ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 23)

Patterns Within Patterns

by

Charles Lamson

Sometimes larger patterns encompass smaller ones. Consider, for example, the problem of sexual harassment at work. The typical harasser is a man. In fact, almost all harassers are men, and almost all victims are women, so there is a clear pattern of men sexually harassing women. Does this mean that women never harass men? No. In a tiny percentage of cases, women are the perpetrators.

Perhaps you think if women can be harassers and men the victims, that means you cannot generalize about men being the villains all the time. That is true; men are not the villains all the time, but the pattern still exists: Most perpetrators are men (and even when men are the victims, the perpetrators are still usually other men). But if women can sometimes be perpetrators, then we need to look for a larger pattern. If we study actual cases, we find that women who harass are like men in one important way: They have power over others at work.

The larger pattern thus has to do with power. If we look only at the most obvious pattern (men harassing women), we might fail to see the importance of power. But if we also look at rare cases (women harassing men), we are forced to think about what else might be going on. What we would see - the commonality that reveals a larger pattern - is that harassment of all kinds is most likely to occur when one person has control over another person's fate. 

To see a pattern is not to know why it exists. Why do some people repeatedly trap themselves in bad situations? Why are rates of disease higher among some groups than others? Why do some people abuse their power and exploit others? Such patterns might be easy to see but hard to explain. Often we must dig deeper to find out why things happen as they do.

To see patterns in how stars work, we must study them in the ways that physicists and astronomers do. To see patterns in how organisms work, we must study them in the ways that biologists do. To make sense of the social world - to see and explain the patterns that make the world what it is - we must study how people do things together, the meanings and arrangements they create, the ideas they embrace, and the cultural habits they form. Only by paying attention to these things, can we see the patterns that matter in people's lives.

There is more to this than looking for typical cases. To identify a typical case of something is to discern one kind of pattern. Other kinds of patterns can be seen if we pay attention to the social world in different ways. Being sociologically mindful, we may discover that the world is patterned in many ways.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 102-103* 

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 22)

Seeing Patterns

by

Charles Lamson

The teacher sometimes asked his students to read a story called "A Typical Date Rape." The story describes a situation in which heavy drinking, misplaced trust, poor communication, the subtle threat of violence, and a man's refusal to take "no" for an answer result in rape. One time a woman read the story in class and said, "There is no such thing as a typical date rape. Each case is unique." The teacher disagreed.

The teacher said that the man who wrote the story had studied many cases of date rape, and that the story summed up what he had learned. This explanation did not convince the student. She insisted that each case is unique. The teacher said, "Yes, each case may be unique in its details, but every case has common features." Another student then offered this: "I've done counseling at the women's' center, and I can tell you that this story is very realistic. It fits the pattern that I have seen over and over."

As it turned out, the student who insisted that each case is unique, admitted that she knew of only one other case - one that did not quite fit the pattern described in the story. Because of this, she thought that there were no patterns, and that it was impossible to generalize. She was mistaken.

Part of being sociologically mindful is seeing that the social world works in patterned ways. Many of the patterns are easy to see. Millions of people get up in the morning, go to work for 8 hours, come home, eat, sleep, and then get up and do it again. That is one kind of pattern, which exists because many people do things together in the same way, over and over again. In fact, that is what a pattern is: a regularity in the way the world works.

The story about the rape described a pattern, one that was harder to see. It required the study of many cases of date rape to bring the pattern to light. It often takes a lot of work to discover patterns in social life, because some kinds of events do not happen every day. If you were asked to describe a typical bank robbery, you would have to study quite a few cases to see what they had in common. perhaps then you would see a pattern.

Some of the patterned ways in which the social world works are obvious. Some are not. Being sociologically mindful means paying attention in a disciplined way, so that we begin to see patterns that are not so obvious. To be disciplined, in this sense, is to stick to certain rules of procedure when trying to see what is going on in the world. If we pay attention carelessly, we will still see things going on, but many patterns will remain invisible to us.

For example, it would be possible to examine many date rapes, bank robberies, and other crimes, and find no patterns. This might happen because we failed to get the same kinds of facts about each case, so we might fail to see what a lot of cases have in common. A good rule of procedure for paying attention might therefore be: "Always get the same facts about every case." To stick to this rule - when it would be easier to ignore it - is what it means to pay attention in a disciplined way.

One reason to be mindful of patterns is that if we want to change the world, we must be aware of the patterns that make the world what is. If we want to reduce rape, for example, it is helpful to know what conditions, thoughts, and actions typically lead to rape.

We can apply this principal - the need to grasp the pattern that produces a particular result - to anything we might like to change. To stop the spread of a disease, for example, we must know how it is spread, and to find this out we must look for a pattern. Where do cases arise? Among which people? What do these people have in common? Have they all been to the same place, engaged in the same activity, or even the same food? By answering these questions, we can figure out what the pattern is and how to keep the disease from spreading.

Sometimes it is important to be aware of and to disrupt patterns in our own thoughts and behaviors. Imagine a person who always agrees to help other people with their projects. Helping others makes this person feel good, but too much helping keeps her from getting her own work done. Because she does not get her own work done, she feels like a failure and gets depressed. Suppose this happens over and over again. If the person becomes aware of the pattern, perhaps she can change. All that might be necessary is learning to say "no" when the requests for help become too great.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 100-102*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 21)

Ordinary Insanity

by

Charles Lamson

All behavior, even that which seems perfectly normal, must be understood in context. Being mindful of context can lead us to reconsider what is outrageous and what is normal.

Suppose that instead of running amok, people carry on politely and calmly. What could be wrong with this? After all, is this not what most of us are taught to do. Yes, and most of the time it is fine that we do. Unfortunately, we can get so used to being so polite and calm that we failed to be outraged by horrific things going on around us. Nazi Germany is the most often cited twentieth-century example. Millions of people were killed in concentration camps, while most Germans went about their business without protest. How can we understand this complacency?

In Germany, as in other nations, the government claimed the right to use violence to control people within its borders. The German government, like other governments, collected taxes and used this wealth to build means to do violence (by creating police forces, armies, spying agencies, weapons, and so on). Germans relied on this government to protect them from outsiders, to keep internal order, and to give them a feeling of belonging to a special group. Before and during World War II, most German people thought their government was doing these jobs reasonably well, or at least not so badly as to inspire a mass revolt.

Think of the German government (its employees, the rules by which it operated, and the resources it possessed) as an instrument for doing the will of those who controlled it. When the Nazi rulers gained control of the German government, they gained control of an organization that was equipped with (or had the legitimacy to gather and employ) vast resources of people, information, money, and weapons. It would have been hard for unorganized dissenters to resist such an entity.

The German government was also highly bureaucratic. Like any such organization, it had many rules and policies, and layers of management, for keeping people under control. It was thus hard for people to challenge their bosses, or even to find out what was going on. If you have had much experience working in large bureaucratic organizations, you know the problem.

Even when people began to see what was going on. most felt powerless and afraid to do anything. People who worked in the government and military bureaucracies - people who morally opposed the mass murder that was going on in the concentration camps - could justify their failure to protest by saying, "I'm not killing anyone. I'm not pulling the trigger. I'm just doing my job." After the war, many of the Nazi leaders who were charged with crimes against humanity defended themselves by saying, "I was only following orders." If those who actually killed could invoke this defense, imagine how much easier it was for people far from the killing to do so.

Looking back, the Nazi regime seems monstrous and insane. We wonder how anyone could have supported it, directly or indirectly. But again, consider the context.

After losing World War I, many Germans had feelings of injured national pride. Many were also angry about the terms under which they were forced to surrender in World War I. The German economy was faltering (in the context of a global recession in the 1930s), and many people worried about their jobs and income. So it was, that many people were angry, resentful, and insecure - and confused about who was to blame.

In this context the Nazis offered appealing messages: Other nations were to blame for limiting Germany's ability to recover from World War I; Jews, communists, homosexuals were to blame for weakening Germany from the inside, and Germans were a naturally superior people, who if given a fair chance, could again build a great nation. These messages reinflated national pride, and gave people easy answers to resolve their fears and anxieties.

We should also remember that once the Nazis gained control of the German government, they gained great power to shape people's thoughts and feelings. They used the government to make and control the news, to spread propaganda, and to stifle dissent. Many German people were thus at the mercy of the Nazi government, when it came to knowing what was going on in their country and in the world. As in any nation-state, the government in Germany was a powerful tool for creating social reality.

If you have stayed with me through this unpleasant example, you might be wondering what is the point of all this? Is it to show why the German people got caught up in acts of great evil? Yes, that is part of it. The more important point, however, is not about Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. It is about how we live here and now.

We still live in a world of nation states, none of which is truly democratic, and all of which have governments that can be captured by those seeking power for their own benefit. The governments of these nation-states are capitalist, which means that many people are likely to feel insecure about their jobs and income. There is also still plenty of racism to fuel scapegoating. Conditions, thus, remain ripe for holocausts to happen.

In Conclusion

Perhaps you think, "All this is true, so it is fortunate that we live in a country with a benevolent government." That is certainly a comforting illusion. Being sociologically mindful, however, we will try to look at matters in a larger context, and consider how things appear to Iraqis, Vietnamese, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Chileans, Guatemalans, and the citizens of other countries that have been invaded, bombed by, or otherwise forced to obey the wishes of those who run the U.S. government. We might also want to consider the perspectives of Native Americans, who can tell us something about the benevolence of the U.S. government.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 94-96*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 20)

Top stories

The search for a habitable second Earth

Engadget · 1 day ago

NASA predicts 5 asteroids to fly close to Earth this year - The Jakarta Post

The Jakarta Post · 1 day ago

What if U.S. quits climate deal? Doesn't look good for Earth

USA Today · 1 day ago

Cultural Context

by

Charles Lamson

Being sociologically mindful of context also means paying attention to culture - the beliefs, values, and practices that are shared and transmitted from one generation to the next, among a group of people. Culture too has to be put in a larger context, since culture is a group's adaption to the environment in which it exists. Beliefs and behaviors that might seem strange, usually make sense when we consider the conditions under which a group is trying to survive.

If we take culture into account, we can appreciate how behavior that seems weird or wrong to outsiders is normal and proper to insiders. This is not to say that any behavior is okay, merely because it is some group's traditional way of doing things, or because it aids their survival. It is to say we cannot understand what people do, and why, without considering what they have been taught to see as normal and correct in their world.

We must remember too that people do not choose the worlds into which they are born. If we are born into a world of calm and wealth, we might learn to get what we need simply by asking for it. If we are born into a world of scarcity, struggle, and despair, we might learn that our survival depends on being aggressive, even violent. The point is not to justify aggression and violence, but to say that understanding others' behavior in context requires understanding the nature of the world that has formed their survival habits.

Imagine growing up in a place where any sign of weakness made you prey to abuse. Imagine that your survival depended on swift retaliation for any threat to your dignity, especially in public. Now imagine that your first job is a sales clerk. In this job, you must put up with being bossed by your boss, teased by coworkers, and insulted by customers, Will you respond day after day, with patience and god humor; or will you fall back on your old habits, and one day give your boss, a coworker, or a customer a punch in the nose?

If you come from a different background, you might think all low-level jobs require putting up with some obnoxious people. You just have to bear it until you get into a better position. If you believe this, it is because you have learned to mask your feelings, and do what the boss says, so as to get along and prosper. This strategy pays off well in some worlds, but it does not work everywhere, and it has costs.

Suppose you have formed the habit of doing as you are told. Imagine that this habit has gotten you a nice job with a high salary. One day you realize that a product your company plans to make is defective in a way that will injure some of the people who use it. You argue that the product should be redesigned to be safer but you are told, "That will raise production costs too much. We will make it as planned. If anyone gets hurt, insurance will cover it." So you rely on the habit that has helped you succeed: You do as you are told. Then, as you foresaw, some people are badly hurt by your company's product.

After all this is revealed to the public, outsiders say that you should have blown the whistle, or quit your job in protest. You could have kept people from being hurt, but you did not. Why? We could say that you are weak and irresponsible. Or we could try to understand your behavior in context.

We should be mindful of your options as you saw them. Did you think you would be fired if you protested any harder? Did you think you could find another job if you quit, or were fired? Did you believe that your career would be ruined if you blew the whistle, because of how whistle blowers are treated by other employers? Perhaps you had children to think about. If you had lost your job, how would you pay for your food, clothing, shelter, medicine, school, and so on. So perhaps you felt compelled, for their sake, to keep your mouth shut.

We should also be mindful of what your job meant to you. Perhaps, like most people in us culture, you learned to stake your identity on our job, so losing your job would have been devastating to you. Or perhaps you were taught that the boss who gives orders, not the worker who carries them out, is responsible for the results. That is a dangerous belief, also common in U.S. society, but we cannot blame you for inventing, and putting it in your head.

To understand your behavior in this example, we would have to be mindful of several contexts at once. The firm in which you had little power; the family and friendship networks of which you were a part; and the competitive and individualistic society, in which, you reasonably feared for your ability to make a decent living. In light of these circumstances, your behavior, though not admirable, would at least make sense.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 83-85*

END 

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 19)

Behavior as a Product of Interaction

by

Charles Lamson

After a lecture, a speaker might ask, "Are there any questions? Is there anything you would like me to clarify?" - and there is silence. Everyone stares mutely. This is a curious situation, since it seems unlikely that even a dull talk would produce no reaction from conscious adults. So how do we explain the silence? Perhaps it is that people who go to lectures in college, or elsewhere, suffer from a disorder called hyperquietism.

It might seem unlikely that everyone in an audience would have the same trait, and your own experience might tell you that the idea of hyperquietism is silly. Even though you rarely ask a question after a talk, it is not because you are naturally quiet. After all, in other simulations you can be boisterous and loud. But this just deepens the mystery. How come people who are sometimes boisterous and loud people, like yourself, still sit silently after a talk?

Being sociologically mindful, we would try to answer this question by looking at situations, rather than personalities. We would try to determine the conditions under which people stay quiet, even when they have a lot on their minds. Perhaps we would find that people tend to sit quietly when they feel that they are being evaluated for their intelligence, and feel that by asking a question, they risk appearing foolish. We might also find that these conditions exist in most places where lectures are given.

The point is that people act in response to the situation they are in on the basis of what they think is is at stake for them. In that situation. such a simple idea would seem to be easy to apply, yet we often fail to consider others' perceptions of the situation they are in. If another person behaves badly, we might think, "That's awful! I would never do such a thing!" Perhaps not, but perhaps also we would be less quick to judge if we stopped to consider how the other person perceives his or her circumstances and choices.

Here is another example you might recognize. In March of 1964, a young woman named Catherine (Kitty) Genovese, was stabbed to death in Queens, New York, while thirty-eight people watched from their apartments. No one intervened or called the police, even though they had plenty of time to do so. You might think this is a rare case, that people would normally help a person  being attacked. Unfortunately, there are many documented cases of bystanders failing to help in similar situations.

You might think, "If I had been there, I would have done something, maybe." So of course the people who watched Kitty Genovese die, probably would have said the same thing, had they been told of some prior case in which others failed to help a woman being attacked. Yet, when the occasion arose, they did nothing. Were they simply cowards?

It might make us feel good to suppose that cowardice underlies the failure to give help, because then we can imagine that we, as braver people, would do better. Cowardice is as bad an explanation, however, as hyperquietism was in the earlier example. Again, we must pay attention to the context to understand what people do or fail to do.

In the Genovese case, the context includes a society in which few of us know our neighbors very well. In a big city or even in a suberb, we may live by people for years and know little about them. So it might not be clear, on some questions, if we should stick our noses into their business. This is also a society in which there are many angry and violent people. So, it is not unquestionable to fear "getting involved," and perhaps becoming victims ourselves.

Situations can also be confusing. It might not be clear that help is called for, or wanted. If a man in ragged clothes is lying on the sidewalk, and people are carefully stepping over him, should you bend down to see if he needs help? If you see smoke coming from under the hood of a car stopped along a busy freeway, and hundreds of cars are speeding past, should you go back and help? Or suppose you see a woman rush out of a bar, and a man come out after her, grab her arm, and jerk her around. Is this an assault in progress, a quarrel between drunken lovers, or an attempt to stop a thief?

Even if we think help is called for, we often prefer to imagine that someone else will give it. Perhaps when you see a man on the sidewalk, a smoking car, or a quarreling couple you think, "Why should I be the one to get involved? I'm busy right now. In fact, I'm running late. Besides, if there's a serious need for help, I'm sure someone will give it." Of course, if everyone thinks this way no one will help.

Recognizing that situations can be ambiguous, that giving help can be risky, and that we may innocently rationalize a failure to give help is not often excuses. Excusing or blaming is not the point, which is rather to be mindful of how circumstances affect people's  behavior. It is to try to understand why people do what they do, rather than to judge them for failing to do what we, as outsiders to a situation, imagine that we would do.

To understand people's behavior in context, we must grasp the facts of a situation: Who does what to whom, where, when, how, and under what conditions? If we cannot answer these questions, we do not know enough to understand why people act as they do. We must also be mindful of how the situation appears to the people in it. We must try to see things through their eyes, a task that is made more difficult by prejudice.

For example, young African American women, especially poor women in inner cities, are often accused of having babies so they can collect welfare. These claims are usually made by people who know nothing about job prospects in inner cities; about racial discrimination; about what life is like for poor, African American teenagers; or about how much money welfare actually provides. Despite this ignorance, accusers will boldly say, "They are irresponsible! They don't want to work! They would rather survive by having sex, having babies, and collecting government checks!"

Being sociologically mindful, we would ask how many babies are being had by whom? What does the world look like to the young women, and to the men who impregnate them? How do they think of sex and birth control? What does it mean to them to be a mother or a father? What options do they perceive for making a living and earning respect in their communities? Are jobs available for people who want to work? What does it cost to live in these places, and how much money does the average job provide? How much money does welfare provide? With good answers to these questions, we might begin to understand what is going on.

It is also important to let people explain their own behavior. We might or might not accept their own behavior. We might or we might not accept their explanations at face value. But we should at least listen to how people explain their own behavior before presuming to judge them. If we have not listened, then perhaps we should keep quiet until we learn more.

It is much easier to rely on stereotypes and prejudices than it is to find out the facts about other people's lives. It can also make us feel better about ourselves to condemn what we see as others' misbehavior, rather than see how the behavior we dislike grows out of circumstances beyond the control of individuals. Being mindful, we will resist the temptation to elevate ourselves at the expense of others. Certainly we want others to consider the circumstances that lead us to act as we do, especially when we fail to live as saints.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 80-83*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 18)

Mindful Resistance

by

Charles Lamson

All of us care more about some audiences than others. For all of us, there is always some group that matters whether we admit to it or not. Even the teenager who strikes a pose and says, "I don't care what anybody thinks of me," is cultivating an image to impress peers and annoy parents. The claim not to care what anyone else thinks is part of the performance.

There may, however, be good reasons to resist the judgments of certain others. Women might decide not to shave their legs as a way to oppose a sexist culture that insists upon women being smooth and soft and pleasing to men. African Americans might decide not to straighten their hair as a way to resist a racist culture that imposes a Caucasian standard of beauty. We might all decide not to care about the judgments of politicians and generals, who tell us that to be loyal citizens we must hate and kill people in another country. In cases such as these, deciding not to care about certain audiences can be a way to resist oppression.

It is a serious matter to decide not to care about the judgments and feelings of any group of people. Of course, there will be costs. A woman who does not shave her legs, may have to work harder to find a partner who shares her anti-sexist values. In some places, a person who resists the power of corporate bosses can face job loss, jail, torture, and death. So we must be mindful in our acts of resistance. If we decide to ignore the wishes and feelings of one group, it must be because doing so will help promote justice and equality in the larger human community.

If we are sociologically mindful, we can see that our emotional responsiveness to others is greatly affected by the conditions under which we live. For example, in a society where there is much suffering because of inequality and injustice, it may be hard to stay open to feeling with  and for others. We might feel overwhelmed by all this distress and thus try to shut it out. It may also be hard to feel the distress of others if we are the victims of injustice and inequality ourselves, and are thus eaten up with suffering of our own.

Inequality can affect emotional responsiveness in other ways. Members of powerful groups may be unresponsive to the powerless, because power fosters a lack of regard for others' feelings. At the same time, members of oppressed groups may develop a defensive lack of regard for the feelings and judgments of the powerful, since it seems that respect cannot be earned in any case. And in extraordinary times, in times of war, many people in a society may try to cut themselves off emotionally from those with whom they are fighting.

Perhaps you can see how the boundaries between groups are important. These boundaries determine who are the insiders - people like us - who deserve care and respect, and who are the outsiders - people who are different - who deserve less care and respect. Of course, we do not have to believe in such boundaries, and the illusion of difference they create. Being sociologically mindful, we will question all boundaries and categories, since they can distinguish our emotional responsiveness to others, thus making disrespect and abuse more likely.

Sociological mindfulness helps us see more than just the importance of socialization. Most of us know that producing kind, gentle, intelligent people requires careful nurturance. If we are sociologically mindful, we can see something more. How we organize ourselves to live together also affects the creation of human beings. A great deal of inequality in a society generates fear, abuse, distrust, disrespect, anger, and even hatred, and cuts people off from each other. In such a society, it is as if many of us grow up in boxes.

Being sociologically mindful, we will pay attention to how social life shapes us as human beings. We will ask, do our beliefs, and our ways of living together, aid or inhibit our ability to be peacefully self-regulating and emotionally responsive to others? Sociological mindfulness is not an answer/to that question, but rather the practice of seeking an answer - a practice that is crucial to seeing how we might create a better social world. By being sociologically mindful, we can see, not only how we become human, but also, how we might live more humanely.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 76-78*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 17)

The Risk of Cutting Ourselves Off from Others

by

Charles Lamson

Michael Schwalbe contends in his book The Sociologically Examined Life, that our emotional responsiveness to others gives us incentive to treat them with respect, and to try to get along peacefully. Knowing that our feelings are in the hands of others, and their feeling are in ours, we have good reason to be kind and gentle with each other. It is possible, however, for our responsiveness to break down. Under some conditions, we may cut ourselves off from feeling with and for certain others.

In war, for example, people in one country define those in another country as enemies. But that is not all. For war to be carried out, people in opposing countries must stop feeling with and for each other. This emotional cutting-off is what enables ordinary and otherwise decent people to kill in cold blood. If people on both sides could feel the anguish of those who were shot, cut, blinded, burned, and maimed, there could be no war. Politicians and generals who gave orders to kill might then be banished to a place where they could do no more harm.

Even in war people remain emotionally responsive to some others: fellow citizens and comrades in battle. In the face of a common enemy and the prospect of death, emotional bonding can be intense. If people lack this kind of intense connection in everyday life, they may find war attractive. It is as if the price of temporarily loving one's neighbor or fellow soldier is the mass killing of others.

Part of the problem is that we become too responsive to the judgments of some audiences, and thus feel compelled to do things we know are not right. Our desires to be accepted and liked by people in one group, can lead us to hurt people in other groups. Being sociologically mindful, we are alert to this danger. If we sense that our allegiance to one group is leading us to treat members of another group as less than human, we can ask ourselves what will the consequences be if I disregard the humanity of others, just to be accepted here? That is a question that should be posed aloud to other self-regulating humans.

People do not have to be at war for a cutting-off of emotional responsiveness to occur. If members of one group feel there is no way to gain respect from members of another group. members of the disrespected group may stop caring about the feelings and judgments of members of the other group. Often this kind of situation arises between dominant and oppressed groups. For example, in the United States, centuries of white disrespect for blacks has led to contempt for white people and a disdain for things defined as "white" on the part of many black people. This is not reverse racism, but rather a rejection of a dominant and disrespectful culture.

Not responding emotionally to others can thus be an act of self-defense. It may simply be too painful to care about the judgments and feelings of those who will not respect us in any case.

There are, however, other reasons why this cutting-off might occur. It may be that members of a dominant group feel shame and guilt at the suffering they have caused others. To listen to and feel with those who have been abused and deeply hurt may be too painful to bear. "Perhaps this is why many whites in the United States have such a hard time listening to blacks describe the pain caused by racism," says Schwalbe. "It is too much for whites to feel this pain and sadness, and to admit they are partly responsible for causing it."

A similar thing can happen between between people who love each other. If someone else hurts a person we love, we rush to be sympathetic and empathic. We try to feel with and for the person who is hurt. But if our actions are the source of the loved one's pain, we may be unresponsive emotionally. Perhaps, we use reason to avoid dealing with feelings. We might say, "It's too bad you feel hurt, but if you just think carefully about the situation, you will realize that you have mistakenly interpreted my actions, therefore you should not feel the way you do."

Few of us want to feel the guilt that comes with knowing that we have hurt a person we love. So we might try to define them as irrational, overly sensitive, or wrong about our intentions. Ironically, we do this because we are so emotionally responsive to others. If we were not, we would not have to be so clever in using reason to avoid the unpleasant feelings that can be induced in us by others' suffering. Sometimes it is our fear of how others can make us feel if we open ourselves to feeling with and for them, that pushes us apart.

In Conclusion

Reason is not the enemy of emotion. Reason helps us sort through our feelings and choose the best course of action - perhaps the one that best respects the feelings of others. Precisely because we sometimes have impulses to lash out at others, we need reason to be peacefully self-regulating. For instance, reason is being used here to argue for the importance of being emotionally responsive to others. A problem arises only when we use reason to avoid listening to others when we do not know how to deal with their feelings or our own.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PHS. 74-76*

END