I was reading the first part of Adam Smith’s A Theory of Moral Sentiments, and his description of how people relate to negative emotions intrigued me.
Smith makes the interesting point that when one is suffering misfortune, the reactions of other people to that suffering varies. Sometimes people will emphasize to a great degree; at other times, consider that suffering excessive. He explains that the reaction of others has to do with how the individual suffering behaves.
He gives the example of Socrates drinking hemlock, stoic and tranquil, while his friends wept for his fate. He contrasts this with, say, a man losing his family who becomes (in effect) chronically depressed and violent at times; people may say that he is over reacting.
My interpretation related this relationship to the idea of social diffusion of responsibility in Psychology.
Allow me to elucidate: Smith begins by claiming that people feel sympathy in proportion to the situation the other person is in, and not the intensity of their emotions. He claims that congruence between the sympathy extended, and the degree of suffering, signifies shared values and inspires confidences.
Consequently, a lack of congruence will cause strife; in essence, negative emotions on both sides which may drive the people apart.
He further makes the point that joy shared is joy increased, and that distress shared is distress relieved (people like unburdening themselves to their friends/etc).
In combination, it’s possible to interpret his theory as there being a socially acceptable level of emotional arousal for a certain set of stimuli, and people extending sympathy to match that level of emotional arousal.
With the Socrates example, it becomes that there is an “unmet need” of emotional arousal – below the socially acceptable level for state-ordered suicide – and so people are more “sympathetic”” to his plight, to "make up for his lack of emotional arousal.
Still a very rough notion, but interesting.
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.