Emotional Enlightenment

December 31, 2021 | By Hannah Turner BK ‘23+1

image description: the side profile of marble sculpture, looking over her shoulder

​​The concepts Karl Marx did not grasp led to the downfall of communism, but may also lead to the magnification of our societal understanding. He believed that there must be an enlightenment of the proletariat for the realization of the bourgeoisie’s exploitation of them. A revolt would follow. Finally, once the proletariat is in control of the state, a communist society would be born. Everyone would live, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” [1]

Nonetheless, Marx makes a fatal assumption regarding human behavior in analyzing the relationship between these classes. He assumes that the proletariat will be enlightened enough to lead such a society. He assumes that empathy would naturally appear, and prevail. The proletariat would not form a love for power and a similar desire to take advantage of others out of a sense of enmity. They would be different—possibly retaining some collective memory of their exploitation. This idea is foundational to his theory, but simply does not make sense logically. Further, this logical fallacy is supported by the historical documentation of communist societies. In every society that has embarked on the implementation of communism, we see a failed execution. Politically, Marx’s communism is insufficient. The theory’s value instead lies in its insight, or lack of it, on the characteristics of humanity.

I decided to have a discussion about this with my classmate. Quickly, we hypothesized that Marx made this fatal assumption because he only focused on the materialistic aspect of life. However, as primarily evidenced by our life experience, we knew that humanity functions outside that realm. Esteemed qualities such as justice, hope, and love have tried to be quantified materially, but such measuring has been inevitably controversial. This is why we must look beyond materialism. Most likely, the answer exists in human’s emotional reasoning—an area that Marx greatly neglected. There is certainly a material aspect in humanity’s emotional reasoning, as relating to the scientific mechanisms that allow us to reason. This still does not provide the exact explanation for why we find ourselves engaging with or forming conclusions off of such reasoning. In our world we can see that those in power who take advantage of others, or enact revenge on others, often maintain a negative rationalization of their actions. Contrary to Marx’s beliefs, my classmate and I could only discern cases where this misuse of power was prohibited through some sort of incentivization. Those who are under this type of oppression might maintain a false consciousness: they make themselves feel okay with their circumstances when they really sense some injustice about them. We see this in our own society too as some people accept the increasing economic disparity or racial injustices as a norm. As we reflected on these examples, there seemed to be some type of disconnect between the party’s emotions and reality.

Not only did we recognize this on the political or societal level, but the individual one as well. We thought about a specific type of student. Their nimble fingers steadily manipulate the keyboard to produce a paper that demands praise. It appears that they effortlessly move between tasks, and each one is as exceptional as the last. Those familiar with their prowess in studying marvel at such learned efficiency. In clubs and internships they maintain an equal standard of performance. The ambitious student. 

Many, however, that I’ve known have denied their skills—not out of extreme humility, but from a sincere belief. They felt that nothing they could do would reach this standard they set for themselves, or felt was set for them by society. They were constantly convinced that they were unintelligent. If they shifted away from counterfactual thinking, however, they might begin to realize that they were only deceiving themselves. 

Emotional reasoning, for better or worse, is thus present in many different forms in our lives.

As humans, it is evident how many social problems emerge from the fact that our emotions either don’t align with or prevent us from seeing circumstantial evidence. Both one’s interactions with people and one’s already established environment contribute to one’s development. However, these spaces also allow for the emergence of these social problems. This emergence often happens as one reacts, contributes, or just engages in some way with this environment, especially in the instance of indulging in one’s emotions. In fact, it almost seems natural for people to have this poor emotional health. There are so many, like the student experiencing imposter syndrome, who at least briefly experience moments of hyper-focus on their emotional state. Emotions are not only too often exaggerated, but also too greatly denied. When a friend says they can not attend an event that you had been planning to go to with them for months, it is upsetting—especially if they end up spending the night with another group of friends. Not addressing the situation and pretending that everything is fine is perpetuating unhealthy emotional inhibition. 

The fact that humans have an entire part of their brain dedicated to emotions illustrates that emotions are an important part of our perception of life. In the limbic system in the brain, emotions are closely attached to our memories. This is logical when we reflect on how certain memories elicit emotions, and how this in turn influences how we might act in a new situation. In the instances when we inhibit or over-esteem our emotions, they are driving us to feel a certain way that does not align with the facts. I believe that the solution to this problem is both simple and tedious: one must learn to properly manage their emotions.

The first step in managing one’s emotions is to identify how they have been managed in the past—whether that has been through inhibition, or pure emotional reasoning. It is difficult because this realization creates a lot of new emotions too: regret, guilt, desire to change, hope, or a slew of other feelings. 

I think of this as an emotional enlightenment. 

This is far from the enlightenment that Marx presented in his theory of communism, and is a concept often overlooked by our society too. Humanity is dealing with some emotions in a broken way, but recognizing that is the first step in this enlightenment. We begin to take notice of what was once their natural way of acting. The style of managing emotions, the problems of that style, and the identification of specific emotions are all realized. This gives us hope that we can begin to make rational judgments when we begin to get emotional, but it is unclear where one might turn next. The purpose for Marx’s enlightenment was clear: to live in this ideal society where there is no exploitation. Yet, we concluded that to address the failures in Marx’s ideology, we must discover this emotional enlightenment. This allows one to be aligned with reality,  thus leading us to realize a more viable just society—one purpose of this emotional enlightenment.

Now we must look at the question of properly managing our emotions to allow us to achieve that purpose. The term proper assumes that there is an objective measure which one should evaluate their emotions. In some spheres this may be controversial, but it is not too far from what Marx would have believed. Marx was shaped by Adam Smith in theorizing that there was an objective measure to evaluate the value of labor. These labor theories were heavily influenced by Locke’s workmanship model—which was founded in the Christian faith. Marx may have not realized it, but he blatantly encouraged a secular version of Locke’s workmanship model. Recognizing this is so important because the Christian worldview made it possible for Marx to conceptualize reality in the way he did. By leaning on this model, Marx was also leaning on a belief of objective truth—as the Word of God is the Christian’s measure.

This becomes an interesting point when trying to understand why Marx’s communism fails. Marx outlined a society that seemed utopian, and desired justice for the disadvantaged. He did not explicitly endorse, however, a substantial standard to which justice could be defined. Therefore, the historical communist society has produced corruption—a twisted form of justice that manifests when each person defines it for themselves. Our emotions, at their best, begin to hint at what a standard for justice might be when we begin to define something as good or bad. Yet, since our emotions are often not properly managed—such as inhibiting or exaggerating them—our natural selves alone can not discover this standard. As C.S. Lewis described, “Nature does not teach. A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition...she will help to show what it means.”[2] When we look at our emotions, we must look at them in a well-managed and transformed way. In other words, our feelings or reactions to nature can not be the only evidence we rely on for defining justice or how it can be achieved. Instead, one must return to the idea of transcending materialism and naturalistic hypotheses. Many theological or metaphysical theories focus on doing just this, but I will focus on the Christian perspective. 

The Christian perspective truly meditates on creating a balance between, or managing against, the absolute valuing of emotional reasoning and the complete inhibition of such reasoning. The Christian believes that there was an original, perfect design for the world. Nonetheless, man freely decided that they were more apt than the God of the universe to create, and so relied on their incomplete knowledge of the world. This original wrong that early man acted on is common in our modern society too: we think that we can do and know everything. Yet this also shows that at one point man’s thoughts and feelings acted in perfect harmony with God’s good and just will. Due to this, the Christian can recognize the inherent value in emotions. 

This inherent value is still evident today in the bliss that flows over us as we view the fiery sun rise over a lush mountaintop. It is evident in our rising anger when we hear about kids starving, or a racist act of physical violence, or any other injustice. In desiring to define justice or protect nature, we can see how our feelings can be derived out of our values—otherwise known as being based on some standard.  These moments show emotions at their best, but the Christian perspective notes that the world we live in is broken. Brokenness of the world, therefore, also means the brokenness of the people of the world. This brokenness is evident when people capitalize off of the destruction of our environment, with no remorse. It is evident when people justify acts of hate and oppression, but would detest the same treatment against themselves. This brokenness is no surprise for the Christian because the Bible reminds them how people turned away from God, and thus from His perfect design for everything. Instead, we are left with the intuition that racism should not exist, or a parent should give their child nourishing  love.

If you look at the Christian worldview, then there is an answer on how to achieve what we believe we should do through a type of emotional enlightenment. If we are looking for hope—especially in light of this broken emotional reasoning—the Bible provides it as “...hope [that] does not put us to shame” (Romans 5:5). 

The Bible says that God “will give [us] a new heart and put a new spirit in [us],” which addresses the need to transcend the materialism we see relied on by Marx (Ezekiel 36:26). Further, Jesus tells us that “‘unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God’”(John 3:3). These metaphysical statements are difficult to comprehend, even if one studies the Holy Scriptures. In fact, Nicodemus—an educated teacher of the Jewish law and history—did not even understand Jesus when he heard this. The understanding of the Christian perspective starts with a simple distinction: moral reform is not enough, and instead God seeks a change in the posture of our hearts. In order to fix this brokenness—where we feel there should be reconciliation, and there isn’t—we must have our hearts transformed. Note here that the use of the word “heart” alludes to one’s emotions. All people must value (but not overvalue) and manage (but not oppress or let run wild) our emotions in order for renewal of our hearts and minds to that which is not broken. This is not something one can do themselves, just as being born is not something one can do themselves. So, the Christian believes that this must be done by both the individual and through the work of God. 

The emotional enlightenment is thus experiencing a realignment to God’s original design. The Christian calls for a complete paradigm shift, while Marx simply calls for a social revolution. Our intuition points us to how there is more to life than the material, and that there are actions that should be undertaken. If this starts with the individual then it can be taught to those around them in society as an emotional enlightenment. 

Yet it is evident that there are problems with this: it seems historically impossible and humanity seems to always choose corruption. For hope and an answer, the Christian worldview looks to the wisdom found in their historically verified text. It notes that the individual needs to choose, in free will, to experience this radical conversion by the Spirit of God in their innermost being. This is made possible not because that human suddenly becomes “good,” but  through the work of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. If we let the old, broken, confused pass away, the new and beautiful can come.

1. Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir I. Lenin, and E Czobel. Critique of the Gotha Programme. New York: International Publishers, 1970.

2. Lewis, C S. The Four Loves, 1960.

---