Fish from Lutèce and Anger Management

Fishmonger Unhygienix. Taken from the Asterix Project.

Lovers of French Hochkultur remember that fresh ingredients are not only vital for public health but public order as well.

A notoriously well-known set of case studies has an inhabitant of a Gallic village (Indomitable village/Village gaulois) taste fish, complain about their foul smell to the fishmonger (Unhygienix/Ordralfabétix) who takes offence. The situation quickly escalates into a village-wide brawl. The explanation that the fish are from Lutetia (Lutèce – nowadays known as Paris) does not help customer satisfaction, though it does somewhat explain the peculiar taste of fish in the era before refrigeration. As a result, fish from Lutèce sound like something to be avoided in general – even if as a precaution. (When food poisoning is a possible outcome, withholding from eating something potentially delicious based on risk analysis is a generally recommended course of action.) Imagine my surprise a few days ago when the best mackerel (maquereau) that I have ever sunk my teeth into was one from Lutèce. The fishmonger (poissonier) must have seasoned it with an assortment of ingredients, including whole pepper.

On a more serious note, there is something refreshing about the conflict resolution and unbridled emotionality in the Indomitable village. When they are unhappy, they fight. (They somehow make up afterwards.) If they do not fight when it comes to conflict – which must be rare – they shout at each other. Nowadays, the former is punishable in most Western jurisdictions. If kids fight (squabble) at school, parents are usually summoned to school with the expectation that the kids will desist in the future. Shouting has slowly acquired a similar status – it is frowned upon. You may shout at your dog and possibly at your very young descendant if they are in danger of setting their unwary tiny feet on a road unattended. Everything else is potentially verbal violence, which can cause you serious trouble with your HR. I reckon that this is fair (or at least justifiable given all the power talk of the day). Still, it may appear that anger has been singled out unfairly. (Expressing positive emotions is generally okay, while sadness and fear might be gaining some acceptance, too. Perhaps vulnerability has something to do with this.) Hokay, so one is not expected to express anger verbally, nor physically. Are we allowed to feel anger? My naïve self wishes to exclaim an emphatic “Yes!” based on the belief that experiencing emotions falls under freedom of thought (or conscience). Ha, but unless you have the training of a Buddhist monk or a Japanese corporate hack, your feeling of anger will be accompanied by bodily manifestations (clenched fists, teeth, change in breath), which are noticeable. On many an occasion did I hear “Why are you getting angry?” or “I do not like you getting angry.” from people whose very behaviour gave me the (somewhat legitimate) grounds to feel angry. And when I did and tried to suppress it(!), I got castigated. Not for becoming angry or aggressive but for the perceptible nature of my emotion. (Sadly, I had no space to bring the European Convention of Human Rights into the discussion.) 

Yes, it is difficult to communicate to people that they must allow you to feel your emotions. That you are not guilty of feeling the way that you do. That the way you are feeling at the moment is not strictly their doing; nor will it have disastrous effects on your future interactions. Difficult but necessary. Still, my introverted self cannot help thinking that the Gauls from Astérix had it much easier.