Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

In this book Darwin writes mostly about the overt expressions of emotions, not about their evolutionary function or, for that matter, what constitutes an emotion (versus sensation, feeling, affect, passion). And, at times, it's not clear if Darwin is describing an emotion itself or its expression. The value of this book, following his "Origins" and "Descent" books, is that Darwin suggests a universal innateness in certain human emotional expressions and their close tie to the non-human animal world.

Darwin opens this book by outlining three principles that explain these expressions, but his discussion was not all that understandable. His first principle is that our (animal?) ancestors voluntary actions became reinforced by habit before becoming fixed as an inherited characteristic. I didn't understand this. An emotional expression seems to be more like a byproduct of an underlying emotion that was formed by fortuitous mutation and selected by natural selection. For example, it's likely that reptiles didn't "choose" to be fearful, but those with fearful responses were able to survive and pass along this capacity and the physiological expressions that go along with it to succeeding generations. I also didn't understand the significance of Darwin's second principle of antithesis whereby "actions of a directly opposite kind, though of no use, should be unconsciously performed through habit and association, under the influence of a directly opposite sensation or emotion," and that these expressions become "hereditary through long practice." For illustration, Darwin might be referring in part to "sympathy," where we mirror certain actions that we are performing, such as moving our "jaws simultaneously with the blades of the scissors." His third principle involves clear expressions that come directly from the nervous system, independent of the will and largely independent of habit. Here Darwin appears to align himself with Spencer's argument about the "overflow of nervous energy."

Darwin's theory seems Lamarckian: Do something good long enough and it becomes inherited. His theory is strikingly similar to Spencer's 1852 critique of Alexander Bain (Darwin's book has numerous references to both). Spencer uses a Lamarck-like argument to demonstrate the development of emotions from "lower" life forms, and from the lower emotions of human "savages" who are focused only on immediate desires, to the sophisticated, cognition-infused higher emotions of "civilized" peoples. These higher-level emotions, Spencer states, then become hereditary: "We know that emotional characteristics...are hereditary; and the differences between civilized nations descended from the same stock show us the cumulative results of small modifications hereditarily transmitted." This type of argument was pre-Mendel, and we now have a significantly different view how new traits develop, genetically. Spencer's argument also stands in stark contrast to what some modern-day neuroscience says about emotions - that the primal impulses and responses in lowly reptiles, and the social emotions of mammals and primates, are very much operative in all humans, today, no matter how civilized they are. In other words, while the neo-cortex adds to the pot, the stew is essentially the same. In part, Darwin's "Expressions" book makes an argument for universal emotions and their expression, but his argument regarding their origins may not be at all accurate.

Darwin discusses "emotions and sensations" as if they are emotional reactions (fear, anger) to an outside stimulus, but elsewhere he hints that emotions are inner needs that push the self outward. He mentions that certain actions "relieve or gratify certain sensations, desires, &c" and refers to "desire or sensation," suggesting that emotions are outgoing actions and the expression of internal need (i.e., we give an emotional response to an external stimulus). I have no clue what "&c" refers to and it adds to the confusion. With his emphasis on expression versus underlying emotion itself, Darwin does not clarify that a single expression may have more than one emotional impetus. For example, ill-temper and its various expressions may be the result of chronic bodily pain, or from a perpetual anger at negative stimuli from the outside, the inability of the self to satisfy its needs and desires, or it may be just poor body chemistry.

Darwin's strongest discussion is on the expressions (blushing, shyness, shame) coming from unwanted self-attention. This was excellent. While good, and acknowledging the difficult historical context for this sort of a book, Darwin's discussion takes our insight about emotions only so far. Darwin says these expressions from unwanted attention are due to concern about what others think, but he does not indicate why this should be a concern at all. For that answer, the reader must go to Darwin's "Descent" and his discussion of our tribal nature.