Hierarchy of Emotional Awareness November 24, 2008

  

   Personality is often viewed as a complex mix of traits and behaviors.  This definition underemphasizes the fact that personality is dependent on a person’s relationship with the world.  A man’s usual thought process and interaction with his environment are what makes him “himself.”  Without interpersonal relationships, patterns in particular traits and reactions would not emerge.  Much of how we as people connect is through emotional awareness.  Though emotional aptitude is often overlooked, those lacking in such awareness often suffer socially.  By forming a foundation in emotional self awareness, building sympathy for other’s emotions, and finally understanding other’s empathetically, a person becomes emotional adept. 

            Perhaps a good point of comparison is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  The hierarchy of needs is a well-accepted basis for many personality theories.  It explains the key elements one needs to reach a higher level of existence: self-actualization.  Abraham Maslow defines certain human needs in A Theory of Human Motivation (1943).  At the very bottom of the hierarchal pyramid is “physiological needs.”  These are the basics everyone needs to function: food, water, shelter, etc.  The next layer is a persons “safety needs.”  Maslow explains that without a feeling of comfort and safety, the higher “love needs” then “esteem needs” would be hard to attain.  Once one feels comfortable in his environment, he can seek to fulfill the longing for love and positive self esteem.  At the tip of the pyramid, the highest need in the hierarchy is “self-actualization (p. 382).”  Maslow argues that once a person can function with fulfillment of the basics, safety, love, and social acceptance, it is a person’s responsibility to strive for self-actualization: “What a man can be, he must be.”            

            The hierarchy of emotional awareness picks up where Maslow’s hierarchy of needs leaves off.  Self-actualization is mastering one’s own motives and applying them to reach one’s full potential in the world.  Similarly, at the very bottom of the emotional pyramid is Narcissism.  While the term narcissism holds many negative connotations, the word itself is very fitting.  Narcissism is a preoccupation with oneself, and at it’s very best, fully understand one’s own feelings.  Though narcissism excludes having empathy for others, it is incredibly important to be aware of one’s own emotions and keeping one’s own feelings a priority.  While egocentrism is not bad in itself, it becomes a negative trait only when not used as a foundation from which to build sympathy and empathy. 

For example, every person starts his life as a narcissist.  For years, I volunteered at a preschool and worked specifically with the class of three year olds.  Observing these children, it became apparent that each one was solely concerned with his own desires.  At play time, everyone wanted the spinning Elmo toy.  The children would immediately start fighting to get it.  A teacher would step in and tell the children to share the toy.  By modeling correct social behavior, teachers were able to demonstrate being kind to others and respecting the feelings of others.  Only through learned behavior did the children acknowledge their playmates wishes to also have the toy.  So, while it is necessary to understand our own emotions for our own mental health, we each must build upon the “three year old mindset” and develop an understanding of other’s feelings as well.  If one were to remain in that self centered mindset and not develop more emotional awareness, he would be acting like a bratty three year old.     

The next step in the hierarchy of emotional awareness is sympathy.  Sympathy is defined by Webster’s dictionary (2008 ) as, “the act or capacity of sharing the feelings of another.”  Both sympathy and empathy are often confused as having the same meaning, but sympathy is being outside of other’s emotions.  If I were to spot a random girl crying in one of my classes, I would sympathize with her.  I would see she’s upset and try to make her feel better.  Sympathy, though often correlated with empathy, is an important step from egocentric emotions to fully empathizing with others.  It is the point where the feelings of others are recognized, though they lack the complete understanding of what the other is going through.

Empathy, in contrast, is the highest level of emotional awareness.  Empathy is “vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another” (Webster 2008), or experiencing another’s emotions from the inside.  When a close friend loses a beloved pet, I can immediately empathize with her plight.  Because I’ve lost a pet, I fully understand the emotions she is feeling, and am therefore fully connecting with her.  If I were to merely sympathize with her, saying “Oh, how sad,” she would think I’m cold and distant.  Empathy isn’t limited to the emotions we’ve experienced ourselves, because as an empirical study Similarity and Nurturance: Two Possible Source of Empathy for Strangers (Batson 2005) points out, there is more than one way in which we feel empathy.  For example, one is not just able to empathize with a close friend or relative, but one would also be able to feel empathy for a stranger he perceives to be like himself.  The study continues with an experiment done on graduate students.  The graduate students were presented with a stranger with whom they are said to have commonalities.  When the stranger (who happens to be in on the experiment) “experiences” an electric shock, the graduate students “reported feeling worse than did those [graduate students] led to believe that [the stranger] was dissimilar (p. 15).”  So even though the graduate students didn’t feel the shocks, they felt as if they did with an identifiable stranger. 

            Ultimately, the emotional growth from narcissism to empathy is vital in social interactions.  The difference between a self centered three-year-old and a compassionate adult is the connection with other’s emotions.  While Maslow’s hierarchy of needs develops a functioning person, the hierarchy of emotional awareness develops a person capable of forming and keeping relationships.  Personality would be meaningless without emotional connections between people, thus the ability to empathize is essential.  What a man can feel, he must feel.

 

Works Cited

Batson, C., Lishner, D., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005, March). Similarity and Nurturance: Two Possible Sources of Empathy for Strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 15-25.

Empathy. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Maslow, A. (1943, July). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Sympathy. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adam and Eve November 5, 2008

       

     The story of Adam and Eve is ingrained in our culture.  The Garden of Eden, forbidden fruit, lies and deception, the fall of man… this Biblical tale has long been seen as a symbol of women’s inferiority to man.  Woman was created from man’s rib, while Eve’s gullibleness caused the fall of man.  That has been women’s contribution to creation, the ultimate screw-up.  Created secondary to man and easily deceived by snakes, it’s no wonder women have been portrayed as lesser creatures.  But as Phyllis Trible argues in “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread,” perhaps we’ve misinterpreted the story altogether.  Through analyzing Trible’s discussion of adham as well as the origin of gender, new insights to the classic tale of Adam and Eve can be reached.

        The first point Trible brings to light is the implied equality between man and woman.  This is a significant assertion, because it suggests that before Adam and Eve sinned, man and woman were equal.  Thus, repenting for this sin would take us back to our original equality.  Trible supports this claim by analyzing the term adham in its original Hebrew context:  “Adham is basically androgynous (p 74).”  The words for man (ish) and woman (ishshah) were not used until after Eve was created.  This infers that man was not man until woman was born, placing man and woman in balance.  Trible points out that the creation of woman parallels that of man, while man had only a passive role in her birth, “Like man, woman owes her life solely to God (p 76).”  Therefore, Eve is not subordinate to Adam because she was made from “the rib He had taken out of the man (Gen. 2:22),” she was merely made to be an equal and “one flesh (Gen 2:24).”          

        Though, perhaps the most interesting insight Trible gives is the characterization of both Adam and Eve.  While this story has received criticism for it’s inherent patriarchal overtones, Trible suggests it is the subtle feminist undertones that really make the story.  The greatest example of this is the characterization of Eve as an independent thinker, and Adam as a passive follower.  In traditional patriarchal roles, man is the dominant decision maker.  However, it is Eve in our story who analyzes the possibilities of eating the forbidden fruit and is fully aware of her act.  Adam does eat the fruit, but only because his wife has given it to him.  Trible proposes that “these character portrayals are truly extraordinary in a culture dominated by men,” especially that Eve “seeks neither his advice or permission.  She acts independently (p 79).”  Basically, it’s ironic that this story is interpreted as sexist, when it is Eve who exhibits “male” personality traits. 

        Finally, I must protest Trible’s assertion that the passage, “Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16)” is not a condemnation for Eve and womankind.  While Trible makes excellent cases regarding equality and sexuality, I believe that balance is shifted with this proclamation.   Trible comes to the conclusion that the story is trying to lead us back to that original equality, but I disagree.  I believe the writer meant to use the story as a moral lesson.  When a woman acts out of line and assumes the role of a man (independence, free will, thought, etc.), she will cause sin and retribution on herself and her family.  Of course I don’t believe in the inequality, but I do think the myth was written to oppress women.  It’s noble of Phyllis Trible to justify this amazing tale of creation, but her conclusion doesn’t encompass the social standards of the time.