Thinking and Feeling

A trend that has caught some attention recently is the increase in “trigger warnings,” which allow people who have been traumatized to know if they should avoid a particular article, lecture, film, course, etc. that might trigger difficult emotional responses or even flashbacks to their trauma. Such trigger warnings are increasingly commonplace, and controversial: some argue that putting warnings on anything that might trigger a negative emotional response sanitizes the world and makes it nearly impossible to talk about anything. This is seen as an extension of the so-called doctrine of “politically correct” or “PC” speech that politicians and talking heads like Donald Trump say is emblematic of a breakdown in society. Some take it as an infringement on their right to free speech, others merely an inconvenience, and others as a sign of weakness.

This post is not about being politically correct. I brought this trend up because it points to another trend, which is that we’re more aware of mental health issues than ever before, and presumably we have more mental health issues than ever before (though that’s hard to tell, if we did not identify them in the past). Put differently, we’re aware of our feelings more than ever, and we’re taking steps to protect them. Counselling was only for the weak when I was a kid, but is commonplace now. Anti-bullying groups and legislation are working to stop playground – and increasingly, online – harassment and assault against kids and teens, and such programs are usually very well supported by the community (unless they are specifically aimed at those who bully gay kids, but that’s a story for another day too).

But not everyone, even among those who support anti-bullying clubs (at least in principle), thinks that this increasing awareness of our feelings and the desire to protect those feelings is a good thing. And not just for free speech concerns either. There is a legitimate argument here: sometimes we’re offended by things that we shouldn’t be offended by, and sometimes being offended can be a good thing. For example, I regularly see Christians get offended by things they feel go against their religion; as a Christian who has studied Christianity extensively over the last dozen years, the things that some Christians take to be anti-Christian often baffle me. I’ve even seen examples of Christians offended by genuine expressions of orthodox, mainstream Christianity, showing their ignorance of their own faith tradition. When that happens, I feel offended by their ignorant backlash, and I’m glad that I haven’t become so cynical as to not be bothered by the way my religion gets absolutely butchered and misrepresented in such situations. I’m offended when people are cruel or cold to others, too, because I see our shared humanity being disrespected. If we cover up all of the things that offend us because we don’t like feeling offended, how can we ever actually address injustice? If survivors of the residential school system hadn’t come forward to tell their deeply unsettling stories, would we ever move toward reconciliation?

But some take the concern further, saying that this awareness of our feelings and desire to protect them undermines our ability to think. I came across this meme a few days ago:


This is obviously an old quote, but it’s making the rounds on Facebook. I don’t know the original context, but the way it is presented here draws a distinction between thinking and feeling that should not exist. It is somewhat possible to separate them, and the fact that it is possible is evidenced by the way people devalue feeling and elevate thinking when they pass stuff like this around. It is evidenced by the way that an entire generation of apologists value being right more than they value the feelings of those whom they believe are wrong. Me saying so is undoubtedly unfair: most of these apologists are explicitly concerned with the eternal salvation of those with and about whom they debate. But nevertheless, they continue to say and do things that hurt people, and when those people complain about being hurt they resort to this theory that people simply feel too much and think too little, and confuse their feeling with thinking.

Here’s the thing about feeling: it is entirely subjective. We have never had the myth that feeling is objective, like we have with thinking. For the past few hundred years (the “modern” era) we have held the delusion that we can think objectively, that what is obvious to one person ought to be recognized as truth by others because it merely reflects reality. This way of thinking was challenged by postmodern views, which point out that our thinking is almost entirely subjective and that true objectivity is either nearly or entirely impossible. But we’ve always known this about feelings – some people are more sensitive than others. Some people are moved to tears by a sunset, while others have no pity for a puppy with only one leg (remember Strongbad, anyone?). We’ve historically found social uniformity with feelings mostly by making sensitive people suppress their emotions (usually by calling them names like “wuss” and “pussy”), which is probably why it took us so long to realize just how crucial mental health is to a healthy person and a healthy society. We now know that emotional trauma even has physiological effects, and are discovering that many people with physical symptoms like obesity or drug addiction have been using such things to hide/treat childhood trauma. So while the extent and importance of feeling is becoming increasingly apparent, we’ve always known that people feel differently and for different reasons – but compared to the universal objectivity of critical thinking, subjective feelings were deemed illusory, contradicting, and maybe even dangerous.

But now that we realize that thinking is not objective, we can no longer make such a separation. We now recognize that we see the world through a unique lens that is shaped by our previous knowledge and experience – the same things that shape our feelings. We are able to think about almost anything, but inevitably our feelings reveal our true beliefs and worldview, which we hold largely subconsciously.

Christians deal with this all the time: we recognize the difficulty of turning our beliefs into actions or a way of life is terribly difficult. In church this morning, the pastor pointed out that Peter really believed that he was ready to die with Jesus and would not abandon him. The scene in which Peter realizes that he has abandoned Jesus so is terribly poignant. Did Peter’s feelings and instincts for self-preservation overcome his belief, or did his actions simply exemplify a level of commitment that turned out to be less than he believed it was? Was it his feelings that were at fault, or his thinking? Did he just lack courage, or did he overestimate the amount of courage he actually had? The answer, of course, is both.

Traditionally, the church has upheld three integrated points of discipleship: orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy. The fact that my spellchecker only recognizes the first of these three words goes to show how much we have valued one of these above the others. Orthodoxy, or right belief, has unfortunately taken precedence for I-don’t-know-how-long.  Orthopraxy, or right actions, has been deemed too Catholic by most Protestant churches, which emphasize the saving grace of God over (and apart from) works or actions. And orthopathy, or right “affections”…well, I had to look the term up, and I only became aware of its existence at all halfway through Seminary. The point is, these three things are interrelated: we can say that we have integrity only if our thoughts, feelings (desires), and actions all align, but for at least the last few hundred years we’ve only seen integrity as an alignment between beliefs and actions, leaving affections out of it entirely.

With that in mind, I think it is absolutely fantastic that feeling is in fashion right now. Yes, many people are feeling things that are based on wrong beliefs, and that’s a problem! But the problem is their wrong beliefs, not their wrong feelings; their connection between thinking and feeling is an important one, and while it is totally legitimate to correct wrong beliefs, we must recognize that their feelings are not right or wrong at all. Feelings are objective, in the sense that we cannot choose or change them – they just exist, as a natural response to our experience and beliefs. We cannot criticize someone who is overly sensitive for feeling, nor can we dismiss their feelings without dismissing them as human beings. Our feelings are part of us, and rarely subject to our rational choices.

What we can do instead is recognize a person’s feelings, validate them as a legitimate response to their perceptions and experience, and then address any misperceptions they may have that led to their emotional response. Because not only is it rude and dehumanizing to dismiss or ignore or ridicule someone’s feelings, it’s actually counter-productive – because no matter how much we talk about the primacy of logical reasoning, in a stressful situation our feelings guide our actions more than our thoughts do. When we experience great stress, our prefrontal cortex (the decision-making, logical, rational part of our brain) shuts down and we go into a sort of auto-pilot (often referred to as fight-or-flight mode), and we take actions that are based on things much deeper than thought – but our feelings are still powerfully present even when we can’t think straight. So the next time someone asks for a trigger warning, take it as a sign that they would prefer to remain rational rather than being plunged into the high-emotion low-rationality state of recurring trauma.

My son is a constant reminder to me of the importance of recognizing and validating the feelings and desires of others. Toddlers are experiencing many emotions, sometimes for the first time and always uncontrollably, and it often causes them to act out in ways that they would actually not prefer. When a kid has a tantrum, it’s almost always because they’re feeling something and they don’t know what to do with it; telling them that you know what it is they desire (“I know you want that toy”) is usually enough to calm them down, because they know that being understood helps them to understand themselves. That’s the brilliance of human community: we know by being known, and we deal with emotions by sharing them with others. We call this compassion. All of this is just as true for adults as it is for children.

So be careful with the affections of others, and recognize that their emotions may precede, but certainly inform, their understanding and knowledge. Just as our own integrity depends on the interplay between our beliefs, affections, and actions, so too our health, relationships, and ability to communicate also depend on all three things. So rather than pitting thinking against feeling, recognize that it is only by recognizing someone’s feelings that you can find out what they really think.


2 thoughts on “Thinking and Feeling

  1. A word in my defence. Ha. I did “like” that meme, but I didn’t know much about the source. I had never heard of this man before, and upon examination I see I don’t agree with much of what he says. More importantly, I actually misread it at first to say “the problem IS that Johnny can’t think…” so that then the last line where he says he confuses thinking with feeling, I read to be just a continuation of the previous point, rather than a distinction between thinking and feeling. In other words, the emphasis, in the way I misread it, was that people are not taught to think, rather than that there’s a problem because people are feeling, rather than thinking. I misread the emphasis.
    That being said, I agree with you that emotional intelligence is importance. And I also agree that ignoring and dismissing people’s feeling will only have the effect of never being able to uncover what people think.
    And emotions and thoughts cannot be entirely separated. Of course, when postmodernists make the point that knowledge and truth are subjective, they are making that point using thought, not feeling. They normally wouldn’t appeal to emotion, something like, “Shouldn’t we all just get along an accept that other people have a different point of view?” which would not be a logical argument. Instead, most postmodernists (academics anyway) that I’m aware of would be more likely to point out, as you do, how our beliefs are socially constructed. In other words, I believe you can emphasize thought over feeling while still acknowledging that feelings cloud our thoughts, or that we can never be objective.
    So this isn’t just a problem with little “Johnny” as the meme suggests. People tend to think that it’s others who are “clouded by emotion” or “irrational” or whatever, rather than themselves, and I think this meme promotes that unhelpful idea.
    This is very rambling, but I guess my point is that I agree with the sentiment of the meme that people, in general, lack critical thinking skills, and that people may be unaware what is feeling and what is thinking. It’s ironic, though, that this meme comes from and is being spread by a conservative source (implying that “leftists” are the irrational ones), because it’s primarily in the interests of the wealthy and powerful to discourage critical thinking. So, while I sort of agree with the idea that people aren’t taught to think, I disagree with the implication that this is due to leftist namby-pamby people and their emphasis on “feelings.” In fact, a lot of what masquerades as critical thinking in right wing circles is nothing more than appeal to novelty and persecution complex and so on.
    So, I agree that “not thinking deeply” is a problem, but I also agree with you that dismissing people’s feelings will only make it even harder to get at their thoughts, and that feelings play a significant role in our actions and decisions, even without us realizing them, such that no one can be said to be a critical thinker, or objective, even if objectivity existed.

    • Thanks Andrew, good thoughts! I think you’ve highlighted an important point, that people tend to think that it is others who are clouded by emotion or substituting feelings for thoughts. My main point here is that these cannot be separated – that it affects us all because we can’t think any other way.

      I spend some time thinking about my thinking, and I’ve noticed that I agree with ideas and knowledge that resonate with me. Resonate is not a thinking word, it is a hearing and feeling word. Strike a tuning fork, and you can feel if something is in tune or not, and the same is true when we hear a new idea or bit of knowledge that fits in with our worldview. Often as I gather more information the resonance decreases, sometimes to the point where I discard that idea or knowledge altogether as false; had I taken that resonance at face value and held that idea or knowledge to be true because of it, I would have fallen into the trap that the meme was trying to get at, which is that my feeling would have become the test of truthfulness – otherwise known as confirmation bias. That feeling of resonance can be a measure of truth, provided that the rest of the worldview that it resonates with is sound; but that also means that we’re more likely to reinforce an incorrect worldview by accepting things that support it, when instead we should be looking at things that do not resonate with our worldview in order to discern if our worldview is truly sound. (This is, of course, only supported by the echo-chambers of social media algorithms and political polarization.)

      To put my conclusion another way and in a classic Christianese dilemma: we need to have a real relationship with people before there is any point in pointing out their sinfulness. Telling someone we don’t truly know, and who does not know us, that they are sinful is more likely to result in the dissolution of any relationship that might have existed; but pointing out sin in our closest friend, while difficult, is much more likely to have a positive and reconciling effect. The difference is that we have a “safe” place with the people we trust the most, and it is there that we can have a real impact. Standing on a street corner and accusing strangers of sin is analogous to standing in a classroom and telling rape survivors that their trauma shouldn’t impact the curriculum; in both cases, we’ve only served to alienate those who need real relationship and a safe space the most.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s