Emotional Repression Gets a Bad Rap

×

Expand

Image: Ponomariova_Maria - Getty Images

Emotions illustration

People who repress their feelings often get a bad rap. It is widely believed stuffing one’s emotions, particularly the painful and negative varieties, is detrimental to both mental and physical well-being. And, in certain circumstances, this is the case. While humans are not steam boilers, their emotions can reach a critical pressure point that requires a psychological relief valve of some sort. Crying is a common example. Absent this sort of emotional discharge, we may internalize our feelings, creating psychosomatic symptoms, anxiety or depression. But not always.

The bias in favor of venting one’s emotions finds approval among many mental health professionals. As Freud put it, “Unexpressed emotions will never die. They are buried alive and will come forth later in uglier ways.” What’s more, our expressive-oriented, hyper-sharing, increasingly uncivil society often derides emotionally reserved folks as rigid, repressed, buzz killers or shy. Introverts often bear the brunt of these criticisms. It has long been a predilection among many psychotherapists that, when it comes to feelings, one should “let it all out.” Entire therapies are based on this principle (think primal screaming).  

In our haste to critically judge reserved people, we fail to recognize some individuals keep their feelings in check because doing otherwise has caused them more harm than good. Some victims of childhood trauma fit this profile. However, others are reacting to their current circumstances, rather than past wounds. Andrew was a case in point.

“My family is a drama circus,” he told me. “My wife and relatives are hyper-sensitive to each other’s feelings, including positive ones.”

Melodramatic Chain Reaction

In his world, being out there with one’s emotions all but guaranteed setting off a melodramatic chain reaction. Over time, Andrew determined that whatever price he paid for holding his tongue paled in comparison to what he endured when he was emotionally transparent. It was basically a psychological cost-benefit analysis, and his findings indicated he should zip it.

Jean faced the same conundrum but with the opposite slant. She held back her feelings because, when she let them out, she received little or no response from her spouse and his family. This felt like an implicit rejection of her personality, as her natural tendency was to be an expressive type. So, around them, she learned to hold it all in.

“It’s like I’m talking to myself. I discovered early on that the more I expressed my feelings, the more they became uncomfortable and shut down,” she explained.

Another instance where letting it all out can backfire is if that behavior proves incompatible with one’s innate temperament. Some of us are not expressive by nature, preferring to relate to our emotions inwardly rather than manifesting them in the external world. Sometimes, such folks feel pressured to emote, often by a spouse, partner, family or friends who are far more demonstrative. Submitting to coercion to morph from their authentic reserved style into an emotions-on-my-self type involves a denial of self.

Ironically, some emotionally reserved folks encounter this same denial of self from their therapists. While hopefully less common today, in the 60’s and 70’s, a pseudo-therapy involving “encounter groups” emerged. The stated purpose was to cast off emotional inhibition and put one’s feelings out there, and forcefully, for all to witness. If the group members concluded that one of the participants was holding back their feelings, that individual was given a card that read, “Cop out.”

Granted, in some emotionally restrained people, their repression is not healthy for them nor those in their midst. But in others it may simply reflect who they are, their developmental history or the circumstances in which they find themselves. Let’s remember that the freedom of expression also includes the right to hold it in. 

For more, visit philipchard.com.