A case for being emotional and intuitive

Arguing for considering the depths of emotionality at par with the depths of intellectuality

I have to be honest, I am still trying to perfect some common thread - theme, structure, style - for this initiative, which I have been told many times, will happen along the way, through the process. So here I am, months later after my first post - a culmination of multiple musings over a year of staying in a foreign country. This one, is a bit more of a semi-curated, suggestive plea, a culmination of some thoughts I have relayed time and again at various random instances in interactions with many a people.

My first admission of concern: I cry too easily and too often. My second admission of concern: I actually love to cry. I have never once regretted it even if in a canteen full of people or on a bus on the way home. It is cathartic, often out of my control. When I felt I could not cry even though I felt miserable inside and by miserable I mean empty, I knew something was wrong. If I did not feel despair or fear, hurt or pain - I did not feel joy or excitement, awe or amazement. If I could not cry, I could not smile. Traffic swooshed past me, the whole world could for all I could care, while I moved robotically taking steps into a void.

Yet, my submission to an emotional compass is often seen as being over sensitive, by loved ones, something they with no fault of theirs, view as reactionary, alarming and needing control management. They are not alone, and in fact are a part of the common sense knowledge system and wisdom that deems emotionality as illogical, inappropriate or disruptive. The importance of rational thought and objectivity, of reason and understanding, is not lost on me though. We must value thinking clearly about situations and events as an important ability, one to strive toward for revealing truth and stability. Of course, no denying that. Alas, some say, it is a higher order capability/skill while reacting emotionally is a lower order, primal necessity. It is fair to acknowledge the truth in these descriptions while also arguing against the hierarchical distinguishing that arises between the two, inherent in such a statement. Instead of viewing them vertically, we can perhaps seem them horizontally. Emotional reactions precede our intellectual pursuit, often inspiring and motivating us to ask or not to ask questions, reflect and embark on journeys of discovery. Yet, it is also pointless to argue for which one comes before the other. It’s a cyclical process. Our thoughts lead to us feeling emotions as often as our emotions lead us to take more thought-driven actions.

A world driven only by thought is static in black, white and grey sophistication. Emotions fill it up with all shades of colour and motion, providing dimension, texture and movement. We are able to enjoy a world on multiple scales and choosing the B&W filter we limit ourselves, deluding ourselves of seeking truth. By laying values in dualities of good and bad, better and worse that position emotion and thought against each other, we choose a full-stop to seek finality but instead lack wholeness (wholesomeness as I’d put it) and continuity if we’d rather chosen a hyphen or a comma.

Before, this becomes a weak case petitioned just on personal account, I must strengthen it with evidence from the obviously more trusted account of reputed research. Now, given that this is not a research article, I take the burden off of me to provide an extensive review of literature (which is always tedious even if secretly kinda enjoyable).

In their book Metaphors we live by, George Lakoff and Johnson (1980) explain how our use of language reflects our understanding of abstract concepts which is rooted in the concrete, physical world we perceive through our senses. Valence (positive and negative), power and morality, for example, are all conceptually associated to verticality i.e. the physical position occupied in a vertical space. Specifically we are more likely to present and identify positive stimuli, more power-holding individuals and moral characteristics as being higher up whereas negative stimuli, less power-holding individuals and immoral characteristics as being lower down.

A study used depictions through history in philosophy, poetry, art and media, of humans associating two concrete body parts - the head and the heart - with the more abstract concepts of rationality and emotion, to prove that over time they also get linked to the vertical positions of these respective parts (Cian, 2014). Thus, the study is named Positioning rationality and emotion: Rationality is up and emotion is down which I suppose can further be associated to the other conceptual metaphors related to verticality. It won’t be a stretch to say for example, that since rationality is higher up, it is better and holds more power or significance. Neither is it blasphemous to say that we have come to associate emotion to being less deserving of power or relevance, or even less desirable due to immoral consequences of giving into them as they lead us astray.

If we want to also see the implications of such positioning in a wider context, Putnam & Mumby (2001) present a postmodern feminist critique of the subordination of emotions in professional settings especially bureaucratic in nature. The view that in organisational spaces, decision-making processes are constituted of the fragmented, disembodied mind lead to the isolation and suppression of the physical and emotional self. The realm of emotions is co-opted and alienated in the form of emotional labour - the overt and covert display of particular emotions deemed appropriate, consistent or profitable, exerted towards the end of organisational goals. The performative nature of such emotional labour is still an extension of a mind-body split where in we suppose the mind as exercising control over our responses towards the end of a goal instead of considering the feeling as a constituent part of the cognitive work itself.

To problematise this dichotomy is to offer insight into the significant role of emotions, by calling into question the terribly misguided notion that they are irrational. De Sousa (1990) in her book The Rationality of Emotion, explains the issue of concern -

“True irrationality of emotion involves the perception of a situation in terms of a scenario which it does not objectively resemble: in such cases we are well advised to see unconscious links and transformation rules that have turned one situation into another. Emotional irrationality is a matter of muddled scenarios: a loss of reality, intensified in neurosis and extreme in psychosis. The minimal rationality of those emotions must be sought in terms of the scenario unconsciously evoked..”

Well, looks like she is saying most of our emotions, if seem obvious, are largely rational and most definitely not irrational. The action inspired from them can perhaps be called into question for a number of reasons owing to the consequences intended or not intended, but on the whole:

“Emotions arise in response to the meaning structures of given situations; different emotions arise in response to different meaning structures” (Frijda, 1988)

Moving from here is then fairly easy too, emotions bring meaning to the world around us. Some compelling statements from De Sousa’s account put it more poignantly:

“There are many issues on which logic gives no unique prescription….No logic determines salience: what to attend to, what to inquire about….Emotions are determinate patterns of salience among objects of attention, lines of inquiry and inferential strategies”

What makes us each unique and different in this realm, is the variation of emotional patterns emergent across durations of time. Meanings are derived through these patterns when assessing and strategising action-ready responses in situations, requiring any kind of input from us.

“To read the emotional configuration of another’s body or face, is to have a guide to what they are likely to believe, attend to, and therefore want and do. Such dispositions tend to be given different names and depending in part on their duration: a short one is an emotion, a longer one a sentiment, and a permanent one is called character” (De Sousa, 1990)

This quote on the development of character, the disposition of particular emotional responses leave us to indeed wonder if we must insist on viewing emotions as lesser than our intellect. Indeed the conversations around emotional intelligence have led to a “cooperative combination” (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004) of the two. It did call for equal attention to perceiving and understanding our emotions, expressing them so as to also access and generate them when required to assist our thought.

I do not carry expertise on being able to “manage” and “regulate” emotions, perhaps because I also find the words particularly perverse. They bring us back to critical questions regarding the exertion of control over these feelings towards certain ends. Instead, I am more optimistic about seeing emotions as powerful, forces of our being alongside reason and logic, that bring us closer to finding meaning and purpose. It might begin with carefully changing some of the language that problematises emotional responses, allowing them to occupy space without questioning their relevance or rushing them into rehabilitation. Perhaps then we can also change the manner in which hierarchies get generated in all kinds of settings, based on the vertical positions reason and emotion occupy.

I have much to go on about, but it seems ending it on this note (something I thought of before starting to write this piece) can perhaps suffice for now:

We must anchor our rationality, our reason and understanding, in our emotions. They ought to complement and supplement each other.