After listening to the NPR Invisibilia podcast “The Problem with the Solution,” we were struck by the concept that what society considers a problem based on its ideals of normality may not really even be a problem in the first place. Our thought process led us through conventional ideas of normality and how those concepts are formed; eventually our group came up with the question: To what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems? To answer this question, we located two secondary sources: “What is a Problem?” by Thomas Osborne and “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener.

In “What is a Problem?” Osborne recounts the ideas of various French philosophers on the notion of the problem and the study and controversy of problematology. He writes of the importance of problems in daily life, as well as the emphasis that French philosophers placed on this importance. Osborne first recounts the work of Gilles Deleuze, more particularly his work Difference and Repetition. Difference and Repetition is about the essence of problems. Deleuze even goes so far as to define stupidity as the capacity for fabricating false problems. Thus, according to Deleuze, there is a smart way of thinking about problems and a detrimental way of thinking about problems. This sort of thinking relates directly back to the podcast, as it forced us to consider whether mental illness could be a fabricated problem. Next, Osborne discusses the ideas of Canguilhem, who believed that life should be defined in terms of human interaction with the environment. Canguilhem wrote that because life is the confrontation of problems, there is no single definition for normality itself, but it can be defined based on the problems posed by a certain environment. This means that normality could essentially be defined based on the experiences one has throughout life; with experiences come different and new emotions which could serve as the source of new problems. Osborne then discusses the ideas of Bergson, who similarly to Canguilhem, wrote that life can be synonymous with the overcoming of obstacles— life is just a series of responses to surrounding stimuli that we perceive as problems. Bergson too considers certain problems to be useless and proposes that those problems be discarded in favor of “new, more productive ones” (Osborne 7). This style of thinking is important in answering our question because life is lived through the experiencing of emotion daily; thus what we perceive as problems may only look that way because our emotions tell us so. This reading can also help us define what we think of as a problem— it is important to define what “problem” means before we can determine if emotions are catalysts for problems.

“Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” discusses the immense influence that culture has on the emotional process. Culture largely establishes the social consequences of expressing or suppressing a certain emotion, the normality of feeling a certain emotion, and the social value of expressing a certain emotion. Eid and Diener conducted a cross-cultural study in which they analyzed the differences in norms for experiencing emotions between two individualistic nations— the United States and Australia— and two collectivist nations— China and Taiwan. They found that individualistic nations were the most strict in keeping a standard norm for emotional behavior. This reading can be important for answering our question because it can aid us in deciding whether emotions fuel problems based on the emotional norms in our own society. Based on the results of the individualistic United States, we can detect whether (to what extent) social consequences of emotional expression and suppression, and the social norms behind emotions fuel what we consider to be problems in our society.

Works Cited

Eid, Michael. “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and

intranational differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 81, Issue 5, 2001.

Osborne, Thomas. “What is a Problem?” History of the Human Sciences, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2003.

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

“The Problem with the Solution,” — a podcast in a series by NPR under the title Invisibilia— discusses the treatment of people with mental illnesses in the United States compared to the treatment of mental illness patients abroad. The podcast follows the story of a young woman named Ellen Baxter, whose own mother was herself mentally-ill. American medicine seemed to follow an over-medication pattern when it came to treating mental illness— if the medication seemed to take symptoms of mental illness away, it took any sign of a unique personality away with them. Ellen had had enough of this ineffective treatment, and so set out on a path to revolutionize the world of American mental-health treatment.

Ellen searched for any miniscule variation in the treatment of people with mental illnesses. She seemed to be unsuccessful, until she discovered the town of Geel in Belgium. In Geel, it was (and is) common practice for families to take in people with mental illnesses as “boarders.” The boarders live with the families for many years, as they are completely accepted into everyday life. Mental illness patients in Geel are viewed not as patients, but as fully-functioning ordinary members of society.  In Geel, mental illness is treated as just a part of who a person is— it is not treated or cured, but rather embraced. People with mental illness thrive in this society, as they are not institutionalized and heavily-drugged, but instead allowed to live life and be themselves. The families living in Geel do not view mentally-ill people as an anomaly, but rather as a simple part of daily life.

This begs the question: As a society, how do we define a problem? How do we decide what needs and does not need fixing? Normality is a subjective concept, yet we treat it as an objective one. There is a basic normal standard by which we live, and as soon as someone strays away from that norm, we immediately rush in with our solutions and help. Is our help really necessary? Mentally-ill people in Geel are far more successful as humans living their best lives than mentally-ill people in America. Our definition of normality and what we consider a problem is important because this has the potential to either deeply hurt or largely help members of our society.

Works Cited

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

In A Time To Kill, the scene of Jake Brigance’s closing statements to the jury is the most significant evocation of empathy throughout the entire film. In this scene, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes and imagine his following words. He then goes on to vividly describe the brutal rape, attack, and attempted murder of Tonya Hailey, daughter of Carl Lee Hailey— the defendant.

Jake simply asks the jury to “picture this little girl [walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon]”(ATTK 2:16:20-2:16:29). He does not define the girl in any way, but that she is little and a girl. He does not give her name, her age, or her race to the jury. Most of the jurors know that there had been a rape, but they hardly know even half of the story. Jake’s deliberate method of leaving out details about the little girl creates a blank slate in the juror’s minds. This way, the little girl is more relatable to them, and the rest of the story will have more meaning.

The rest of the story is a description of Tonya’s rape— Jake does not hesitate to leave a single detail out. He graphically describes how the two assailants shattered everything innocent about the little girl, piece by piece. After sharing with the jury how the men had snatched Tonya off the road and tied her up, he continues with: “Now they climb on, first one then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure— vicious thrusts—  in a fog of drunken breath and sweat” (ATTK 2:16:35-2:17:21). This sensory imagery is so unsettling that it helps evoke a sort of startling discomfort in the jury— they come to realize the true brutality of the attack. This realization brings with it a new sense of empathy, of feeling deeply for the Hailey family. Many of the women in the jury and in the courtroom are shown to be crying, visibly disturbed.

This new sense of empathy, however, does not become the true, deeply internalized emotion of empathy until Jake’s haunting last line: “Now imagine she’s white” (ATTK 2:20:21-2:20:23 ). This line truly works to transport the jury into a place of understanding— a place where each and every juror can feel Tonya’s pain and Carl Lee’s pain— because they are finally seeing Carl Lee’s case through their own eyes and hearts. Throughout Jake’s closing statement the empathy invoked in the jurors has been real, but it is during this line that the brutal reality of the situation truly strikes them.

Thus, the feeling of real empathy invoked in the jurors is also coupled with guilt. There is guilt for their close-mindedness— they themselves may realize that they are only able to care about a little girl’s life when she is white. The end of Jake’s summation serves as sort of an epiphany for the jury— they come to a startling conclusion not only about Carl Lee Hailey, but also about themselves. They come to terms with their own blind racism, and find it within themselves to overcome it by declaring Carl Lee Hailey innocent.

Works Cited

A Time to Kill. Directed by Joel Schumacher, Regency Enterprises, Warner Brothers, 1996. Digital Campus. Web. 20 Sept 2017.

Gentlemen, you are good, honest, hard-working men. I know you, I know your values, and I know the truths you carry. I also know this decision is a difficult one— although it should not be— however, I happen to know that you, together, will come to the right conclusion.

Gentlemen, you spend your days in sweat and solitude, working the fields, working the stores, working. Your days are long, monotonous, and tiring. The Depression is hitting us hard now. I have no doubt that every single man in Maycomb County, Alabama, no matter who he may be or what he may look like, has carried the burden of the Depression on his shoulders since it began. You’ve carried it, and just like you, Tom Robinson— a good, honest, hard-working man— has carried it. The only difference between you and Tom Robinson is the difference between the colors of your skin.

You all have families— children who run with excitement when you come home from working, wives who support you in every aspect of being, mothers who raised you, and fathers who taught you what it means to be a man. Imagine how they would feel if you were wrongly charged for a crime you did not commit. Imagine how wrecked that house would feel without your presence, imagine the tears your children would cry, imagine how empty everyday life would feel without you in it.

Tom Robinson has a family too. He has a wife, Helen, three children, a mother, and a father, Spence.  Tom Robinson’s family would be heartbroken to see him incarcerated for a crime he did not and could not commit. If you make the wrong decision, gentlemen, the house of Tom Robinson will be wrecked. His children will shed those tears, his wife will be devastated, his parents would be crippled over the unfair outcome of their son’s life. I remind you: the only difference between you and Tom Robinson is the difference between the colors of your skin.

At the end of the day, every piece of “evidence” — and I say it like this because “the state has not provided one iota of medical evidence” during this trial— points to a man whose power lies in his left hand (TKAM 1:32:05-1:32:15). This man is not Tom Robinson. Now, Mayella Ewell was beaten, beaten brutally at that. Her assailant just simply could not have been Tom Robinson, not with the most concrete piece of evidence presented in this case pointing to someone else. It is clearly impossible for Tom to have committed this crime.

Not only is it physically impossible for Tom to have committed this crime, but it is also morally impossible. Like you and I, Tom Robinson is a man of God. He has proven himself to be nothing but sound of mind and sound of heart. He still had the decency to “feel right sorry” for a young white woman, even though she had so much more than he could ever dream about (TKAM 1:30:59-1:31:04). He still had the decency to do her chores for free after a long day of hard work. Why would such a noble man, such a God-fearing man, have the motive to commit such a ghastly crime? The answer is simple: there was no motive, as this was not his crime.

Please, gentlemen, I implore you. Put away these notions of black and white for just one day and vote in favor of what this great nation truly stands for: unadulterated justice. As men of God, find it within yourselves to make the choice that you know is the right one. Free Tom Robinson and his family from a lifetime of ill-deserved misery.

Works Cited

To Kill a Mockingbird.  Dir. Robert Mulligan. Universal International Pictures, 1962. DigitalCampus. Web. 13 September 2017.