Like many of us from Western cultures and societies, I have always assumed that most emotions are universal. Joy, sadness, anger, and fear are the big four that most psychologists agree on, and researchers in the 1970s and 80s (led by American psychologist Paul Ekman) conducted global studies on whether or not different cultures recognized the same facial emotions. Did a smile and a crinkle in the corner of the eye translate as ‘joyful’ or ‘happy’ to people in America, Asia, Africa, and even remote tribes in the Amazon? The answer they found was yes, and their research included similar findings for sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise which led emotional researchers to conclude that there are ‘core’ emotions within each of us human beings regardless where we are from. They set the precedent and moved on. It is now years later, however, and this premise has been challenged. Our author’s new premise is that emotions differ from culture to culture and society to society and each must be understood in their own context. Nothing is universal, not even emotions.
Her biggest finding, one detailed throughout the pages of her book, is the difference between cultures that think of emotions from the inside-out and from the outside-in. In America (and Western Europe), for example, we think of emotions as things inside of us that we feel independently from everyone else. Alternatively, the Japanese (and other Eastern cultures), conceptualize emotions as things that occur between people first and then make their way into our behaviors and actions only after the situation has been assessed. The main supporting argument for this finding is simple: traditional Western cultures are individualistic whilst Eastern cultures are familial and collective. In the West, we think about ourselves first; in the East, they think about others first and foremost.
One of the ways Mesquita was able to research these differences in emotion was by observing mothers with young children. She encounters shame, for example, when she witnesses a Japanese mother purposely shame her child. To an American, it might have been seen as bad parenting, but for the Japanese, it is seen as helping the child understand how their actions affect the others around them. Mesquita records how “shame in WEIRD [Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic] cultures is ‘wrong’ because it marks your own failure clearly visible to others,” and “shame in honor cultures [like Japanese and Chinese] is ‘right,’ even as it is deeply disturbing.” Shame is right in honor cultures because it tracks threats to the family’s social position and shows that the individual shares the central cultural concern of honor. Nobody wants to feel shame, but when we do, it means entirely different things depending on our culture.
Anger is another emotion that is experienced differently between cultures, albeit in this example both Americans and Japanese experience it similarly. “Anger is a claim for dominance,” she writes,” which is ‘right’ in cultures that emphasize entitlement and individual autonomy, ‘right’ in cultures where people compete for the scarce good of honor, but ‘wrong’ in cultures that empathize kindness for all living creatures or harmonious relationships.” The example she gives is Buddhists, who consider anger destructive to human nature. Buddhists believe that anger not only harms others, but also harms ourselves, because it chains us to worldly attachments and delusions that cause us to suffer. Because of this cultural belief, Buddhists do not think anger is an appropriate thing to feel inside nor an appropriate reaction to a present circumstance.
It all starts with how we learn to understand our emotions: They are taught to us by our parents and teachers and are also learned via trail and error as we live our lives. Everyone’s lives and experiences are different, and with this in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that no community or individual will have exactly the same concepts about emotions as any other. There are no blanket answers to the question: What are you feeling? “The whole idea that ikari (Japanese), anger (English), and kwaadheid (Dutch) are ‘the same emotion’ originates from a MINE model: the idea that the real emotion is a mental state behind the story of anger.” But of course, this MINE model is how we Westerners make sense of emotions, not how the rest of the world does.
Some cultures have no equivalent translation for emotion words like ‘happy’ or ‘sad.’ Some cultures experience sadness as loss, some experience it as shame. Some cultures experience emotions as actions, like laughing or crying. Some cultures don’t have a word for the word ‘emotion’ at all. Just like how different cultures have different foods, music, and holidays, they also have different emotions. These emotions have evolved over time to become what they are today and they are as disparate and complex as the different cultures of the world are from one another.
In conclusion, it seems as though emotions often involve both an internal component and an external (relational) one as well. American’s also consider their anger in social contexts and the Japanese also experience how their shame makes them feel on the inside. While the main difference may be where it starts (from the inside-out, or the outside-in), it is valuable to recognize that both the personal and the relational are important to understand. This is especially true if we are traveling to a new place or interacting with someone from a different culture. It’s not just enough to ‘put ourselves in another’s shoes’ in order to understand how they are feeling, because we are still operating from our own experience. To truly understand the emotions of others, we must first try and understand their culture.
Leave a Reply