Aiden Bussey
I found Darwin's Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals to be both interesting and somewhat complicated. I found myself wishing that I had time to read all the chapters rather than just the beginning and end; Darwin seemed to be aware of many of the points I felt were problematic. One of these is the way in which Darwin attempts to generalize the physical effects of emotions. For instance, Darwin says that fear causes paralysis and inaction, which it sometimes does. But fear can also be a tremendous motivating factor. Similarly, he says that fear robs the individual of his or her strength, where people under the influence of fear can be capable of extreme, sometimes superhuman, feats of strength. Darwin is certainly aware of this discrepancy and bothered by it -- he is sure, for instance, to qualify his statements about exciting or depressive emotions saying that all of the depressive emotions are capable of causing either short-term excitement or excitement when experienced in the extreme. It seems that one question these discrepancies raises for me is whether the terms being used are really appropriate. The fault may lie either in the classification of emotion -- grouping two separate emotions as "fear" -- or in the categories the emotions are being put into -- exciting versus depressive. Because Darwin considers excitement to be a central quality of the emotions in determining the form of the expression (exciting emotions leading to an overflow of nerve force and the activation of involuntary and habitual gestures) this issue needs some sort of resolution.
One thing I found very interesting about Darwin was his use of literature. In just the section that we read, Shakespeare appears at least twice. Importantly, the Shakespeare quotations are not merely decorative -- they do not merely adorn the beginning of a chapter and set the mood or provide a sort of accessible front to the public. Instead, the Shakespeare quotations are regarded as having something centrally important and scientifically valid to say about the human experience of emotion. Darwin uses Shakespeare as an appeal to the audience: we know this is so; look what Shakespeare said.
I was a little hesitant to accept Darwin's proposed evolutionary path describing the acquisition of emotional expression in social animals and found it to be very similar to Lamarkism's inheritance of acquired characteristics. Much of Darwin's argument hinges on the idea that voluntary actions precede habitual actions, which precede inherited or instinctual actions. Darwin to not take the reverse route very seriously at all -- he does not expend very much time or space in dismissing the idea that emotional expression may progress from reflex toward voluntary actions, though perhaps I misunderstood his argument. To me, it makes more sense that emotional expression and emotional experience would grow out of a reflexive actions in part because this is the progression that seems to occur in individual animals (human or non-human) -- Darwin talks at length about infants' more extreme and instinctive screaming in discomfort as being the source of frowning in both anger and sorrow -- and reflexive actions are present in much simpler organisms than consciousness or willpower. Reflexes are simpler than conscious or voluntary actions. While Darwin's argument does make some sense from where he starts -- "lower" mammals -- when one considers the entire advancement of evolution and the wider range of behaviors that must be accounted for, it is hard to accept voluntary or consciously chosen actions as a source. I do not disagree with Darwin's argument that emotional expression may be physically or instinctively based and inherited from parent to offspring, and I also do not disagree that an understanding of emotional expression may be similarly inherited, but I do consider the arguments he uses to explain the evolutionary development of emotional expression in need of expansion and especially to more fully and thoroughly refute alternate paths of development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Aidan, I think you made a really great point about the way Darwin generalized the physical responses to different emotions. I felt that as well.. I think what I felt to be the main problem was that Darwin does not address how multi-faceted emotions can be. Moreover, I think that there are many kinds of fear, not to mention the different kinds of anger, happiness, etc.
Mikal Shapiro
Wow, it’s difficult to respond to just one blog. Each one triggers different questions/questings.
I really liked that Aiden picked up on the brief Shakespeare reference. Although unscientific, I tend to marvel at the mastery some artists have in provoking emotional responses, as if they have special access to emotional literacy. LeDoux mentions the danger of relying on commonsense or “intuitional” assessments, and I agree that there is more to emotions than one can access by every day observation and introspection, but I also think* that literary artists (and visual artists to some extent) have a better sense of emotional language than the average scientist. I wonder* if this has something to do with the two hemispheres of the brain and how they are accessed during scientific vs. artistic exploration (?) especially in cases of illuminating the subconscious. Whatever the physiology, I think* science would benefit from collaborating with artists who may perhaps conjure stronger, more accurate metaphors for emotional understanding. As our own technological advances have helped shape our thinking about thinking (i.e.- the phonetic alphabet in the birthing of abstraction, the use of computer systems as analogies for cognitive functions**, etc), then maybe our expressive arts can help shape our ideas of expression (?).
I also feel* that since the conscious mind is a more modern brain invention, it makes sense that, according to LeDoux’s research, it is more susceptible to impulses from the older emotional brain than vice versa simply for the mere fact that it evolved in “response” to the older system—although it may stand to reason* that as our newer technologies affect our old systems thinking, our newer brain mechanisms (consciousness, introspection, language) may also have impact on our older brain systems. Is this the reasoning behind psychoanalysis? Bring a deep-seated emotion into the light, and it may become more willfully manageable? From my own experience with psychotherapy, I have found that by understanding the physical and psychological clues to subtle/subconscious emotional undercurrents, I can better navigate their physiological impact (i.e.: recognizing the beginnings of an anxiety attack--such as circular thinking or increased reactivity--and circumventing it through breathing/meditation. And the more I do this, the more my response condenses into “habit.”)
On a completely different note that touches on the “Pan Cultural Elements…” article: I’m really interested in the physiology and function of empathy—especially between humans and non-humans. It seems like an understanding of pan-species empathy could serve to bridge the environmental disconnection (man vs. wild) that contributes to desensitized ecological annihilation. Can we teach emotional intelligence? I believe the research says “yes.” Can we have empathy for a tree, a being with no facial expressions? I hope we get to talk about this more in class!
*These words have taken on a lot more meaning lately!—would it make sense that language, though “cognitive,” is also rooted in the older more emotional parts of the brain and that an individual can speak from these “older parts” about their “feelings?”
** My sister sent me this weird article on a computer that paints “emotionally.” If you’re interested: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=304127
I also found Darwin's correlation between physical expression and emotion to be too generalized. I find his discussion of various reactions on the behalf of animals to certain situations to be extremely limited, and the comparison to universalized human reactions does not account for the possible variety in expression, particularly individualized expression. At the same time, however, the note that expression has yet to be explained, or at least termed 'inexplicable' by many writers reveals Darwin's attempt at deciphering between inherited and 'learned' expressive qualities to be quite an undertaking.
I do think Darwin's most important point revolves around the concept of uniformity in expression across mankind. In light of the article "pan cultural elements," it is interesting to look at the possibility that expression may be solely a result of social and cultural norm. Perhaps, what Darwin does offer is an explanation for particular broad emotions - for example, there may be a set of larger, more general, easily defined emotions such as 'sadness' or 'joy' that may be universally reflected in specific facial intonations(some of which stem from man's biological nature), and that the variation in expression simply differs across cultural. Additionally, however, I think even these more general and more broad emotions can potentially be mediated and altered by culture, thus making it extremely difficult to attempt to pinpoint, as Darwin has tried to do, a set of universal emotions and their corresponding expressions.
Post a Comment