Tuesday, January 27, 2009

At Ease

What is it about affection (as opposed to friendship, eros, and charity which C.S. Lewis identifies in The Four Loves) that allows the taking of liberities and is even humored by them?

No one can deny that affection does allow a dimension of communication that is not otherwise present. Actions or statements that would irritate or anger one if proceeding from any other person are endearing, touching, humorous, or charmingly idiosyncratic in the context of the affectionate relationship. I'm considering for example, the difference between this scenario of address by a classmate and a scenario this morning where a similiar classmate referred to me as "cute." In the later case, however, his comment only elicited a laugh and a light-hearted threat on my part to throw a mug at him, provoking general genial amusement.

I wish to know why this is so. Why does affection put one so at ease that almost nothing provokes an extreme response; e.g. anger, passion, bitterness, pain? Lewis comments that real affection does not wish to wound and practices the art of joking in kindness, but this does not explain to me the mechanism. Perhaps I have simply misunderstood. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts about why there is ease in affection.

And yet there are instances where deep wounds are given in relationships of affection. Normally, the wounded party covers the hurt over for the sake of affection. But then a guard is put up. Is the relationship henceforth affection? Or is it a facade of affection? If the person is ill at ease but pretends not to be, is such not deceptive?

I know that there are those people who make me ill at ease in one sense, but whom I feel a certain affection toward. I guess I'm wondering whether that is still affection in the sense that Lewis means, and if it is affection, why am I not at ease.

No comments: