Emotion Commotion: Women, Work, and and the "E" Word

Work Wednesday

Here comes the "E" word. No, not empathy, a word President Obama used in describing one of his requirements for a Supreme Court Justice. But close. Another "E" word. Emotion. And right on its heels - an "F" word. Feelings.

Yesterday, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In nominating Judge Sotomayor, Obama picked a Hispanic-American woman with a sharp intellect, stellar academic and professional credentials, and an inspiring story - she grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, lost her father when she was nine years old, and made her way to Princeton, Yale Law School, several prestigious jobs, and the federal bench. He also chose someone who has pledged to "understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before [her]. . . ."

The announcement was "full of emotion," as Salon.com reported, "Sotomayor herself was obviously moved, and said so, and Obama himself observed that the judge's mother ‘has been a little choked up.’ It couldn't be free of emotion, not with Sotomayor's story." (Actually, I think her mom was weeping in the C-SPAN video, but what mother wouldn’t?) Other media outlets, such as The New York Times, played up the emotional aspects of the nomination, most in a benign human interest way.

The "E" word also made a more malevolent appearance. It debuted over the weekend when SenatorJon Kyl of Arizona made noise about filibustering the President's choice, which was then down to four women: Sotomayor, Judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Kyl -viewing the female deck - sounded the alarm about potential nominees who might make decisions based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas . . . ."

After the press conference, Senator John Cornyn of Texas (and later Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell) picked up the theme, proclaiming that the judge must "prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences."

Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee - the not-so-genial-in-this-instance former Presidential contender - released a statementdecrying Obama’s pick of "Maria [sic] Sotomayor: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the ‘feelings’ of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion."

Although these guys would probably fulminate against any of Obama’s picks, I have the feeling (yes, feeling), that these Senators wouldn't be flinging around words like "emotion" and "feelings" if the nominee were a man - even given Obama's empathy standard. (In fact, a widely-disseminated Associated Press profile reports that Sotomayor's "shown an independent streak and an interest in separating emotion from interpretation of the law . . . ." ) The "E" word clearly is being used as a slur - not for the first time. Many women, especially professional women, are criticized as "emotional" if they express their views in an intense or forceful way, stand up for the underdog, or are less-than-cool when criticized. 

(As for "preconceived notions," "personal politics," and "preferences," well, it's probably a safe bet that many of the current conservative male Justices wouldn't have been appointed to the bench if they didn't have them. See The New Yorker's profile last week of Chief Justice Roberts, who, not suprisingly, is turning out to be less than the neutral "umpire" he claimed to be in his confirmation hearings.)

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman exposed the chauvinistic undercurrent of the preemptive attacks on emotion in her pre-nomination op-ed piece, "What's So Bad About Empathy?" Goodman wrote:

You might say that they [the critics] had an overly emotional response about emotion. Indeed, you might describe the passionate assault as an advance strike on any expected female nominee. Lady Justice notwithstanding, tradition sees the law as hard, rational, and male, while empathy is soft, emotional, female, and generally weepy.

I'm a lawyer and an occasional Supreme Court observer, and I have to say that, despite this stereotype, I haven't heard much about weeping and wailing from the High Court's female Justices. Or overly emotive judging. (Of course - we've only had two - current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.) But the Victorian notion that women are too emotional to vote, work, run for office, be appointed to the bench, and so on, apparently is alive and well. (And especially useful for partisan attacks on the SCOTUS nominee.)

Rather than treat emotion like a dirty word, maybe it’s time to think about how emotion and feelings relate to employment. Especially for women in professional positions.

So, what is the function of feelings at work?

I’m not talking here about third-trimester crying jags or your worst overloaded working mom day. (In that scenario, the answer is obvious. None. Just find a private space, call your mommy buddy, and breathe deeply. Then do some work.) And I'm not thinking about Emotional Intelligence (EI) either, although there's lots of speculation about its relation to professional success. And I'm certainly not imagining a place for yelling, berating, or other out-of-control behavior that, unfortunately, is still permissible in some workplaces.

There hasn't been a lot of research on the topic - especially not in the legal profession - but, deep down, I suspect that emotion ultimately plays a positive role for most working women (and men). At least it does for me. Like it or not, emotions and feelings are a fundamental part of the attitudes and behaviors you bring to your workplace, even if you've been trained to idealize objectivity. (At least if you're a human being.)

My guess is if you’re emotional about what you do – if you really believe that your work somehow helps someone else or makes a difference – you’re more likely to be engaged. And better at it. (Even when you're dealing with sick kids, erratic daycare closings, and other minor perils of working motherhood. )

But that doesn’t mean that emotion should replace reason, logic, analysis, intellect, or any of the other qualities that many professional jobs demand. Whether you elevate it as empathy or deride it as mere feeling, it's just one element in the mix. But it's interesting to think about the value of emotions and whether and how they can help increase personal satisfaction and foster professional success. And lead to good results. Perhaps the commotion surrounding Judge Sotomayor's nomination will give way to a more nuanced and, yes, less emotional discussion of this topic. Well, at least I can hope.

Comments

[Katherine]

What a very smart post. I believe that we achieve most when we're passionate about our work. But how could you be passionate without having emotions? It is a catch-22 for working women. When men are emotional it means they have vision. When we're emotional they question our fitness to make business decisions rationally...