Developing & Understanding Emotions

It is most interesting to try and understand our ever-evolving emotional life through the lens of a child’s cognitive developmental process. Michael Lewis’s account on The Emergence of Human Emotions and Paul L. Harris’s account on Understanding Emotions brings to our investigatory table some very interesting arguments, on which I would like to elaborate.

The emotional elicitor is argued to be either a learned function of how to behave or a natural process whereby specific events elicit specific emotions.  A problematic one would encounter with trying to define an emotional elicitor, is the difficulty of trying to determine which stimuli is an emotional trigger. Can there ever be a satisfactory definition for the interplay of external/internal world of emotions without generalizing? The idea that the same emotion can be provoked by different elicitors and that different emotions can be triggered by the same elicitor; is it not a generalization of something very individually determined? Further the dilemma is raised weather an emotional elicitor is internal or external, the state or the experience, the everlasting dilemma of body versus mind. This I think is only solvable by accepting the view that each enhances and influences the other. Biologically determined and also learned in the very beginning of life, in other words, cognition as mediator of elicitors. He moves forth to determine specific emotional states: The ‘non-state’ theory is most interesting to me, the common idea that ‘its all in our head’ and that generally emotions are a consequence of thought. Then the idea that we develop the emotion through appraising it should make one question our appraisal tool - language. Is the word we have acquired for the feeling broad enough to express all its different states? (E.g. love can be experienced so differently and yet it is the same word we use to describe: maternal, paternal, romantic etc.)  The other view, since Darwin, is that of a specific emotional states which then must correspond with the body; the interaction between specific emotions and the felt experience with the correspondent body is necessary; And it is true I believe that we store our emotional weight in the body. As I understand it we need to be able to verbalize the experience, to understand the general or specific emotional state one undergoes.

If the infant has not yet acquired language to express the ‘I’ experience of a certain emotional elicitor or an emotional state, does it mean the actual experience is lesser or non-existent?  For example In the experiment conducted on ‘Social evaluation by preverbal infants’ that measured the ability of the child to engage in complex social situation as a third ‘objective’ party, with only 6-10 month old infants, the findings show that early on we evolve social empathetic feelings. Lewis would have argued that infants do not even experience emotions prior to 7-8 month.  Lewis raises the complex idea that an emotional state can be experienced without consciously experiencing it. How can an individual ‘experience’ anger without experiencing it? As noted in psychotherapy these states can be brought about to consciousness, but I want to ask, where do these emotions go? Where is the subconscious storing them? And how come they can be brought about from unconscious to consciousness? The idea that a child is simply not feeling ‘self-conscious evaluative emotions’ because its sense of self in the face of the world is not yet evolved, seems different then the subconscious emotions experienced by adults, but I wonder if it really is? As Darwin said these unique emotions are what makes us human; is the infant then not fully a human until three years of age? As said that by the age of 3 years our emotions become differentiated, an elaborate and complex system of emotions will have evolved. (But don’t the bipolar infant state follow us throughout our life? Aren’t the emotions most intensely felt when in one extreme or the other?) Once we are capable of self-analyzing our emotional state, certain emotions which would be a result of an external social stimuli, are still not physically felt. Therefore I wonder does the protection mechanism in our body stop the chemical reaction that occurs in the brain from affecting the body, or the less likely option that there is no response at all?

I do agree, “…the most likely explanation of emotional development is the differentiation of emotion state which occur as a function of maturation, socialization, and cognitive development” (Lewis). Yet it is a very tricky approach as in early childhood the basic emotions seem to be felt most purely by the developing human—without the social construct of appropriation—these seem to be the innate features on the basis of which the learned script of emotions develops. Yet we have no concrete internal data to determine weather our external evaluations are correct, or vice versa.

In Paul L. Harris’s account we move form the development of emotion to the coherent understanding of emotion, the child moves from differentiation to the appraisal of his/her emotional life. It is indeed due to our specialty in language that differentiates us from other primates, as we can put our feelings into words. As said can words ever be sufficient to express the emotional experience?  It is through children that we can assess most precisely how the emotion is affected by developing cognition, as it is assumed that although they begin to put their feelings into words it is not done in a self-conscious manner as evaluative adults would. Then indeed the question arises as Harris asks: ‘to what extent are children able to offer not just a report but an accurate report of emotions?’ With the rise in vocabulary and understanding of the self in relation to the other, children begin to be able to assess their own emotions and others, in social situations with peers and family (ages 3-5). It is important to remember the individual as a measure of emotion, because some children may naturally be more empathetic then others. Moreover is it interesting to me that the familial discussion and openness about felt emotions and why one is feeling such emotions, will affect the ability of the child to appropriate social interactions. Language, which enables the child to formulate a narrative of the emotional life, makes it possible to discuss and share emotionally charged experiences. Yet I feel words can sometimes also confine us to the ‘script’ of feelings we are taught to express, and I wonder if it is at all possible to understand feelings without words? Like the example of understanding what people feel without talking to them, but merely through observation of facial expressions and body language. I think one can get to the core of very true feelings more so then often times with words as intermediaries. This is because language and cognition enable us to deceive, and how often do we recon someone is feeling quite differently then what they express in words. On the other hand conversation about emotions can be a positive sharing of attitudes, and hopefully can make sense of the appraisal processes that underpin it. Children with high emotional intelligence and verbal ability might understand the specific appraisal process relevant in a certain emotional states. The other side argues that children might be more sensitive to the non-verbal signals, and can detect a fake smile from a genuine one or a look of surprise from fear. The finding that emotional expression is related to popularity makes total sense here. Further early on and universally children can understand that the emotional reaction with its intensity is in reaction to an immediate situation; nevertheless is the power of the mind and memory capable to recreate emotions. This is an overwhelming discovery in ones own mental assessment. As mentioned by Harris, the script concept reveals a conceptual difficulty that the same situation can elicit different emotions (just as Lewis notes about the correlation of elicitor and emotional state) this script is argued to begin with an inherently psychological event, of a person appraising a situation. In children it is argued, they realize early on that it is in the match of goals and desires with the expected outcome that triggers strong emotions. Later on they begin to formulate the actuality of their beliefs and expectations as emotional stimulators. And as concluded, children’s developing understanding of the process of emotions, is an epiphenomenon!

I feel as though we are in a vicious circle with the ever determining questions such as: are the emotions innate or part of our natural developmental process as human beings; if it is the latter, is it maturational or interactive? I think that our lexicon of words is to banal to express the internal complexities of our emotions. If the emotional experiences occur on different conscious levels, what if there are such deep emotions that we cannot feel because we have no name for them hence no experience of their existence and so we never understand them consciously? 

The idea that infants are not capable of experiencing emotions up to a certain point brings up many questions. Would abortion be seen in a different light if there were a certainty that the fetus did not feel a thing? And how come the emotional state of a mother during her pregnancy can affect the child’s future character? How come there are studies that show that in our infancy, in the attachment period, our basic trust in people is evolved; As well as many other subconscious developments in our emotional world that will accompany us throughout our life?  There must be a distinction between the experience of an emotion and the rationalization of it. Even when we do not understand we have hunches within us that will make us curious to understand the ‘I’ experience in the first place, then when we have learned words to express our states of being it still seems insufficient and self disguisable.