mean ‘neutral’ but instead ‘uninvolved.’ Simply being well outside of a situation might be enough. This is one of the jobs assigned to counsellors and therapists: to provide an emotional outlet for their patients that is completely separate from the situation being described. You are telling someone about your problems, but not your friends or your mum. The best way to be objective is to be a stranger.

It’s difficult voicing your problems, even to yourself. In fact, many people have no idea what their problems are until they describe them out loud. The basic remit of counselling is to help the individual in question identify for themselves what is causing them pain. For most people, telling their troubles to someone they know is out of the question. Their reaction, whether guessed at or unknown, could cause as much stress and woe as exists already. Most people would rather keep their mouth shut than take a risk like that, and who can blame them?

I recently watched an advert for a television documentary involving married couples. I don’t know if these couples had been previously filmed, but the substance of this show related to interviews of these people one year after the big day. Their situation was analysed and contrasted against their wedding day, and then the subjects were interviewed, both together with their partners and separately, and detailed their life and feelings one year after their wedding.

As is to be expected, some people were having a whale of a time, others not so much. Even from the trailer you could tell that some of the couples already tupping miserable and seriously regretting their decision to tie the knot. It was upsetting viewing, and it was only twenty seconds long. There was no way I was going to watch the actual show. It would be far too sad.

I watched the advert with my sister, and the question she immediately raised was this: what are the partners of the miserable individuals going to feel like when they see the show, and have to listen to the disparaging commentary provided by their spouses? What would drive someone to air their dirty laundry in this manner on national television?

This secondary question can be extended hugely, and made to apply to thousands of television shows and written articles. The most famous example among them is probably The Jerry Springer Show, and the variety of copycat shows with a similar formula. You may recall that I once thought about describing my dislike for The Jeremy Kyle Show and then changed my mind at the last minute (if you do remember, jolly well done. Gold star).

Why do people want to talk about their problems in this way? A simple (a perhaps at least partially correct) answer would be: for the money and the fame. It’s an easy qualification to gain oneself television time, and it pays a little bit of cash.

I think there’s another, more important reason. This is all pure conjecture but may have been expressed already elsewhere by someone brighter or more qualified than me. I think that people go on these shows to have someone objective listen to them.

Jerry Springer was more a ringmaster to his circus than a serious interviewer. Jeremy Kyle likes to present himself as a father figure of sorts. Neither of these styles seems particularly objective, but we need to remember that it is not an objective reaction these people are necessarily looking for. Instead they require someone well outside their social network to simply listen to what they have to say. That can be the host, or the people in the studio, or even the viewers at home. They want to tell their problems to a stranger, and have identified this as a profitable method.

Unfortunately, it goes further than this. I think people want, or need, to be asked the questions that Springer or Kyle or Goddard or Uncle Phil or whoever are posing, because no one else ever thought to. I think that perhaps, these are people with serious issues, and no one in their lives is interested. I think the people on the wedding program were telling their deep and darks to the person with the camera because they were the first objective person to ever show a fucking interest.

You don’t have to be a total stranger to make an attempt at objectivity. If you aren’t involved directly in a social situation you could have a good stab at remaining neutral enough to merely ask pertinent questions and listen to their answers. Rarely does Jeremy Kyle come up with some fantastical solution to people’s ills. It is almost always a simple, brown-bread answer: thank about how other people feel, and take basic steps to solve your own problems. Just voicing the problems aloud is enough to signpost their answers.

I feel lucky to have people to confess my troubles to: people that will just listen and then help me find my own way towards solutions. And I feel a great sadness towards those that have none of these opportunities, and must look towards the general public to simply speak out loud. Next time it becomes apparent that someone I know has a problem, even someone I do not know well, I hope I take the time to ask about it. I would not dream to proscribe your behaviour, but I would ask you to do the same.