While reading these articles, I kept thinking about a scene in Little Town on the Prairie when Laura reflects on the proper display of emotion; "Even Pa and Ma almost halted, though they were too grown-up to show surprise. A grown-up person must never let feelings be shown by voice or manner (228)" That was in 1881; clearly, there have been a few shifts in how emotions are perceived between the time of Aristotle and ourselves.
What's interesting is that for at least one segment of the ancient world, showing emotion was perfectly acceptable; Biblical accounts record that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and Jesus, to name a few, all wept. And no one around them acted horrified or embarrassed-- at least, not that is recorded. Nussbaum says "In Aristotle's view, emotions are not blind animal forces, but intelligent and discriminating parts of the personality, closely related to beliefs of a certain sort, and therefore responsive to cognitive modification" (303). And yet Socrates, as written by Plato, did not seem to have use for any emotions (315). It would seem that throughout American history our ancestors sided with Plato rather than Aristotle (or Biblical example) and suppressed emotions instead of embracing them.
It is interesting to see how our society has come round to the idea of emotion; from Laura's era of no one being allowed to show emotion (elsewhere in the Little House books, when either parent showed emotion, he or she was embarrassed), to it being acceptable for women to be emotional but not men, to our current state of recognizing that men need that freedom to show emotion as well. Even today, it is still suspect for a man to be too sad (my father, for instance, only sheds tears when someone dies, and even then only sometimes).
Our society is still antsy about emotions, of course-- standing around, unsure and feeling awkward, is the usual response to a sudden outburst of happiness or anger or sadness from anyone. We were channel-flipping as I was thinking about this blog post, and paused at a movie long enough to hear a man say to a crying woman, "When did you turn into such a wuss?" I'd say we still haven't arrived at accepting the "script" that Walker describes as a natural part of the human make-up: "The arousal-state prepares the body for action, and the 'script' for an emotion/intentionality gives the body an action to perform" (82).
Source: Wilder, Laura. Little Town on the Prairie. 1941. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.
I really like how you incorporated modern, 19th century, and biblical examples of emotional expression. (Plus, I love Little House on the Prairie).
ReplyDeleteIt really is different how emotional expression, like fashion, changes with the times. Should men cry? In biblical times, apparently they should have. In the 20th century, they probably shouldn't. And now, we are slowly moving back into a place where men are more free to express their emotions (although we do have a long way to go).
I also like your discussion of the American ideal of suppressing emotions. I think that, too often, being emotional is equated with being "neurotic", to use the dated term. However, being someone on the other end of the spectrum (barely emotional), it's easy to see the value and healthfulness of emotional expression.
That's an interesting point-- as culture sways, individuals are obligated to sway within the margin of error, so to speak, in order to be taken seriously in society (although I think we have broadened the margins considerably). Hence the reason 20th century men couldn't be particularly emotional, but it's more accepted in the 21st century-- and we may be swaying to the point that it's unacceptable to not show grief at appropriate times.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to love yourself to be a narcissist. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're referring to.
ReplyDeleteSu, thanks for taking us on a journey through time and emotional suppression. I had always supposed (without much deliberation) that our society discouraged display of emotion by men (except, sadly, anger and hatred) as part of the whole cultural scheme that kept women politically subordinated for most of our history. Thus, in my mind it's purpose was similar to the idea of the "women's sphere" and gendered language terms like "mankind" and "forefathers". By creating the cultural expectation that women should display their emotions, and men shouldn't, our narrow-minded predecessors were able to cast women down as "not suited for rational decision making" and thus categorically rejected from the public forum. Now the tables seem to turn completely. Emotion, it seems, is necessary for rational decision making. And now that emotional suppression isn't serving a bigoted power scheme, men are becoming ready to cast off the old notions and embrace emotion as an inevitable, even crucial, part of human experience.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with Gordon, men are beginning to embrace emotion as an important part of being human. However, my concern is that perhaps there is a limit to how much emotion is a good thing. These days I see a lot of political talking points being based not on what would logically be best for the citizenry, but rather on irrational emotional appeals despite that line of thinking being less than ideal when the chips are on the table.
ReplyDeleteIn short, yes, we need emotion, but we need stoicism in equal balance.