I have long struggled with the concept of sensitivity. Who has it and
who doesn't. It is a cornerstone of empathy which is a mud that I
spend most of my life wading around in.
Let's park the psychopaths/sociopaths for now so we can have a clear
run at this.
I'm willing to believe that everybody is sensitive underneath,
although increasingly I find that less true than I did. When you can
only judge people on their actions, and the actions don't appear to
indicate internal sensitivity then it can be a struggle to detect
signs of.
I think I'm closer to believing that everybody thinks they are
sensitive. You can put 'thinks' in italics if you like.
But the importance of other people in this analysis is crucial. They
need to know how sensitive you are, and where the wiggle room is,
which means they need some working concept of what sensitivity really
is.
How can you decide how sensitive somebody else is? How is that really possible?
I think I may have the whole concept wrong.
Because I expect people who are sensitive to act in a sensitive manner.
And it may well be that that is an error.
They may wear their sensitivity purely as self-indulgence. They may
torture themselves with it but not allow it to emerge in any of their
actions. Ever.
I'm wondering now if I hadn't allowed for that possibility.
That doesn't make them good people of course.
Sensitivity by definition is internal. If it doesn't make you do good
things, it is not something to be worn with pride.
So is sensitivity a good quality?
I am not sure.
It is used generally as a sympathetic comment about mutual friends. It
might describe the soul of a poet. But it's frequently prefixed by the
word "over" and a hyphen. It is frequently pejorative. At worst it
could be a precursor of genuine mental turmoil.
It's corollary of course is to be "insensitive".
It seems to me that this is usually used as an articulate insult to
avoid calling somebody a prick. Unless you call them an insensitive
prick of course. In which case you get more bang for your buck. As a
term of disparagement, it probably refers to quotable occasions rather
than a chronic ruthless daily insensitivity from our protagnosist.
Most people wouldn't be commenting on somebody like that because,
other than the most long-suffering of allies, they probably wouldn't
be having them in their lives in any capacity.
If you think they are an insensitive dick 24/7 then that maybe part of
a "character". Their character may be one of a comic foil. The amusing
grump. But to call them insensitive is stupid. And judgemental. In a
bad way. In a wrong way. The fault is in you and it is one of
unkindness.
It reminds me of the television sitcom One Foot in the Grave, where
Victor Meldrew is accused by somebody of being the most insensitive
man ever (or something).
I remember hearing this line of thinking.. 'Yes, obviously, And…'
But Victor Meldrew's wife responds with defensive words to the effect
of "You're missing the point. Victor is the most sensitive man I have
ever known".
I've always thought that was a very touching and rather brilliant
line. His miserable persona becomes a quality. At least if you
consider sensitivity a positive quality. You should. It entertained
millions year after year in that programme alone, without me even
needing to mention Basil Fawlty.
That line has stuck with me. But then it's a David Renwick script
(Jonathan Creek, amongst other credits).
It was unexpected and very sentimental.
But I started writing this messy essay because I've found a new angle
today, based on a random comment on the radio.
I began to wonder if I was confusing sensitivity with sentimentality.
Now I'm on record as being a sucker for a good dollop of 80s style
sentimentality. A happy ending. The bad guys getting theirs. A few
punch-the-air moments. And finish in slow motion with a pop song.
I haven't fully thought this through but I think to do sensitivity
well, you need some sentimentality. It might well be one of the good
parts of sensitivity. What we learnt in maths at school as a "subset".
In Venn diagram terms the circle within the circle.
But oh no….the term sentimentality is used largely in a negative way
as well. The dictionary definitions refer to " tenderness, sadness,
or nostalgia, typically in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way". And
it's a word loved by critical movie reviewers to express their
distaste nay disgust.
While we are on the subject of sensitivity, the dictionary definitions
don't support my way of thinking that it is about looking at the
aspects of the world in an artistic, abstract, inclusive way . Rather
they refer more urgently to "feelings liable to be offended or hurt".
Liable to be offended. Liable to be hurt. That's what sensitivity apparently is.
It seems a rather limited use of a word that describes our senses.
And so common a word. So universal a concept. One we really should be
understanding by now.
I think I probably do have it all wrong.
I suspect I may not be the only one.
No comments:
Post a Comment