eBook - ePub
A Popular Handbook of the Emotions
Robert Hauptman
This is a test
Share book
- 260 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
A Popular Handbook of the Emotions
Robert Hauptman
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
In A Popular Handbook of the Emotions, distinguished literary scholar Robert Hauptman summarizes various theoretical positions to analyze 18 emotions in terms of art and culture. Not merely a textbook and lavishly illustrated, A Popular Handbook offers a unique, interdisciplinary perspective on the human experience for students, specialists, and the interested public.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is A Popular Handbook of the Emotions an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access A Popular Handbook of the Emotions by Robert Hauptman in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Education & Education General. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Topic
EducationSubtopic
Education GeneralPart I
Exploratory essays orienting the work
Chapter 1
Sources, Antitheses, Expression
We all live at the mercy of our emotions. Our emotions influence and shape our desires, thoughts and behaviors and above all our destiny.
--Dr T. P. Chia
Showing your emotions is a sign of strength.
--Brigitte Nicole
In a âpost-truthâ world, facts are less influential than emotion and belief.
--Michael V. Hayden
People make so many [bad] decisions based on emotions.
--Toni Ortner
The sign of intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by the application of reason.
--Marya Mannes
Human and animal emotional reaction to the universe is innate and ubiquitous, an instinctive, biological response, sometimes uncontrollable and unconscious. For thousands of years we have believed this to be so because it appears to be a reasonable conclusion based on both personal experience and scientific observation. No sheep ever manifested courage or anger and chased a wolf in order to devour it. Herbivores come equipped with fear that protects them from predators, who also have innate emotional responses to their environments. On the other hand, little children do not usually fear things that cause adults so much psychological pain: poisonous snakes, reptiles, arachnids, and insects; dirt and germs; even larger potentially harmful mammals such as rampaging rhinoceroses or Hellâs Angels. So does this prove that emotions are not innate? I have my doubts. Lisa Feldman Barrett casts aside accepted emotional etiology (and many other âmythsâ) and insists that emotions are constructed; emotions are different in different environments and they appear because of a stimulus; they are created (xii): âEmotions are not reactions to the world. You are not a passive receiver of sensory input but an active constructor of your emotionsâ (31) and your memories as well (237). Barrett goes about her business in laboratory experiments and field work among groups of people who have not been exposed to the major world civilizations. She informs readers in innumerable scholarly articles as well as in How Emotions are Made, a large popular volume that covers every conceivable aspect of her encompassing theory and its allied program, which will improve humankind.
Her belief in her iconoclastic conjecture is unwavering and reminiscent of the denial of instinctive reactions (animal migration, parental defense) that the agenda-ridden cannot abide or the bizarre postmodern contention that science is socially constructed, which is an especially apt comparison because Barrettâs idea integrates an analogous etiology: âThe theory of constructed emotion incorporates elements of all three flavors of construction. From social construction, it acknowledges the importance of culture and concepts. From psychological construction, it considers emotions to be constructed by core systems in the brain and body. And from neuroconstruction, it adopts the idea that existence wires the brainâ (35). Infants hear the words for an emotion repeated, eventually form a concept, and then construct specific instances later in life (110). But this does not work for animals and there can be little doubt that some animals do experience some emotions, for example, fear.
But let us hypothetically allow that Barrett is correct and that emotions are constructed rather than elicited; what difference does it make, epistemologically, ethically, or practically? I am fairly certain that we will not return to raising children in Skinner boxes (that is, in a constrained environment) in order to deter them from constructing anger or hatred or stimulating them to favor happiness and empathy. But again, I am apparently wrong for Barrett insists that this minor intellectual adjustment (her new program) will positively alter health (ââŠsome major illnesses considered distinct and âmentalâ are all rooted in a chronically unbalanced body budget and unbridled inflammationâ [203]) and legal matters (âour senses do not reveal realityâ [247]); indeed it envisions âA new view of human natureâ (152). Barrett is fond of hypothesized anecdotes. How about this countering one? An adolescent with a very low IQ and no intercalated (linguistic) conceptualizations of emotions is pleased and appears happy or is really irritated and apparently gets angry or is petrified (by proximity to fire) and becomes fearful. Are his emotions not innate rather than constructed based on a learned (linguistic) paradigm? It will come as a surprise, but after all of that, I have no stake or agenda here; if Barrett is correct, that is fine; nevertheless, I do now go about my investigation as if emotions are innate*.
Robert Plutchik summarizes four primary etiological emotional traditions:
evolutionary (Darwin), the psychophysiological (James), neurological (Cannon), and dynamic (Freud) (197). Naturally, more recent work has produced additional perspectives but these are historically telling.
Plutchik is very fond of charts which prove extremely useful. For example, here is one that describes states for emotions using subjective language (fear, terror), behavioral language (withdrawing, escaping), and functional language (protection). He does this for eight emotions (200). Another table indicates the emotion (disgust), the experience (disease and illness), and the social institution that deals with it (medicine). Eight emotions are covered here as well (216). Some people divide emotion into positive and negative classes. Common knowledge makes it fairly simple to assign specific emotions here: Anger and jealousy are obviously negative and happiness and sympathy positive. Some think that one should abjure anger even for Nazi murders of innocent relatives; that, however, is an extreme belief. Strangely, disgust can be both depending on whether it is harming or saving one from a toxic substance; the same is true for guilt, which is negative, since one did something wrong, but positive if it helps to expiate the problem.
Catherine Lutz conceptualizes emotion as an irrational, unintended and uncontrollable act, danger and vulnerability, physicality, subjectivity, natural fact, subjectivity, female, or value (59-80). Each of these useful analogues offers possible ways of approaching emotion practically or theoretically, but no single concept can fully encompass emotional diversity. Traditional emotional etiology produces scholarly confusion. There exist three possibilities: Either cognition precedes emotional response and this makes sense, since one perceives something that causes a reaction and this perception must roll through the cognitive process; or affect precedes cognition, but even the swiftest onset of an emotion (rather than a mere reflex), must involve physical (or mental) perception and therefore cognition must be involved; a third possibility is that both theoretical positions are valid; or finally neither, that is, affective response and cognition are independent of each other. The two final positions seem misguided.
The confusion here as elsewhere lies in necessity: Scholars are not willing to merely undertake a problem, propose a hypothesis, confirm or disconfirm it, and then move on to the next problem; in order to light up their vitae and reputations, they must propound a theory. This is why there exist so many competing, confusing, and often invalid theoretical formulations. Almost everyone, especially philosophers and psychologists, theorize about the emotions: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant come to mind. In 1973, K. T. Strongman summarized the emotional theories of 20 modern thinkers including W. James, J. B.Watson, R. Plutchik, and R.W. Leeper (13-35). Rom HarrĂ© makes it clear that he is dissatisfied with much of this; he prefers his own theorizing: âI have been trying to build up a case, not only in support of a more complex psychological theory of the emotions than the intellectually anorexic accounts offered by recent academic psychologyâŠâ (9), and this in defense of the social construction of the emotions. It is no wonder that these ideas clash and fail to validly explain and clarify matters.
Everything that is bad derives from our emotions, but then so too does everything that is good. Emotional reaction is so menacing that five of the seven deadly sins are emotional in nature: greed, gluttony, envy, wrath, and lust. Even laziness and pride might be snuck in here. Emotional reaction supersedes its rational, logical antithesis of which we humans are so proud. Emotions control our destines. It is often possible to decipher anotherâs emotional state by observing his or her tears, laughter, enraged face, or facial contortions--but not if a person attempts to conceal just how sad or happy, angry or aroused he or she happens to be. Luckily, computer scientists have come to our rescue and it is now possible for robots and software to interpret emotions. Honda is working on an âemotion-sensing carâ and Fraudoscope employs a camera and software to detect deception (Rothman 42). Much worse, Andrew McStay claims that emotional AI (âtechnologies that use affective computing and artificial intelligence techniques to sense, learn about and interact with human emotional lifeâ) will, in a few years, inundate us in cars, phones, policing, education, hospitals, prisons, and stores among many other possibilities (McStay 1).
Jerome Kagan discusses seven emotion classifying criteria: â⊠origin, biological profile, expectancy and familiarity of the incentive or feeling, consequences, pleasant or unpleasant quality (called valence), ⊠salience (or intensity) ⊠[and] the semantic labelâŠâ (55). Using these or others, scholars sometimes limit the emotions to a list of five or six or even seven basic (biological) responses, for example, anger, joy, sadness, fear, and shame or the first four plus disgust and surprise, but without duplication, such as anger and aggression or hate and dislike; there are many more distinct reactions and this text attempts to cover the most important ways in which humans react to the world when rationality is set aside and emotional responses detonate. Emotional reactions do not occur in a unitary vacuum, and one may undergo a complex of simultaneous feelings, some of which may be minimally invasive, while others can be overpowering and debilitating. The degree of response depends, at least in part, on the etiology of the emotion. Social and cultural influences may be more salient than the layman realizes.
And, naturally, even overpowering responses can be controlled. For example, most people before, at, or after funerals do not explode in unrestrained hysterical crying or keening. Only strangers who act as professional keeners in Greek culture or orthodox Judaism howl in sympathy with the bereaved. Otherwise, only twice in my three quarters of a century did I ever experience such extreme misery: I was overcome and cried uncontrollably at my fatherâs funeral and I once observed a woman at a veterinarianâs office as she was given some bad news about her pet. She exploded in loud, wild, uncontrolled, hysterical crying and sobbing that went on unbated for quite some time; her partner was unable to console her. Occasionally, in a television commercial, for example, one observes a person in wild anger throwing a partnerâs material possessions out of a window, below which the items crash onto the sidewalk and shatter. This destructive act apparently acts as a catharsis and the anger diminishes. Whereas it is almost always better personally and socially to control oneâs outbursts, sometimes a powerful emotional response is necessary to maintain sanity. Even stoics (and pointy-eared Spock) have feelings, though they may do all that they can to sublimate them; this can lead to eccentric ideas or behavior, neurosis, or psychosis. Those who attempt to extirpate either the emotions or rationality lead much diminished lives. History is replete with thinkers who have advocated both extreme positions; Nietzsche favored the blood and Descartes cogitation and it is easy to see what both positions engendered. A balanced response would improve human interactions: Not everyone can or should be Kant or a Buddhist mendicant.
Humans learn to control their emotions as they mature. The very young cry when they do not get what they want and some throw temper tantrums: They may be desirous, greedy, jealous, sad, and angry all at the same time. Doting parents who give in to emotional outbursts may turn their young children into spoiled, entitled monsters, who go through life expecting to receive everything they desire. On the other hand, thwarted youngsters, who frequently fail to achieve their ends, may devolve into emotionally immature, rebellious teenagers, asocial adults, or sociopaths. Think of the orphans in Rumanian facilities who were deprived of emotional sustenance or the spoiled little girl in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who angrily, hysterically demands a squirrel. Emotional balance begins in infancy and carries through the developing years, as children learn to cope with denial and frustration. It is an important accompaniment to the physical and intellectual achievements that parents so relish in their offspring.
The manifestation, strength, and endurance of emotional reaction vary in individuals, social and cultural environments, and at various chronological points in a personâs life. An infant is just beginning to emote, an adolescent must learn to control her emotions, and the elderly react differently than they would have as newlyweds. Few societies condone angry, violent, vulgar outbursts; they are frightening, stressful, and harmful to their victims. The very young may not have mastered their worst tendencies but older folks, especially those with some form of dementia who are no longer in touch with reality, can unprovokedly lash out even at loved ones with a string of shockingly vulgar execrations. The victim probably had no idea that her mother or aunt was conscious of these words. It is lamentable that in 2017, the Gallup World Poll found that âthe emotional lives of more than 154,000 peopleâ in some 145 countries were burdened with worry, stress, pain, anger, and sadness; this is the worst that things have ever been (Chokshi, â2017â).
Ratio: Intelligence, knowledge, smartness
A sometimes unbridgeable abyss exists between rationality (ratio, reason, logic) and emotions (along with feelings), even though in the best case scenario, they should function harmoniously in tandem with each other.
Contrarily, Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, claims that feelings âare the instruments of reasoningâ which discourage, drive, and warn ( Gaylin The Rage 21). Well, perhaps. Rationality may be explicated in the following way. Even highly-educated, well-informed people confuse terminology and often misunderstand human functioning and perception. They interchange words whose meanings are precise and fail to fully comprehend how we understand the universe. For example, emotions, which occur experientially in the body and feelings which are mental states, are not the same thing (for Antonio Damasio feeling is associated with pain or pleasure [Damasio Looking 3]); and most people impressed by a fellow human being will offer that he or she is extremely intelligent, but the chances of a perceiver truly knowing this is infinitesimal. What we do is deduce that one is intelligent based on apparent knowledge, but there is no necessary correlation. Intelligence is not a measure of knowledge; rather it is an indicator of an innate ability to learn, and it is measured by the intelligence quotient (IQ). A person with a very high IQ may know little**, and a less gifted person, through diligent hard work may be extremely well-informed.
Knowledge is the codified data and information that one acquires by applying oneâs intelligence, by studying, learning, and working in the world. Lamentably, what we know is often false. This is because a very high percentage of what we know comes to us through authority, including humanityâs accumulated information, and mass and social media, and we prefer to believe what pleases us: God answers our prayers, homeopathy cures ailments, astrology and The Book of Changes (I Ching)*** offer excellent guides to our lives, and history and now even science are bunk!
Edward Thorndike, the influential, early twentieth century psychologist, propounded a theory of social intelligence. This was expanded upon many years later by Howard Gardner, whose work on multiple intelligences has had a profound effect in education, where methods of instruction have altered to accommodate a child who is intellectually wanting but creatively or musically or mathematically âintelligent.â A person who is extremely capable (historically, intelligent) across a broad spectrum but who cannot deal with peers or has temper tantrums is said to be emotionally wanting. He or she lacks âemotional intelligenceâ (not a Gardner category). Multiple intelligences, which sounds useful, and whose original categories (linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic...