Have you ever just seen someone totally lose control of their emotional disposition? Wether it is anger, or depression, or sobbing, or whatever, the lack of emotional grip makes the person look out of control. Mostly because they are. The line between conviction in something and emotional control is blurred, but it's there. Can one be passionate about something and have complete control over their emotional state? I think so. This week, I've decided to write about the dynamic relationship among emotions, how they influence public opinion, and what it means to be civilized.
Vanilla. People have used this expression to describe a state of being of just sort of going with the flow. There is no conviction on either side of the fence. There is no strong opinion about anything, really, at all. The terminology is a metaphor. Chocolate being an extreme on one side, and strawberry being the opposite extreme. Those that choose vanilla, really don't lean one way or the other. Vanilla is that center option, it is the "I can't get off the fence and choose a stronger option," option. What might people think of me if I go strongly in the chocolate direction? It will certainly alienate the strawberry people. And the converse is also true. If I go in the strawberry direction, it will most certainly offend the chocolate people. So this person is vanilla, ever so careful not to offend, ever so careful to try to identify with all groups, everywhere.
So, then, I wonder, if being vanilla means not having your own opinions, or if it simply means you choose not to express those opinions since much of society can't seem to get a grip on their emotional state. If I expressed a strong opinion one way, the unstable nature of society's emotional state could have consequences I simply don't want to deal with. In fact, it could incite consequences that I feel that I'm above dealing with. This whole freedom of speech stuff, while protection of it legally seems great, peer pressure is another matter all together. The question then becomes how fast my government can save me from an angry mob of the general public? Not fast enough. Vanilla it is!
Tolerance of opinion differences is a civilized idea, and can only occur with education. That may be wrong. Maybe it can only occur with intelligence. And since intelligence can not be taught, we are evolutionary steps away from tolerance. No amount of teaching can make a person tolerant of opinion differences. It can only happen with a logical mind. Emotions cripple the ability of the average person to achieve this. And we are all emotional beings. But we are also on the precipice. Some people are intelligent enough to handle chocolate or strawberry. Some people can look at things from different angles, get their pride out of the way and say, "When you explain it like that, I can see your position." Some people can do it, but most cannot get outside of themselves to have this ability.
Our emotional depth is what makes us humans. A robot can see things logically, but conviction, anger, sadness and art, all come from the heart and not from the brain. When we lose our ability to stay vanilla despite how we feel, when we don't care about public reactions because there won't BE a public reaction, when logic rules and emotion doesn't exist, will there be anything worthy of conviction? Without opponents to arguments, there is no argument. Stay vanilla, but be against something. Or stand for a strongly held belief. Fight the fight if it is something you believe in, but listen to alternative opinions. Be emotional, but be rational. Be loud, then be quiet. Be heard, but listen. We enter debates too often with a closed mind, a mind that will not be swayed.
We are changing, though. A world without controversy--world peace--has always been an abstract idea. And a highly-touted goal of Miss America contestants and politicians for lifetimes. Evolution is the answer, and it is coming. Make no mistake, we are emotional beings and we need that. But we also need that one switch, that switch that we can turn on to allow us to consider alternative opinions. We can never know all angles, and we need to realize that it might be possible that someone can explain an angle we haven't thought of. So be chocolate, be strawberry, and be vanilla. But don't select your position based on your emotional state. It's possible to be neopolitan...
Check out my satirical fiction:
"Delightfully offensive!" Slighted by humanity, God must put down the bottle long enough to save the world...