Everyday of our lives we are inundated with behavioral norms, what to say, what to do, how to say it and where it should be done. Even in our times of emotional turbulence and disarray we are told that we must maintain certain decorum, matter of fact these seem to be the times that our performance matters the most, almost a socialization pop quiz, if you will.
So the question remains, who decided what is the "correct" way to argue or have an emotional breakdown? Why is it ok (or at least more acceptable) to calmly "debate" a hot topic, and secretly fantasize about throttling the other person than to be brazenly angry and emotional? I'm not condemning nor condoning either behavior but simply wondering, why is it ok present a false emotional front rather than to be openly upset? Especially in recent culture where "keepin it real" or "real talk" is so heavily touted?
Chrissy,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a "social safeguard" if you will. Think of it as an escalation, or a prevention to physical escalation. When a debate is done in a calm manner, there is litle escalation. However, if the other party starts to exhibit aggressive behaviors there is a large chance that both sides will continue on to a possible physical conflict.
A good example: The chapelle's show, keepin it real skit. 2 girls are chillin watchin a show. person A get a call from a misdialed caller (she thought the caller was havin' an affair with her boyfriend). She has 2 options. 1 keep it real an hound the hell out of the miscalled person or 2.let it go.
She proceeds to "keep it real" and stalk's the person and terrorize/vandalize her property. Person A end's up in jail, gettin her @$$ kicked (by "keepin it real")and eating her dinner off of a jail floor. She coulda chilled and stayed outa jail.
Dont get me wrong, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have the occasional round of throw-down, but it is often frowned upon by "modern society".
T.Morrow