Fantasies of Revenge
A Fantasy Theme Analysis of the Narratives in the Aftermath of the Pulwama Incident
If you’re a resident of the Indian sub-continent and you haven’t been dwelling under a rock for the last couple of weeks, you’re probably aware of the horrific terrorist attack that happened in Pulwama on 14th February, 2019. Just in case you do happen to be one of the few citizens of India or Pakistan who have managed to completely avoid being deluged with details of the attack on social media, WhatsApp, television, or the newspaper, here are the salient details:
- On Valentines Day this year, an explosive laden SUV rammed into a bus, which was part of a convoy transporting CRPF personnel from Jammu to Srinagar.
- Over 40 security personnel were killed in the attack.
- The Jaish-e-Mohammed, an extremist militant terror group, released a video claiming responsibility for the attack.
- The perpetrator of the attack was Adil Ahmed Dar, a 20-year old from Kakapora in Kashmir.
Now that we’re all on the same page about the facts of the case, it’s time to look at the rhetoric (and hopefully, some reportage) that followed. Here’s what went down that night on Republic TV, allegedly India’s most-watched English news channel:
The language that the nation’s most watched anchor uses here is of particular interest— “revenge”, “anti-nationals”, “Pakistanis”, and of course “tukde tukde”.
Here’s when things start to get interesting. If one were to search for tweets containing the words “Pulwama” and “revenge” on February 14, it becomes obvious that the earliest tweets which included both these words began appearing approximately between 6-8 pm that evening.
While the notion of revenge alone associated with the attack isn’t unusual, what’s interesting is that the search shows a spike in tweets that feature these two particular words around 10–11 pm.
Now, ideally there’s no big surprise. Republic TV ran a hashtag campaign and people are responding to it, right? But, since we’re concerning ourselves with language and rhetoric here, it’s also important to understand how the messaging has changed ever so subtly, in the span of a few hours.
The first stream of tweets, while reflecting on the need for revenge, don’t really go beyond a simple demand. The focus of the tweets is on the jawans, and the martyrs. The primary motive of the communication is to express grief at the incident. While the need for revenge is certainly expressed, there is little thought put into how this revenge will be constructed. Also, apart from a vague image of featureless terrorists, there is little attention given to whom exactly this revenge will be exacted from. Most importantly, there is no definitive quality to this revenge.
However, there seems to be a drastic shift as the hours pass. Suddenly, there not only seems to be a concretisation of what revenge should look like, but also a shift in the motive of communication — now revenge is the primary motive. In fact, when it comes to the concrete expression of what revenge should look like, many of these tweets seem to be harking back on the words or themes expressed earlier. The idea of revenge being exacted through blood, the notion that anyone with a different viewpoint is antinational, and the very real use of the words ‘tukde tukde’ being thrown back at ‘the enemy’ who is by now a very real entity.
So okay, the right wing wants revenge. Hell, everyone wants revenge. How does any of this matter? Also, why is Arnab Goswami relevant in all this?
Well, for starters, its worth examining just why everyone wants revenge. Here are a few questions to begin:
- How did it happen that in a matter of hours, an entire group of social media users moved from expressing an abstract idea of revenge to defining and demanding a concrete, definite, and violent revenge?
- Did Arnab’s (and the other channels’) broadcast contribute in defining the idea of violence that eventually came to be shared by different individuals?
- Or was the broadcast merely an expression of a sentiment already shared by the millions of citizens of the country?
- What were the immediate and real consequences of the concretisation of the idea of revenge, the enemy, and the nation?
- If one were to be able to deconstruct the process behind this social media ‘group-think’ and understand how groups of people manage to construct a shared reality through their speech and messaging, would it not be easier to understand why your once-liberal mausaji and chachiji have spent the last two weeks fervently forwarding nationalistic, patriotic, and jingoistic messages to your family WhatsApp group?
Welcome to Languages and Realities: 201.
One thing seems to be clear from the Pulwama case — the kind of social media groupthink that occurred here resulted in the delineation of a certain shared social reality, and the use of a certain kind of language was instrumental in shaping this reality.
But the idea that reality may be shaped by language isn’t exactly new. In the field of rhetoric studies, this idea emerged with the rise of Constructivist theories of language in the 20th century.
Define Constructivist Theories of Language Please?
Constructivism was originally a theory about learning which posited that people construct learning and language through their own experiences and reflections, meaning that the knowledge you and I possess is a construction of meaning that is unique to our individual selves.
In the context of language then, the Constructivist approach is that:
“language, symbol systems, symbols, and discursive practice are influential in shaping and/ or creating our sense of reality.”
This approach in turn led to the development of an entirely new body of critical scholarship known as fantasy theme analysis.
A Short History of Fantasy Theme Analysis
Fantasy Theme Criticism was pioneered by a communication and speech scholar called Ernest Bormann, who initially introduced the concept in a paper he wrote in 1972.
Bormann, who was attempting to understand group behaviour through rhetorical analysis, accidentally stumbled upon the work of psychologist Robert Bales whose work contained “a key part to the puzzle” that Bormann was trying to solve.
In his research, Bales wrote about the dynamic process of group fantasising present in small group interaction. According to Bormann, “Bales provides the [rhetorical) critic with an account of how dramatizing communication creates social reality for groups of people and with a way to examine messages for insights into a group’s culture, motivation, emotional style, and cohesion.”
Why was this significant?
“Much of what has commonly been thought of as persuasion can be accounted for on the basis of group and mass fantasies” — Bormann
Since the study of rhetoric is primarily a study of the art of persuasion, if what Bormann was saying here was correct, then clearly the field of rhetoric had to accommodate and explore the ways in which collaborative construction of stories and narratives developed within a group setting.
So, Bormann came up with the Fantasy Theme method of criticism in order to be able to examine the discursive and symbolic processes by which “social reality” is constructed and within which specific acts of persuasion can occur.
How Does Fantasy Theme Analysis Work?
Let’s revisit the Pulwama incident in order to get a better understanding of how exactly Fantasy Theme Analysis works.
According to Bormann, fantasy is “the creative and imaginative interpretation of events that fulfills a psychological or rhetorical need.”
In that sense, the fantasies of revenge around the Pulwama incident are catering to a psychological or rhetorical need shared by multiple people. But, how exactly does this need get farmed out to an entire group of people so that all of them start buying into the same fantasy?
Fantasy communication is that which dramatizes or tells a story and the elements that make up that story — the plot, the characters, the setting- are referred to as fantasy themes.
So, if we were to analyse the fantasy themes that contribute to building the narrative around Pulwama, what would we find?
There seem to be two major ways in which the plot is being constructed. The first is of course through means of setting up a war cry for revenge. The fantasy theme that emerges is that of a blood-thirsty, take no losers, course of revenge that is desired.
The second line of action that emerges as a fantasy theme is the castigating of everyone who does not identify as ‘proud Indian’ as anti-national.
So, automatically, these so-called ‘anti-nationals’ are placed into the enemy camp, along with Kashmiris, Muslims, and of course Pakistan.
How does this become a collective fantasy though?
As these fantasy themes are constructed, those dramatisations that catch on start being chained out, either in small groups or through public speeches in mass media.
So, when a fantasy theme is popular — essentially when a large number of people buy into it- the same themes start to recur in more and more messages, until the themes take on a life of their own. One example is that of the ‘tukde-tukde’ gang — even though the incident occurred over two years ago, the phrase continues to persist in public memory.
That’s also an example of the emergence of fantasy types — stock characters or lines of action that emerge through the repeated use of such discourse. ‘Anti-national’, ‘urban naxal’, are some of the examples of the fantasy types that have emerged over the past few years.
Finally, these fantasy types become part of a greater rhetorical vision. So, the fantasy themes that have emerged from the Pulwama incident, become part of the greater rhetorical vision of a stronger, more decisive nation. One which only accepts a certain kin of narrative, and a certain kind of citizen.
Why Does Fantasy Theme Analysis Matter?
Well, for one you don’t have to wonder anymore about what’s causing all this mass hysteria about little things anymore. But, more importantly, it helps in critically analysing the realities we inhabit, the narratives we buy into, and the social reality we can help create around us.
Which social reality will you choose?
References
- Bormann, Ernest G. “Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58.4 (1972): 396–407. Print.
2. Bormann, Ernest G. “I. Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: Ten Years Later.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.3 (1982): 288–305. Print.
3. Bormann, Ernest G. “The Eagleton Affair: A Fantasy Theme Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59.2 (1973): 143–59. Print.
4. Bormann, Ernest G., Roxann L. Knutson, and Karen Musolf. “Why Do People Share Fantasies? An Empirical Investigation of a Basic Tenet of the Symbolic Convergence Communication Theory.” Communication Studies 48.3 (1997): 254–76. Print.
5. Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro. “The Fantasy Theme Approach.” Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1990. 210–22. Print.
6. “CONSTRUCTIVISM THEORY OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING.” Mydreamarea. N.p., 05 Jan. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
7. Dickerson, Arin Rose. “Ernest G. Bormann.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 18 Dec. 2018. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
8. Ernest Bormann Official Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
9. Fantasy Theme Analysis. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
10. Jasinski, James. “Fantasy Theme Analysis.” Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010. N. pag. Print.
11. Stern, Taylor. “Fantasy-Theme Criticism.” Prezi.com. N.p., 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
12. Thevisualcommunicationguy.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
