Reactions based on emotions are a hallmark of the human kind. Distinctive and diverse, there are various modes of expression in this realm. Rationality and intimacy are two integral emotions that play a dynamic role in adult social relations. The former entails harnessing of ideas and concepts into a socially acceptable manner that is suitable to both person and society. The latter purports to be an emblem of a continued state of comfort provided by another individual in a social setting, which is subsequently reciprocated.
Rationality, when associated with emotions, explains individual behavior where controlling of certain aspects of the naturally flowing emotions takes place. These are then funneled down in a matter that is suited most to that particular social circle. While for a relationship to have intimacy, it has to portray consistency, which would allow the concerned individual to conform to terms that are acceptable to mutual as well as social considerations. Rationality can be too subjective and hence personalized, while intimacy can cause a person to be dependant.
However, where rationality provides social prominence, intimacy provides interpersonal solace. Both end up as inevitably vital secondary emotions for the well-being of behavior in the sociological context, and help individual traits merge effectively with group conduct. Introduction In the context of sociology, it is imperative to understand the true essence of emotions. Where the individual is concerned, emotions mark the most integral feature of intrinsic development of characteristic features of personality.
However, when we talk in the social terms, this concept in turn gets extrapolated upon the rest of the population around the individual; therefore, certain dynamics of emotions are worth considering in order to understand the role of man a s a social animal. Essentially, emotions present a feeling that is psycho-physiological in nature. It triggers an organic response to a stimulus. On the primary level, where joy and sadness, fear and love have essential footings, there are secondary and more complex mechanisms that play an even greater role in inter-personal interaction.
Two such concepts, namely rationality and intimacy shall be discussed hereunder in the same reference. Emotions of Rationality With its roots embedded within philosophy, rationality has a very major role to play in understand emotions vis-a-vis the society. This is because no man can survive successfully in an environment alone. There shall inevitably be more individuals around him from the same species for him to live in a manner conforming to the definition of a social group, if not a society.
Here the concept of mutual; regards, norms and values if very important. Rationality, where may be defined as a rather subjective or relative term with reference to human understand, but it shall have to given some limits when we are discussing social structure. Rationality can be very simply taken as appreciating and realizing the social norms in their very basic context. This rationality, in even more simpler terms can possibly be linked to common sense. But then again, this shall vary greatly from culture to culture, and within that, from community to community. One important task we face in attempting to understand the persons around us, is that of determining their present moods, emotions and feelings” (Barn et al, 1980). Emotions primarily give a response to s stimulus. Rationality, when paired with emotions, would expect of an individual to actually ‘control’ certain aspects of the naturally flowing emotions, and funnel them down in a matter that is suited most to that particular social circle. For instance, a certain sense of discomfort may be extensively tolerable in case of an individual undergoing military training.
There, conforming to the norms of the prevalent group, he would have to be rationalistic in suppressing his true feelings. On the contrary, the same person, when is presented an environment that is more candid, possibly of his own home and friends, is likely to react in a more expressive way. In the second instance, what the person does is still rationalistic, but its meaning and essence has changed with respect to the group. This is the underlying foundation of understand this concept.
Coleman believes that “Orthodox conceptions of rationality are evidently internally deficient and inadequate for explaining human interaction” (2003). This extrapolates upon the conception that rationality is a much more intricate and subjective entity than we might think it to be. Human relations in the social arena are very diversified and complex. In such a condition, when one attempts to define rationality, let alone practice it, there are various question would require answering. Primarily, rationalization can be understood in terms of internalization of reality as is perceived by the individual.
No matter how close people are, or how much they are in the same band width of thought processes, the ultimate recipe for rationalizing a social situation can never be the same; even for the same person. Such is the dynamic construct of this emotion. However, ironically, though the intrinsic process would be different every time, yet the external reaction would be quite the same. This is where we define the essence of rationality – it pertain to the pragmatic and realistic blending of primary emotions into an intellectually and emotionally defiant secondary emotion, which allows for the person to withstand greater stresses of stimuli.
Rationality may sometimes be misperceived as intelligence and sobriety. This may not entirely be true. As was mentioned earlier, rationality is the concept that involves actualizing with the prevalent norms. A very intelligent person is less likely to conform to the demands and ways of a group as compared to a person with optimal intelligence. Similarly, being mature does not necessarily confirm the presence of rationalistic and pragmatic frame of reference. Therefore, rationality, when considered in terms of emotions has to be taken in its purest form.
It pertains to appreciating the circumstances in their entirety, and then replying back in a matter most befitting to common knowledge and social norms. People who are prone to make rational decisions, are actually the ones who conform the most to mores. These are taken in light of how people generally take the sane judgment to be. Scientists, great political leaders and academic thinkers have all faced adversity in their own times. It is not because they failed to be rationalistic, but actually because the social circle around them could not comprehend their perspective and vision.
Therefore, this further supports the fact that rationalization in social interactions is largely subjective in nature. Small children can at occasions provide the most rationalistic of emotions in their behavior. When a team loses a football match, not every boy starts crying. Not every boy screams, or starts fighting with the opponent. At the same time, there might be exceptions and this is the exact place where the true study of primary and secondary emotions takes place. Those children, who lack the habit of rationality, might be excessively expressive in their reactions towards losing the match.
However, those who do actualize with the situation, have their respective egos and prides at work, and therefore deem it appropriate to suppress their primal emotive reactions, and resort to a more complex response of rationality. It has also been observed, that states of rationality are almost unseen in infants and very young children. It can therefore be labeled as a trait that grows and evolves with the human developmental process. Subsequently, as people grow in age and experience, they would be expected to behave with greater rationality in a social setting.
Rationality, in all, has the basic role of presenting the concerned individual as an acceptable individual in a social circle. Similarly, people who lack the frequent display of this trait are less acceptable in a wider context; they are expected to be more volatile in their reactions, and therefore less dependable. It is hence only understandable why such people are end up having difficulty in maintaining multiple and healthy social connections to their own good. In consequence, a greater display of rationality warrants greater social acceptance.
A person who is able to manage and nurture emotions of rationality can therefore be termed as a socially successful individual. Rationality where can be a real feather in the crown in social representation of oneself, can also lead to certain unwanted statures of being. Simply put, when a person feels that his reaction to an issue is rationalistic in its context, it may well be possible that the population at large in his respective society may not be able to appreciate it as a rational response. What may be rational for a person may be taken otherwise by the group.
Some instances of this might be acceptable, but greater degrees of this can simply mar the outlook of the person among his peers. This can well be taken as one of the short-falls associated with displaying emotion with a personal sense of rationality. Emotions of Intimacy Another rather intricate form of emotional response is that of intimacy. Contrary to popular belief, intimacy is not completely a volatile reaction. This means, that it does not entail being irrational and lose control over one’s conscious processes.
Actually, in the social context, intimacy is a highly developed tool that allows for interpersonal bonding in a way that very few emotions can offer. Intimacy substantially involves a continued feeling of trust towards the other individual. The factor of consistency is very important here, because it shows that two (or more) individuals are consistency sharing stimuli and responses on the same frequency. This is crucial to the understanding of social relations. The level of comfort that people have towards each other in intimacy speaks of the mutual regard that is prevalent.
This exhibits a response in sociology that is an intangible yet concrete binding force for a community. Further studies into the concept yield that people who are intimate towards each other tend to be more tolerant and over look certain follies between themselves. At the same time, when it is the turn of expressing their primal emotions, they are much more passionate in presenting their feelings. This shows that intimacy is not just an individual emotion in its own right, but it has an area of influence over fellow traits as well. Hence, appreciation of this type of reaction is all the more necessary.
It has also been shown, that good mental health in the social terms has its roots in the concept of intimacy. If people do not trust each other, then the much needed sense of forgiveness and patience shall not be made available. Hence the turmoil in today’s world. Despite the largest ever number of population of mankind, it has the least percentage of intimacy. “We tend to think in terms of the individual and to look for the causes of behavior within the person” (Hess et al, 1985). In the perspective of intimacy, this can be termed as reading the other person’s mind and behaviors.
Simply put, this is the corner stone of impression formation, whereby you are calculating the persona traits of a person by your own evaluation. How this effects the due course of bonding within the relationship, can be understood by analogy to a ball game played in a court. Tennis for example, requires for a person to hit the ball in another person’s court, and then subsequently play back according to the reply that comes back. Though the game is aggressive and competitive to the liking of intimacy, yet the to and fro dependant movement of stimulus that takes place gives the opponent a fair enough idea of the adversary.
Where the first couple of games might be exploratory in nature, by the third set, both (or more) individuals get an idea of the potential, capabilities and weaknesses of their opponent. In a more subtle and comforting way, this is exactly what happens during intimacy. It is a gradual, slow, but determined process of establishing the ground rules for interacting with the other person in a preferable manner. Perhaps the most important feature of intimacy, that distinguishes it from other reactions, is the time factor.
As opposed to sadness, anger or joy, intimacy in its essence is not a one-time emotion. For a relationship to qualify as having intimacy, it has to sustain the test of time (however small it might be), which would allow the concerned individual to conform to terms, that are acceptable to mutual as well as social parameters. This then transforms into a sense of trust that becomes an invaluable tool in dealing with situations. A continued display of similar series of emotions reaffirms the behavior, and much like classical conditioning, it predetermines an expected response.
In relations where intimacy is expected to be there, an expected response would mean that people are operating on the basis of known behaviors and they would reciprocate in the anticipated manner as well. The aforementioned factor can have many positive implications for social relations. For instance, a freshman is never really sure of what new stimulus might become a challenge in her first days at the institution. But as time goes by, and she ends up in the final year of college, all the people, including teachers and peers are well-known to her.
Subsequently, she had marked her area of influence and circle of preference on the basis of expected responses. Any intimacy that she maintains will not be a surprise factor, but actually a relationship that she has nurtured for some time. Also, the people she is intimate with likely to give her a sense of comfort and support, and others cannot offer. This support can be taken as a subsidiary factor that would add to the credentials of intimacy as an emotion in the longer run. It has also been noted of intimacy, that it serves the purpose of a hidden defense mechanism. Symbolic interactionism has the effect of slowing down human interaction so that we may understand the man’s interpretations of her actions” (NesSmith, 1995). This means, that where the actual emotion should have been there, it is somewhat shelled and covered in the realm of intimacy, whereby the concerned person harnesses the extra energies into what may be termed as a likeable emotion. Psychologically speaking, this is a very useful reaction and the more it is prevalent, the better it would be to funnel down excessive emotions. Understandably, this also varies in its intensity.
There can be no one type of intimacy or preferred intensity. One person may have varying types and times of it, pertaining to the requirement of situations. The more intense the reaction, the greater is the evidence of amount of trust and comfort. Intimacy also invariably rings in dependency. Individuals desirous of intimate relations tend to get dependent on their source. It is a sort of addiction to the comfort that is being provided to them. When that intimacy is not available, or the source goes away in any manner, then the shell is broken.
What follows is the unveiling of the primary emotions whereby venting out of feelings starts to take place in a more primal manner. The transition from secondary to primary mode of emotive behavior is not always a smooth one. This can thus be taken as a pitfall of the sustained emotive reaction of intimacy. Conclusion As integral constituents of social behavior, both rationality and intimacy form concrete expressive tools for interpersonal relations. Humans revitalize their inner feelings and associate them in a positive way towards fellow members in the group.
Rationality accords for the stability and internalization of feelings, while intimacy allows for sharing of continued affection and acre for others. Both of these form the essence of adult interpersonal relations especially when taken in the context of social spheres. Where rationality allows for a person to earn social recognition and acceptance, intimacy allows for mutual support and calm to prevail. The dynamics of both these traits make them complex and unique. While they are useful tools for stability of personal resolve, there are also some short falls associated with in appropriate handling of these emotions.
Representation of these emotions, nonetheless, is a fundamental necessity in societal affairs. Those who nurture these emotions in a healthy manner are more likely to sail through their social dealings in a successful and fulfilling way.
Baron, R. et al. (1980). Psychology. New York: Holt-Saunders. Colman, A. (2003). Cooperation, Psychological Game Theory and Limitations of Rationality in Social Interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 26, 139-198. Hess, B. et al. (1985). Sociology. New York: Collier Macmillan. NesSmith, A. (1995). Thinking Sociologically. Fort Worth: Lauren Barters.