Inspired by a podcast that introduces a revolutionary approach used in a town named Geel in Belgium, the question that leads this research paper is to what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems? Initially, our question was related to how people are inclined to identify something as a problem when a certain situation does not fit his/her idea of normal? And, thus, whether normal is a universal definition or more of a personal definition. The two scholarly articles that will help answer this question are Thomas Osborne’s “What is a Problem?” and “Norms for Experiencing Emotions in Different Cultures: Inter- and Intra-national Differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener.

In the “What is a Problem?” Osborne introduces multiple French philosophers and their stance on the concept of problematology. One of the first philosophers Osborne discusses is Gilles Deleuze and his work in Difference and Repetition. In this book, Deleuze even defines stupidity as being able to construct false problems. This forces readers to question whether we should consider mental illness a problem in the first place. Perhaps, our inability to accept people who do not fit the definition of “normal” is what labels mental illness as a problem. The second philosopher Osborne brings up is Henry Canguilhem. His ideas on the definition of normality is influenced by the problems imposed by one’s surroundings. Hence, there is no universal definition of normality, but rather a personalized definition based on one’s life experiences. Similar to Canguilhem, Bergson associated life with the constant cycle of overcoming of obstacles. Bergson believes that some problems, however, are to be discarded in exchange for more productive problems. By examining the concepts brought by these three philosophers, we can define “problem” and then go forward and delve into the main question presented previously.

In the second article by Michael Eid and Ed Diener, the article discusses the significant role of culture on one’s emotions, which most definitely has an influence on locating a problem and solving it. The two authors conducted a cross-cultural study where they examined the different norms for experiencing certain emotions between the US and Australia (two individual-oriented countries) and China and Taiwan (two collective-oriented countries). The individualistic countries seemed more rigid when expressing emotions whereas the collectivist countries were more lenient. In relation to the podcast, this cultural expression and suppression of emotion may be a factor in the treatment of mentally ill patients. In Geel, Belgium the method in “treating” these patients is to not try to change them back, but rather to accept them into society. This ability to keep these people away from the outskirts of society may be fueled by the autonomous nature of emotions in that part of the country. On the other hand, the US continues to use medications and therapy in efforts to “improve” the conditions. However, there is no emotion involved in the process. Thus, the individualistic personality of the US may have suppressed emotion to such an extent that it is simply omitted when treating the mentally ill. Moreover, this article will help raise questions and clarify certain situations, and offer readers an elaborate understanding of treating people suffering from mental illnesses.

Works Cited

1. Eid, Michael. “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume           81, Issue 5, 2001.
2. Osborne, Thomas. “What is a Problem?” History of the Human Sciences, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2003.
3. Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.