Martha Craven Nussbaum makes an interesting distinction between Aristotle and Socrates view of emotion when she states "Unlike the Socrates of the Republic, Aristotle does not believe that the good person, the person of practical wisdom, is 'sufficient unto himself' for eudaimonia, and therefore impervious to grief and fear" (Nussbaum 314). As Nussbaum noted, Socrates berated his friends for their grief just prior to his death, as he believed it contrary to his "search for understanding without fear, resentment, or mourning" (Nussbaum 314). Today, it seems that we've come to embrace Aristotle's view on the role of emotions. That is, I feel that most people would agree with Aristotle's assessment that "it is right to grieve at the death of a friend, since that is an acknowledgment of the importance of the tie and the person" (Nussbaum 314). Stoicism is now often seen as a sign of disinterest, a lack of passion, or plain rudeness depending on who you're talking to. We expect people to be angry when a serious grievance is brought against them and to show grief when a loved one has passed on. In this way, emotions become "recognitions of truth and value" (Nussbaum 316).
And yet I think there remains a popular domain in which Socrates' view that "there will be no room for the emotions of pity, fear, and grief" (Nussbaum 313): the male view of masculinity. It seems that masculinity is often defined in ways that don't allow for men to show any so-called "soft" emotions. Boys playing sports are told to "suck it up" or "walk it off" when feeling pain, even when that pain is terrible enough to bring tears. Any sense of fear or grief is often met with any number of emasculating terms that I'm sure we're all familiar with. The only socially acceptable emotions for people who subscribe to this viewpoint are emotions like anger. Obviously, this isn't a hard and fast rule; there are plenty of cases where the "sensitive" male is appreciated and wanted, especially today. However, it's a bit discomforting to know that the popular view of masculinity is still extremely prevalent in our society. Nussbaum writes that "Rationality recognizes truth; the recognition of some ethical truths is impossible without emotion; indeed, certain emotions centrally involve such recognitions" (317); if this is this case, what happens to deliberation when we refuse to recognize these emotions?
It's an interesting paradox for the male machismo-based world to be confronting this new more "sensitive" era. A lot of the stoic male approach relies more upon outside arbitrators to provide the elements that it lacks, i.e. women, but we live in a society now where women are no longer relegated to that role solely. As to how this changes deliberation, I think it has less effect than you might think. People may refuse to recognize the emotions, but it does not mean they don't feel them or aren't effected by them. They are not simply wiped out, as emotions aren't really something you can control in that way. It just requires a more pointed and subtle effort to draw them out.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent discussion of Nussbaum's implication on gender norms. (Thus, I'm really interested to see what Charlotte has to say on the matter). I think the male suppression of emotions has had some drastic consequences. Males tend to be less compassionate than women by evolutionary design. When you add a little suppression of that compassion to the mix (and exclude women), you end up with a male-dominated society that deliberates issues with almost no concern for others' wellbeing. I want to say that this is why America's fight to secure equality for all has seen so much resistance (example: secession, civil war, lynchings, denial of suffrage to women). Elizabeth Cady Stanton gave a famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) speech about how bringing women into the political debate would "balance" the shortcomings of the male element (because we only let ourselves openly experience and display a small set of emotions like pride, anger and hatred). It's called "The Destructive Male". You can read it here (what I'm talking about is toward the end):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historyplace.com/speeches/stanton.htm
I too enjoyed the distinction Nussbaum makes between Aristotle and Socrates’ views on emotions. I think you make an interesting point about emotions and gender norms, but I’m not sure I agree with the point you’re making.
ReplyDeleteYou’re saying that modern day masculinity is consistent with Socrates’ views insofar as both leave “no room for the emotions of pity, fear, and grief.” But I don’t think modern society is telling men not to feel these emotions (as Socrates did); I think modern society is telling men not to express these emotions. The stoic man is not the man who feels no pain, but the man who can endure the pain without complaining about it. He feels grief, but does so without shedding a tear.
In this sense, I find modern male gender norms towards emotion consistent with Aristotle. Aristotle said that emotions must be felt with appropriate measure. For men today, “appropriate” means with restrained expression so as not to display weakness (weakness not in an absolute sense, but as a normative social construct).
One fascinating thing I think is worth noting is the difference in male cultural norms and female cultural norms. As you pointed out, men are trained to not cry or complain. On the other hand, women are often encouraged to show their emotions openly, to the point where many women can make themselves begin crying at the slightest provocation.
ReplyDeleteThis often works in favor of women, as men will all too often not realize that women don't treat emotions the same way they do. This is where you get women crying for pity in a bar as a way to pick up men and it -works-.
I'm not saying this is all true, mind you, but gender norms in regards to emotions are most certainly worth more in-depth analysis if only to better understand why our society works the way it does.
The last blog I commented on had a great point on the virtuous and un-virtous man. I think it can tie in with your first paragraph about male roles. Your learning of virtues determines whether you are able to make rational decisions and to handle all states of emotions. Without virtues you are kind of lost because you can't tell the difference of right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that these male-roles are put upon us when we are young to learn our virtues and values, and it molds us into what kind of person we are going to be. So I guess to tie it in with your post, the men learn that they must be these manly figures as they grow up, showing no signs of pain, while the women have the opposite education in virtues and emotions.