The verbal interaction called “quarrel” is a very familiar, day-to-day phenomenon. Therefore, it is interesting to note that there aren’t many linguistic studies on it. Linguists, discourse analysts, language pedagogists, and communication specialists have studied various kinds of verbal exchanges, including debates, arguments, group discussions, and day-to-day conversations that are informative and mutually beneficial to the participants. Although backbiting, pillow talk, malicious gossip, time-pass talk, and quarrel are part of ordinary day-to-day linguistic exchange, these seem to have been generally avoided for serious intellectual engagement, especially in traditional societies such as ours. So, it is unsurprising that no course in language teaching includes these exchanges. These linguistic acts have been negatively valued in these cultures and, therefore, considered unworthy of scholarly attention and language teaching. Quarrel or gossip is not a topic of discussion in public meetings. It is no exaggeration to say that these are taboo in academic and public discourses.
But who can tell! These days, not inconsiderable material of the manual type is available on successful dating, including the language of successful dating. One would not be surprised to find, in a not-so-distant future, textbooks written on the subject. The same holds for “small talk,” since we, not so urbanized, talk and talk quite a lot, but do not know how to make small talk. Then, some imaginative instructor in the parallel education sector, at least, might think of including these topics in their “Effective Communication” course. This is not going to happen in the case of “quarrel.” I don’t see that the future, at least the near future, is promising for a book like “How to Win Quarrels and Silence Adversaries.”
Now, quarrelling is not taboo in our society, needless to mention. Quarrelling in certain circumstances is condoned, even approved, but listening to others quarrelling is not, especially for children. Listening to quarrels is exposure to bad language, and language is learnt through exposure. Now, quite a few unmentionables have their corresponding euphemistic versions, through which they enter public discourse, but these are mainly words, not exchanges of some length, unlike quarrels.
The sixteenth-century Odia poet, Jagannath Dasa, in his Srimad Bhagavata, composed in Odia and revered as a most sacred text, said the following: bahuta jane jahin mili / sethare upujai kali (wherever many people assemble, there quarrels arise). The more people, the greater the possibility of conflict, tension, and sometimes even angry confrontation, which often threatens to degrade into a quarrel. Participants in a confrontation or quarrel generally tend to view such an interaction as a battlefield where each of them likes to emerge as the winner. Interestingly, therefore, whereas there is the expression “win a debate” in English, there is no such expression as “win the quarrel” or “win the gossip.” A quarrelsome person is indeed one whose expression of egoism in an interactional situation crosses the limits of acceptability.
In Kartika Mahatmya, an eighteenth-century Odia Puranic composition by Mahadeva Das, it is mentioned that the unhappy homes of quarrelsome people are the abode of goddess Alakshmi, the elder sister of goddess Lakshmi. The younger sister is the goddess of prosperity, peace, and happiness, whereas the elder one is the goddess of unhappiness and misfortune. A thousand narratives in our languages celebrate Lakshmi, the goddess of prosperity and peace, but how many even mention her sister goddess Alakshmi? In Kartika Mahatmya, the Supreme God, Vishnu, accommodated her, but this has not happened in her case with respect to spoken or written discourse.
Now, perhaps on account of society’s negative attitude toward quarrels, the positive function of the same has remained ignored in our societies. A quarrel is a mode of the victim’s protest against humiliation or some real or perceived injustice done to them. The victim confronts the offender and raises their protest in anger and rude language. The degree of anger and the extent of rudeness depend upon the power relationship between the victim and the offender. The quarrel over, the victim feels a sense of relief; he feels they have protected their self-respect. It is like letting off steam. The offender feels they have succeeded in hurting the target, which is why they quarrelled with them. On the other hand, after the quarrel is over, they might regret their action, although they may not apologize. Sometimes at home, people, especially the husband and wife, iron out their differences with small quarrels. This is what most quarrels in life are about. Going by my experience of joint family life in a village seven decades ago, I venture to suggest that such quarrels contributed, at least to some extent, to the survival of the joint family system in villages.
Quarrelling has been stereotyped in many societies. Women are the ones who quarrel. They quarrel far more often with other women than with men. With men, they quarrel at home; with women, they quarrel both at home and outside. In Chha Mana Athaguntha, the great nineteenth-century Odia novelist Fakir Mohan Senapati’s novel, one finds village women quarrelling at the bathing place in the village pond. It is not that men do not quarrel; they often do, and sometimes violently, using the rudest and the most abusive language, but women are stereotyped as quarrelsome. After all, it’s a question of power: have women stereotyped themselves as quarrelsome? In any case, this matter would (or should?) be of interest today to the historian of society and culture.
(The views expressed are the writer’s own)
Prof. B.N.Patnaik
Retd. Professor of Linguistics and English, IIT Kanpur
Email: bn.patnaik@gmail.com
(Images from the net)