Yes, I know. The term “Emotional Intelligence” is all the rage. It is particularly vogue in leadership training. And, you don’t need to prove to me that some very well-respected, learned, and highly intelligent people have pressed this relatively new branded term upon us. This includes doctors of sociology and psychology. I accept that fact.
And yet…and yet, if I find any value at all in the term “emotional intelligence,” it is not in using it per se for the purpose it intends, but only in my further developed effort in eradicating it. That is, the term makes me thoughtfully stronger for developing my intellectual muscles in trying to kill it.
Yes, of course, we know “emotional intelligence” is just a term—just words. But, sometimes, words do matter. [1, 2] It is not the essential concept that is at issue, but rather the issue is that coining a concept with certain words can tend to box in, constrain—or prejudice—our thinking about the subject, all the while flying under our radar. We are undone in subtle increments of evolution and expansion of the concept that we never see coming. [3, 4, 5]
Thusly, at least for me, where I am charged as responsible for the care of teaching others, I do not permit the term “emotional intelligence” to be used. I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings who may be emotionally attached to the somewhat oxymoronic term. Perhaps my position regarding the term “emotional intelligence” is because I disagree with any new-math psycho-sociological suggestion that emotions are neither right nor wrong. [6]
That said, only by some form of rationally negotiated accommodation for context—and just to get people’s heads into the game—rather than “emotional intelligence,” I will allow the term “intelligent emotions” to be used. At least that places the words into a proper order and sounds less like a whining adult and more like a thoughtful child. [7] To me, this “emotional intelligence” terminology is new-think branded bandwagon psycho-sociology phraseology ultimately to be turned against itself. It seems to elevate a child to be the parent’s equal, in a manner of Aesop’s Young Thief and His Mother. [8]
For those very intelligent people (wisdom being different than intelligence, of course) who hold that feelings are neither right nor wrong, I don’t agree, and I don’t even think it is a complicated case or a close call.
Case in point: You and your partner are in bed together sleeping. Your partner wakes you and gives you a big slap across your face. What do you say? Well, you say, “Why? Why did you just give me a big slap across my face?” We want a reason. A reason—being a basis for rationality regarding a state of being. Unless we have now lost our minds, this is simply our common sense experience. Emotions must ultimately concede to a rational framework.
It is incredibly subtle, but this “new-think” branded bandwagon term, “emotional intelligence,” by slight of hand and connotation, tends to shift the burden of responsibility onto the “other guy,” trying to make sensitive psychologists out of the burdened other guy. Yes, it tends more of the victim mentality “the world must revolve around me” syndrome that implies the other guy must have “empathetic perspective,” [9] which of course induces claimed justification for displacing blame from self onto the other guy. [*1, 10] Indeed, it is insidiously subtle.
The proffer is that it’s no longer the emoter’s fault for the existing state of emotion, but rather, it’s now the other guy’s fault for not being sensitive, understanding, or validating, of the emoter’s emotion. To wit, “You’re simply too stupid [not emotionally intelligent enough] to understand the vicissitudes and full range of my personal emotions.” Hyperbole by connotation, perhaps, to make the point.
But, although still subtle, the alternative term “intelligent emotions” tends to attach the “intelligence” qualifier to the person who is emoting, and stays true to the old adage: “If you cannot articulate rationally the causation for your own personal emotions, then you are in a state of personal chaotic disharmony and you need to get control of yourself, like an adult.”
To be clear, certainly some people need psychotherapy (and are even now proud to need it) or other external tools for developing self-control and self-harmony, and that is certainly acceptable, but that is not this context. This context regards the excusal self-displacement. “I need a professional or something to help me get control of myself” is not the same thing as the self-centered displacement, “You are not displaying sufficient emotional intelligence for the vicissitudes of my personal emotions.“
Now, quite importantly, let us duly note that we recognize that proponents of the term “emotional intelligence” might claim that it is not used for the purpose of accusing someone for not understanding the emoter’s emotions, but only as a term coined to suggest that leaders (or others) must sensitively validate or be aware of the emoter’s emotions for the leadership purpose or strategy.
But, if this is really true, it is effectively nothing but rhetoric, taught 2,500 years ago by Aristotle in his book of exactly that name. And again, I would prefer to teach rhetoric (which I do teach) rather than reductively to label it “emotional intelligence,” understanding how terms condition the mind and evolve in usage and definition. [*5] Moreover, if we shall assume the innocence of the term in the use by the emoter himself, then “Intelligent Emotions” works as well as or better, keeping that accusatorial potential cited above more constrained.
As to the term being used by an external onviewer (leader, speaker, or otherwise) regarding emotions of the emoter (follower, audience, team members), then the term is ambiguous. Academics aside, we “understand” something to do something—to act. Thus, the term “emotional intelligence,” it is either: a) to suggest that the leader should succumb to the emoter’s emotion, which is effectively reverse manipulation and control by the emoter—tail wagging the dog—tantamount back to the accusatorial effect cited above; or b) to suggest that the emoter’s emotion is an effective tool of leadership manipulation (that is, a clever leader through “emotional intelligence” is able to control and to manipulate the audience), which is again nothing more than age-old rhetoric. Therefore, the term is either accusatorial in effect or simply coining a branded term for rhetorical leadership manipulation.
[I do not use the term “manipulation” as a negative character judgment but only in the manner of the science of moving something, such as the etymology of the term “emotion” itself is simply to “move out or from” (e[x]-mot[ion])]
Yes, we might reductively sound-bite it to say that Mark Antony had high “emotional intelligence” as he turned the tables on Brutus with his “Friends, Romans, Countrymen,” eulogy of Julius Caesar. However, Antony’s cleverness is better framed as the disciplined use of rhetorical levers of manipulation [*9] implementing a leadership strategy, as he drove his audience emotionally mad by baiting their self-interest for Caesar’s inheritance. In fact, Master Shakespeare shows the audience’s emotional common foolishness in being manipulated; to wit: Mark Antony, after he drove his audience mad to riot, said smugly, “How I moved them…” At least this keeps the conversation sophisticated and adultish without suggesting the children of emotions get elevated beyond their years.
For wisdom to be the slave of emotion is abhorrent, for wisdom to be its equal is chaos by lack of order. The use of emotion is to provide power. Emotion is offensive and defensive ordnance for the implementation of rhetorical manipulative social tactic.
[Although becoming increasingly conflated, we remember that we are not in church or coddled on our mother’s lap for this assessment of emotions. We study the concept here for the game of a secular purpose. Let us not conflate church and state. We are not here to be sensitive, validating, social-psychologists nice guys, but rather wisely to control something and not foolishly to be controlled by something. [12, 13] You, me, Mark Antony, CNN, Fox News… [*9]
There is a good reason that Socrates did not include emotions in his Cardinal Virtues. [*6] Emotions are beautiful when controlled, harmonized and aligned. Sure, sometimes uncontrolled emotions will get lucky in result, but that’s just getting lucky. [11]
Reason is the natural master, equipped to judge. Emotions are Wisdom’s tools of power or implementation “to the good” that Wisdom adjudicates. No master is wise who does not understand the sources of power, tools, material, context, and objective. [12] Wisdom without power is impotent. Power without Wisdom is luck, or folly. Whether it is wise to allow sensitivity or to have empathy, or any other emotion or condition within a context, is simply for Wisdom to adjudicate, no more, no less.
Emotions are a wonderful servant of humanity, but a terrible master. Wisdom conquered by emotions is a fool’s pride and joy.
I know, at this point, you may be angry with me.
____________________________________
Let us take a battleship, or a group of battleships. Now let’s send them on their way, with all their power, and all their might, and all their majesty. But, wait, let’s make one small adjustment: let’s remove the anchors and the rudders.
Well, there goes all that majesty, while they crash into each other like ships of fools, being out of control.
Or, let’s take a Formula One race car, and set it off. But, wait, let’s remove the steering wheel and the brakes. We know it’s going to crash and burn.
Or, let’s take a human being, and set him off, with all his power, and all his might, and all his majesty. But, wait let’s make one small adjustment: let’s remove his faculties of control by wise guidance and discipline…
The essential formula is that things must go if they must, things must stop if they must, and the tempered balance is somewhere regulated, governed or harmonized. But Wisdom is in charge and determines what must be.
The Four Socratic Cardinal Virtues. Wisdom (where to go), Courage (going when the inclination is to stop), Temperance (stopping when the inclination is to go), Justice (harmonized roles). [*6]
*****************
The Master practiced his martial arts while his disciple, Turtle, kneeled on the side of the practice floor.
“Master,” said Turtle, “it has been said that humans are part thinking and part feeling. Is this not the case?“
“It is true, Turtle, that humans have these qualities, and others,” said the Master.
“And these parts would be equal, as we are as much thinking as feeling,” said Turtle.
“But, my Turtle,” said the Master while practicing, “when you say ‘equal,’ by what measure should you compare? Shall we put these qualities to the ribbon and measure size, or into a bowl and measure volume, or onto a scale’s disc and measure weight? How shall we compare your suggested equality of these things, thinking and feeling, one to the other? Tell me, Turtle, why have you identified these things by different names of reference?“
“Well,” replied Turtle, “because they are different things of a different nature.“
“Then, Turtle,” said the Master, “why do you suggest that different things are equal? Do you not find it foolish to suggest that the things that you suggest are different, are also things that are equal? Perhaps you suggest, by implication, that these different things are not equal as they are, but incidentally equal in action or effect. Is this your suggestion, that thinking and feeling are the same in cause and effect?“
“No, no, Master, they are things of a very different nature with very different causes and effects,” said Turtle, continuing, “But, Master, I mean in the ‘philosophical’ sense. That these two qualities must be perfectly equal to each other for consideration of how we conduct ourselves, to be balanced human beings.“
“Then tell me, Turtle, what is the difference in the natures of these two things that you are suggesting as ‘philosophical equals’?“
“The difference is clear to everyone, Master! Thinking thinks, and feelings feel,” said Turtle wincing a bit.
“Why thank you for that most helpful answer, Turtle,” said the Master wryly, “Perhaps we can discuss this in more detail on another day, but, for now, we can take your answer as complete enough for our purpose. But, why do you come to me?” asked the Master as he threw a punch followed by a kick.
“Because, Master” replied Turtle, “I have personally experienced that my thinking and my feeling seem to have opposite and contradictory advice to me, one on one hand and the other on the other hand. If the object that cannot be moved meets the force that cannot be stopped, each being perfect opposites, such as where thinking and feeling collide, I am unable to reconcile the effect.“
[The Master now stopped training, and kneeled facing Turtle, looking deeply into Turtle’s eyes.]
“Turtle,” said the Master, “at this point, no matter what I should say to you, and with a supplicating admission to what I think is true does not make it so, indeed I am pleased with you. Like shapeless water, you continue to seek and to flow, not satisfied to stop where there is yet any void to fill…
“Tell me, Turtle, as to your discontent, have you not categorized thinking and feeling in the nature of opposites? Tell me, Turtle, are two dancers who are conjoined opposites?” asked the Master.
“No, I would not say so, they work together” replied Turtle.
“Just so, and are two actors in a play considered opposites for having different roles,” asked the Master.
“Of course not, Master. Each actor has his own part to play, a separate purpose to fulfill,” said Turtle.
“And, as actors in respective roles, one is not more necessary than the other?“
“Not at all. At best, there is no more or less than needed,” said Turtle.
“And, for our army, does not General Wu have a role to play?” asked the Master.
“Certainly,” said Turtle.
“And the front-line soldiers as well?” asked the Master.
“Of course,” replied Turtle.
“And, can General Wu command without the front-line soldiers?“
“Certainly not,” replied Turtle, “our army would be incomplete, and what would he command?“
“And, is General Wu ‘the opposite’ of the front-line soldiers?” asked the Master.
“They are part of the same army, having only different roles,” replied Turtle.
“Might we say then,” said the Master, “that General Wu is not the opposite of the front-line soldiers in the same manner that his mind is not the opposite of his foot? That is, although they may be compared, one to the other—such as anything that exists may be compared to anything else that exists—but themselves not compared as opposites?“
“This is so, Master. The opposite of man’s thinking is not his foot, to be sure!“
“Thus, the opposite of thinking is not to think, and the opposite of feeling is not to feel? But the opposite of thinking is not feeling?“
“I think I see,” said Turtle.
“And,” said the Master, “General Wu receives accolades and awards focused alone upon him only because he is one, and the front-line soldiers must share awards because they are many?“
“Yes.“
“And the many front-line soldiers each have their own unique qualities and attributes, which similarly are many?“
“Yes,” said Turtle, “indeed, some are strong, some are nimble, some are good with the sword and others with the arrow. And many more, each to his own!“
“Indeed, and General Wu unifies and reconciles these many soldiers, each soldier with his own betters and worses into a single tool of purpose to accomplish our objectives.“
“Yes. Yes. Of course, this is what a general does. He harmonizes the many,” said Turtle.
“And, without the unifying leadership of the general, would not all the front-line soldiers tend to argue and banter, being separated and each easily destroyed like easily breaking an out of place finger that is not clenched in a fist?“
“Yes. Yes, General Wu binds the many fingers into one fist, which is our power and health! Yes, yes! General Wu is a mighty leader! We are thankful to General Wu!“
“And, if any single soldier steps out of line from the many, failing to obey General Wu, and if General Wu is unable to control that soldier, will not all the other soldiers similarly step out of line, General Wu lacking authority, power and competency,” asked the Master.
“Indeed, if General Wu is not capable of controlling the undisciplined soldier, then each soldier will do similarly, and the army would grow into chaos by such usurpation of roles. Master, that situation would be chaos and lead only to our self-destruction!” exclaimed Turtle.
“And the effect of the individual soldier usurpation is disharmony by lack of order?” asked the Master.
“The Emperor would be distressed and most unhappy for it, it is assured!” said Turtle.
“Because General Wu, perhaps no less than a good parent, must enforce the Emperor’s policy and achieve order where there is an inclination to disorder?“
“That is true, of course,” said Turtle.
“And does not every wise general know the mood of his army, balancing strategy with whether the army is spirited, tired, hungry or fearful?“
“Yes,” said Turtle, “the finest generals are said to be tuned into the moods of the army with uncanny perceptiveness, using these moods as a secret weapon that only the wisest generals possess and all others observe in awe and respect. We have often said this of General Wu!“
“And, do we agree that General Wu seeks a strong army; that is, in controlling the soldiers, it does not follow that he seeks to eliminate each soldier’s attributed gifts, but rather only to align them into a cohesive body?“
“Yes,” said Turtle, “Of course, it does not follow at all, Master.“
“And, similarly, might we say that it is a foolish general who does not know the mood of his soldiers, and a foolish soldier who does not know the mood of his general? So we might say that the Yang of the general is to the Yin of the soldiers, or the Yang of the soldiers is to the Yin of the General, where each has its own role, but is tuned into the other roles of the whole, whether opposites or not, but harmonized as whole.“
“Certainly. Each role is best performed by understanding the others,” said Turtle.
“And,” said the Master, “the finest generals use the least control over the soldiers, but only as required by necessity? Moreover, is it not true that the finest generals also have conditioned the soldiers by training to regulate themselves with the least intrusion of the general, in the manner similar to a dancer whose posture is not natural until it is?“
“It must be, if the general is wise. And General Wu is wise! Indeed, indeed, General Wu’s soldiers are so well trained that their responses to his commands seem effortless, like fingers in a fist, or in such balance and control as a thing of beauty, like a dance, or the controlled placement of even the dancer’s single finger!” exclaimed Turtle.
“And, is this not all the same for our musicians, as well?” asked the Master, “That is, to achieve the musical harmony, each player must play the instrument harmonized to the group as one, rather than many? Each having some understanding of the group, but responsible to play one instrument? But, if one instrument played a different song, out of tune or out of order, this would adversely affect the composition?“
“Why yes,” said Turtle, “it would go quickly from music to noise, not being harmonized to a unified composition, and the Emperor would be gravely unhappy!“
“And to be clear, if one instrument played one song individually perfectly, and another instrument played its own song individually perfectly, would the group be harmonized?“
“Not at all, it would be a clash of a mess of disharmony,” replied Turtle.
“And from the perspective of the one instrument, satisfied in self of its own individual tune, whether or not out of the harmony as to others, there is not any issue? That is, the one musician would be individually happy, but thereby making the whole body miserable?“
“Certainly, and most of all the Emperor’s conductor!” said Turtle.
“And, Turtle,” said the Master, “if the conductor of the group was not to assume the role to condemn the single instrument that is playing out of tune or playing the wrong tune, as to the intended composition, but only judging that individual instrument’s own song, it would be the most foolish conductor, failing in his essential purpose of conducting the group to a unified harmony?“
“Certainly, Master. If the Emperor appointed a conductor to conduct the group of musicians for a work of exquisite harmony, and if each instrument—even if playing its own tune perfectly—was not playing the tune in harmony, the Emperor would become unhappy and would immediately cast that conductor from court,” said Turtle.
“And is not all of this similar for the Emperor’s counsel of advisors, such that the advisors exist to perform their respective roles to advise, but if any advisor failed to advise, or failed to be silenced upon the Emperor’s command, or became unruly speaking out of turn as directed by the Emperor, the Emperor would cast that advisor from the council?”
“It is certainly what the Emperor would do,” replied Turtle.
“And,” said the Master, “if the Emperor allowed the advisors to command and overrule him, rather than merely advise him by his pleasure, the council would be in the state of disharmony and chaos?“
“Most certainly! But our Emperor is wise and strong, and his advisors respectful of him and their roles and limitations,” said Turtle.
“And, it must be so, lest such a chaos and failure to govern ourselves as one fist, in an orderly manner from within, it would invite our external enemies to conquer us and cast us into their prisons. Is this not the case, Turtle?“
“Master, I regret that what you say is true! But, we must be the fist, and the foot! Through many, bound as one!” exclaimed Turtle. [14, 15]
“Such as it is, Turtle. Such as it is,” said the Master, continuing, “What you perceive as a clash of opposites in thinking and feeling is not that at all, but a failure or relative weakness in the strength of your wise consideration to accept its natural and proper role to govern the lesser attributes of yourself. That is, to develop control over yourself and thereby to achieve the harmony that results from natural order.
“Indeed, Turtle, you must give your emotions, and your passions, and your appetites, their respective voices, and some of them will be stronger and some of them will be weaker, but give each of them no more or less voice than the clarity of your wisdom adjudicates.
“The attribute of thinking is not better than the attribute of feeling, but your wise faculty must now take on its natural and proper role to shepherd your many internal voices into one harmonized voice. You are growing up, Turtle, and I am pleased that you are tending to it. Such as it is for each of us, Turtle, humbly to tend to it. This is the way, Turtle, and perhaps to serve the good of the Emperor, in due course.
“Where order is compelled in any complex environment, whether a state, an army, an orchestra, a family, or a human being, Turtle, one must be first, not by superiority of essence, but by necessity of the natural construct.” *
_____________________________
<< Back to Last Story #GRZ_152 – Forward to Next Story #GRZ_169 >>
* This reformation of one conceptual expression is inspired by and attributed to Socrates from The Republic of Plato.
[1] Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness [#GRZ_74]
[7] Shut Up and Die Like an Aviator. Or, Quit Crying Like a Baby and Do Your Job [#GRZ_150]
[9] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [#GRZ_106]
[11] On Wisdom and Luck; Or, Getting Lucky is not the Same as Being Wise [#GRZ_154]
[12] The Recipe to Make Bud Wiser [Branding, Part I] [#GRZ_142]
[13] Marlboro Man; You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby. [Branding, Part II] [#GRZ_143]
_____________________________
<< Back to Last Story #GRZ_152 – Forward to Next Story #GRZ_169 >>
© 2023 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demise-wisdom-emotional-intelligencebut-arise-hope-zegarelli-esq-
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.
<< Back to Last Story #GRZ_152 – Forward to Next Story #GRZ_169 >>