I've notice that my friends have been using the phrase "I feel like" as a replacement for "I think," in everyday speech. For example, instead of saying "I think that media's coverage of this presidential campaign is biased," they would say "I feel like the media's coverage...." It happens in far less intellectual instances as well, for instance: "I feel like we should do the Matterhorn next, not Splash Mountain." It also seems that the phrase is more prevalent in spoken rather than written English.
Is this significant? Does it signal a sea change in how we express convictions? Are Americans becoming more driven by emotional decision making, rather than a reason-based approach? Was it ever reason-based in the first place? Does a emotion/reason dichotomy hold water?
6 comments:
My roughly-formed hypothesis (now that you have me hyper-analyzing my use of the terms, thank you Mark) is that both methods of statement are an effort to admit fallibility. The difference comes in where you place the blame if you are inaccurate. Saying you think something opens you up to immediate refutation via proofs and logic, and puts you at risk of being stupid. By stating it as a feeling there is at least some sense of a buffer between the generation of the sentiment and the placement of blame should the sentiment be flawed. It doesn't immediately reflect poorly on your logic center and can instead be dismissed as a misread intuition.
Either case is an effort to circumnavigate a lack of conviction. Take your Matterhorn example. Instead of saying "I think we should ride the Matterhorn next," or "I feel like we should ride the Matterhorn next," it's important to recognize what the person is not saying: "We should ride the Matterhorn next," or "We are riding the Matterhorn next." These two statements reveal another factor into the equation, and that is what type of verbiage you use to subliminally provoke the climate of conversation. The two examples I suggested are very authoritative. In contrast, by saying "I think" or "I feel" you are, by implication, opening the floor to other people's ideas. The main difference then is whether people are appealing to logic or emotions. Saying "I think" should indicate that the following statement is an appeal to logic, while "I feel" is trying to insinuate an emotional attachment to the following idea. No matter what a form of coercion is taking place, but that's the case in any scenario. You have a desire that you would like to see executed, vocalizing that desire is your effort into seeing that desire come to fruition.
I will say though, I've heard that the use of "I" messages is very much encouraged as it is a method of taking ownership of your statements and comes off with the least amount of hostility. While the declamatory statements are certainly more efficient, they may damage the climate of a healthy discourse. As we try to become a more diplomatic species it is completely feasible that we'll be seeing more of your "think vs. feel" proposal. As we navigate conversation we should keep in mind whether people's statements are an appeal to pathos or logos.
Excellent observation, Mark!
Well, in general, I feel (!) we as a culture are moving in a more emotional direction, but I don't know if this is reflected linguistically in this new phrase. As Ruxton brings up, both "think" and "feel" are good ways to hedge your bets, and as they serve this same social function (softening your assertions), I feel (!) they amount to the same thing. But who knows - there are meanings behind language beyond the purely communicative! I wish we had a resident linguist on the M&M staff...
Thanks for the comments guys. Ruxton: I found your analysis that emotions are in a sense more fallible than reason to be telling. If we are more inclined to place the motivation for our decisions in our emotions partly because it is easier to change our minds (our hearts?) later without looking stupid, does that mean we have less confidence in ourselves as human beings? Could this be a linguistic sign of a more pervading cultural self-doubt?
Maybe I'm answering my own question from my above comment, but I think (yes, I really do think) that my original observation was rooted in the larger observation that Americans have a confidence problem. We make it a point to hem and haw, to equivocate every statement of will or conviction so completely, that we tear our own ideas down before anyone else gets a chance to.
Another example: how many times have you been in a class, from high school to grad school, where the teacher asks a question, and a student's answer goes something like: "This is probably totally wrong, but I really think, or rather it seems kind of like—but don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert on this at all—but I feel like the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776."
I know that I have said a strikingly similar sentence many times.
Anyway, my point: By all means, use an "I" statement to express agency. But don't be afraid to state your position—thoughts AND feelings—without all the qualifiers.
My original assertion was not that "I feel" arguments are necessarily flawed, only that they likely have more room for error. That may be what you were clarifying, I'm just making sure.
I would strongly agree with you in that Americans do have a lack of esteem. If you look at the news it seems that every other story is telling us either how fat we are or how we can't afford to pay for housing. Not only that but I found many similarities between our current culture and the culture of Germany around the time of their cultural depression in the 19th century. Because we're so spread out and so different it seems difficult to find the common threads that bind this place together. I have many times vented my frustration at how different we are from the rest of America. That's not a statement of division or racism, but rather that we are not allowed to be different. In my eyes culture west of the Rocky Mountains is, at least, somewhat consistent, and should have every right to be a self-governing body. Otherwise, it would be nice if the nation would stop reaping the benefits of California's economy and Oregon's resources, considering that the nation pretty much ignores us the rest of the time.
Okay, that was a bit of an aside, but I hope it made some form of sense. What we hear from the majority of the outside world is that we're infidels. Our international ranking in education is dismal, considering we're the most developed country in the world. Our industry of popular culture is devoid of any substance. At least Italy had Opera as a means of artistic entertainment. We have Britney Spears. Culturally speaking, America is pretty dismal right now.
In all fairness though, you did put a pretty lofty disclaimer on this post, if we're talking about self confidence.
Ruxton: You caught me! Not only was my original disclaimer a perfect illustration of my point, I had to fight the urge to keep including them throughout my post and comments. I'm talking to myself as much as anything else.
Post a Comment