Being a very emotional person, the title of Andrea Noble’s article “The Politics of Emotion in the Mexican Revolution: The Tears of Pancho Villa” instantly caught my attention. I personally love to feel things, whether it be happiness, joy, sadness or frustration. I want to feel it all, because my feelings are a huge part of what inspires me to take action, to do things. Some of the worst years of my life (so far anyways) were lived when I was trying to feel as little as possible. Unfortunately, that seems to have become a goal for a lot of people over the years. Emotions can be hard to deal with, but they can also be full of power and potential. So I love the way that Noble focuses on emotions being more than something that we feel, but something that actually takes action.
One of the key actions of emotions is, of course, showing them. To show or not to show is a decision, an action. To cry or not to cry. These are universal actions, something we all do at one point or another in our lives. However an interesting point that Noble made, that I had not previously considered, is that the way and situations in which we perform these actions and show our emotions shows a lot about how we relate to each other. Particularly, I find the idea that our tears are a performance for an audience “to whom the tears are addressed” (252) extremely interesting.
Of course, having established that emotions are an action and therefore, something that is performed, it makes sense that our tears could be considered a performance. I’ve certainly heard the phrase “putting on a show” in relation to someone crying hysterically in public. However, this has always seemed to me like a cheapening of the emotion. That if it was being performed for other people then it couldn’t possibly carry the same meaning. Despite that, the idea that our tears would be addressed to an audience carries its very own weight and potentially a whole new meaning. It provokes a response, as Noble suggests, in the same way that a letter addressed to your house provokes you to open it, read it, and respond. Tears (and all emotions) are another form of communication, certainly.
Now, having come to this understanding, I realize that many people do not hold this same viewpoint. I certainly have been told many times to quit my crying and use my words, because my audience was unaccepting of my tears as a way of explanation. I’m not sure whether that is something individual or cultural, though perhaps it is individual pretending to be cultural. So my question to the class is this: do you believe that tears are a form of communication? Furthermore, do you think that one’s acceptance of tears as a form of communication is influenced more by their individual beliefs/experiences or by their culture?
Magalee
January 20, 2021 — 2:31 PM
Hey Coral! I enjoyed reading your post!
I totally believe that tears are a form of communication, often they take over when verbal communication is not sufficient for expressing emotion. I think that whether or not people accept their tears as a form of communication has to do with both individual and cultural beliefs. As someone who used to be uncomfortable with crying in public, my guess is that I probably felt this way due to my personal definitions of strength, femininity, and bravery – both of which were probably related to my upbringing, maturity level, and cultural background. However, now that I am older and more comfortable with myself, I try to embrace crying and use it as an outlet to vent my emotions, usually in private though haha
Maiya
January 20, 2021 — 4:45 PM
Hi Coral!
I would say yes, tears are a form of communication. We use a lot of nonverbal cues and facial expressions to express ourselves, we even call it body language. How we see tears is dependant on both our individual beliefs and cultures since they are so intricately linked. Our experiences are shaped by culture.
Clara
January 21, 2021 — 5:44 PM
Hi Coral
Wow! I loved your post. I related to a lot of what you wrote. People often see expressing feelings as a weakness. But I think not being afraid of expressing your feelings is revolutionary because it challenges people’s judgements and pretenses that everybody has to be “tough” and deal with its problems alone. Showing vulnerability is a sign of courage and humanity. Sometimes I just imagine how different society would be if people were not taught to hold so much back. Holding feelings back does no good; they will always manifest somehow, maybe through irritability, anxiety, depression or violence.
So yes, I think showing tears is a form of communication. Considering how people often judge people who cry, I think when you cry in front of someone, you show you trust that person. Besides this, you can also share tears of anger in front of an injustice, which promotes action.
Regarding the second question, I think it is a combination of both. Particularly in my culture, crying is associated with women. People say we are too emotional and “weak,” which is inaccurate because, as I said before, showing your feelings is a sign of courage. If we allow ourselves to feel and look inside, we understand ourselves better, which is empowering. Anyway, because my culture always indicated women could cry, and my family never had any problem with that, I always accepted tears as a form of communication. However, when it comes to my brother, I saw how people pressured him to “men up” and not cry. These pressures influenced him. However, my mother represented another strong influence that taught him it is okay to cry. Today he allows himself to cry but just sometimes. So from my perspective, it seems culture often influences people more because it is everywhere. In my brother’s case, the idea that crying was not acceptable came from almost everywhere but from my mother and me. Still, culture changes and today, especially through social media, I see people advocating for the importance of allowing men to express their feelings and to value feelings. Things will change. Sorry, I wrote too much.