Hi, everyone i'm trying to understand a paragraph but some lines are making me harder to get the point. Here’s another tension, related to the previous one but a bit more subtle, emerging particularly as the range of subtopics in the history of emotions expands. Is the primary focus on the role of emotion in some past event —for example, a protest movement or a particular artistic style— or on emotion itself? Either path can be fruitful, and of course the two can combine. But the tension is worth noting at least for this reason: primary attention to the role of emotion in other developments may not encourage consideration of the ways past emotions themselves differ from contemporary counterparts. Exploration of anger in a protest, for instances, will add depth to our understanding of the outburst, but it may implicitly suggest that anger itself does not fundamentally change, that only levels and opportunities shift over time. This may be true, but it involves a different set of assumptions from those that inform work primarily directed to emotions like anger, fear, or happiness themselves. Cuando dice "primary attention to the role of emotion in other developments may not encourage consideration of the ways past emotions themselves differ from contemporary counterparts". Is it talking about the role of emotion in some event or the emotion itself?

Clases de español