Our group uses the podcast on the topic of an unusual way of treating mental illness as a start point of our research question, which leads to the discuss of how people construct what is normal, and how people always try to find solution for every problem. So, our final research question is: to what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems? To answer the question, we are using two scholarly sources, one is “What is a problem?” by Thomas Osborne, and the other one is “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener. The first source gives a detailed illustration of the definition of a problem using different philosophers’ models. The second source explained how culture affects people when experiencing emotions.

The first source, “What is a problem?” by Thomas Osborne focuses on comparing some of the works of some French philosophers on the topic of problematology. Gilles Deleuze states in his work Difference and Repetition that stupidity is the capacity for fabricating false problems, therefore, not all problems are real problems. For example, in the podcast, mental illness is not a problem in Geel, which is the most humane treatment for mental illness. So it is possible that mental illness is a false problem, people do not have to find a solution for it. Another French philosopher Georges Canguilhem states that normality and problems are depend on the environment an individual is in. Life is able to find the solutions to problems according to the changes in the environment. Therefore, problems are based on individuals’ past experiences in life, which leads to the conclusion that normality is not the same for each individual. Problems can come up as an individual having more experience in life, so new emotions do come in the way of coming up with questions and solving questions. On the other hand, Henri Bergson more or less agrees with Canguilhem that life is about overcoming obstacles, moreover, the solution for one problem can serve as a possible solution for a future question. Bergson believes that problems have a sense of contingency, and they responds to the surrounding environment as it changes. This source provides a detailed discussion of what different philosophers believe is the key elements of a problem, it helps us to see that what leads people to come up with questions to solve, and does emotion play a role when people come up with questions.

The second source,  “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener, focuses on how culture can affect people’s reactions when experiencing emotions. It is analysed by studies in two individualistic countries, The United States and Australia, and two collectivistic countries, China and Taiwan. It was discovered that there are general reactions across all four cultures, and there are also specific reactions based on cultures. People react accordingly to the value they believe in the culture:

For example, people who value positive emotions might be more alert to positive events, might seek situations that provoke positive emotions, might appraise positive events in a more positive way, might stay in positive situations longer, and might try to maintain their positive feelings or even enhance them (Diener, 870).

Therefore, when people experience different emotions, they seek different ways to come up with questions and to solve questions, which is related to our research question that to what extent are emotions a key part of people coming up with problems and solutions. It was found that individualistic nations reacts more uniformly regarding to pleasant affect. When experiencing self-reflective emotions such as pride and guilt, individualistic and collectivistic nations differed most significantly based on the culture. Therefore, it is possible that the emotions in individuals are affected by the norm of the culture, so people are affected when they come up with problems and solution.

Works Cited

Diner, Ed and 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.

In the podcast “The problem with the solution”, it talks about a special treatment for mental health issues, which leads to a discussion that how not having a solution is probably the best solution to a problem. Severe mental health ills in America are normally sent to a psychiatric hospitals, and treated with excess amount of medication. However, over-medication is not only ineffective, but also worsens the problem sometimes. Ellen Baxter, whose mother is over-medicated because of mental health issues, is dedicated to find a more humane treatment of mental health issues. Ellen goes to a small town called Geel in Belgium, where the residents accept strangers with severe mental health issues into their homes and take care of them. Mental health patients who go to Geel are not treated as patients, but as guests or boarders. They do not receive any kind of medication, and the hosts do not know about the guests’ diagnoses. Therefore, the guests are just there, sharing a life with the hosts. It turns out that after living that way for more than 10, 20 years, it is possible that the patients are healed from mental health diseases.

One of important points the podcast raises is that when a person do not care about the patient so much, then it is probably the best way of treating their mental health diseases. When mental health patients are surrounded by those who deeply care about them, they feel the burden of getting better, and they are scared of disappointing those they love. The caring that people give to the mental health patients can sometimes be a burden to them. People always try to find solutions to problems, however, solutions are never universal, and sometimes they are not even helpful. A problem here is not necessary a problem elsewhere, just like mental ills in America can be treated as normal people in Geel. So, how do we define a problem? And what is a good solution? Is not having a solution is probably the best solution to a problem? Is the way patients are treated in Geel a better solution than over-medication in America? If it is a better solution, then why aren’t patients in America treated the same way as those in Geel? Those are important questions to be answered because people are always dedicated to find the solution, but they do not always think about if those solutions are actually useful and effective in a long-term. Therefore, those questions are imperative to the ways people can find sustainable solutions to problems.

Works Cited

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

In the movie A Time to Kill, the main character Jake Brigance attempts to invoke empathy in the jury in his final statement to prove that Carl Lee is innocent. In Brigance’s final statement, he first asks the jury to close their eyes to imagine the brutal and inhumane raping of a young girl by two men. This rather disturbing scene is what Tonya Hailey, the daughter of the defendant Carl Lee has gone through, which leads to Carl Lee murdering the two men who hold responsible of bringing such pain onto his daughter. Brigance mainly uses detailed description of the raping scene to invoke empathy in every jury member. He also gets more and more emotional as he continues to describe the scene, which successfully brings out the emotion of the jury. However, this is only apparent empathy because the jury members are still imagining the experience of Tonya Hailey, a black girl. Real empathy is still not invoked in the all-white jury until Brigance says the last sentence of his closing statement, “Now imagine she’s white” (A Time to Kill, 2:20:20-2:20:22). Brigance finally invokes the real empathy in the jury because now the jury can really be in the shoes of Carl Lee, which makes them believe that Carl Lee is innocent.

Brigance attempts to invoke empathy in the jury because his final statement is pretty much the final chance that he can use to prove that Carl Lee is innocent. In all the previous court sessions, he is not allowed to bring in the rape as one of the factors that drives Carl Lee to kill the two men, and he also fails to prove that Carl Lee is insane when killing the two men. It is extremely hard to prove that Carl Lee is not guilty because he did kill the two men in cold blood, and an all-white jury is definitely not favoring Carl Lee. Brigance goes to see Carl Lee the night before the final court session. He is enlightened by what Carl Lee says, “Now, throw out your points of law, Jake. If you was on that jury, what would it take to convince you to set me free?” (A Time to Kill, 2:11:17-2:11:29). At this point, there is no way to save Carl Lee using the law.  Invoking the empathy in the jury is the only way to save him, and it has to be real empathy, not apparent empathy.

In Brigance’s final statement, he tries to convince the jury that all people are equal under the law, regardless of the skin color. “The eyes of the law are human eyes, yours and mine, and until we could see each other equal, justice is never going to be evenhanded” (A Time to Kill, 2:15:15-2:15:21). This statement makes the jury really start to wonder if the result of the two men and Carl Lee would be different if race does not play a role in the decision. As a result, real empathy is also invoked when the jury understands that they did not treat Carl Lee as equal as white men. At the end, Brigance successfully invokes empathy in the jury, letting them believe that they would do the exact same thing under that circumstance. Eventually, they were able to make the decision to set Carl Lee free.

Work Cited

A Time to Kill. Joel Schumacher. Warner Bros, 1996. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. 20 Sept 2017.

Gentlemen, today we gather here to examine a case that should not even be brought to court. There is little to none evidence showing that, the defendant, Tom Robinson, has committed the crime he is accused of. I trust that all you gentlemen here, I trust your value and wisdom, and I trust all of you will make the most reasonable decision based on all the facts and evidence.  

First of all, there is no medical evidence stating that the defendant has done such crime to Miss Mayella. Therefore, the case should not even be brought to the court. Also, the sheriff and Mr. Ewell both have given the evidence that the person who beated up Miss Mayella was clearly a person who is left-handed. However, the defendant clearly is not able to use his left arm, as the defendant has said before, “I got caught in the cotton gin when I was 12 years old. All my muscle were tore loose” (TKM 1:20:07-1:20:14). Moreover, the sheriff has given the statement that there were bruise all over Miss Mayella’s neck, which means the person who did it must be able to use both hands. Therefore, based on the fact that Tom cannot even use his left arm, the accusation is lack of evidence. Gentlemen, I believe that all of you here see the lack of evidence in this accusation, and I urge you to make the correct decision by evaluating the facts.

Our society believes that a white woman kissing a young and healthy black man is a sin. Miss Mayella could not help to kiss Tom Robinson, but she does realize that it is a sin to kiss him. Therefore, she is accusing him of something that has never happened to save her own reputation. If the bias towards the negroes do not exist in the society, this case would not have been brought to the court. Gentlemen, I urge you to also consider carefully of the defendant’s statements. As wise men like us, we do not believe in the bias that all the negroes are criminals. In a fair court like this, I trust that all of you would abandon the thoughts of racism, and look at what actually happened.

I understand that Mr. Ewell is extremely angry because someone has taken advantage of his daughter. We all want to defend our families, so let us not forget that the defendant also has a family. His wife and his father are heartbroken when Tom is wrongly accused, and they are extremely helpless. We should see the family of the negroes as important as our own. Imagine that someone in your family is wrongly accused, how heartbroken and angry would you be. Also, please consider how helpless they are because of the color of their skin. So, gentlemen, you should be extremely careful with the decision you make because wrongly accusation might ruin a family completely.

I also feel pity for Miss Mayella that she feels the needs to defend herself by accusing a kind-hearted man. Let us look at the separation in this room, the separation between us and the negroes. This is not how a prosperous community should be. I understand that we are all in financial difficulties under the great depression, so this is time we all bond together as a community, to make our Maycomb county a better place for all of us to live in. Accusing Tom of what he has never done is not the way to make the community safer for others. We should never make assumptions of people based on their skin color. We must trust each other based on the evidence.

Finally, I assure you that based on all the provided evidence, Tom Robinson is not a rapist, he is just a kind-hearted man who has done nothing wrong. And now, the decision is in all you wise gentlemen’s hands, I trust that you would make the most reasonable conclusion. 

Work Cited

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