Synthetic opinions: The bane of modern life

Those who lag behind in this race to be the first with a pithy soundbite, tweet or comment are singled out for choice abuse and described as 'fence -sitters, 'apathetic' and 'safe-players', says Malavika Sangghvi

It's been happening with such regular frequency that it appears to be a syndrome and deserves to be named. This pattern of current events polarising members of the public and demanding from them instant and passionate positions and comments.

Think back on the rash of breaking news in the recent past; whether they are issues of gender, race, region, personality or ideology -- they all seem to possess the ability to engage us and then provoke us into take sides.

The Nirbhaya case, Sunanda Pushkar's death, the treatment meted out to Northeastern neighbours, the Aam Aadmi Party, Rahul Gandhi's utterances, Narendra Modi and his prime ministerial ambitions, and even Salman Khan's latest movie!

When did this phenomenon of harbouring such strong opinions, extreme views and implacable judgments take hold? What do psychoanalysts and media gurus have to say about this and where do these strong, perfectly formed perspectives go to die when the current news disappears from the public arena?

Yesterday we were railing and ranting about a rape. Today it's about a political party. And tomorrow it will be a scene from a film or the plot of a book. Where will it end, and more pertinently, what is the point of it all?

Instant, ad hoc perspectives and unconsidered convictions not only militate against our deeper, more considered and mindful selves, but they are also extremely demanding and debilitating.

Being required to ceaselessly take positions on issues is a fulltime occupation and given that we live lives already suffused with demands and challenges, it has become the bane of modern living.

And yet there seems to be no end to the era of ersatz opinion. With 24x7 news coverage, news anchors, columnists and bloggers skillfully drawing us into every new national and international debate, we are deep in the throes of one of this generation's pet problems: "I opine, therefore I am."

Those who lag behind in this great race to be the first with a pithy soundbite, tweet or comment are singled out for choice abuse. 'Fence -sitters, 'apathetic' and 'safe-players' are only some of the more polite phrases used to describe them. They are teased, cajoled, bullied and provoked only so that an opinion, judgment or position is drawn out of them.

We will not rest until we know what others feel about every issue in the public domain. Silence frightens us. Reticence reduces us to tears of boredom.

We will not give up until we know what you feel about gay marriage, the formation of Telangana, the US-India nuclear agreement, Priyanka Chopra's latest release or Priyanka Gandhi's political entry.

This diktat to opine has not only made us knee-jerk marionettes, constantly churning out views, standpoints and persuasions, it has also made us ever-hungry consumers of the media -- social and public. After all, when required to come up with such an assembly line of opinions, where else do we go but to graze at the knees of opinion professionals, to hone and sharpen or borrow our own?

And if this endless cycle of provoking, abetting, eliciting and providing positions, perspectives and persuasions is not the business of today's media, what is?

Yesterday we found ourselves so riled up in the day's issues. Today, we look for that same passion and vigour and find it has disappeared into that great well of public amnesia and apathy. What happened? It's as though someone turned the page. Or worse, switched a channel.

Ersatz opinions: the bane of modern life.