Jake Szczypek
Reading Response #1
1/21/07
The Role of Bodily Expressions in Emotions
In responding to the class readings, this paper aims to summarize some of the interesting points the authors made regarding, in particular, the bodily expressions of emotions. Some comparisons will be made between the readings, but the point of this response is not to evaluate the readings, but to summarize what I found most compelling.
According to LeDoux’s The Emotional Brain (1996), emotions typically involve bodily responses that seem to be “an integral part of the overall emotion process” (LeDoux, 1996, p. 40). Just as in William James’ What is an Emotion?, LeDoux acknowledges this important role that the body plays in the study of emotion. In fact, LeDoux claims that the expressive responses produced by emotions are so specific that one can communicate quite effectively without speech. It is common knowledge, of course, that deaf animals often communicate without speech and do so effectively, but what is most interesting is that Darwin’s studies of “lower animals” came to the same conclusion with little knowledge of cognitive science. According to Darwin’s principle of antithesis, a specific bodily expression correlates to a specific emotion, but if an “opposite state of mind is induced” (Darwin, 1872, ch.2, p.1), than the correlating bodily expression will also be opposite. In order to support this principle, Darwin indicates that hearing impaired humans use opposite gestures in expressing opposite emotions. Therefore, a logical conclusion would be that an animal’s bodily response to happiness should be the opposite of an animal’s bodily response to sadness.
The Ekman, et al. article, Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion (1969), confirms how bodily expressions (specifically of the face) are, for the most part, universally recognized in literate and preliterate cultures. This supports Darwin’s claim that the human race has possibly inherited many of these bodily expressions of emotions, because otherwise one would have to be taught that a smile is indicative of happiness in order to associate the two. However, it seems that a smile is universally associated with happiness, indicating that it is a true emotional expression that is somehow inherent to the human race.
According to Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), the “useless” bodily expressions or reflexes in animals are sometimes inherited habits or instincts that come from the species’ ancestry. The response to a fearful situation, for example, typically involves a fight or flight response which, in turn, involves many bodily reactions (pounding heart, sweaty palms, etc.). Accordingly, Darwin claims this involuntary sequence of bodily reactions to be a reflex that allows no time for an animal’s consciousness to decide how to appropriately react. Over a century later, LeDoux comes to the same conclusion when comparing cognition to emotions. He states that cognition differs from emotions because cognition affords an individual to think about how to respond in a given situation, while emotions do not. However, it is unclear as to whether emotions are truly separate from cognition in the unconscious.
Consequently, LeDoux discusses how the unconscious mind is a major proponent in the study of emotions. Since it is difficult to study the unconscious workings of emotional reactions, much of the theories surrounding emotion are based on “the feelings through which we know our emotions” (LeDoux, 1996, p.41) which only occur after we have “become conscious of the unconscious workings of emotional systems in the brain” (LeDoux, 1996, p.41). Therefore, emotional states should only be “viewed as the end result of information processing occurring unconsciously” (LeDoux, 1996, p. 37). Additionally, most of the research (specifically that of appraisal theorists) has focused on our introspections on the reasons of an emotional reaction as opposed to the actual causes of such a reaction. The cause of an emotion may be very different from our proposed reason for such an emotion because of our lack of access to the unconscious processing in the brain.
Overall, the assigned readings seem to come to many of the same conclusions on bodily expressions, even though different research methods were used. LeDoux, however, went even further into the unconscious mind and the information processing that cannot be accessed by conscious introspection.
Readings:
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Expression_Of_The_Emotions_In_Man_And_Animals/0.html.
Ekman, P., et al. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion. In Science Magazine, iss. 164, pp.86-88.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What I found, like Jake, to be a compelling part of the LeDoux was talking about body language associated with emotion. The use of the body to speak volumes more than our given vocabulary is an important part of understanding emotions. If we are able to identify and read specific body language in order to match it to specific emotions, then that can maybe help us understand where emotions begin in the brain. Especially with the Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion reading, it made clear that there are universal expressions given by the body to help others understand what we are going through. In knowing how to identify and empathize with other's through their facial and bodily reactions, that can help us understand where a person is developmentally. When a child is learning emotions, they look to facial expressions and whole body reactions to help them remember an emotion. As adults, we reflect what their face looks like back to them to teach them empathy and what they themselves look like when crying or laughing. The body plays a major role in helping children develop an ability to identify emotions as adults.
I particularly liked Darwin's first principle, which points to the physiological and behavioral origin of emotions. I had never thought about evolution's influence on animals' (humans included) current seemingly useless emotional reactions. I wonder how many generations will pass before these reactions no longer occur, and how many will pass before the behaviors we now consider voluntary become instinctual habits.
I'm more skeptical about Darwin's second principle, however, though its significance is minimal in comparison to value of his theories as a whole. I don't think mental or physical states can be considered opposite one another because they are not on dimensional scales. Does a dog that melts in affection at the sight of his master after being poised to attack enter an opposite state any more so than it would if the new sight were a piece of meat? All Darwin is essentially saying is that a mental and physical state can be altered quickly and drastically with a poignant stimulus.
I, too, share in Jake's appreciation of LeDoux. A book I read for another class by Richard Lazarus (the appraisal proponent) doesn't seem nearly as convincing as it did before reading LeDoux's comprehensive summary of research indicating the huge role of unconscious emotional processing. Emotions are intimately connected with our appraisals, yet so much is happening in our brains that is beyond our awareness. Considering the the development of emotions in terms of evolution and the unconscious mind, it comes as no surprise that emotions like fear are so difficult to control.
I found reading Darwin’s book very refreshing as I hadn’t given much thought to the fact that animals express emotion with their entire body, making it virtually impossible to mistake how they are feeling. In contrast, human emotions range from demonstrations that are just as physically expressive to much more subtle ones—for instance when deeply happy, certain muscles are used unconsciously and involuntarily to form a smile. Even these subtleties of facial expression, Paul Ekman’s work suggests, is more often than not read correctly by other people. The findings that others can read our feelings on our faces may surprise many of us because we often have a belief that we can mask or alter how others perceive how we are feeling. How does it influence social relationships that there are layers of involuntary expression, expression that we can’t hide or change even when we don’t want to express it? And what does it say about us as animals that some of us don't always want to be such open books?
It is interesting to ponder how voluntary/involuntary aspects of expression play out in human social interaction. The variability we have in expressing our emotions gives us a lot of leeway in shaping them. In comparison to animals, we have such a range of conscious choices to make in shaping our expression. We can underscore or suppress our expressions of emotion with voluntary flexible aspects of emotion like gesture, action, and, uniquely, language.
How do we take into consideration what is culturally and socially acceptable or personally- advantageous-- a particularly human dimension of emotional expression? Does adding the layer of human voluntary expressive abilities complicate whether we end up understanding one another or not?
And yet we seemed designed to be emotionally expressive. Our faces, which are more flexible and less hairy than those of other animals, seem designed to show emotion. What are the adaptive benefits of being able to correctly ascribe and understand the emotional states of others?
When Jake points to how LeDoux discusses how the unconscious mind is a major component in the study of emotions, I wonder how we are able to study emotions when people are often unable to have a conscious awareness of their emotions. It is a hurdle that I feel can be addressed sufficiently with a philosophical understanding of the mind versus a neurological understanding of the mind.
Post a Comment