(no subject)
ugh. I get so annoyed with people always guy bashing in my classes. The idea is that guys tend to be incapable of expressing emotion and that somehow they are emotionally retarded. Here's my argument against that idea ...
1. Being able to distance yourself emotionally from a situation is exactly what is needed during an emergency. One clear analytic mind can save an entire group of people from harm. Being able to shut off emotion is a skill not a liability. It becomes a problem only when that skill is not flexible. i.e. when you are unable to make connections.
2. The suggestion that it is pathological for people suppress and hide their feelings seems to be a Western bias. Many cultures value that ability but we reject its validity because it conflicts with our own value system. It feels problematic to us when people do not express emotion easily but we seem to ignore the idea that being unable to suppress and hide feelings can lead to terrible consequences. For example, there is growing evidence that families including members with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnosis do worse in an environment of negative expressed emotion and that prognosis is much better in the so-called ‘third world.’ Juli McGruder did some really interesting work in Zanzibar on this subject if you would like to learn more. The caricature of the ‘stiff upper lip’ is easy to dismiss and ridicule but it serves some important social and psychological functions.
3. There are whole societies that value emotional reserve. They tend to find meaning and comfort not through expressing emotion but through religious and belief systems instead. These pathways offer meaningful frameworks for understanding and coping with great suffering. Their ways are just as good as our ways. Dare I say: maybe better. For more info see “The Wave That Brought PTSD to Sri Lanka” in Crazy Like Us.
I think that American society (whatever that is) tends to measure meaning in how life feels and in its intensity. Other societies tend to measure meaning in how they have contributed or fit in. I think one way to account for this difference is our experience of privilege.
What I am going to say is probably going to offend some people and so I will apologize up front and hope that you can forgive what I am about to say.
After the 911 incident, it seemed like America went into shock and the rest of the world really sympathized with you all. But after some time passed the rest of us kind of wondered why this event continued to have such a huge effect. I distinctly remember my friend who grew up in Belfast being absolutely perplexed by the reaction. Her thought was: Bad things happen, you mourn and then you gather what resources are left and move on. Why has one event shaken their confidence so much when the rest of world deals with this kind of thing all the time?
I found one explanation that makes sense to me to why America has had trouble moving on from that tragedy.
“Without social mechanisms to cope, we’ve become increasingly vulnerable and fearful. Indeed many have pointed out that we are now a culture that has a suspicion of resilience and emotional reserve.” Derek Summerfield in Watters p. 123.
In cultures that must deal with adversity, power and success tends to come from people power rather than material power. This is one reason why the church is such a powerful institution for African Americans. But for other subcultures in America, the history of dislocation has created a dearth of the kind of cultural structures that other traditional societies use to provide resilience.
So, Americans adapted because meaning is not optional. Without cultural supports to find meaning, individuals set out to find it much like Jack Kerouac did when he hit the road or Fox Mulder did when he insisted that ‘the truth is out there.’ I think Americans decided that when social supports are lacking, the good life could be measured in intensity and in pleasant emotions. That’s how success came to be measured. Therefore, if a person was not looped into that emotional high it was a sign that they were not successful. As a group maybe women started to look for feeling pleasant (which may explain why they tend to seek helpfor depression sooner than guys do) and men had a tendency to seek out intensity: sports! alcohol! sex! music! et cetera
That seems a good enough way to live as any other. Epicurus thought so and I won’t go around arguing against a dead Greek philosopher. I guess my concern is that when we use that same measure for people outside our culture we are not playing fair. Just because someone acts differently does not mean his way is wrong.
1. Being able to distance yourself emotionally from a situation is exactly what is needed during an emergency. One clear analytic mind can save an entire group of people from harm. Being able to shut off emotion is a skill not a liability. It becomes a problem only when that skill is not flexible. i.e. when you are unable to make connections.
2. The suggestion that it is pathological for people suppress and hide their feelings seems to be a Western bias. Many cultures value that ability but we reject its validity because it conflicts with our own value system. It feels problematic to us when people do not express emotion easily but we seem to ignore the idea that being unable to suppress and hide feelings can lead to terrible consequences. For example, there is growing evidence that families including members with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnosis do worse in an environment of negative expressed emotion and that prognosis is much better in the so-called ‘third world.’ Juli McGruder did some really interesting work in Zanzibar on this subject if you would like to learn more. The caricature of the ‘stiff upper lip’ is easy to dismiss and ridicule but it serves some important social and psychological functions.
3. There are whole societies that value emotional reserve. They tend to find meaning and comfort not through expressing emotion but through religious and belief systems instead. These pathways offer meaningful frameworks for understanding and coping with great suffering. Their ways are just as good as our ways. Dare I say: maybe better. For more info see “The Wave That Brought PTSD to Sri Lanka” in Crazy Like Us.
I think that American society (whatever that is) tends to measure meaning in how life feels and in its intensity. Other societies tend to measure meaning in how they have contributed or fit in. I think one way to account for this difference is our experience of privilege.
What I am going to say is probably going to offend some people and so I will apologize up front and hope that you can forgive what I am about to say.
After the 911 incident, it seemed like America went into shock and the rest of the world really sympathized with you all. But after some time passed the rest of us kind of wondered why this event continued to have such a huge effect. I distinctly remember my friend who grew up in Belfast being absolutely perplexed by the reaction. Her thought was: Bad things happen, you mourn and then you gather what resources are left and move on. Why has one event shaken their confidence so much when the rest of world deals with this kind of thing all the time?
I found one explanation that makes sense to me to why America has had trouble moving on from that tragedy.
“Without social mechanisms to cope, we’ve become increasingly vulnerable and fearful. Indeed many have pointed out that we are now a culture that has a suspicion of resilience and emotional reserve.” Derek Summerfield in Watters p. 123.
In cultures that must deal with adversity, power and success tends to come from people power rather than material power. This is one reason why the church is such a powerful institution for African Americans. But for other subcultures in America, the history of dislocation has created a dearth of the kind of cultural structures that other traditional societies use to provide resilience.
So, Americans adapted because meaning is not optional. Without cultural supports to find meaning, individuals set out to find it much like Jack Kerouac did when he hit the road or Fox Mulder did when he insisted that ‘the truth is out there.’ I think Americans decided that when social supports are lacking, the good life could be measured in intensity and in pleasant emotions. That’s how success came to be measured. Therefore, if a person was not looped into that emotional high it was a sign that they were not successful. As a group maybe women started to look for feeling pleasant (which may explain why they tend to seek helpfor depression sooner than guys do) and men had a tendency to seek out intensity: sports! alcohol! sex! music! et cetera
That seems a good enough way to live as any other. Epicurus thought so and I won’t go around arguing against a dead Greek philosopher. I guess my concern is that when we use that same measure for people outside our culture we are not playing fair. Just because someone acts differently does not mean his way is wrong.