Emotional Responsibility in Current Times

Artwork: The Meditative Rose - Salvador Dali (1958)

Nowadays there is a lot of discussions concerning what the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2001) calls liquid modernity, a term to refer to the historical moment in which we live, based on the fragility, malleability and fluidity of social, economic and production relations. The term is a counterpoint to solid modernity, which refers to the reality of other times when there was greater rigidity in the roles to be fulfilled and a greater weight of traditions. Although solid modernity had many limitations, there was greater confidence in the continuity of human relationships. Never before have we lived with such availability and even excess of information, in addition to a wide range of entertainment and lifestyle possibilities, as well as easier access to consumer goods. However, all of these end up being easily discarded in a dynamic in which instant pleasure and constant novelty are desired, making it very difficult for many young people to choose what they want to be and to what they want to devote themselves to, after all, every choice implies a renunciation and you can't live and have everything at the same time. Existential crises are increasingly common.

The dynamic of fluidity related to our historical moment is also reflected in relationships, especially sexual and romantic ones, where it is very easy to change partners and people find it more difficult to commit to the other. To this end, sociologist Bauman (2004) coined the concept of liquid love. It's very easy to meet and be with people, regardless of quantity, but having and maintaining a lasting relationship has become increasingly difficult. What you gain in quantity, you lose in quality. To illustrate this phenomenon, let's think about social networks. How many of your friends on Facebook or Instagram are really your friends? Of what you reveal and what people reveal on social media, what isn't superficial? What really has substantial content and doesn't just come across as aesthetically appealing? I'll give you another example, the famous social network Tinder: you just have to swipe a person to see potential partners and bet on the possibility of getting a ‘match’, just as you can talk to several people at the same time and even, if something bothers you or you're no longer interested, you can simply stop replying and ‘ghost’ the person. It's all very easy and immediate, but it's essential to stop and think. Unfortunately, such dynamics end up encouraging behaviour that reflects a lack of emotional responsibility towards others. But what does emotional responsibility mean? It's remembering and acting considering the other person as an integral being, with their beliefs and feelings, being aware of your actions and avoiding causing unnecessary emotional suffering; it's, recognising your responsibility for what you dedicate yourself to, assertively communicating your intentions and expectations when relating to anyone. 

Faced with the concept of liquid modernity and liquid love, emotional responsibility involves a return to a more humanist vision (in the philosophical term of existentialism) and preventing a market logic, which evaluates people perhaps as more or less appealing products, from prevailing. It's very important not only to work on your own emotional responsibility, but also to be able to identify the lack of it in other people's behaviour, so that, in the face of these events, you can be assertive and reaffirm your needs. Let me give you some examples:

Imagine that you've met someone you're going out with and that everything is going well, and then there comes a moment when you feel that you're really starting to like them. Up until now, everything has indicated that this person was also dedicated and wanting to build something with you, but one day, when you express your feelings in a more direct way, this person tells you that they don't feel the same way, that they just wanted something informal, like a colourful friendship or something like that. In this case, the person has acted inconsistently and they should have made their intentions clear before cultivating involvement in the other person, which in common parlance translates as ‘you played with my feelings’. However, it would have been wiser for you to have asked the person yourself what stage of life they were in and what they wanted from a relationship; after all, communication is essential in all relationships and helps to avoid creating unrealistic expectations. Nobody needs to guess what's going on in your inner world, just as you don't need to speculate about the other person's motivations and intentions. Let me give you another example:

Imagine that you've been in a loving relationship for years and one day the person calls you for dinner and tells you that they don't feel the same anymore, but on the same day, they were very affectionate and gave you the impression that everything was fine.

Another example: you've started a relationship with someone to whom you've made your expectations and values clear, just like the other person, but when the relationship starts to grow, the person you're with starts to expect things from you that you've never shown yourself to be willing to do and that are still incompatible with your personality and values.

Imagine you met someone on a night out and it seemed great, with very deep and rich conversations taking place in which you felt an excellent connection, something that the other person also communicated. Then you arranged to go out and get to know each other better, but the next day, when you send a message, the person doesn't even reply and does what is known as ‘ghosting’.

It's normal for a person to be in crisis or not quite know what they want, but when they involve other people they have to have the ethical and moral commitment and responsibility to make this clear to the other person. Many people end up being incoherent and most of the time they just reproduce patterns of behaviour that they have adopted in response to traumatic experiences and unresolved personal conflicts. Self-knowledge is essential here. With regard to ‘ghosting’ alone, for example, a person can practice it for various reasons:

Because they find it difficult to manage conflicting situations, especially when they are confused and then avoid the situation instead of positioning themselves clearly and assertively;

Because they may believe that ‘disappearing’ is better than saying something that could hurt someone else, something that rationally doesn't make any sense, because leaving the other person wondering why they were ‘left’ is much worse than simply communicating something like ‘I enjoyed meeting you, but I'm in a more self-focused phase and can't dedicate myself’ or ‘I've just got out of a relationship’, or saying whatever makes the most sense to them. Nobody has a duty to explain themselves to the other person when there is no relationship, but at least they have a responsibility to be coherent because of the emotions and expectations they may have aroused in the other person.

Another reason for ghosting and incongruent behaviour could be that a person may feel invaded and pressured by the need to commit to another person, in which case the person should make it clear that they can't commit and it would be up to them to try to resolve their personal issues of avoidance.

There are countless different and possible motivations behind behaviour and it's essential to work on our self-knowledge so that, in the face of personal dysfunctional patterns, we can seek to evolve and improve ourselves. May we be responsible and clear about what we feel, want and expect!

References:

Bauman, Zygmunt (2001). Liquid Modernity. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Zahar.

Bauman, Z. (2004). Liquid love: on the fragility of human bonds. Editora Schwarcz-Companhia das Letras.

#emotionalresponsibility #psychology #liquidlove #liquidmodernity #relationships