1/27/08

Frances Clayton

I will use Darwin’s three principles as an outline to discuss three different things that came up for me in this weeks reading. In the first principle I found a strong link between Darwin and LeDoux. As for the second principle, I am not quite sure I grasp all of Darwin’s reasoning and will discuss my major source of questioning. In the third principle, specifically in the discussion of the “power of association” I felt that there were some specific implications for clinical work. (This is certainly not to imply that each of these topics is limited to only one of the principles.)

I. Movements which are serviceable to gratify desire or relieve sensation and are performed often become so habitual that they become innate or inherited and are performed whether servable or not.

LeDoux’s seventh theme of the nature of emotions says “emotions are things that happen to us rather than things we will to occur.” (pg. 19) While he admits that we people do things in an attempt to control their emotions and may succeed in mediating them, he clearly states that emotions are stronger than our will. “While conscious control over emotions is weak, emotions can flood consciousness.” (pg.19) It is true that, at least in my experience, I have not been able to will emotions away. It is almost as if the more we try to make an emotion disappear the more aware, or conscious, we are of it.
LeDoux does not only make this point, he then attributes it to the stage in the evolutionary process that we currently find ourselves. He says that at this point the brain has much stronger “wiring” from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems than from cognitive to emotional. While LeDoux does not indulge us enough to search for the reasoning to this, I believe it can be found in Darwin’s first principle.
Darwin’s first principle states that actions are at some point conscious and serviceable and then due to repetition become habit and eventually are so habitual that they become innate and inherited from one generation to the next. Why then is the connection stronger from emotional to cognitive than from cognitive to emotional? It seems to me that this is evolutionarily necessary. Is the emotional response not more necessary for survival than the ability to stifle that emotional response?
Darwin uses the term “reflex actions” to refer to an action which excited muscles or glands into action that can take place outside of consciousness. To illustrate reflex actions he uses an experience he had with a puff adder at a zoo. Standing close to the thick glass plate between himself and the snake, he was determined not to “start” back if the snake struck at him. Despite all of his determination, the snake struck and he jumped. “My will and reason were powerless against the imagination of a danger which had never been experienced,” he says.
In looking at this through the evolutionary perspective of Darwin and in regards to his first principle, it could be inferred that a serviceable action (jumping back from a dangerous snake) has over time become innate in humans. If humans are to servive, they must avoid such dangers. While it is necessary for survival that we react emotionally, it is not necessary for survival that we are able to mediate this reaction. Had the snake not been behind glass, and the reaction not been immediate, the result could have been fatal. This is a necessary action. However, there is no real danger to Darwin “starting” when the threat is actually not there. Darwin’s will and reason were powerless against the expression of emotion. There is little control over emotional reactions – regardless of the determination.
LeDoux says that “at this point in our evolutionary history” it is the case that “conscious control over emotions is weak, emotions can flood consciousness.” This phrasing seems to imply that as our evolutionary history continues, this may not be the case. It seems clear to me that in our evolutionary history, humans must first develop the habit of serviceable actions. This is indeed more necessary than the ability to tell when those actions need not be employed.


II. Antithesis – A state of mind leads to serviceable action and the opposite state of mind leads to opposite action though they have no service

While this principle of antithesis seems clear to me, I feel as if I am missing a piece. As I have read it, there seem to be times that it is a chicken or egg argument. His point as I have read it, is that when one state of mind causes a serviceable action, the opposite state of mind causes the opposite reaction though it may be of no service.
One of the examples he uses is the dog approaching another dog or a person in a hostile frame of mind. This dog approaches with a stiff body, staring eyes, hair on end, head raised, ears and tail erect, canine teeth exposed, etc. The antithetical expression, when the dog sees her master, is shown through a flexible body, smooth hair, loosely hanging lips, eyes darting around, ears low, tail wagging, head lowered and crouching.
For this to support Darwin’s second principle we must suppose that he intends the first set of actions, those of the hostile approach, to be serviceable and those actions in approaching the master simply to be the antithesis of the hostile ones. Possibly it is that the raised hair, stiff body, erect ears and tail, etc. make the dog seems larger, stronger and therefore more threatening to the opponent. The exposed canine teeth show the threat of a bite and the growl shows displeasure of some sort. Ok, this all still seems to make sense. That being the serviceable expression, of course the others are the antithesis.
However, how can we tell which ones are serviceable. It seems that the place to start is with the aggressive necessary actions of protection. Why? Could it not as easily be said that the crouching, lowered ears, wagging tail, hair down, and flexible body make it clear that the dog appear smaller and therefore less threatening? Could the serviceable actions not as easily be in the dogs approach to the master? Could it be said that it is serviceable for the dog to appear submissive as to protect itself from attack?
My initial thought was that the expression in the approach to the master was a form of communication in opposition to the serviceable actions of the hostile approach. But then I realized it could as easily be argued that the hostile approach is simply a means of communication showing opposition to the friendly approach. While I am not sure I totally disagree with the second principle, it seems impossible to me to prove that one is more serviceable than the other.
Darwin seems to address this when he says that “it is incredible to think that they (dogs) could ever have deliberately thought of drawing back and depressing their ears,…because they knew that these movements stood in direct opposition to those assumed under an opposite and savage frame of mind.” How is it so unlikely that they “think” of this more so than it is likely that they “think” that holding tail erect and stiffening the body show hostility?

III. Direct action of an excited nervous system on the body independent of the will and partially independent, although influenced by habit.

This third principle, especially the discussion of the power of association (also mentioned in discussion of the first principle), made me think of a specific case of Freud’s. The case dealt with a woman who could not drink water and was therefore physically suffering. During treatment, it was discovered that she had seen a cat drink out of her water glass. This was so incredibly repulsive to her that from that moment on, she was incapable of consuming water. This memory had been suppressed but once it was brought to light and dealt with, the woman was again able to drink water.
Darwin talks about how the power of association can be one reason for the involuntary actions resulting from an excited nervous system. He says that a “moderate amount of exertion will tend to act on the heart; an on the principle of association…we may feel nearly sure that any sensation or emotion, as great pain or rage, which has habitually led too much muscular action” will also act on the heart.
It seems to me that when you combine Darwin’s third principle with his earlier discussion of the power of association, there is an explanation for psychosomatic symptoms. In the above example, the association between the experience and water caused an emotional response even though the experience was not in consciousness. Independent of the will, but through association, the body responded.