Duality, difference, articulation, offence, all these are tricky issues these days. Our language seems to continually want to square the circle; 'emotional intelligence' is my favourite (there are others; 'focussed pluralism' came up the other day). Why do I hate the term 'emotional intelligence'? Because it's a simple contradiction; if you are behaving emotionally, it's unlikely you are thinking straight, you are not thinking wrong, you are just thinking, well, differently. The Ancient Greeks had this far better worked out with their opposition of Apollonian thinking (maths) from Dionysian feeling (dancing). Both were necessary, one might even follow the other in the glorious continuum of life (get drunk, then get back to work on your dissertation).
This seems to me a very handy device; I wouldn't want a Dionysian mechanic, and I would be disappointed by an Apollonian rock act. At the same time, I recognise these binary oppositions might be difficult; woman is not opposite to man for instance, although undoubtedly different. What is the opposite of red wine? Roland Barthes (clever chap) suggested 'milk'.
Neoliberalism prefers and accentuates the middle ground, yet frustratingly human archetypes persist; even if the message is for passivity, emotions will boil underneath. When I hear about mental health issues in university students and staff, this is what I think about; the huggable impossibility. There are many cruel truths the present educational environment cannot accommodate: not everybody can make it (get real!) Just because it's your dream doesn't mean it's going to happen (get real!) These messages suggesting everybody can are economic imperatives a function of government and fed down the line, they are nothing to do with individuals as people.
No comments:
Post a Comment