24 April 2012
A friend of mine says she ‘feels sad,’ and so I’ve been
thinking about her sadness, trying to understand what it feels like and what it
means. How is she? Of course, the same would be true were she to say that she
felt happy, another word that for me lacks definition. Sadness (and happiness) is
not a word I frequently use, though it is certainly part of my working
vocabulary. When people inquire after me I usually respond that I am ‘good,’
but neither have I the foggiest idea what I mean when I describe myself in
those terms, though this response satisfies whomever it was who made
inquiry. These words are empty vessels I
set out and into which someone pours whatever they will. “Words, words, words,”
says Hamlet. Empty signifiers ready to be packed. In fact, I cannot immediately
recall an instance when last I referred to myself as ‘sad et al.,’ and so
immediately I wonder what words I have used to describe myself when I might have
meant feeling sad, or happy etc. But I do know others who refer to themselves
as ‘sad, etc.,’ and to attempt to better understand them I examine now the word
they use to describe themselves. In this case, to understand another’s sadness would
be also to define my own.
I do not want to discuss the continuum
on which the word sad holds a place, that continuum along which run such markers
as melancholia, depression, unhappiness and suicide, though I suspect that the
suicide might act not on that sadness continuum but plays himself out on some
other scale completely. One may define sad through the use of other adjectives:
hopeless, unhappy, forlorn, and the numerous other linguistic markers that map
the gradation of feeling. Desolate. Miserable. Despondent. Wretched. Blue. The
list continues. Perhaps these separate words designating ‘sad, etc.,’ are all
of a piece the way a dish in a restaurant can be prepared with varying
intensities of spiciness ranging from mild to fiery. The meal consists of the
same ingredients but offers different and distinctive flavors. Thus, depression
is a marker on the sadness continuum; the intensity of the particular emotion may
be excessive (or even oppressive) though the bodily responses remain not wholly
distinct from those of mere ‘sad.’ I can be sad about the progress of a
relationship or I can be depressed about it; the constant is the response of my
body though the degree of response in it might vary. The body response that
images sadness looks the same whether I have lost my lover or my pocket watch
though the feeling in each case might
be different. Emotions and feelings are not synonyms, I think.
Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist,
distinguishes between emotions and feelings. He defines an emotion as “an
action or movement, many of them public, visible to others as they occur in the
face, in the voice, in specific behaviors.” An emotion, for the most part, is
visible on the body, though I suspect that there are bodily responses that are
not so readily apparent, as when my heart quickens pace as a loved one
approaches. In the cinema there are few actors who show emotion better than Meryl Streep: the movements of her face express emotion in the subtle turn of
her mouth, the twist of her head, the delicate movement of her eyes. That is,
emotions can be seen but not heard. Great actors express emotion y in the subtle
movements of their bodies. But a feeling, Damasio suggests, is the perception of a certain state of the
body along with the perception of a certain mode of thinking and of thoughts
with certain themes” (86). That is (I think), when an emotion (a repertoire
of bodily responses) becomes associated with a pattern of thoughts about the body there is feeling. I can
name my feeling by defining my understanding of my bodily responses. Emotions
are bodily responses and feelings identify those responses with a particular
pattern of thought and theme; one can then articulate that theme so as to understand
it. Hence, when I say that I feel
sad, the feeling derives from the idea
of a certain confluence of responses in my body, but unless I can identify that
bodily response with some theme or way of thought then I am incomprehensible to
myself and to others. When I see my daughter walk across the stage my eyes open
wide, I feel my body fill like a balloon with air, I flush with warmth, and my
skin feels stretched to barely hold my insides in. I experience emotion and I
say I feel pride: and at this early
hour, were my vocabulary more sophisticated I might feel something more. Or else.
There is a sense where all of this
neurophysiology exceeds my capacity to understand it. I am a curriculum
theorist (mea culpa) and not a
neuroscientist. And I think I’ve written about this before: that certain sights
and smells and images produce a certain bodily response, an emotion, and then I
associate that body feeling with a certain mode of thinking and thoughts. At a
certain bend of the road my body responds in certain ways, and then as I
perceive my body response I recognize in it a mode of thinking—a way of thought that I associate
with another time that my body responded similarly and in a certain specific
environment and event. That is, I can’t eat the damn peach because the last
time I ate it my body was sick and nauseous.
And so this feeling of sadness to which we refer must be a response to a body
configuration—an emotion—and the question I might pose must
be not about one feels sad, but what
does feeling sad feel like in the body, and what thoughts are associated with
that body state?
It all seems so clinical, but it is
in fact, quite Spinozist. Sadness et al. and their families are inadequate
descriptions that demand far more specificity than we now express. What do
these states feel like physically? What exactly is the pattern of thought that
accompanies that repertoire of physical responses?
I think in this sense cognitive
therapy shouldn’t work: to change the feeling one would have to change the
response of the body rather than vice versa. “For the mind does not know
itself, except in so far as it perceived the ideas of the modifications of
body.” (Prop XXIX—Corollary).
Spinoza says that I cannot change my mind without changing my body, and that I
cannot know my mind except through a change in my body.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home