Week 6

Sara Dholakia

I have to say, I truly wish I had read the the first two posts lasts, because I enjoyed them the least, and in fact, I would go as far as to say I was trudging through them. I believe that the last three articles on the list said both more eloquently and more succinctly, what the first two were trying to get across.
I didn't find that the first two articles presented much information that I was not already aware of, though I did appreciate that they both presented contrasting viewpoints.
Of the two models offered by Lewis on page 269, I find myself much more inclined toward the first, which asserts that the infant begins with a bio-polar state at birth, meaning the capacity for positive and negative emotions, so to speak, and that subsequent states emerge with the development of the brain and of the infant's interaction with others. This theory claims that specific emotions come about through differentiation of the positive and negative. I know that in class there has been quite a debate over whether emotions begin at the level of positive/negative, etc., and I believe that certain feelings can surely elicit both positive and negative emotions, but I believe that they all come about through differentiation and through development in cognition. For instance, Lewis presents the example of the fear of being caught cheating on a test; one would feel fear in this situation, but only after cognition took place and as a result of one's position in society.
The alternate model, the "discrete-systems model," argues that some states are preprogrammed and do not require further differentiation (269). Some of these states may not present themselves until certain development has occurred, however they are believed to exist.
I was really intrigued by the Harris article, specifically the sections dealing with the impact that emotionally charged conversations and those discussing emotion can have a positive effect on a child's emotional self-awareness. This seems perfectly reasonable, though I had never thought about it. The article shows that children from families that discuss emotion are later better able to define others' feelings, and they have a greater awareness of their own feelings. Moreover, conversation can provide children with a narrative format with which to organize the events of their daily lives (283). Harris does concede that some children may naturally be more empathic or more prone to try to discover others' feelings, however, the evidence provided is quite convincing.
In regards to the Hoffer article, I have to say that more than anything, it reminded me of Harry Harlow's experiments with macaques and the cloth mother. It might be interesting to discuss the extent to which a non-living construction can fill in for a real mother. Of course, a living, breathing caretaker is necessary for optimal development, but given the experiments provided by Hoffer, it would be interesting to get some opinions on the topic.