Emotion can also enhance our reason through sympathy. Without feelings of pity or empathy, we would be inclined to help no one but ourselves, and when considering others, we make far better decisions. Mother Theresa devoted her life to helping the impoverished and the underprivileged, with little thought for her self. By considering our emotions and feelings for others, we engage in activities to aid them. Without emotion, our acts of kindness would be limited, or totally focused on how partaking in such an action will affect our image.
When horse riding, I am constantly told by my instructor to keep a positive frame of mind. It is constantly re-iterated to me that the horse “feels through his rider”. Breaking down this statement, it is preposterous, because thinking good, happy thoughts should not affect your horse in any way, unless one is particularly gifted in telepathy. However, examining this from a more scientific standpoint, the words of advice make perfect sense. When one is nervous, one tends to tense up, and this will affect your mount. By tensing and gripping the saddle with your legs, you encourage the horse to go faster, and with the jerky movements that are common with those who are unsure of what to do, you confuse your horse equally. By forcing yourself to believe that it is possible to complete the task in hand, you become more relaxed and your movements more fluid. The shift in body language will remove pressure from your horse, and cool, calm thinking lets you plan ahead, ensuring that decisions are not made abruptly.
However, emotion can also be harmful to our reasoning. Traditionally, women are considered more emotional than men and therefore less adept to reason, and making appropriate decisions (Women did not get the vote until after World War One, because it was thought they could not handle such responsibility, and could not think for themselves). Women are considered less reasonable when under the emotions of love and sadness (weaker emotions), however, stereotypically men are also more unreasonable under other emotions, such as anger (a strong emotion). From a young age, men are taught that it is not masculine to display emotions, with expressions such as “Big boys don’t cry.” In a patriarchal society, the belief that men should not display emotion has carried over to a belief that emotion should be showed briefly, and muted, if at all.
Consideration for the individual other than ones’-self, or pity for a group of people can lead one to make unnecessary allowances. In attempting to help out others, one can easily be taken advantage of, and our emotions manipulated to work against us. A Machiavellian view of this issue would be ego-central, benefiting solely the individual self. It would suggest that we partake in actions only if they could, in the future, help you. This does, however, include acts of charity, but for more selfish reasons.
Emotions can lay dormant for an indeterminable time. We can allow our emotions surrounding a certain incident affect our unconscious long after the forgotten occurrence. The emotions we experience can affect our view of a person or place. For example, children suffering from domestic abuse have trouble with trust (out of many other issues) in relationships with both sexes years after their childhood, even though they feel that they have dealt sufficiently with their trauma. Even when trying to be impartial, we are swayed one way or another by our upbringing or the environment around us.
When we feel threatened, we strike back against what we feel threatens us. George W. Bush, the president of the United States, provided such an effective State of the Union address (or his speech writers did) that he managed to inverse American support for the war on Iraq. Whereas before the State of the Union American support was not for the war, after his address, the majority of Americans switched camps to those in support of “the war on terrorism” against countries with “weapons of mass destruction”.
The repetition of phrases brings me to my next point. In using the same phrases over and over again, George W. has found a way to tap into the emotions of his nation, not only in his speeches, but also in his commemorations. “Let’s Roll” became the motto of a nation eager for retribution. One year after 9/11, a global memorial was held, with the commemorations concentrating in the United States. The initial incident was presented to us as an affront on a nation, and the western world (which it was), to convince us that our freedom and nationality was at stake, and revenge was needed. One year after the sad event, new words and images are not given to the public, instead, the same words of condolence are read, with the background of the same cathartic songs, to allow those affected by the tragedy to grieve. Politicians were warned to refrain from remarks that might have been seen as insensitive. Max Frish stated that this was “the knack of arranging the world so that we don’t have to experience it.” (Lapham, 9)
To conclude, emotion can both hinder and help the reasoning process, and is always a good bargaining tool. However, it is necessary to remember that emotion is useful only in certain situations, under certain circumstances. Emotion, as I have stated, is at work even unconsciously, so it is impossible to block it out of the reasoning process. One cannot ever attain reasoning that is emotion free, as hard as one tries. Despite this, constantly consulting emotions before decisions are made will please no one, lest of all ones’-self. It is best to strike a balance, refrain from appearing too emotional, or too unemotional, because in our society, to differ from the norm is unacceptable and unapproachable.