These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Glad you are delving, Martin. I was just judging from what you posted. mike On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote: > Mike, > > Digging a bit more into the papers on his web site, I would say that > Ekman's position on cultural variation is more nuanced than I gave him > credit for. First, there are different "display rules" both across and > within cultures: > > "If people > are not trying to mask or suppress their emotions. > then their expressions will be understandable to us no > marterwhat the race, culture, language, age or sex ofthe > person who shows them. That is a big if. however, for we > often follow display rules in social life to manage and > disguise our emotional expressions. and these do vary > with age, sex, social class and culture" > > Second, people have to interpret each other's facial expressions, and they > do this in complex ways which he proposes may be agreed upon within a > cultural group, but presumably may differ across cultures: > > "We know virtually nothing about the type of infromation people typically > derive > from a facial expression when they see the expression in situ, accompanied > as it > usually is by speech, gestural and postural behaviors, and when the person > observing the face has the usual array of expectations about what may be > most > likely to occur in that situation.... I expect that we could find better > than chance agreement within a cultural > group about each of these emotion-related messages - > antecedents,simultaneous > behaviors, metaphors, and consequent events - just as we have found > agreement about specific emotion terms." > > Third: > > "Individual differences in our experience allow for enormous variations in > the specifics of what calls forth emotion that are attributable to > personality, family, > and culture." Although what Ekman calls the "antecedents" of each emotion > show commonalities - for example "An actual or threat of harm for fear. The > loss of an object to which one was attached > for sadness. An event that is either unexpected or contrary to expectation > for surprise" - what counts as a threat of harm, for example, will be > different in different cultures. > > Furthermore, "the capacity to represent emotional experience in words > changes many > aspects of emotional experience," itself of course a cultural process, and > since cultures differ in the words available to talk about emotions these > changes have a cross-cultural component > > Martin > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Social, but no culture? > > Context but no culture? > > hmmmmm. How is that possible? > > (have not changed sub line) > > mike > > > > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca