Skip to main content

Emotional Responsibility and Victimhood Culture

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life . . . Therefore do not be anxious . . .Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself
- Jesus (Matthew 6:25, 31, 34)

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
- Eleanor Roosevelt

Tommy Jarrett, big rig driver, began his bid for the victimhood Olympics on June 8th, 2004. During a vicious morning downpour outside Columbia, Missouri, his truck hit Michael and Amanda Jones’ car and their 3-year old daughter Mikayla was killed. The Jones’ car had lost control in the rain and slid into the opposing lane of Tommy’s truck. 

These lines from Invisibilia Season Two Episode One sum it up well: 

ROSIN: Their daughter Makayla had died. And yet, they were the ones who got sued. A year after the accident, Tommy Jarrett sued the Joneses for emotional distress. I'm going to repeat that. Tommy Jarrett, the truck driver who walked away from the accident without a scratch, not a single Band-Aid, sued the family that had lost a child because he suffered emotional pain. The case made it all the way up to the Missouri Supreme Court, and it's an important case because it helped transform the way the law thinks about emotions. You see, Tommy Jarrett won.

Here is the language of emotional victimhood: When you didn’t respond to my hello, you made me mad. When you told me you went out last Friday without me, you made me feel lonely. When you asked how my interview went, you made me feel anxious. When you told me about your new boyfriend, you made me feel inferior. 

Early in our marriage, Judy and I hosted a Bible study for young adults in our home. At times when I led the discussion, Judy would interrupt me to correct something I said. I recall feelings of anger and humiliation in those moments. I would later tell Judy something like: “You made me feel inferior. You disrespected me.” I exaggerated her harshness in order to hide my insecurity. I couldn’t own up my shame and blamed her instead. I could have asked her to be gentle in order to meet my need for sensitivity but instead I condemned her as a criminal and played the victim. 

Notice the language of coercion in the above examples - you made. The principle is unmistakable. The other person caused me emotional distress. The other person caused relationship breakdown. I do not have influence over my emotions. I am not responsible for them. They can be taken and manipulated against my will.

Even the language of romance is imbued with victimhood: Cant help falling in love. You drive me insane with desire. You make me feel like a love song baby, like I am home again, like a natural woman, like <fill in the blank>. 

And when the emotions fade, we try not to blame our partner but everyone implicitly knows he/she is the reason: It’s not you, it’s me. But in the victimhood Olympics, it is you and not me, and I will find someone else who can erupt my feelings volcano since I am not responsible for its activity. Judy was fearful when we first got married that I would eventually get bored of her. I was afraid of that too. She knew how much I enjoyed novelty. What would happen when I found someone more interesting? After all, I can’t help it if I feel chemistry with another woman and feelings erupt. 

How often do we hold others responsible for erupting our feelings volcano? How often do we compete in the victimhood Olympics? Like any other high-stakes competition, cash, prizes, and fame await the winner. So if you’re from an oppressed or marginalized group, you have some built-in advantages vis-a-vis the privileged. But even the privileged, like Jarret, who is a white male, can win victimhood gold if he can demonstrate he’s been oppressed by his own emotions.

More from the podcast transcript:

ROSIN: Tommy had PTSD, the doctor explained. The sight of Makayla's arm had triggered it in him, and it was no more under his control than cancer or diabetes. What Tommy needed to do was recognize that and deal with it. He was a victim. [bold mine]
ROSIN: Tommy wanted some of those lost wages back. But more important, he'd had his revelation, and he wanted the courts to validate it. The car accident had broken his mind just like a car accident can break a spine.
JARRETT: It became a principle. That emotional distress is the same thing as physical damage. It can wreak havoc on somebody's life, and it can destroy them.
ROSIN: And isn't that in a way how our culture increasingly thinks about emotions? That they're triggered by events in the world, that we often don't have control over them in the way that they affect us, and that we should take them really seriously. I mean, isn't that where the idea of safe spaces come from, the idea that triggers can happen at any time so people need a place where they're sure they won't be touched?
And if anyone was going to convince the legal system to embrace this idea in the culture, it was Tommy, a trucker in a leather Harley jacket. Nothing off him suggested he was anxious to play the victim but according to his doctor, he was a victim.

I’m not sure how our society got here. There are a number of factors at work: the immediacy and prevalence of information, evolution of the civil rights movement, baby boomers overcompensating for the emotional paucity of their upbringing, the subsequent rise of positive psychology and child-centered parenting, and lastly, smartphone-enabled FOMO. Stir these ingredients up and you have an environment today where books, lectures, and articles have trigger warnings and people are increasingly alienated from each other because they’ve experienced negative emotions while perusing social media.

Millennials suffer disproportionately and at an unprecedented rate from depression and anxiety. And yet, depression and anxiety have been around for millennia. The problem with these mood patterns is they start as negative emotions, which give rise to negative thinking, and the whole thing spirals downward. There’s a cyclical momentum to these negative emotions. Given myriad influences driving us towards depression and anxiety, it is practically a superpower to manage one’s emotions.

When Jesus addresses anxiety in Matthew 6, he recognizes this. People in the Ancient Near East had real concerns over food and shelter. These thoughts could be consuming. But Jesus says you are not a victim of anxiety. If you change the pattern of your thinking to be oriented around the reality of God’s care and concern for you, as evidenced by his care and concern for lesser creatures, your emotional reality will change. Jesus is saying you are not a victim of your emotions. Even when you are hungry and cold, you can choose not to be anxious. Mark Manson has re-packaged Jesus’ teaching thousands of years later. You don’t have to give into anxiety as a thought pattern that dominates your emotional life. 

I gave a talk on anxiety two years ago on a college campus, sharing from this passage. After the talk, a young woman came up to me and questioned the idea that we can always control our emotions. She talked about how she suffered from anxiety attacks. I think I could have been more sensitive in how I addressed anxiety but I never meant to imply we can control our emotions, just that we are ultimately responsible for them. We cannot hope to influence what we are not responsible for. 

Should we hold people responsible for they're emotions even when theyre in a significantly disadvantaged position? After all, Jarret is a white adult male. He has full agency and power dynamics will tend to favor him. So let’s take the opposite end of the spectrum - my daughter, Abby. Four years ago when she was eight years old, I came home enraged and slammed my hands against the hallway wall. The sound reverberated throughout the house. I remember turning around and seeing a look of horror and confusion on Abby’s face. I hadn’t noticed she was right next to me. I asked her about it later and she started crying. My temper tantrum triggered shock and fear. Years from now, she may lie on her therapist’s couch and talk about the present depression and anxiety she experiences because of that incident. She can (and should) blame me for triggering those emotions. But here’s the thing: I can do very little to change how she feels. I am responsible for being the catalyst and I can own the consequences by making amends (apologizing, being gentler, controlling my anger) but ultimately, Abby has to decide how to heal and move forward from the trauma. Responsibility does not mean immediate resolution. I was responsible for losing my temper but I can’t make her pain go away. Only she can. 

Towards the end of the Invisibilia podcast, the hosts conclude:

SPIEGEL: Like, essentially you're saying we have way more control over and therefore responsibility for our emotions.
ROSIN: And you know what? If we make these concepts, we can unmake them. But even if we don't choose to do that, even if we decide to build the world just exactly as we've built it down to the very last brick, there in the back of our heads when we experience something that disturbs us can hover a liberating thought - this feeling I have, it doesn't have to be this way. There is nothing inevitable about the world that is.

My seminary professor once told me “Feelings don’t authenticate truth, feelings authenticate our understanding of the truth”. The truth, in the context of this statement, is the unconditional love of God. That’s the ultimate reality. Depression and anxiety will trigger thoughts contradicting that reality. And yet we can choose, in those moments, to orient our lives according to the reality of God’s love and not the immediacy of our emotions. It’s not complete control but it is responsibility. It doesn’t negate or minimize the abuse we may have experienced but it does mean we are on the hook for addressing its consequences.

If I win at victimhood, I get to evade responsibility and shift blame. Unfortunately, playing the victim didn’t help my marriage. Both Judy and I lost. When Judy was down, I would get depressed. When she stayed down, I would get impatient and frustrated. I would tell her to snap out of it and move on. On the other side, when Judy said something that hurt my feelings, it was her fault I suffered. 

With the help of a therapist, I began to practice viewing moments of anger and humiliation as invitations to believe the gospel and recognize my inherent worth as a saint. My emotions indicated how I actually saw God, saw myself, and saw my circumstances (like Judy correcting me during a Bible study). What I perceived as negative situations were simply moments where the curtains were pulled back to reveal what was really going on in my heart. 

The Bible says husband and wife are one flesh and it’s true in that I empathize with my wife in her highs and lows. I feel anger and anxiety with her. One of the hardest lessons I learned in marriage was to stop making my wife’s emotions my responsibility and making my emotions her responsibility. God does not do that with us. He certainly empathized with Job’s suffering but he did not fix his grief nor rescue him from his anguish and doubts. Even though God allowed his suffering, Job was ultimately responsible for his feelings. And though he questions God, he does not blame him.

We are responsible for our own emotions. Someone else's actions may have triggered anger, anxiety, or depression but we own the present consequences. And ultimately, how we choose to handle your emotions not only helps us deal with reality, taking responsibility for our emotions affects our view of reality. We are not victims of how we feel.  

Comments

  1. Nice post. I study one thing tougher on completely different blogs everyday.This is a very nice blog that I will definitively come back to more times this year!
    play Battle for the Galaxy Break The Cup For Free play Rapunzel Fashionista Busy Day game

    ReplyDelete
  2. The articles contain plenty of knowledge and information.They have lots of knowledge and tips. Thank you for sharing what you know
    best game Papa's Scooperia free game Def Island Blocky Rabbit Tower

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, I was reading your article on shame and I followed the link on responsibility and came upon this article. I want to respond to both articles that you wrote. I think you made some really great points, but I think this is a very tricky subject and there needs to be a lot of nuances (you've clearly thought through many of them). One thing I would want to add is - even though we are ultimately responsible for our own emotions, we need to first be able to sort out on an intellectual level who is responsible for what. I'm focusing on your example about your daughter Abby. I agree that, ultimately, she is the only one that can move forward from her pain. But before she can heal, she needs to understand that it was not her fault you got angry. Children are notorious for taking responsibility for bad things that happen in their lives, especially those who come from abusive families. I believe this is due in part to just how we are wired as sinners. We've lost a sense of our dependence on God and so do whatever makes us feel in control of a situation. For a child who feels powerless, the easiest thing to do is to believe that if they were somehow good enough, their parents wouldn't become upset/ angry/ abusive etc. But another reason for this is also because abusive parents blame their children (and other people) for their own emotions. A child does not have the capacity to discern her boundaries and so cannot think her own way out of self-loathing/ shame/ guilt as a result of being blamed for her parent's problems. Now, when that child grows up and learns to understand her experiences from an adult perspective, she may then arrive at the truth that it wasn't her fault, and as a result feel differently about herself. My point is, it is unfair to treat someone with power and agency (an adult, a privileged person) the same way you treat someone without or with less power and agency (a child, a victim of abuse, or otherwise disadvantaged person such as a POC vs White). Another example would be as an Asian American who grew up in White evangelicalism and was taught in some ways to dissociate with my racial identity. Am I responsible to not feel ashamed of my culture? Yes, but I can't do that unless I had knowledge that my culture, albeit being marred by sin, still reflects God's image. When I am taught a color-blind approach to race/ culture by the religious authorities of our day, I'm going to feel ashamed of my culture. Part of what it means to be oppressed includes psychological coercion. This is why God holds those in power to a higher degree of responsibility. The child/ victim/ POC has to be empowered with knowledge and personal agency before they can take control of their emotions. You said in the article on shame, “We choose to resent our inherently shame-based culture. We blame our childhood discomfort on our parents’ coercion of values.”. I wonder how much choice we really have when we are discipled under Western culture and Western Christianity to see our culture as inferior. I think somewhere deep down, many of us know something isn’t right, but we don’t have the knowledge or tools to challenge the dominant culture, until we do. Perhaps those of us who have theological education and training should acknowledge the privilege of being given the knowledge and tools to discern God’s truths for ourselves, and with these privileges comes the responsibility to shepherd those under our care well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Girlygirl for the insights. There are really helpful things here. I recognize I'm minimizing the victim aspect of sin and that's an unfortunate reality. However, when we become adults, victimhood is no longer helpful. So with regards to your statement, "But before she can heal, she needs to understand that it was not her fault you got angry. " Correctly assigning fault or even more accurately, seeing fault as ultimately irrelevant, is integral to the healing process. That means Abby (and many others) is likely to blame herself for painful situations. The point is to receive worth from Christ and sprinkle our guilty conscience with his blood (Hebrews). If you hate yourself as an adult, you chose to believe that lie and you're responsible for believing the lie even though you didn't plant the lie. Finally, yes, those who have theological equipping do indeed have greater responsibility. That's why I write and speak about this topic. :)

      Delete
  4. Following up, the reporting deputy spoke cheap oakley sunglasses with a neighbor to the Knight Way home, who has a video surveillance camera. Footage from that camera showed a dark-colored SUV park oakley replica next to the victim’s truck. A passenger from the SUV, described as male, wearing dark clothes and a white hat, climbing oakley outlet into the driver’s side of the truck,
    kizi games 2 unblocked
    friv jogos 2019
    friv 4 school

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Dad's Review of Passport 2 Purity

[3,100 words, 11 minute read] The sex talk is one of the most dreaded conversations parents anticipate having with their children. To make things easier, an entire industry exists to help parents with sex education. Dozens of books have been written to help parents navigate this treacherous topic with their progeny. One of the best known among evangelicals is called the Passport 2 Purity Getaway package . It is produced by FamilyLife, a division of Cru (former Campus Crusade for Christ) and consists of a five lecture CD package including a journal and exercises designed as a weekend retreat for a pre-pubescent child and his/her parent(s). Passport 2 Purity was not my initiative. Our trip came about because Judy had heard from several home-schooling mom friends how they had taken their daughters on a road trip to go through the CDs. She even heard how a mom took a trip with husband and two sons to through the curriculum. So a couple months ago, Judy suggested we take our two older boy

Why Asians Run Slower

My brother got me David Epstein's book The Sports Gene . It is a fascinating quick read. If you're interested in sports and science, it will enthrall you.  I finished it in three days. Epstein's point is that far more of an athlete's performance is due to genetics than due to the so-called "10,000 hour" rule promulgated by books such as Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin (both which are very good). The 10,000 hour rule states that any person can reach expert level of performance in a sport if they devote 10,000 hours of deliberate and intentional practice.  That's a lot of hours. Most people aren't capable of anywhere close. And that's precisely Epstein's point. Someone who devotes 10,000 hours of sport-specific practice is likely genetically gifted for the sport in extraordinary ways AND genetically gifted in their ability to persevere and benefit from practice. Therefore, a person who can pra

Short Buffed Asian Guys (SBAGs)

I've always wanted to be tall. That didn't work out so well and I've settled for getting bigger. So now I lift weights, a pastime that I've taken up in fits and starts over the years. I thought about drinking protein shakes to get huge. Judy said no. She said I don't want you to become one of those guys. The Short Buffed Asian Guy (SBAG). It seems I'm not the only one to consider this approach. Legions of SBAGs testify to this. And it seem like the shorter you are, the more muscular you have to be in order to compensate for one's lack of height. I don't know any tall buffed Asian guys (Jeremy Lin does not count - he clearly has a neck). So what's with this phenomenon? First, Asian men are on average shorter than American men. And in my book, anyone 5'8" or under is short (which includes me). There are all kinds of insecurities that go with being short, especially for men. You look up to people. You make less   money . You fee