The Complexity of Feeling: II
Welcome to Part II. Since you have already read Part I (wink, wink) let’s jump right in.
Previously, we talked about feeling conventions and the emotions work they illicit. Now we can further expand the notion of emotions work into two categories of rules: feeling and framing. Feeling rules guide how we think about things internally. They define the boundary of where we permit ourselves to feel without shame, worry, or guilt (Hochschild, 1979). This is a state of emotional harmony where the spontaneous feeling is consistent with our internal expectations. Framing rules guide how we internally assign definitions and meaning to situations. They illustrate how we “should” feel.
Let’s explore an example. Let’s say you are going on vacation and feeling excited. The feeling of excitement, matches feeling conventions for vacation. The frame you hold around vacation as a concept, determines whether you experience any dissonance with that feeling.
An important part of the puzzle is that neither of these categories is static. If we change the way we think about something, the rules we follow also change. If we allow our feeling convention rules to go unexamined however, we may remain oblivious to the fact that we are doing emotions work upholding rules that are not totally by our own design.
Which feeling rules do you hold yourself and others to? Which feeling conventions rooted those rules?
Which framing rules do you measure yourself and others against? Which frames may no longer serve you?
Consider a time when you might have felt a feeling that didn’t match the frame. Ever receive a gift that you didn’t like? Let’s pretend you have and that you felt discontent but knew that you “should” feel something more joyous. You might’ve thought, I don’t like this at all, in fact I really dislike it. And this person doesn’t know me at all. And maybe that hurts my feelings. When engaged in the moment, you have a choice. You can react as you deem appropriate for the frame, or you can react as you deem appropriate to your feeling or, somewhere in between. Either way a choice is made and depending on your degree of self-awareness the consciousness with which you make that choice is determined. In fact there is a vast amount of research that suggests, the better we are able to choose our reactions according to the frame, the more effectively we engage in emotions work and have positive social outcomes.
Remember that we all engage in an active exertion of effort to abide the feeling norms. The amount of effort that we exert however can be correlated to the depth of the ideological connection. The greater the connection, the less effort we exert. Let’s use the gift example above.
If I hold as part of my frame that the definition of friend means that I maintain an unconditional positive regard for said friend (ideological connection to the definition of friend), then in spite of the feelings I am experiencing, discontent and hurt, I might attempt to shift my internal dialogue, maybe they really thought I would like this gift, maybe it means something personal to them, maybe they really didn’t know but tried their best. This emotion work to both examine the dissonance and shift the feeling is what Hochschild (1979) refers to as deep acting.
Let’s pretend that instead of deep acting you want to opt for surface acting. Surface acting (yep, you can probably guess) is when there is no attempt to affect or change the underlying emotion but instead, appease the frame. Under this style, you might outwardly express gratitude, give a smile, and move on to the next gift knowing your true feelings remain below the surface.
When have you engaged in surface or deep acting? What was the situation?
How did each response impact your mental or physical well being?
It is important to highlight that as we define “acting” under this context it is not a disingenuous undertaking, but a part of the human experience and the way we socialize and interact as a society. Whether surface or deep, the acting process is what classifies as the emotions work.
So what about inconsistencies? Have you ever had a social interaction where you felt like someone was being “fake”? Or maybe you felt like someone was “trying too hard”? If we assume positive intent (otherwise we muddy the waters of this conversation), we can add another layer to the feeling work.
This expression is often an attempt to try and express a feeling incongruent to both the individuals’ feeling and frame or yours as the counterpart of the interaction. Nemo dat quod non habet. I am sure you have heard the English variation, you cannot give what you do not posses? When it comes to feeling work, there must be some rooting in personal experience to be able to demonstrate the feeling — and that goes both ways. If you have never experienced the feeling and have no frame for it, you may seek to understand it based on the feelings and frames you do have as references. These may be congruent, or not, with those of the individual with whom you are engaging.
Whoa, social interactions are complex! And the single factor that can support each of us through those interactions is self-awareness.
Where is the boundary of your self-awareness? How might reflecting on your feelings and frames serve you?
Remember that emotions work happens both consciously and unconsciously. As I mentioned, the degree of self-awareness an individual holds is correlated to how consciously they can do the emotions work. Anyone who is a parent can probably think of a time when their child couldn’t do the emotions work needed for the frame (meltdown in line at the post office because they want to go play? hysterics because the wind blew too hard on their face during a mild walk?) I see you parents.
Understanding the rules of the frames we operate in while simultaneously holding in active consciousness that we are not the frame itself can create a lot of jarring feelings and emotions for each of us to think about. But self-awareness is generally not about feeling comfortable, and this is where big work starts to happen. I leave you with this quote from Carl Jung:
“…your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Without, everything seems discordant; only within does it coalesce into unity. Who looks outside dreams; who looks inside awakes.”
Hope you’ll join me for Part III.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American journal of sociology, 85(3), 551–575.
