Of Emotions and non-emotization
Emotions are we, we feel and thus we emote. However, I believe there is a stark difference between ‘having of emotions’ (I am consciously avoiding using the term emotional) and emoting. Having emotions is human, however display of the same, emoting, is loserly. I call the process of emoting; emotization.
Emotization is show of weakness. It is gendered for women emote, but further, as power is masculine, powerful women donot emote. Logical deduction would mean men in general donot emote, further, powerful men never emote.
What did Akbar of Mughal-e-Azam have in common with, Hitler, further have in common with, closer home Indira Gandhi. These were the most powerful people of their times, and were known for their stoic bland expressions in times of adversity. So averse was Indira Gandhi to emoting she was rarely found wet eyed even on the sudden demise of her younger son. That was the reason why Hitler’s lovelife is such a big deal, for it is very difficult to fathom this guy to be emotional. Imagine, Hitler, with tears in his eyes, saying I Love You to his loved one. There’s where the dichotomy lay, for this guy did have emotions, for he was in love, but what is difficult to digest is that he expressed that emotion too. Akbar loved his son, but failed at emoting any such emotion.
Further on a lay man level, my everyday observation is that emoting is uncool, for it ‘nakidifies’ your inner, true self. Now why would that be shameful for some is another issue to ponder upon.
Thus one way of towering over another person is by foregoing emoting, by proving ones strength by withstanding the outburst of emotions.
Although I definitely believe that even those who donot emote for want of superficial of power, stature etc., donot necessarily lack the emotions. However, in the whole process of suppressing emotions and being unemotive, they somewhere start belying the existence of such emotions. And that is how inhuman acts are conceived, in a cold cemetery of emotions.
Thus the emotive being becomes a weak being, implying a humane being becomes a weak being. No wonder its an ugly world!!
Emotization is show of weakness. It is gendered for women emote, but further, as power is masculine, powerful women donot emote. Logical deduction would mean men in general donot emote, further, powerful men never emote.
What did Akbar of Mughal-e-Azam have in common with, Hitler, further have in common with, closer home Indira Gandhi. These were the most powerful people of their times, and were known for their stoic bland expressions in times of adversity. So averse was Indira Gandhi to emoting she was rarely found wet eyed even on the sudden demise of her younger son. That was the reason why Hitler’s lovelife is such a big deal, for it is very difficult to fathom this guy to be emotional. Imagine, Hitler, with tears in his eyes, saying I Love You to his loved one. There’s where the dichotomy lay, for this guy did have emotions, for he was in love, but what is difficult to digest is that he expressed that emotion too. Akbar loved his son, but failed at emoting any such emotion.
Further on a lay man level, my everyday observation is that emoting is uncool, for it ‘nakidifies’ your inner, true self. Now why would that be shameful for some is another issue to ponder upon.
Thus one way of towering over another person is by foregoing emoting, by proving ones strength by withstanding the outburst of emotions.
Although I definitely believe that even those who donot emote for want of superficial of power, stature etc., donot necessarily lack the emotions. However, in the whole process of suppressing emotions and being unemotive, they somewhere start belying the existence of such emotions. And that is how inhuman acts are conceived, in a cold cemetery of emotions.
Thus the emotive being becomes a weak being, implying a humane being becomes a weak being. No wonder its an ugly world!!
posted by AlmostTwentySix | 6:27 AM
