Coaching and Emotions; History of Patriarchy

Part I

 “Like water off a duck’s back” has been my coaching mantra for several years. I have often taken pride in what I considered strong emotional intelligence. My personal definition, however, I fear was skewed by a history of patriarchy and a “Midwest Nice” culture.  Previously, I would have defined strong emotional intelligence as the ability to leave my personal baggage at the door and deflect the emotions of those I was coaching as if shoeing away annoying insects. In essence I saw emotions as something controlled by a light switch, not of the dimming sort, but rather one that could be quickly switched to off.  

While I am still in a moment of personal reckoning, I would like to offer a new definition of emotional intelligence, one that does not turn from emotions, but rather creates a space for them to be acknowledged and either released or embraced.  

In Wisconsin’s definition of coaching, The Coaching Competency Practice Profile references emotional intelligence in two different spaces.  First, it calls on coaches themselves to develop emotional intelligence, “Coach regulates and monitors their own emotional state and makes strategic choices about when and how to share their own feelings and thoughts in order to maintain focus on the goals of the client and system” (component 7b). Additionally, a coach should support clients to, “leverage strong emotions to maximize productive outcomes” (component 3a).  

This three part blog will attempt to offer some further insight on how emotional intelligence shows up for a coach and how a coach can navigate and make space for the emotions of others.  Before I could begin to deconstruct my personal perception of what it means to have a strong emotional intelligence, I had to first understand and grapple with the historical foundation of patriarchy upon which it was built; the focus of the first blog.  

The history of patriarchy is one that began approximately ten thousand years ago.  It brings with it a deluge of societal structures that are still omnipresent in our country today.  Part of these structures includes a laundry list of how men and women “should act” and defines what roles are appropriate for men and women to take on.  It would be difficult to reflect on the history of patriarchy in its entirety in several tomes of writing, let alone a single blog.  For the purpose of this reflection I am exploring how patriarchy shows up in our expression of emotions.  

I will begin by exposing what Glickman refers to as the Man Box, “This “real man,” as defined by the Man Box, represents what is supposedly normative and acceptable within the tightly controlled performance of American male masculinity.”  These confines are detailed and play out in advertisements and media on a daily basis.  One key component of the Man Box is the fear to expose insecurities or fears which can translate into tampering emotions.

In Elena Aguilar's chapter on emotions in her new text, Coaching for Equity, she briefly explores the connection of the beliefs many of us hold about emotions as, “untrustworthy, childlike, and frivolous” connecting back to writings in Greek, Roman and Chritian texts.  

Another unique layer for my consideration of expression emotions is the context of my geographic location within the United States.  My own understanding of Midwest Nice is likened to a happy-faced, passive aggressive approach where individuals say (or don’t say) what they hope will lead to shallow pleasantries and then speak their truth under their breath or behind closed doors.  I was unable to find much research on the history of this, but in an article by Andrea Plaid Scandanavian settlers are credited with infusing the Law of Jante throughout the region; “Under the Law of Jante, everyone is on the same level and no one is distinct.  With a focus on the needs of the collective rather than the accomplishments of the individual, the Law of Jante keeps people in check.”  An essay by Paul Christman says that, “If it is to serve as the epitome of America for Americans. . . the place had better not be too distinctly anything.”  He further goes on to suggest that a pressure to be “normal” has repressed emotions.  

As I think about how my emotions show up as a coach and in those I coach, I found it important to begin with this history.  I am by no means an expert on the history of patriarchy, and hope that you do your own exploration and take time to reflect.  But why is history important to this discussion?  I need to be aware of the potential underpinnings of patriarchy and how it shows up for me so that I can begin to check any assumptions I may be making.  Without some knowledge of this history, I may take my beliefs for granted.  As Elena Aguilar notes, “What do we think and feel when someone from [another group] expresses emotions in a way that is outside of what we consider acceptable?”  It’s important to understand why we consider something acceptable in the first place.

As I continue to build upon my new definition of emotional intelligence, it is clear to me that I must be intentional in rejecting the pillars of patriarchy.  One way I can achieve this is by making space to normalize expressing and speaking to emotions.  

If you are interested in exploring coaching and emotions further, consider subscribing to this blog and be on the lookout for the next post in the series which will explore how we, as coaches, acknowledge and leverage our own emotions.