Role Of Laughter In The Swallows Of Kabul By Yasmina Khadra
Not everything possesses its initial perceived meaning. The Swallows of Kabul, written by Yasmina Khadra, tells the story of two different couples facing the horrors and hopelessness of living in Kabul post occupation by the Taliban. Though most of the book contains serious events and themes, a scene exists in chapter seven showing what appears to represent a brief moment of happiness between the members of one of these couples. Laughter, an action traditionally perceived as a societal good as opposed to its absence, does not necessarily hold such a position and lack thereof, in turn, may not always carry a negative implication. By analyzing one particular scene from The Swallows of Kabul, the reader can ascertain the meaninglessness of Mohsen’s laughter. First, the phenomenon of laughter itself needs a definition.
…show more content…
Physiologically, laughing has received the description of a “successive rhythmic spasmodic expirations with vibration of the vocal folds and an open glottis,” or “as a series of spasmodic and partially involuntary expirations with inarticulate vocalization.” These two definitions have the term “expiratory” in common, which refers to the respiratory system, and both also indicate that this function exists as a spasmodic and rhythmic phenomenon, indicating a patterned seizing of muscles (Stearns 5).
Most individuals immediately think of humor or other comedic instances as laughter’s central cause, and indeed, this appears the case when a person examines the surface of an event (The Science of Laughter 58). The incident in question seems simple and almost unworthy of mention. Zunaira and Mohsen, a married couple, walk through the city when they
collide with a furious man named Atiq who passes them by without so much as an apology, knocking both of the to the ground. Upon seeing the expression on her husband’s face after this event, Zunaira begins to chuckle at the situation. Mohsen hears the laughter of his wife, mutters for a little while longer, but eventually bursts out laughing (Khadra 88-89). However, multiple factors or societal conditions can trigger such a response. Normal laughter occurs in completely unsuitable social contexts such as funerals, bursts of laughter may occur independent of social context, and, in extreme examples, people have laughed themselves to death (Laughter 154). When the reader specifically looks at Mohsen’s laughter, several potential causes for his reaction present themselves. People can laugh to release tension or suppression of inhibited emotions. Laughter can also function as an antidote against fear, feelings of inferiority, or social guilt (Hertzler 66-68) Fear often confuses the thinking of an individual in a crisis, and relieving any bewilderment becomes a necessary step to ensure survival, whether through laughter or not (Petersen 318). Mohsen, feeling tense about this walk under the eye of the Taliban, may laugh as a way to break the tension of this event, or to restore his courage and confidence in such a hostile environment. Social mistakes or insults can also receive the cover of laughter, both those committed by and directed at the individual (Hertzler 69). Mohsen could have used his laughter as a response to the man running into them or even to hide his own irritated reaction to the incident. However, other darker reasons could also exist for his reaction. Individuals living in extreme situations, such as subjugation or threat of death, often result to laughter as a form of escapism wore to maintain morale (Hertzler 70). In stressful situations such as these, laughter can release tension and transform the opposition into a more surmountable force, at least in the eyes of the individual laughing (Mehta 745). Amidst the fear that characterizes his life, Mohsen may have chosen to laugh at this simple incident to distract himself for the very real threat of living under Taliban law. Laughter can also function as protection for the laugher or others present in the situation, serving as a distraction or cover (Hertzler 70.) Zunaira had already begun to laugh about the incident, albeit quietly (Khadra 89). Knowing the Taliban’s mindset concerning women, Mohsen might have begun to laugh to hide the laughter of his wife, knowing fully well that his gender gave him more protection in such a context. With such information in mind, the reader can see how laughter, though commonly portrayed as a positive reaction, may have not functioned in this manner if Mohsen’s reaction corresponded to any of the above reasons. Yet no concrete evidence exists within the text itself to affirm any reason for Mohsen’s reaction. Regardless of reason, Mohsen finds himself in trouble for this moment of laughter. Beaten and insulted by members of the Taliban police force, he has to attend a public lecture to the detriment of his pride and wife (Khadra 89-90). In order to understand why the constabulary reacted so harshly, an individual must learn about the force behind the law in Kabul. The Taliban began as a small spontaneous group in Kandahar in 1994, gradually recruiting young people to spread its own form of radical Islam throughout the Middle East (Marsden 43). The Taliban also adhere to and strictly enforce sharia law, a code of conduct derived from the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed and amended by various scholars that guides all aspects of Islamic life, including all social customs. Focusing mainly on marriage, divorce, and criminal justice codes, this theological manual actively discriminates against women and promotes an ordered society in the extreme that rotates around religion. Groups such as the Taliban apply such ideals to the extreme, often using punishments not traditionally implemented in other Islamic nations (Johnson 1-3). Through such tactics, they have become a major force in world affairs, yet how military training became incorporated into the training of the group remains unknown; perhaps deriving from some of the more extreme sections of the Koran (Marsden 43-44). From the perspective of an onlooker, specifically an adherent to the Taliban’s values, many reasons could exist to explain Mohsen’s laughter. In a restrictive society such as that contained in Kabul, any perceived expression of mirth seems contradictory. The simplest response, when confronted with a conflicting message, consists of resolving the incongruity by assuming the worst (Bugental 655). Thus a Taliban officer observing an individual man laughing in the street might conclude that the laughter related directly to the law, society, or even himself. In addition, the Taliban place a strong focus on honor and dignity, especially in regards to sharia law (Marsden 63). With this view, particularly such a powerful one, laughing in a public area might receive the designation of undignified behavior, thus opposing the cherished code of the Taliban. As previously stated, the Taliban do not shy away from extreme or even horrible punishments to achieve their ends. Humans living in these types of dangerous situations often revert to basic instincts in order to ensure their survival. Continued existence at any cost always receives more preference than death (Collins). Thus, behaving according to the stated or implied code of conduct would receive a higher priority than personal autonomy. Eliminating laughter under such conditions has therefore obtained a positive connotation that remains prevalent throughout the book, defying the traditional binary. By analyzing one scene from The Swallows of Kabul, the reader can ascertain the meaninglessness of Mohsen’s laughter. While usually seen in the reverse, laughter can carry unseen negativity and its absence positive implications. The text provides no answers for Mohsen’s motivations. How, therefore, should an individual perceive this binary? The reader can peruse the available evidence and conclude that it would not have made a difference if Mohsen had chosen not to laugh versus laughing; the end result would not have changed. Laughter, therefore, has no elemental value and the action in addition to its inaction remain meaningless within the context of the story.
Physiologically, laughing has received the description of a “successive rhythmic spasmodic expirations with vibration of the vocal folds and an open glottis,” or “as a series of spasmodic and partially involuntary expirations with inarticulate vocalization.” These two definitions have the term “expiratory” in common, which refers to the respiratory system, and both also indicate that this function exists as a spasmodic and rhythmic phenomenon, indicating a patterned seizing of muscles (Stearns 5).
Most individuals immediately think of humor or other comedic instances as laughter’s central cause, and indeed, this appears the case when a person examines the surface of an event (The Science of Laughter 58). The incident in question seems simple and almost unworthy of mention. Zunaira and Mohsen, a married couple, walk through the city when they
collide with a furious man named Atiq who passes them by without so much as an apology, knocking both of the to the ground. Upon seeing the expression on her husband’s face after this event, Zunaira begins to chuckle at the situation. Mohsen hears the laughter of his wife, mutters for a little while longer, but eventually bursts out laughing (Khadra 88-89). However, multiple factors or societal conditions can trigger such a response. Normal laughter occurs in completely unsuitable social contexts such as funerals, bursts of laughter may occur independent of social context, and, in extreme examples, people have laughed themselves to death (Laughter 154). When the reader specifically looks at Mohsen’s laughter, several potential causes for his reaction present themselves. People can laugh to release tension or suppression of inhibited emotions. Laughter can also function as an antidote against fear, feelings of inferiority, or social guilt (Hertzler 66-68) Fear often confuses the thinking of an individual in a crisis, and relieving any bewilderment becomes a necessary step to ensure survival, whether through laughter or not (Petersen 318). Mohsen, feeling tense about this walk under the eye of the Taliban, may laugh as a way to break the tension of this event, or to restore his courage and confidence in such a hostile environment. Social mistakes or insults can also receive the cover of laughter, both those committed by and directed at the individual (Hertzler 69). Mohsen could have used his laughter as a response to the man running into them or even to hide his own irritated reaction to the incident. However, other darker reasons could also exist for his reaction. Individuals living in extreme situations, such as subjugation or threat of death, often result to laughter as a form of escapism wore to maintain morale (Hertzler 70). In stressful situations such as these, laughter can release tension and transform the opposition into a more surmountable force, at least in the eyes of the individual laughing (Mehta 745). Amidst the fear that characterizes his life, Mohsen may have chosen to laugh at this simple incident to distract himself for the very real threat of living under Taliban law. Laughter can also function as protection for the laugher or others present in the situation, serving as a distraction or cover (Hertzler 70.) Zunaira had already begun to laugh about the incident, albeit quietly (Khadra 89). Knowing the Taliban’s mindset concerning women, Mohsen might have begun to laugh to hide the laughter of his wife, knowing fully well that his gender gave him more protection in such a context. With such information in mind, the reader can see how laughter, though commonly portrayed as a positive reaction, may have not functioned in this manner if Mohsen’s reaction corresponded to any of the above reasons. Yet no concrete evidence exists within the text itself to affirm any reason for Mohsen’s reaction. Regardless of reason, Mohsen finds himself in trouble for this moment of laughter. Beaten and insulted by members of the Taliban police force, he has to attend a public lecture to the detriment of his pride and wife (Khadra 89-90). In order to understand why the constabulary reacted so harshly, an individual must learn about the force behind the law in Kabul. The Taliban began as a small spontaneous group in Kandahar in 1994, gradually recruiting young people to spread its own form of radical Islam throughout the Middle East (Marsden 43). The Taliban also adhere to and strictly enforce sharia law, a code of conduct derived from the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed and amended by various scholars that guides all aspects of Islamic life, including all social customs. Focusing mainly on marriage, divorce, and criminal justice codes, this theological manual actively discriminates against women and promotes an ordered society in the extreme that rotates around religion. Groups such as the Taliban apply such ideals to the extreme, often using punishments not traditionally implemented in other Islamic nations (Johnson 1-3). Through such tactics, they have become a major force in world affairs, yet how military training became incorporated into the training of the group remains unknown; perhaps deriving from some of the more extreme sections of the Koran (Marsden 43-44). From the perspective of an onlooker, specifically an adherent to the Taliban’s values, many reasons could exist to explain Mohsen’s laughter. In a restrictive society such as that contained in Kabul, any perceived expression of mirth seems contradictory. The simplest response, when confronted with a conflicting message, consists of resolving the incongruity by assuming the worst (Bugental 655). Thus a Taliban officer observing an individual man laughing in the street might conclude that the laughter related directly to the law, society, or even himself. In addition, the Taliban place a strong focus on honor and dignity, especially in regards to sharia law (Marsden 63). With this view, particularly such a powerful one, laughing in a public area might receive the designation of undignified behavior, thus opposing the cherished code of the Taliban. As previously stated, the Taliban do not shy away from extreme or even horrible punishments to achieve their ends. Humans living in these types of dangerous situations often revert to basic instincts in order to ensure their survival. Continued existence at any cost always receives more preference than death (Collins). Thus, behaving according to the stated or implied code of conduct would receive a higher priority than personal autonomy. Eliminating laughter under such conditions has therefore obtained a positive connotation that remains prevalent throughout the book, defying the traditional binary. By analyzing one scene from The Swallows of Kabul, the reader can ascertain the meaninglessness of Mohsen’s laughter. While usually seen in the reverse, laughter can carry unseen negativity and its absence positive implications. The text provides no answers for Mohsen’s motivations. How, therefore, should an individual perceive this binary? The reader can peruse the available evidence and conclude that it would not have made a difference if Mohsen had chosen not to laugh versus laughing; the end result would not have changed. Laughter, therefore, has no elemental value and the action in addition to its inaction remain meaningless within the context of the story.