Emotional Labor

Although it seems like it ought to be a fundamental part of human relationships, emotional labor does not get a lot of popular press.  I have seen it mentioned by name only in "SJW" spaces.  I suppose that other thinkers in other spaces might consider the idea too basic to be examined, and yet there does appear to be a need for it when so many have so much dissatisfaction with their relationships.

Emotional Labor is defined as the effort a person puts into maintaining and deepening connections to another person, usually in the context of a romantic relationship, but friendships are also scenes for this kind of effort to be put forth.  This effort is time and energy spent listening to the other person, both soothing when there is trouble and supportive when they are joyful.  While we might assume that this kind of effort comes naturally to humans as a social species, we should also remember that we must be trained to have empathy with one another as children.  While the capacity might be natural, its performance might need to be cultivated.  The romantic notion of a relationship often consists of two people performing this labor for each other, at much the same level and intensity, but romance is basically a fantasy and a poor version of reality to pay attention to.  The truth is that we do not have very good role models for emotional labor; the media presents only the happy ever after stories and the feel-good marriages and partnerships; our parents were raised on much the same stories and could very well be living under the same misunderstanding of human relationships as we might be.  We assume that relationships - "romantic", friendships, work and neighborly acquaintanceships - ought to come naturally, and we should not have to put forth much effort at all, if any.  In fact, we see a person who requires attention to thrive as an adult as "high-maintanence", particularly if that person is a woman.

Now we come to an interesting gender divide in this subject.  While all of us assume that relationships should be easy to be of any worth, the simple truth is that if nobody does any work, the relationship will wither and die.  There are different expectations of this work from different partners in our society.  It falls to women to do the majority of the emotional labor, because we have the cultural idea that women are naturally more "caring" and "nurturing" while men are stoic and practically emotionless when it comes to other people.  Hence, a woman who demands emotional labor from her partner is labelled "high-maintenance", while she is expected to care and coo over everything that occurs in her partner's life.  This is not even limited to established relationships; men in our society often assume a woman, any woman, will and should be willing to listen to him.  He might just want a friendly chat, or he might want to get some problem off his chest, but he sees any woman in his environment as a potential sounding board.  This might account for the dumbfounded fury some men display when strangers refuse to engage with them.  Without being consciously aware, they are going along with the subliminal cultural context that men talk and women listen appreciatively.  Even in established relationships, the male part normally has the expectation that he will be taken seriously, while the female part has the expectation that she will be depended on for emotional support.

Why does it matter if different members of a relationship perform different tasks?  Could it not be taken as similar to household chores, for example, where each person does their part, but chores are distributed between them?  There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but the result is the previously described gender divide.  There is no dialog and agreement about how best to maintain the relationship over the long term, but an assumption that provokes anger when challenged.

Taking into account the presumption from strangers, it is easy to see how this is a problem for women. However, it can also be less than ideal for men as well.  Human beings are a social species.  We have a need to interact with each other and feel a sense of belonging to a group.  While men are excused from effort, they are thus disconnected from one of the prime ways of forging bonds with other human beings - interpersonal communication.  When men are not "allowed" to have deep feelings, much less share them, they are caught in a not fully developed role in the human play.  The accepted interactions between men in our society have a tendency to be superficial or outright competitive rather than truly friendly.

So, if we accept that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, what should be done to find a solution?  First of all, I would propose that we reexamine what it means to have a good relationship with another person.  Our society has developed a view of individualism and independence that borders on obsessive.  I repeat, we assume that our relationships with others must be easy, or they are not worth the trouble.  The most important thing is our individual comfort level at all times.  In order to promote healthier relationships, which are based on interpersonal connection, we need to place more importance on doing emotional labor, and not being in the most comfortable position at all times.  We need to value empathy and sympathy, those qualities we need to understand each other and want the best for each other.  Most of all, we need to stop seeing emotional labor as "women's work" and reinterpret it as a human requirement for a functional society based on the feeling of belonging to that society.  As a job for the ladies, emotional labor is unimportant and to be ignored (a topic for another essay, if not more).  As a human duty, emotional labor is the backbone of a culture of caring and humanity.

Once we accept that Emotional Labor is as necessary to happy existence as physical or intellectual labor, we might find it necessary to include training for it in our educational system.  We already value the teaching of facts and physical fitness, and to some extent even critical thinking.  We do not, however, see the need to train our children from the start of their academic life in the skills for taking care of relationships, perhaps because of the aforemenioned assumption that these skills are natural and there is no need to improve them in normal people.  It is true that there is some instruction of small children when it comes to sharing or not hurting others, physically or emotionally.  Still, this teaching ends once the real academic rigors begin, perhaps before children's ages are in double digits.   Where does further training come from?  From the family, from the media, from friends who have little experience themselves.  None of these sources may recognize the problems of not distributing the burden of emotional labor species-wide, leading to uncomfortable situations at best.

Emotional Labor is a human duty as it improves the human condition.  All of us are responsible for providing it to those we care about, or hope to have care about us.  We need, for our own betterment and survival, to learn to respect it and those who do it for us.