This is not the first attempt to put this into words. Usually, my blog posts are triggered by a thought that develops easily into a stream of ideas that are (hopefully) connected and lucid and coherent. Most times the writing is easy – perhaps too easy – as that doesn’t always lend itself to reviewing to ensure that it is expressed in the correct way. This one is a bit different….
The primary difference is that I am attempting to describe something that is probably indescribable – a feeling, or rather a set of feelings, that were engendered by a complex web of things that have occurred over many decades, but which were brought into sharp focus over just an hour or so the other evening. In some respects this simply reinforces my oft-stated worldview about how disparate things are inevitably connected through time and space. In some respects it illustrates perfectly the way in which completely “separate” things can, in a strange way, come together and create an unexpected effect.
I sat down to watch the latest episode of a tv series, little imagining that the plotline would take the direction that it did – and completely unaware of how the next sixty minutes would change my mood. When I say that the only visual depiction of violence and brutality was a few moments showing the discovery of a body it should be clear that this was not about the “nasty stuff” that happens to people – there was nothing in the programme that was, in that sense, hard to watch. No one got beaten up, no one killed, there were no torture scenes, no battle scenes with limbs being severed – there was plenty of that in the recent adaptation of War and Peace.
What there was instead was an incredibly moving representation of the effects of such brutality on those who suffered and on those who cared for those who suffered. This story was all about the psychological effects – the physical effects were not glossed over but they were, in terms of the drama, insignificant. Instead we “saw” the thinking of the victims – how they were ‘changed’ – how ‘normal’ life would never be the same again for them. Now – in many ways this does indeed echo “War and Peace” – that too showed the way people’s lives were changed by events that were – in many cases – forced on them rather than being their own choosing. However, in terms of the impact of the programme, there the similarity ends. This one hour managed to cram in far more than the whole series of W&P – perhaps because it was focussed – on a few people – on a single event – and the story was not spread over countless years, but rather just a few days.
Now – clearly simply reporting that someone had made a good TV programme is not enough in itself to trigger a post in this blog.
Earlier on the same day I had read, on LinkedIn, an article that told a story about the significance of ‘connection’ to something – how the self same event can seem quite different depending on whether you are “involved” in some way or simply an unaffected bystander. Now – taking the latter first – I don’t actually think that any bystander is indeed unaffected – simply being aware of/viewing the event will affect you somehow – but that is a minor point in this discussion. The major point is that the degree to which you can “identify” with the situation will determine how you react to the event.
I remember one particular example where this was previously played out in my own experience. There have been countless instances – particularly over recent years where gunmen have targetted a school or college. Each of these events is tragic – and I am saddened every time I hear of such an event. However, there is one that stands out for me – when the primary school was targetted at Dunblane the photos of the victims made headline news – one of them looked very much like my own daughter – who was the same age – and who was sitting safe in a school (in a completely different part of the country where no harm came to her) doing exactly the same sort of things as the victims were. This ‘connection’ caused this particular atrocity to hit me MUCH harder than any of the others. Identifying with the situation is so important in determining our reaction to it.
Now – here was a TV programme – a work of complete fiction – which had a storyline that I really did “identify” with. I could replace characters in the show with real people that I know – indeed some aspects of some of the characters I could see myself exhibiting.
In psychology they talk of “triggers” – a stimulus that ‘triggers’ specific feelings or emotions – perhaps smells, sounds, sights – I have talked a bit about such madeleines already with respect to music. I guess that this particular instance was a bit different though – unlike the madeleines where re-encountering something triggers memories of the original encounter in this case this was a NEW encounter that was sufficiently close to OLD events to rekindle the thoughts and feelings – indeed not just rekindle, but perhaps reinforce or reinterpret the original thoughts and feelings.
A similar sort of effect might be if someone describes the look and taste of an unfamiliar foreign food – one that you yourself have never seen, never mind eaten. From that description you get one ‘level’ of experience of that food. Some time later there is a cookery programme on the TV and you see this dish being cooked and being served to a group. This is another level of experience.
You still don’t really know what it tastes like – but you can now really say you know what it looks like and you have seen – at first hand – the reactions of people who are eating it. Its not PERFECT knowledge, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what it might be like to eat it. If you should ever get the chance to do so it may be that your reaction will be positive or it may be negative. You can’t really tell until it happens – and for that reason you must remember that your impressions – gained from the act of watching others – are incomplete. They are a model – missing some information – as all models do – but hopefully accurate enough to enable you to make a decision – in this case whether or not you would like the food.
Returning to the original thread – the only connection between the tv programme and the memories and emotions that it stirred was ideas (for want of better word!!) – it wasn’t like the sound of Beethoven’s Egmont overture conjuring up for me the sight of the Munich Olympic stadium and the massacre of Israeli athletes. In that case there is a direct connection with that music being played at the memorial service. In this case the fictional story line and the specific effects that were concentrated on were “new experiences” rather than “repeated experiences”. Yet they still managed to evoke a strong connection with “past experiences”.
Generalising this specific occurrence we can see that our memories can be rendered by relatively unrelated events that simply “trigger” the appropriate thoughts. This is not so surprising – we often experience things that are “a bit like” another experience. The TV programme had more than enough by way of similarities with the “remembered” event that I don’t find it surprising that it “took me back”. However, what might be the minimum “connection” for a trigger to occur.
A smell – a bar of music – a glimpse of a picture – these are all capable of acting as our madeleines. Crucially, they are all ‘specific’ reminders where the ‘thing’ was present in the original experience. When we go to “ideas” this becomes rather less tangible – not that you can really touch a smell, but never mind!! Here we have – in this case where it is fictional – someone who “writes the story” – which is then “brought to life” by actors (and of course editted, re-shot, and all the other production processes) – and is finally viewed by an audience – interpreting it (once again) through their own eyes and experiences.
In this particular case I have noticed that there has been “critical acclaim” of the way that this particular episode dealt with what is most certainly a difficult subject. However, without the “personal” connection and the feeling of “involvement” (as suggested by the LinkedIn post) I would probably have been amongst the ranks who simply thought that “they handled it well”. As such it wouldn’t particularly have stood out from other ‘good’ programmes. It is the difference between being simply an observer and being personally invested in what is happening. It was fiction – so there was, in that sense, no cost coming to me – however, the degree of empathy with the characters was certainly much, much deeper.
The reason that this tv programme acted like a madeleine for me, in my opinion anyway, is that there were sufficient hooks to reality to ensure that I “got the point” (so to speak). It didn’t matter that in almost every way the storyline was unlike the memories. In some ways it was allegorical – but perhaps was “too close” to the truth to be termed an allegory.
(Aside: Something worth exploring in a future post is the fact that ALL tv is made for entertainment purposes – it is quite strange, in many ways, that we choose to be “entertained” by things that we would not choose to experience in real life!!)
There are things that we experience in life that are – at best – unpleasant, but which give us some sort of insight, or education, or experience that is helpful in the long run. Sometimes we can discern exactly why we “need” it. In other cases it can be a bit of a mystery. The “insight” that this particular madeleine gave me was not particularly new – but it was a bit practical. Things that I sort of understood theoretically became more focussed on “how it feels”. If someone writes to you and says that they have hit their thumb with a hammer you may well think “ouch, that must have hurt” – and you “imagine” their pain (especially if you have done the same sometime in the past) – but if someone standing next to you does the same thing you almost feel the pain with them.
So it was here – even though it was JUST acting – there was a sense of being with the folks who were suffering and understanding a bit of why it was all so difficult for them in lots of different ways. It was also a lesson in unexpected consequences in a different way – it wasn’t just the victims that were affected – it was their friends and family (as you would expect) – but also there were greater ripples, both direct and indirect, that affected a much wider group. It would actually be rather interesting to me to discover how this particular episode affected the actors (as against the characters they were playing). Did they find themselves struggling with the same conflicts that afflicted their characters.
There are two reasons why I am not going into specifics here – one is to avoid spoilers for anyone who later watches this programme and the other is to avoid pulling out any particular connection at the expense of another, since that would be done with MY biases. However it is possible to generalise this to any act of wrongdoing perpetrated by someone.
There is always a perpetrator and a victim – both can, of course, be multiples – a serial killer will have many victims, often a gang will pick upon a single victim as an easy target. This will – of course – affect the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim (please read all these, and similar classifications as plurals from now on) and it will almost certainly change the behaviour of all involved. Both sides have ripples.
For the victim they have family – that relationship will change, whether or not the family are made aware of the action. The changes will, naturally be different, depending on whether they know or not – but changes will occur. So, the family will develop different behaviours.
For the perpetrator – they also have family – again – whether or not the action is made known to the family complications are appearing that will change the relationships and therefore change the behaviour.
Often – these difficult situations are made even more complicated by victim and perpetrator belonging to the same family!!
Lets assume that, for whatever reason, neither victim nor perpetrator has told anyone – it is “their secret” – but all members of the family can observe changed behaviour – but don’t know why! This is, perhaps an unusual situation – but what is not unusual is that at some point in the “ripples” someone will be forced to “suppress” the news and those who “don’t know” will be puzzled by their changed behaviour. If this is sufficiently far out in the ripple, it will probably go unnoticed – but if the “barrier” has to be built close to those directly involved there will be inexplicable behaviour changes that will arouse suspicion or generate awkwardness.
Even when there is no suppression there can still be barriers – assume now that everyone knows – do you bring up the subject with the victim? This has the potential to be equally awkward. The subject can very easily become the elephant in the room with everyone desperate to talk about it, but no one willing to be the first to admit to noticing it.
The most difficult relationships are those involving the victim – and it is hard to determine whether these are worse when the other person knows or when the other person doesn’t know – both are fraught – or at least can be. However, one thing that seemed to be clear in the particular setting depicted on the TV was that it was important for those close to the victim to know. That – of course – is not always possible and it must be awful for anyone in that situation to know that they must keep the truth from at least some of those close to them.
There are a few other aspects of this which make it distinctive in terms of my interest in “how we remember” and “how we are reminded of things”. None of this has clarified the “big” issue of how do we tell “real” memories from “fake” ones. If anything the opposite – since clearly the fiction that the tv episode contained has been added to my memories – its a real memory of a fake event!!
It is likely that this post isn’t my final word on this type of subject. The fact that this touches on a whole raft of topics relevant to this blog – interconnectedness, understanding, memory and cognition – almost guarantees that this is simply a step along the way – to be expanded upon – or possibly even contradicted! – in future posts.