Friday, 4 March 2011
Robert Vavra - Curro: Reflections of a Spanish Youth - Signed | Bauman Rare Books
A tremendously valuable book. Even more so the person of whom it is written. An excellent coach, Matador and individual!
SFC RADIO "EL PASEILLO" 91.6 f.m: Amate, alza el toreo
SFC RADIO "EL PASEILLO" 91.6 f.m: Amate, alza el toreo: "Es de aplaudir cuando alguien altruistamente realiza una accion, pero que luche de una forma desmesurada (cuando el no recibe nada a cambio..."
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
WHAT ARE EMOTIONS?
The subject of emotion had been discussed within Philosophy for centuries, later it became a theme of much interest in psychology; primarily introduced by William James feedback theory in (1884).There has been great debate as to the meaning of emotion and as with many psychological theories appears predisposed to the notion of Individual-society dualism. Is the irrefutable, subjective side of experience largely internal, or might emotion be externally motivated? If internal, the position would most certainly have a biological and neurological origin, the latter is favourable to how cultures and societies influence or constrain an individual’s agency thus regulate his/her experience of emotion. Are emotions accessible at all? Theorists have argued that a collection of basic emotions are present in the brain designed to solve adaptive problems, these improve by advancement in linguistic ability and life experiences. Other researchers believe emotional processes to be social as they occur during the course of interaction with other people, and thus determine the outcome of those interactions. Diverse approaches exist, each providing valuable understandings from within their own perspectives, ontological and epistemological stances. This paper aims to discuss how emotion is best understood and epitomized by examining the cognitive social and discursive psychological perspectives, furthermore to explore their similarities and differences
A common thought is that the perception of something is required in order to evoke an emotion, whether it is fearful or joyful. For example; the human body will produce appropriate physiological changes in response to danger, e.g. a charging bull. It is thought that these transformations felt in the gut, skin, muscles, and cardiovascular system would provoke the familiar English-language emotion of fear. But when did the emotion evolve here?
William James (1884, cited in Hollway, 2007) suggested in his feedback theory that emotion is merely the perception of an automatic reaction and that emotion would simply not exist if we removed all symptoms of this reaction. In light of the example of the bull, would a human being be capable of removing changes in physical activity to prevent a fear emotion from developing? In theory James’s ‘experiment of thought’ holds true, however the theory struggles to explain the root that triggered automatic physical changes in the first place, and cannot be applied to explain all basic emotions. Could fear have already been present before physical changes took place, the individual may have confronted a similar situation before and therefore be primed.
Researcher Walter Cannon (1927, cited in Hollway, 2007) produced a theory which like James looked inward for an explanation though Cannon thought that physical responses served as an automatic reaction to an urgent situation rather than a detection of emotional occurrence. His research on measuring physiological changes concluded that symptoms were alike regardless of the assumed emotion. But why may the action taken by an individual be different if the physical sensations are deemed indifferent? Cannon is insufficient in explaining the cause of emotion, and indeed the differences felt by the individual which gave reason for their action.
Other research suggests that humans work out emotional values from how other people react to a situation as well as autonomic activation, two-factor theory (Shachter, 1959). That is to say our emotions are influenced by the emotional reactions of other people in our presence. Could this not be a simple act to conform to group identification through collective guilt rather than an honest personal account of emotion? Shachter and Singer (1962, cited in Hollway, 2007) looked for evidence to support their theory by carrying out an experiment whereby independent variables were manipulated to cause an emotional effect. Problems arise in the experiment as an emotional effect was measured even without the artificial provocation, thus the evidence is questionable.
There is call for situations to be assessed from an external view as subjectively much can be overlooked. It can be agreed that the human body automatically prepares itself to react to certain circumstances but these reactions and behaviours have effects, good or bad, on our experience. Taking the bull example again, but from the position of a Spanish bullfighter, in the face of danger the body starts to
experience physical changes commonly associated with fear, the bullfighter remains immobile while the bull charges towards.
The question here is; fear may be part of the emotional experience although it could well be a desire to automatically get closer in order to experience euphoria. Perhaps the Appraisal theory can help explain this observable fact. Magda Arnold (1960, cited in Hollway, 2007) believed that human’s hold a kind of action tendency to a range of emotions through appraisal motivation. The body needs to prepare to react in specific ways to achieve these emotions. Thus emotion occurs owing to the situation being personally significant and categorized into things that we want or don’t want. From this approach, if the bullfighter had learned to achieve euphoria through previous experience an appraisal to repeat the pleasant experience would motivate a similar response (secondary appraisal) in assisting him to reach that target.
According to Smith and Lazarus, (19903, cited in Hollway, 2007) this pleasant emotion is thought to connect with other emotions depending on how the event concluded, i.e. bullfighter surviving and earning a trophy may feel proud and gratified, or angry and despondent if having underperformed. Could the bullfighter’s post emotional euphoria not also be influenced by the emotion of the crowds?
As stated earlier in Schachters theory, other people in our surroundings may persuade our emotion, not only during current situations but also historically significant as suggested by studies carried out by Bertjan Doosje (1990’s, cited in Hollway, 2007) since evidence was presented to demonstrate that guilt could be felt even if a person had not exercised any direct involvement in events, i.e. current day Germans expressing guilt concerning past Nazi behaviour. This questions Arnold’s idea that emotion has to be personally significant, or would it be fair to say that emotions are affected by the communities and organisations to which we belong and that individual appraisals are formed by these structures through teachings and cultural norms?
Generally speaking most researchers will concur that biology plays a relevant part in emotion occurrence. The Neurocultural theory conforms to this idea but considers this innateness to be unfixed moreover it modifies with learning by being shaped via cultural and societal influences. Paul Ekman (1969, cited in Hollway, 2007) carried out cross-cultural studies to find evidence of basic emotions through measuring facial expressions; the studies included various cultures including distinctive Borneo populations whom had received little contact with the wider world. His findings concluded that six basic expressions, sadness, fear, anger, happiness, surprise and disgust were universally expressed by all human beings. His results are questionable. How relevant are the findings to all cultures and languages? Finally the six emotions were categorised by westerners and using English linguistics as labels. Does this not give power to western societies where much knowledge from other cultures is lost with possible negative effects?
Difference cultures learn how to express emotion differently, some cultures are even taught not to express certain emotions, thus how would an individual give a valid answer in Ekman’s study, even as a westerner the photographs may not portray the viewers true opinion of the emotion they are screening. This can be supported by Jim Russell’s (1994, cited in Hollway, 2007) response that some facial expressions are universal but do not represent emotional classification around the world.
Would findings have been different had the research been divised by another culture in other language unfamiliar to western traditions? So we can consider that there exists a relationship between facial expressions and assumed emotion categories but it does not mean that this links up with the emotion itself.
So far theories within the cognitive social perspective have given generous explanation. To continue, discursive psychological takes on a different idea. This perspective focuses specifically on integrated verbal and nonverbal productions. As detected in Ekmans facial expression research, difficulties arose in classifying emotions partly due to language differences and no direct translations being available. A discursive psychologist’s aim is not to classify but rather to understand how emotions are set out for conversational function. Significant nonverbal communication has been researched to demonstrate possible links between an internal emotion taking place expressed in a nonverbal way. For example, a person greeting a loved one at an airport may smile and embrace the other person; this would be a sufficient display of happiness without using words to describe the emotional experience.
In Vasu Reddy’s study of prelinguistic infants (2000, cited in Hollway, 2007) five infants were videotaped while interacting with an adult. Findings concluded that in response to visual contact the infant would smile then look away. A dual event may be occurring here, one the infant could be demonstrating happiness emotion and thereafter experience embarrassment emotion at the visual contact hence looking away. Two, the looking away could signal an undesired continuation for the contact, a functional communication. Either way it suggests a means of controlling interactions with people in our presence. It could be said that adults use similar mechanisms, such as a smile to show happiness.
Derek Edwards (1999, cited in Hollway, 2007) believes that discursive psychology (DP) expels the desire to understand categories of emotion but instead focuses on emotion talk and its meaning in everyday interaction.
Through emotional talk much can be achieved for the individual and as a result of aligning things with others through appraisals, alignment relation serves to; validate actions, dispute with others, creating one’s own narrative of experience and meaning, thus nothing has to be artificially classified into any one group or another and DP looks at actions that are adjusted to standard rather than effects originating from causes.
Explanation often focuses solely on individual or social factors. Dualism has tended to abscond free will for concepts and theories that reduce neither to biological, cognitive nor social factors. Although each perspective holds theories which appear to be grounded by dualism, new concepts of meaning and experience within discursive psychology and indeed renovated cognitive approaches have provided an opportunity to explore, compare and incorporate new ideas.
The main contrast between cognitive social and discursive psychology is that of their methods to collect data and their ontology. Discursive sets aside biological and cognitive accounts and focuses on what experience means as a socially constructed and situated individual. Qualitative data is collected through textual and conversational analysis or through observation as with the infant facial expression study by Vasu Reddy to explore meaning and effects. Unlike cognitive it does not aim to categorise or find cause for emotion.
The cognitive social focuses mainly on subjective experience and cognitive appraisal. Data is quantitatively collected through controlled social conditions as in the Schachter & Singer experiment, or the Ekman’s cross-cultural studies to explain emotion. It takes a scientific stance whereby data is categorised and measured thus the individual is an information processor and emotion experience is deemed an automatic biological response, the emotion being perceived by the bodily changes that have taken place. However, both perspectives compliment the idea that emotion has basic innate automatic responses from birth, only discursive look externally inwards rather than internally outwards like the cognitive social.
Cognitive social psychology has been dominant in emotional research like in other topics of psychology however it has not become inflexible and continues to improve in methods and ontology. It offers factual data thought experimental conditions which can compliment other perspectives with various types of research topics.
With the study of emotion it has provided important knowledge on the development and origin of emotional experience and its significant causes. Discursive offers information on the functional assets of emotion without drawing a definite conclusion it its exact origin or purpose. It could be said that future research requires the dual knowledge of both perspectives in order to grasp a clearer understanding of emotion from all angles.
© Author: Gisela Gina.
A common thought is that the perception of something is required in order to evoke an emotion, whether it is fearful or joyful. For example; the human body will produce appropriate physiological changes in response to danger, e.g. a charging bull. It is thought that these transformations felt in the gut, skin, muscles, and cardiovascular system would provoke the familiar English-language emotion of fear. But when did the emotion evolve here?
William James (1884, cited in Hollway, 2007) suggested in his feedback theory that emotion is merely the perception of an automatic reaction and that emotion would simply not exist if we removed all symptoms of this reaction. In light of the example of the bull, would a human being be capable of removing changes in physical activity to prevent a fear emotion from developing? In theory James’s ‘experiment of thought’ holds true, however the theory struggles to explain the root that triggered automatic physical changes in the first place, and cannot be applied to explain all basic emotions. Could fear have already been present before physical changes took place, the individual may have confronted a similar situation before and therefore be primed.
Researcher Walter Cannon (1927, cited in Hollway, 2007) produced a theory which like James looked inward for an explanation though Cannon thought that physical responses served as an automatic reaction to an urgent situation rather than a detection of emotional occurrence. His research on measuring physiological changes concluded that symptoms were alike regardless of the assumed emotion. But why may the action taken by an individual be different if the physical sensations are deemed indifferent? Cannon is insufficient in explaining the cause of emotion, and indeed the differences felt by the individual which gave reason for their action.
Other research suggests that humans work out emotional values from how other people react to a situation as well as autonomic activation, two-factor theory (Shachter, 1959). That is to say our emotions are influenced by the emotional reactions of other people in our presence. Could this not be a simple act to conform to group identification through collective guilt rather than an honest personal account of emotion? Shachter and Singer (1962, cited in Hollway, 2007) looked for evidence to support their theory by carrying out an experiment whereby independent variables were manipulated to cause an emotional effect. Problems arise in the experiment as an emotional effect was measured even without the artificial provocation, thus the evidence is questionable.
There is call for situations to be assessed from an external view as subjectively much can be overlooked. It can be agreed that the human body automatically prepares itself to react to certain circumstances but these reactions and behaviours have effects, good or bad, on our experience. Taking the bull example again, but from the position of a Spanish bullfighter, in the face of danger the body starts to
experience physical changes commonly associated with fear, the bullfighter remains immobile while the bull charges towards.
The question here is; fear may be part of the emotional experience although it could well be a desire to automatically get closer in order to experience euphoria. Perhaps the Appraisal theory can help explain this observable fact. Magda Arnold (1960, cited in Hollway, 2007) believed that human’s hold a kind of action tendency to a range of emotions through appraisal motivation. The body needs to prepare to react in specific ways to achieve these emotions. Thus emotion occurs owing to the situation being personally significant and categorized into things that we want or don’t want. From this approach, if the bullfighter had learned to achieve euphoria through previous experience an appraisal to repeat the pleasant experience would motivate a similar response (secondary appraisal) in assisting him to reach that target.
According to Smith and Lazarus, (19903, cited in Hollway, 2007) this pleasant emotion is thought to connect with other emotions depending on how the event concluded, i.e. bullfighter surviving and earning a trophy may feel proud and gratified, or angry and despondent if having underperformed. Could the bullfighter’s post emotional euphoria not also be influenced by the emotion of the crowds?
As stated earlier in Schachters theory, other people in our surroundings may persuade our emotion, not only during current situations but also historically significant as suggested by studies carried out by Bertjan Doosje (1990’s, cited in Hollway, 2007) since evidence was presented to demonstrate that guilt could be felt even if a person had not exercised any direct involvement in events, i.e. current day Germans expressing guilt concerning past Nazi behaviour. This questions Arnold’s idea that emotion has to be personally significant, or would it be fair to say that emotions are affected by the communities and organisations to which we belong and that individual appraisals are formed by these structures through teachings and cultural norms?
Generally speaking most researchers will concur that biology plays a relevant part in emotion occurrence. The Neurocultural theory conforms to this idea but considers this innateness to be unfixed moreover it modifies with learning by being shaped via cultural and societal influences. Paul Ekman (1969, cited in Hollway, 2007) carried out cross-cultural studies to find evidence of basic emotions through measuring facial expressions; the studies included various cultures including distinctive Borneo populations whom had received little contact with the wider world. His findings concluded that six basic expressions, sadness, fear, anger, happiness, surprise and disgust were universally expressed by all human beings. His results are questionable. How relevant are the findings to all cultures and languages? Finally the six emotions were categorised by westerners and using English linguistics as labels. Does this not give power to western societies where much knowledge from other cultures is lost with possible negative effects?
Difference cultures learn how to express emotion differently, some cultures are even taught not to express certain emotions, thus how would an individual give a valid answer in Ekman’s study, even as a westerner the photographs may not portray the viewers true opinion of the emotion they are screening. This can be supported by Jim Russell’s (1994, cited in Hollway, 2007) response that some facial expressions are universal but do not represent emotional classification around the world.
Would findings have been different had the research been divised by another culture in other language unfamiliar to western traditions? So we can consider that there exists a relationship between facial expressions and assumed emotion categories but it does not mean that this links up with the emotion itself.
So far theories within the cognitive social perspective have given generous explanation. To continue, discursive psychological takes on a different idea. This perspective focuses specifically on integrated verbal and nonverbal productions. As detected in Ekmans facial expression research, difficulties arose in classifying emotions partly due to language differences and no direct translations being available. A discursive psychologist’s aim is not to classify but rather to understand how emotions are set out for conversational function. Significant nonverbal communication has been researched to demonstrate possible links between an internal emotion taking place expressed in a nonverbal way. For example, a person greeting a loved one at an airport may smile and embrace the other person; this would be a sufficient display of happiness without using words to describe the emotional experience.
In Vasu Reddy’s study of prelinguistic infants (2000, cited in Hollway, 2007) five infants were videotaped while interacting with an adult. Findings concluded that in response to visual contact the infant would smile then look away. A dual event may be occurring here, one the infant could be demonstrating happiness emotion and thereafter experience embarrassment emotion at the visual contact hence looking away. Two, the looking away could signal an undesired continuation for the contact, a functional communication. Either way it suggests a means of controlling interactions with people in our presence. It could be said that adults use similar mechanisms, such as a smile to show happiness.
Derek Edwards (1999, cited in Hollway, 2007) believes that discursive psychology (DP) expels the desire to understand categories of emotion but instead focuses on emotion talk and its meaning in everyday interaction.
Through emotional talk much can be achieved for the individual and as a result of aligning things with others through appraisals, alignment relation serves to; validate actions, dispute with others, creating one’s own narrative of experience and meaning, thus nothing has to be artificially classified into any one group or another and DP looks at actions that are adjusted to standard rather than effects originating from causes.
Explanation often focuses solely on individual or social factors. Dualism has tended to abscond free will for concepts and theories that reduce neither to biological, cognitive nor social factors. Although each perspective holds theories which appear to be grounded by dualism, new concepts of meaning and experience within discursive psychology and indeed renovated cognitive approaches have provided an opportunity to explore, compare and incorporate new ideas.
The main contrast between cognitive social and discursive psychology is that of their methods to collect data and their ontology. Discursive sets aside biological and cognitive accounts and focuses on what experience means as a socially constructed and situated individual. Qualitative data is collected through textual and conversational analysis or through observation as with the infant facial expression study by Vasu Reddy to explore meaning and effects. Unlike cognitive it does not aim to categorise or find cause for emotion.
The cognitive social focuses mainly on subjective experience and cognitive appraisal. Data is quantitatively collected through controlled social conditions as in the Schachter & Singer experiment, or the Ekman’s cross-cultural studies to explain emotion. It takes a scientific stance whereby data is categorised and measured thus the individual is an information processor and emotion experience is deemed an automatic biological response, the emotion being perceived by the bodily changes that have taken place. However, both perspectives compliment the idea that emotion has basic innate automatic responses from birth, only discursive look externally inwards rather than internally outwards like the cognitive social.
Cognitive social psychology has been dominant in emotional research like in other topics of psychology however it has not become inflexible and continues to improve in methods and ontology. It offers factual data thought experimental conditions which can compliment other perspectives with various types of research topics.
With the study of emotion it has provided important knowledge on the development and origin of emotional experience and its significant causes. Discursive offers information on the functional assets of emotion without drawing a definite conclusion it its exact origin or purpose. It could be said that future research requires the dual knowledge of both perspectives in order to grasp a clearer understanding of emotion from all angles.
© Author: Gisela Gina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)