. . . something along the lines of "well, that must be it." As best I can tell, none of you actually know the man, so your insistence that his crying must be about G.W. Bush comes off as really pathetic wishful thinking.
[/quote]
"actually know the man."
So, all manners of emotional expression are beyond understanding and interpretation, unless you "actually know the man?"
Is Father Bush so individualist, so unique that nothing can be said of his manner and practice of emotional expression?
Well, that is one school of thought.
However, I wouldn't suggest embracing it, for the dynamic here--unique, individualist, beyond interpretation unless the subject is 'actually known'--more closely resembles a fairly common defense mechanism about therapy--a patient's strategy of defense against psychological counsel. People early in group therapy will try to subvert the process by making such claims, thus striving to establish an equal footing and thereby controll their invulnerability to an emotionally investigative process by suggesting that his "opinions" successfully deny the existence of any universal principles re: the emotional apparatus which are common to us all.
His "opinions" about the matter, which he carefully and, with questionable affect, calmly, submits as unassailable logic, thus establishing a neat defense, should emotional pressure threaten his carefully constructed defense mechanisms against losing emotional control.
There is the matter of congruence. The dictionary, defining the word for general common use, supplies clarification, variously: corresponding, harmonius, fitting, suitable, appropriate.
In the science of psychology and specifically in terms of the dynamics of emotional expression, it further specifies that feelings expressed are considered congruent, and therefore not pathological, if the energy and direction of expression are reflective and relate in measure to the stimulus. Feelings expressed are considered congruent if they appropriately reflect the circumstance involved. (It also should be added that, if determination is otherwise, one begins then to look for manipulative intent, usually defensive in nature.)
The question then remains: was father Bush's emotional breakdown at Jeb's celebratory function one of congruence? (In therapy, btw, an emotional breakdown is usually regarded as an emotional 'breakthrough," signalling a collapse of defensive stance.)
Was his emotionally expressive comportment appropriate to the circumstance?
It should be noted, that as an adjunct for comprehensive interpretation, other concurrent factors affecting his emotional system should have to be considered. One such factor might be that while Jeb celebrated his departure from his generally considered successful governorship, his other son--the president of the United States--was about to be daggered by his father's best friend, publically, thus signalling interpretively a strong sense of defeat for the family in general, remembering that the role of father is usually vulnerable to interpretation via buck stops here.
Some schools, I add here, using a tougher tough love approach, would suggest that usually at the bottom of the motivational barrel, when all is said and done, we are finally really talking about ourselves. In this particular frame of reference, one is left to decide if any feeling of failure as a father that he experienced dealt with the indefatigable merit badge winner Jeb, or the classically defiant, stubborn, rebellious, bent-to-disprove-father scapegoat son George.
It is really an easy call.
