Response to 1/24 Readings

The Evolution of the Study of Emotions

As LeDoux noted, I like the majority of my peers felt I understood what emotions were until I was asked to define them. Unfortunately, scientists appear to have the same problem. In order to understand emotions, it is important to analyze the evolution of psychology and philosophy.

The first scientists who attempted to analyze, define, and understand the mind and emotions were the ancient Greeks. Unfortunately, the Greeks were so preoccupied with rationality, logic, and reason that they devalued “irrational” emotions. Plato himself considered emotion and desire to be horses pulling the chariot of his personality driven by a charioteer of reason. Emotions were deemed primitive, uncontrollable and lesser, while our noble logic and reason set us apart from the animals. This duality caused and still causes an incalculable influence on the study of emotions. However, the Greeks also recognized the existence of “knowable” and “unknowable” thoughts, making them the first to recognize the existence of the unconscious.

After the Greeks came Descartes, who with his now infamous “I think therefore I am” philosophy completely disregarded any form of unconscious thought. He believed only in conscious, rational thought. Consequentially, animals were considered “mindless” and emotions continued to maintain their “primitive” status. Eventually however, unconscious thought received a new significance with the emergence of Freud and his psychoanalytic theories. Freud reestablished the link connecting humans and animals through our shared unconscious thoughts, instincts and desires.

Soon after, the field of psychology underwent a period dominated by behaviorism. The behaviorists did not believe in the mind in the traditional sense, instead believing that every instance of human cognition, emotion and action is simply the result of prior occurrences. The true motives for our actions does not come from within, but rather from environmental and usually abstract external sources like education, religious instruction, parents, peers, role models and social mores. Therefore, conscious thought was merely the predictable result of our conditioning and unconscious thought was again invalidated.

Fortunately, many scientists believed the behaviorists to be far too simplistic and consequently developed cognitive science. Cognitive scientists reverted back to the ancient Greek philosophy when analyzing the mind, but developed it. They considered the mind as a machine. However, cognitive scientists continued to emphasize cognitive thought i.e. memory, language, perception, learning, etc. while emotions were largely understudied and misunderstood.

This brief synopsis of the evolution of the study of emotion as noted by LeDoux highlights one glaring misconception: that emotions are less important than cognition. Instead of recognizing the equally important and indivisible qualities of the two, scientists have actively attempted to polarize the two ideas, and only legitimizing the latter. The significance and even the existence of unconscious thought and emotions have been traditionally diminished. This is directly related to the misconception that relates emotions with subjectivity and cognition with objectivity. It is obvious that the study of the mind is incredibly abstract and difficult to prove or disprove potential theories. Therefore in order for psychologists to appear legitmate, they are compelled to study the seemingly more objective aspects of the mind (cognitive thought) while largely ignoring the more subjective areas (emotion). Evidence of this continuous association between objectivity (i.e. scientific legitimacy)/cognition and subjectivity/emotion is apparent in the subjects of the other readings. The reason for Darwin and Ekman et al’s reliance on external displays is because those are the only aspects of emotion that can be “objectively” observed and analyzed.

The other readings demonstrated that emotions are universal among humans and even animals to an extent. They are yet another biological result of evolution, just as cognitive thought and as such, cannot be deemed lesser. If organisms were better off or even capable of suppressing their “wild horses of emotion,” then they would have evolved without them. However, experience has proven their vital role and ultimate benefit for those organisms endowed with the ability to feel, express and detect other’s emotion. It would be ignorant and arrogant to continue to perceive emotion as anything less than necessary for survival and equally significant as cognitive thought.