Most people talk about emotions as if they are all the same kind of thing: uncontrollable internally-based impulses. But as you’re learning in this class, it’s more complicated than that. You can separate emotions analytically into three different categories: basic emotions, culturally specific emotions, and higher cognitive emotions. These categories often do overlap a bit, but are very useful, as they show us that different emotions have different origins; they come from different places. Some emotions are truly biologically based, some are taught to us entirely by our cultures, and some are a thought-driven hybrid.
__________________________________________________________
This unit’s discussion has 4 parts:
1. Name and describe the three different kinds of emotions(I already did it above; now you do it in greater detail). Use Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence to inform your descriptions.
2. Describe the Cultural Theory of Emotions, and why it is only partially correct.It is NOT the same thing as a culturally specific emotions; look to lecture to remind you of exactly what the Cultural Theory of Emotions says).
3. Choose an emotion that you believe is culturally specific or higher cognitive, and explain how you learned that emotion.Your post will be extra-special if you can explain ways in which different cultural understandings would lead you to experience that emotion differently, and act differently because of it.
Jealousy in American Culture, 1945-1985 (Clanton) t' t F.. ) ) Oil e , .\ L \ otion ar · 11 arning. \\ . l. ' tt ·r a 0 I M RIJ 1 -1 REFL TI POP L R IT R T RE Gord n I nt n EMOTIO I SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE LnH I 'Ip< ·1="" he="" ii="" a="" indi,="" \,._="" rlu.="" 0="" al="" ti="" r="" 1h="" e,="" but="" philt="">
and about two per ,ear in the early 1960. Almo t nothing \\'cb publbhed about aduhjeat ou y from I966 to 1972. From 1973 through 197 there were, once again, about t\,o article per ear. ince 1978, the average number of article ha inc,ea ed to about fi,e per }ear. To ummari,c: fxcept fo1 the period from 1966LO 1972when almo,t nothing v.a., published about jealousy, the number of anicle on jealou y m the maga1ine indexed in the Rradrn' Cwdr mcrea ed about five-fold o,er the four decade une}cd-with mo t of the increa e occurring since 1978. ll hould be noted that the urve) wac; not intended to generate a preci e ors · tematic urve> of the content. of the approximate!) eight\ aruclec; publi hed and reviewed. Rather, the intention wa to read the arucles in order to identify axial hift taking place o,e, four decade in people' view of jealou y, thei, e,aluation of jealou,;y, and it cx.ial ignificance. For this reason, thi repon will highlight those specific arti cle that be t communicate the "old" and "new" ,iew of jealous, during the po t-World War II period. O,e1 the forty-)ear pan uneyed an imere ting <,hift ha="" occurred="" in="" the="" relati,e="" number="" of="" article="" on="" adult="" jealou-;y="" a="" oppo="" ed="" to="" ,;ibling="" rivalry="" and="" other="" jealou!iie="" among="" family="" member="" .="" prior="" to="" 1966,arti="" cle="" on="" ibling="" rivalr)="" and="" other="" famil)="" jealou="" ie="" were="" more="" numberous="" than="" article="" on="" adult="" jealousy="" in="" romantic="" relation="" hip="" and="" in="" marriage.="" ince="" 1970,however,="" among="" the="" articles="" indexed="" under="" ''jealou="" }="" "in="" the="" readm'="" cwdr,="" tho="" e="" on="" adult="" jealou="" y="" ha,e="" outnumbered="" anicles="" on="" family="" jealou="" ie="" by="" roughly="" six="" to="" one.="" over="" thi="" period,="" articles="" on="" ibling="" rivalry="" continued="" to="" appear="" and="" to="" be="" filed="" under"="" iblings"="" or"="" ibling="" rivalry."="" apparently,="" howe,="" er,="" fewer="" and="" fewer="" of="" these="" articles="" used="" the="" word="" ''.jealou="" y"="" in="" their="" title="" .="" as="" a="" result,="" they="" are="" not="" indexed="" under="" ''jealou="" y."="" thus,="" it="" appears="" that="" prior="" to="" 1966,the="" word="" ''.jealou="" y"="" was="" commonly="" u="" ed="" with="" reference="" to="" both="" adult="" jealousy="" and="" ibling="" rivalry.="" since="" about="" i970,="" the="" word="" ''.jealou="" y"="" has="" been="" u="" ed="" primaril)="" with="" reference="" to="" adult="" jealousy="" in="" romantic="" relationships="" and="" marriage.="" another="" ubtle="" hift="" in="" the="" connotations="" of="" the="" word="" ''.jealousy"="" i="" revealed="" by="" these="" data.="" prior="" to="" i966,="" mo="" t="" articles="" about="" adult="" jealousy="" focused="" on="" relatively="" innoeemflirtahon.s,for="" example,="" what="" to="" do="" if,="" at="" a="" party,="" your="" mate="" spends="" most="" of="" the="" evening="" in="" animated="" con\ersation="" with="" an="" attractive="" member="" of="" the="" other="" gender.="" since="" about="" 1970,many="" article="" on="" adult="" jealousy="" are="" about="" the="" threat="" of="" real="" sexual="" adventures="" and="" affairs,="" for="" example,="" what="" to="" do="" if="" )our="" mate="" betray="" you="" sexually="" or="" proposes="" an="" "open="" marriage."="" canvas="" ing="" all="" the="" listed="" anicle="" on="" jealousy="" over="" the="" forty-year="" period,="" one="" notes="" that="" the="" great="" bulk="" of="" them="" appeared="" in="" magazines="" oriented="" 182="" toward="" women="" readers.="" upplement.u="" anal="" i="" finds="" litlle="" mention="" of="" jealou="" y="" in="" pill)bo)="" or="" pt11t/1ou.u.thi="" pattern="" ugge="" ts="" dial="" women,="" undoubted!)="" due="" to="" both="" their="" cx:ial="" po="" ition="" and="" the="" social="" meaning="" attributed="" to="" the="" e="" po="" ition="" ,="" expre="" ~="" both="" a="" greater="" interest="" in="" jealou="" }="" and="" other="" emotions="" and="" a="" greater="" "1llingne="" to="" talk="" about="" them="" than="" men.="" jealousy="" as="" proof="" of="" love:="" 1945-1965="" from="" the="" end="" of="" \\'orld="" war="" 11="" umil="" the="" l.ne="" 1960),="" virtual!}="" all="" of="" the="" article="" in="" popular="" m.iga1ioe="" .iid="" that="" a="" certain="" amount="" of="" jeajou="" ,\~cl!="" natural.="" proof="" of="" lo\c,="" and="" good="" for="" mamage="" 1="" he="" reader="" (tvpicall)="" a="" \\oman)="" wa="" advi="" eel="" to="" keep="" her="" jcalou="" feelings="" "under="" control"="" and="" to="" a\oid="" the="" "unreasonable"="" jcajou,=""> which is marked b u picion, ho uHt), accusauon , and threats. The woman \\all wld Lo a, oid situauom "ht h might make her hu band jealou, buJto interpret hu ex pre 1011 of Jeal ousy a C\idence of love. 1 lf jealou > threatened the tabilit of the marriage. profes.'1ional help ,,as ad, i ed. Repre!tentathe of thi approach was a hon piece in i'.frCall's mag-.wne {~fa) I 962) b Oa, id R. Mace, cl well-kno" n marriage coun elor and author. 'J he article. lilied "Two Face of Jealou ," hinged on the di tinction between normal and abno1 maJ (or pathological) jcalou v and moved from the as~umplion that the difference between the l\\O were elf-evident and nonproblemaLic. Normal jealou , according to Mac.e, "is the in Linet that Oashes a wammg \\ hen the exclu ivene of marri.ige i threatened. . . . ormal jealou is a proteuive instinct that has aH:d rnam a marriage. Abnormal jealou } i a de tructiv ob e ion and often requires profes ional treatment." ln Lhi article. no auention wa gi\en to the po !>ibility that definition of "normal" and "abnormal" jealouw might vary from lime to Lime, from place to place. and from couple to couple. Judith Vior t"· March 1970 Rtdbooltarticle, "Confe ions ofajealou Wife," summed up the ,iew of jealou y that had prevailed in the middle sector of American society until about that time.JeaJou ~ wa appro\.ed and defended a a normal accompaniment of love. ome conventional trategie for coping with jealou >were di u ed. including sarcasm, , 1iolence, and trying to make the pou e jealous. What Vior t refers to as the "civili,ed'' re pon e and the open marriage approach were ruled out. The author concluded that noLhing really work . Jealous) i inevitable: "A man who wasn't attractive to other women, a man who wasn't alhe enough to enjoy other women, a man who wa incapable of making me jealous, would never be the kind of man l"d love." https://appro\.ed 183 Jralousyill Ammca11 Cullur,, /94J-/98J Allhough il appeared m 1970, Viom' "Confe sions" repre emed the "old vie,," of jeaJou which wa taken-for-gr.1med in the 1950 and early 1960 . Nearl) all arucle'i on adult jealou > in popular magazine prior to 1970 refleCled lhi point of, iew: Jealou >i natural; it i proof of love, it i good for marriage. Allhough the po~ibility of pathological jeaJou } was acknowledged and \\amed again t, the focu~ w:b on liule ep1 ode of ''normal" Jealou > \\ h1ch how that lo, e i alive and which need nOl threaten the qualil) lo lhe relauonship. After 1970, lhi "old \IC\-\" of jealous> largely di appeared from the popular media for more 1han a decade. JEALOUSY AS A PERSONAL DEFECT: 1970-1980 I he magazine listed in the Readm' Cwd, and the popular media in gener.il were largely ilent aboul jealou y from 1966 lo 1972. Thi 1s urpri ing in light of lhe fact that the ame period produced an explo ,ion of popular wriling on ex, love, relation hip , and per onal growth. Perhap the prevailing \iew ofjealou~y wa~ changing o fa t that writer and editol"'i were un ure how 10 characterize it. B} about 1970, a ne," ,·iew of jealou y was taking root in a sub tantial and influential minority of Amencan . Magazine c1rticle began lo que - tion the appropriatene. of jealou feeling in love relationships. Many people no longer assumed lhaljealou y i evidence of love. For lhe first lime guilt about jealou >became an is ue for large numbers of people. According to the emerging vie" ,jealou y was nOl natur.tl; it was learned. Jealou y was no longer ~een a proof of love; it wa , rather, evidence of a defect uch a low elf-esteem or lhe inability to trust. Thus.jealousy was not . een a good for relation hip ; it wa bad for them. From this it followed that one could and hould eek to eradicate every trace of jealou y from one's per onality. Various prescriptions for achieving thi were offered by therapists, guru , and advice-giver . Typical of magazine article e pousing the "new view" of jealousy wa "Taming the Green-eyed Monster" by veteran writer 'orman Lob enz. Like the article by Judith Vior t previou ly di cus ed, the Lob em: article al o appeared in Redboolt-exactly five years later (March 1975). Its thrust and tone, however, were quite differenL Lobsenz ciced p ychologists and ociologist who suggested that jealousy wa becoming outdated as society