So, people like Achilles and Mabel who are working on emotions along
Vygotsky's lines have a marvellous and challenging task before them!
Not just completing Schubert's unfinished symphony, more like
writing
Shakespeare's 'Elizabeth I'.
One of the surprising things, to me, was that Vygotsky says, in
effect, that the entire history of the teaching about emotions is
contained in Descartes. Those who came after picked up one side or
other of Descartes' dualism, but soon or later found them forced
back
to some kind of dualism. Spinoza gets a mention, and is credited
with
some correct criticisms of Descartes, but given how much others make
of Spinoza on emotions, and how much we know Vygotsky admired
Spinoza,
he has surprisingly little to say about Spinoza. Also, in the entire
article there is only one mention of words, so anyone who thinks
that
Vygotsky reduced consciousness to word meaning must be mistaken.
Because what Vygotsky is discussing is not just emotion, but really
the whole history of psychology.
As I say, I don't think Vygotsky actually comes to a conclusion,
but a
few points can be made I think.
1. A science of the emotions worthy of the name must be able to deal
fully with the 'higher' or 'finer' emotions - like the
satisfaction a
mathematician feels on completing a theorem or the pain of a
composer
whose arpeggio is not quite right - and yet must be explanatory; if
limited to descriptive psychology (like a phenomenology of the
emotions) it cannot claim to be science.
2. The physiological substrate of emotions (adrenalin, blood
pressure,
tightening of muscles, etc), including body chemistry and motor
functions, and the associated sensations, are _diffuse_ in nature,
and
can only give a limited range of qualities to emotional experience,
compared with the infinite range of emotions known to literature.
Both
great joy and great sadness can be associated with tears and
shaking;
both anger and fear include heightened heart rate.
3. The perception of these 'peripheral' changes are merely
supplementary to the experience of emotion, not essential and
certainly not the _substance_ of emotions as claimed by James.
Vygotsky seems satisfied that an emotion can be experienced with no
measureable changes in the relevant peripheral functions. (I don't
know if the idea of 'brain maps' of the body has any impact on
this.)
4. Emotions are intentional, in the philosophical sense, i.e.,
directed at something in the objective world. (Thomas Scheff
includes
what an emotion is directed to as part of his categorization of
emotions too, e.g., other-directed or self-directed or
object-directed.) And words like teleological and will come into
Vygotsky's text, but he does not explicitly introduce striving as
part
of the essence of emotion. But it seems to me, it is hard to see how
affect can be independent of meaning in relation to a person's
striving or desire. And that is outside the person.
5. It seems that Vygotsky wants to include _meaning_ as an
irreducible
part of emotion. If the silhouette of a woman engenders an emotion,
then that image and all its associations are part of the emotion,
not
just an external stimulus for a feeling; the grief of a woman over
the
death of her son cannot be separated from her whole consciousness of
her son and his death, memories, etc., all of which impart qualities
to the emotion This means that an exclusively physiological
explanation of emotion is absolutely ruled out. Jay's point about
emotions being to some extent shared is supported here by
Vygotsky, I
think.
I suspect that because of the various kinds of visceral phenomena
associated with strong emotions and shared with the animals, there
has
historically been a tendency for thinkers to abstract emotion from
other, 'cold' or 'higher' modes of consciousness. The more so I
suspect that all such speculations are the work of a class of people
for whom calculation not passion is the norm. The whole ethos of
intellect versus animal passions, etc.
Vygotsky wants I think to put these pieces back together, to accept
that certain extreme perceptions engender modes of response in the
body appropriate to the perception, and these produce affects which
_accompany_ a perception and add further quality to the affect. It
is
as if the categorizing impulse that drives positivist (abstract
empirical) science, in its effort to tear the subject apart, tears
affect away from apprehension, and then goes about categorizing
affects, and seems to believe that because of this act of cognition,
there must be, in the subject itself, an abstraction of causes. But
all perception is also affect, isn't it. There is no such thing as
purely intellectual perception or intention. To understand grief,
one
does need that perception of powerlessness and depression, but also
the disorganization of consciousness which loss of a person close to
you brings. Vygotsky mentions the difference between fear of a ghost
and fear of an approaching bear. There is a difference. And the
difference lies in the object of fear, and cannot be separated from
consciousness as a whole and it structure.
............
For those who have high speed internet, Achilles has created a PDF
of
images of the text which is at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/emotions/emotions.pdf
(65Mb)
but Achilles has also OCR-ed the text and is currently correcting it
and it should be available at the same location in a few days.
-----------------
Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
Hi, excuse-me,
It's only to share a little information. Some time
ago, Anton provide us a copy from the text from
Vygotsky, Samukhin an Birembaum about Pick's Disease - and it had
important influences from
Lewin and others. That two Vygotsky's collaborators
studied in Germany, I guess, as did Zeiganik. There
are something about the problem of that they
call the "affective systems" of two patients...
It is from 1934, and was not translated yet.
Thank you, nothing to detour the discussion, only
an information about Vygotsky and Gestalt in
clinical settings...
Best.
Achilles.
From: liliamabel@hotmail.com
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: [xmca] Emotions and culture
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:16:28 +0000
Hi, Larry.
Just for the records, I am really not interested in relational
gestalt theory neither psychoanalisis. I will not change that in
my
thesis, much less at this stage. I define myself as a Gestalt
psychotherapist, because I have a paper that says so, and it is
the
way in which I make (or theoreticallycan make) a living. I use art
(but I do not have a paper that says that I am an art-therapist or
an artist :).
Theoretically speaking, and that is how I understand what
happens in
my practice, and in all the other practices of which I
participate,
what I know a bit is Vygotsky. Just cause, I do not like those
other
labels, sorry.
Cheers,
Mabel
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 22:07:07 -0800
From: lpurss@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: [xmca] Emotions and culture
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Hi Jay
Yes, your summary of emotions at different time scales seems to
be
in "sympathy" with my perspective. I've welcomed the opportunity
from the CHAT community to find out what I "think" and "feel".
Mabel
Your interst in relational psychoanlysis and Gestalt theory is
shared by others.
I googled "relational gestalt theory" and found many references
to
Gestalt theorists who are bringing relational theory into their
practice.
A general question for the CHAT community on the contrasts
between
"genetic" and "stage" theories of development. If genetic implies
emergence and greater complexity whereas stages imply
transcendence
from one epistemology to a radically "other" stage why is
Piaget's
"genetic epistemology" theory describe various stages?
This contrast in perspectives seems to have profound implications
to how we view development.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Emotions and culture
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Mabel and Larry focus on what I think is a key issue in
understanding emotion. First, that emotions are generated in
time,
as a process. It is a process in which we ourselves are ACTIVE,
and not, as in some folk theories taken over into psychological
models, merely reacting to external events and conditions.
Second,
its genesis takes place over multiple timescales. There is the
very short term, moment-to-
moment, rise and fall of various feelings, their layering onto
one
another, the transitions from one to another. Then there is a