Given that this paper is written to critically analyze disputes on the topic of sentimentality, it is essential to provide a clear, working definition of that which characterizes this term. While the term ‘sentimental’ is typically regarded in a positive light as an abundance of feelings, this word carries degree of negativity among some philosophers and critics when used to describe art. For example, scholars such as Richards, Wilde, and Savile have asserted that sentimentality is inappropriate, dishonest, or defective. However, arguments have been posed to rebut this conception of sentimentality and provide individuals with a theoretical framework to support an alternate definition of this term.
Savile and Sentimentality
Savile asserted that sentimentality is merely an umbrella term that is more accurately described as a mode of feeling (Savile, n.d.). As such, this term lacks the degree of specificity that is necessary to regard sentimentality as a distinct in any way, and he rendered this mode of feeling to be entirely open to ongoing criticism because it is defective. “One property that lays thought open to criticism is falsity. Another, quite compatible with thought’s truth, is lack of evidential justification” (Savile, n.d., p. 337). In a far bolder statement, Savile purported that there are absolutely no circumstances or situations in which sentimentality serves as the appropriate response. Further, individuals need not provide an explanation for a lack of sentimentality. This statement is rooted in Savile’s belief that individuals express sentimentality in the absence of knowledge of the full scope of situations; therefore, this mode of feeling represents a fallacy.
Savile characterizes sentimentalists as individuals seeking gratification as they entertain emotions that support their vantages (Savile, n.d). Savile goes so far as to purport that situations that invoke negative modes of sentimentality, such as anger, also serve the individuals by affirming their needs for gratification in regard to their own dispositions. “So my jealousy could support a pleasing view of myself as a man of grand passion, and my hatred for some luckless neighbour serve to endow me with a gratifying heroism that otherwise I would not take myself to possess” (Savile, n.d., p. 339). Savile provided another example in which an individual may dismiss great teachings of philosophy due to an inability to effectively derive meaning from the teachings by insisting that these very teachers are devoid of true depth or meaning. In essence, Savile contended that people abuse the mode of sentimentality to justify their perspectives and limitations as they allow their thoughts to filter and taint idealized depictions of the world. When subjectivity is applied to a situation, sentimentality becomes biased.
Newman and Sentimentality
Newman directly confronted assertions that have served as the basis on which sentimentality has been characterized by false idealizations of the world (Newman, n.d). As sentimentality is elicited by specific content matter, individuals ascribe emotions that some claim are representative of gross misrepresentations as a product of idealization. However, Newman emphasized that sentimentality can be expressed in an objective manner that is liberated from evaluative subjectivity. While Newman agreed with the notion that sentimentality can be abused at times, he clearly stated sentimentality that is subject to abuse and evaluation is merely one aspect of this mode of feeling. Sentimentality cannot be marginalized through a narrow lens that fails to acknowledge the collective attributes thereof.
Newman discussed the erroneous definition of sentimentality that leads readers to believe that, by idealizing content matter, sentimentality serves the purpose of minimizing all features of the content that are not desirable. Sevile contended that this introduction of idealization is objectionable; therefore, he rebuked the validity of sentimentality. However, Newman laid the groundwork to rebut Savile by making the claim that there is nothing that is intrinsically wrong about falsification through idealization. “Therefore, basing a charge against sentimentality on its falsification of objects would once again be a confused accusation, because falsification is not always a flaw” (Newman, n.d., p. 345). When considering aesthetic values such as caring, morality, and acts of kindness, these values are more important that the conception of the whole truth. In fact, the arts present purposeful and legitimate falsifications under the genre of fiction. Despite the fictitious nature of the arts, sentimentality is not violated. The underlying aspiration of an artist centers on the provision of an aesthetic experience that provides pleasure or a release to the intended audience, and this effect is deemed far more valuable than remaining faithful to portraying the whole truth. Newman addressed issues of falsification that may lead to misconceptions of reality. For example, specific stories can glamorize or sterilize tragic events, thereby confounding the audience’s perceptions through idealizations. However, sentimentality cannot be regarded as defective when the audience is ultimately responsible to exercise autonomy in critical analysis. People are expected to act as intelligent consumers of the arts.
Newman also addressed an argument to invalidate sentimentality that is based on a form of falsification in which individuals are said to deceive themselves as they exhibit insincere sentiments based on societal expectations. An individual may weep for another who has died without feeling the broad scope of pain that would elicit such a response. They may appear to be compassionate by virtue of the display of correct sentimental responses. “To counter these stinging assessments, I shall contend that Richards, Wilde, and Savile are actually aiming their barbs at pathological or corrupt instances of sentimentality, and that not all instances of sentimentality are pathological or corrupt” (Newman, n.d., p. 348). Newman effectively rebutted the claims that indicate that insincere sentiments may invalidate sentimentality. A corrupt display of emotions cannot serve as a basis for discrediting the essence of the emotion in all circumstances. Sample sets of isolated incidences cannot be generalized to the parent population of sentimentality.
Critique of Sentimentality Debate
While Savile regarded sentimentality as defective by virtue of the affective mode that is subject to interpretation based on human expectations of expression, Newman asserted that aspects of sentimentality are independent of evaluation; therefore, idealizations need not be conceived through the narrow lens that is presented by Savile. Savile and other scholars have asserted that sentimentality is flawed because it is insincere. Newman clearly countered this claim in stating that insincerity is a pathological response. Moreover, Newman countered Savile’s claim that sentimentality is invalid as a product of associated fiction in stating that moral values and artist’s intended effects supersede the value of telling the whole truth. Audiences are certainly expected to discern fact from fiction. This expectation is entirely reasonable. Newman clearly presented a more comprehensive depiction of sentimentality in his characterization of this mode of feeling through a wider lens. The whole of sentimentality is certainly greater than the sum of its parts, and Savile did not present his argument from a holistic vantage. Instead, he limited sentimentality to a mode of feeling that is, at all times, subject to evaluation. Conceptual absolutes, such as ‘always’ are rarely accurate.
Sentimentality of ‘I Measure Every Grief I Meet’
Emily Dickenson’s poem entitled, “I Measure Every Grief I Meet” reveals Dickenson’s perspective on the topic of grief as she consistently compared her own life experiences with the apparent affective conditions of others who passed through her life as she looked upon their faces (Dickenson, n.d.). “I measure every Grief I meet with narrow, probing eyes – I wonder if It weights like Mine – or has an easier size” (Dickenson, n.d., n.p.). Admittedly, Dickenson may have inaccurately characterized the grief of the individuals that she analyzed because she had never met them. Rather, she studied them. Dickenson continually examined others because she found solace in the idea that she was not alone in her suffering and despair, despite the potential for invalid depictions of their life experiences or sorrow. “And though I may not guess the kind – Correctly – yet to me, A piercing Comfort it affords In passing Calvary” (Dickenson, n.d., n.p.). In this poem, Dickenson expressed a desire to find common ground with others based on a universal capacity to express sentiments and grief in a number of ways, to include nonverbal displays of such grief as demonstrated through the conditions of their hearts as revealed in the state of mind that is portrayed by their facial expressions and body language. Interestingly, Dickenson did not consider the possibility that others may have actually experienced a grief greater than her own. This fact is evident in her contemplation regarding whether other’s grief is of an ‘easier size’ or weighs like hers.
This particular poem was not discussed by Savile or Newman in their oppositional positions on the topic of sentimentality. It is entirely plausible to contend that Savile would regard this poem as a literary piece that serves the purpose of validating his claims on the topic of sentimentality for a number of reasons. The entire poem is based on Dickenson’s feelings and perceptions of the grief experienced of other individuals. As such, she expressed her sentiments without full knowledge of the truth that underlies others’ experiences; therefore, Savile would assert that the entire scope of this poem is idealized, subjective and false. The fact that Dickenson did express the need for validation of her own feelings by comparing other’s grief to her own would be interpreted by Savile as a blatant display of self-gratification for the purpose of supporting her perspective and assisting her in accepting her innermost emotions. In essence, Savile would claim that Dickenson used sentimentality in order to justify her state of being and the conditions of her heart. Savile would regard this literary piece as entirely sentimental with little value.
Newman would have accepted the fact that Dickenson self-reported that she did not truly know the people with whom she compared herself, and he would have contended that she truly provided the audience with the information necessary to judge this literary piece based on its content and merit without rendering it invalid or defective. Although Dickenson idealized the grief levels of other individuals, Newman emphasized the fact that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with idealization from an artistic perspective. Dickenson wrote “I Measure Every Grief I Meet” to provide her audience with a release, which Newman would certainly support as a worthy artistic endeavor. Dickenson aspired to reassure others that humans have many common sentiments. Grief is a universal sentiment. While she may have inaccurately characterized the grief of others, the noble cause to provide evidence of the unity of humanity is lofty, and it outweighs the value of telling the whole truth. In fact, Newman would argue that Dickenson’s self expression is her reality. It is her truth. In that sense, it is objective. Newman would regard this piece of literature as an appropriate, as opposed to pathological or flawed, expression of sentimentality
Wrongness of Sentimentality
Newman is absolutely correct in his views on the topic of sentimentality. It is important to note that, if Savile was correct, much of literature would be deemed defective, thereby rendering art to be a flawed product of society. Emily Dickenson exercised free expression and creative license as she wrote the descriptive poem on the topic of grief. This poem is certainly a portrayal of sentimentality and is largely based on idealizations. Nevertheless, there is nothing that is inherently wrong with the subject matter or the author’s efforts to describe the emotions of others from her perspective. Dickenson expressed an abundance of feelings, and those who may dismiss the value of her literary piece have inaccurately conceived the essence of sentimentality. While Dickenson did make attempts to elicit an emotional response from her audience, her expression of sentimentality is legitimate.
Objection to Argument
The most plausible objection to an acceptance of Dickenson’s poem as legitimate would center on the subjective nature of the poem. How can one legitimize an individual perception? What gives content that is subjective in nature any degree of content validity? Wilkie (1967) reviewed twelve handbooks on the topic of literature to find the commonly accepted definition of the term ‘sentimentality’. “Sentimentality is the expression of feeling or the attempt to evoke feeling in excess of what the portrayed situation reasonably calls for” (Wilkie, 1967, p. 564). Given this definition, sentimentality is, in and of itself, flawed and defective. When coupling Dickenson’s overt reliance on subjectivity to describe the grief experienced by others, her work appears to validate the negative connotation associated with sentimentality.
Response to Objection
How does one measure the expression of feelings in an objective manner so as to make a claim for the purpose of ascribing a negative connotation to sentimentality? The definition of sentimentality that was posed by Wilkie, particularly when associated with the arts, is flawed. Much like perception, the extent to which individuals ‘feel’ and ‘express’ emotions is highly individualized. This form of self-expression cannot be measured in quantitative or qualitative terms with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. Attempts to assert that individuals express feelings in excess of that which a situation requires are significantly defective, whereas sentimentality in the true sense of the definition, is entirely sound. The definition of sentimentality that was presented in the beginning of this discussion indicates that sentimentality refers to an abundance of feelings. It does not regard this ‘abundance’ as excessive. There is no theoretical basis on which sentimentality can be accurately characterized as ‘excessive’ because natural laws shape individuals to act as a collective conglomerate of uniqueness and diversity. Dickenson’s poem cannot be described as sentimental in the negative sense because the negative connotation is entirely disputable.