What are emotions, and why do we have them?

By Josh Clark

Emotions may signal a change in our environment, a change within us or a change in both. These signals are generally fleeting in comparison to other states of mind. As a result, emotions are distinct from moods, which can last for hours, days or even weeks. They're also distinct from personalities, the lifelong set of traits that comprise our individual, predictable reactions to situations [source: SCAS]. It would appear that the function of an emotion is to get our attention and demand a response. Psychologists have debated whether that action is an involuntary physiological reaction or the result of judgment we've made after evaluating our current situation.
But why do we experience anger from a smack on the nose or shame from stealing?
Here, the debate ends and scientific consensus emerges. Emotions are motivators. From an evolutionary standpoint, emotions are the agents of change and reaction. Disgust is a quick, nasty response that we experience when we encounter something that might make us sick. Anger quickly transitions us from a placid state to one where we're ready to fight; fear prompts us to flee from dangerous situations. Sadness, on the other hand, can generate the resolve needed to change the direction of one's life. Emotions can also motivate us to continue what we're doing; the experience of joy is a pleasurable one, and we're motivated to carry out the behavior that led to the emotion.
Coupled with our ability to empathize with others, emotions also serve to maintain social bonds. We wear emotions outwardly -- the basic emotions are all readily apparent on a person's face -- so they serve as social signals. These allow us to interact with others' needs in mind rather than our own, which is the basis of society.
There are plenty of examples of how emotions help further society. Imagine raising offspring without the emotional attachment associated with one's own children. The feeling of loneliness leads to the emotion of sadness, which prompts us to seek out the company of others. Higher, self-conscious emotions like shame prevent us from repeating behavior that is harmful to others, like stealing.
It would seem, then, that society was able to emerge as a result of our ability to experience emotions based on our interactions with others. Or did it happen the other way around? Interestingly, the social constructionist theory of emotions says that society begins to dictate the emotional response to an individual, rather than vice versa. As a person grows older, emotions develop from knee-jerk physiological reactions to predictable, conditioned responses [source: Ratner]. In this sense, the emotions of the individual are hijacked by the expectations of the society the individual lives in, making that person more suited to live peaceably in that society.

The Four Moral Emotions

Guilt, Shame, Embarrassment, and Pride Make Societies Work.

Published on November 15, 2009 by Ilana Simons, Ph.D. in The Literary Mind
Ilana Simons has Ph.D.s in Literature and Clinical Psychology.  She works as a writing professor at The New School and has a private practice. She is the author of A Life of One's Own: A Guide to Better Living through the Work and Wisdom of Virginia Woolf and a painter.

0
inShare

In my last post, I wrote about the evolutionary value of emotions. One reason emotions are useful is that they get us to react quickly in response to danger. Although our rational (as opposed to emotional) minds do a lot to keep us at the top of the food chain, rational thinking is sometimes too slow for handling a threat (e.g. fighting a tiger). Sometimes, we need to react more quickly--and our emotions, like fear and surprise, help us do that.
But of course supplying speedy reactions to tigers is not the only use of emotion. In this light, recent research on emotion has focused not just on issues of an individual's self-defense, but on the larger social value of emotions. (For great writing on emotion, see Jessica Tracy, Richard Robins, and June Price Tangney). Emotions evolved--the thinking goes--not just to protect people, but to bind communities. After all, we all have a better chance at survival if the species works as a team, rather than battling it out to mutual extinction. In turn, emotions are useful because they seal a Social Contract, a system of ethics that protects the species--not just individuals--into the future.

Of course our "hottest" or most animalistic emotions are usually more self-serving than communal. These animalistic emotions, often called the "basic" emotions, are the emotions that Paul Ekman famously first labeled in the 1960's, in his work with tribes in Papua New Guinea. They're the emotions we show on our faces across all cultures, and they're thought to be biologically determined. We share most of these basic emotions with animals, and they are often listed as the following six: anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise.
As said, the "basic" emotions help individuals more directly than they help groups. Take surprise as an example. Surprise is a basic emotion that allows us to avoid what's unexpected and dangerous. If I turn the corner and bump into a tiger (or my unpaid landlord or my boss when I'm skipping work), my heartbeat increases and my muscles tense. I move quickly to avoid the danger. Surprise triggers escape--which is more self-serving than group-serving. Similar analogies can be made for most of the basic emotions.
But recent research on emotion has shifted the traditional focus away from the "basic" emotions to another set of emotions which are thought to be more distinctly human. Focus has turned to the "self-conscious" emotions, which are sometimes also referred to as "moral," "social," or "higher-order" emotions. These are the emotions that an organism can only feel if it has a highly developed sense of self-reflection. Usually, the "self-conscious" emotions are listed as these four: guilt, shame, embarrassment, and pride.
Researchers (great writers here include Mark Leary, Jeffrey Stuewig and Debra Mashek) tend to cite two requirements for feeling a "self-conscious" emotion. One: The person needs to be capable of "position-taking," of knowing how her behaviors would affect or be perceived by others. Two: She needs the ability to imagine how the reception of her behavior would reflect back on her character. For example, the fear you can feel in an interview (heart beating fast, voice constricting, palms sweating) is a basic emotion. But the shame that might set in as you leave ("Why do I interview so poorly?!") is a self-conscious emotion. The self-conscious emotion is the one that arises from understanding how others see us. It influences future behavior. If you are ashamed after an interview, you might take a class in public speaking or ask for input from your friends ("what kind of person do I seem like to you?"). The self-conscious emotion binds us back to others--to their expectations and ideas.
For another example, consider anger. The anger I might feel at having my wallet snatched is a basic emotion. But if I write a letter to the editor arguing for new laws addressing local crime, that's pride, a self-conscious emotion. I want to establish my morals in relation to the thief. Self-conscious emotions are emotions in which we imagine our conformity or nonconformity to society's norms.
All our emotions work with amazing coordination really--like a symphony. One emotion can trigger another, to keep us in balance with the group. For instance, a heavy tendency for joy, anger, and pride might tilt a woman toward a career in business. She might feel strongest when finding investment deals and making money on the back of others. In this, she scores big points for individual preservation. She gets rich. But in time--if she's screwed some clients--the feelings of guilt and shame might also set in. That would be a good thing for the Social Contract. Influenced by guilt, she might shift her behavior--giving to charity, mentoring some kid, working to protect the society for a bit. Some might say she's acting altruistically "for the wrong reasons," but guilt is undoubtedly "right" when we think of the social contract it serves. In this way, our emotions serve both to propel the individual and to protect the larger group that affords every individual safety. Emotions are our rubber bands for propelling individual (and group) gain while protecting the society in which gain happens.
All this is just one small way of thinking of emotion--specifically, with a heavy evolutionary lens. There are other ways to approach the phenomenon of emotion. For instance, I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks the value of emotion is. I think love, for one, would be an interesting feeling to talk about.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/ilana-simons-phd

Generosity and Its Pathological Variants

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201405/generosity-and-its-pathological-variants

Healthy generosity is giving without being depleted by the gift. An offering to another made while retaining ample resources of psychic energy, space, and content. Gifts may be tangible (money, an heirloom brooch, possessions) or intangible (attention, time, emotional availability, encouragement), but is a kind of care for others while the self remains generative.
Psychoanalyst Salman Akhtar suggests generosity is a mutually constructed phenomenon, one co-created in a relational context. What about those who mock generosity as foolishness? Recipients who use it as an excuse for demanding more or respond glibly “I’ll get the check next time,” diminishing a generous act into a mechanical exchange without acknowledging the warm heartedness of the deed.

Generosity is a trait of character where problematic tendencies abound. Akhtar lists several pathological forms, which sometimes overlap:
1. “Begrudging generosity”: a half-giving that demands being thanked repeatedly. “With people in whom the feeling of inner wealth and strength is not sufficiently established, bouts of generosity are often followed by an exaggerated need for appreciation and gratitude, and consequently, by persecutory anxieties of having been impoverished and robbed.” (82, Melanie Klein cited in Akhtar). The giver may remind the recipient of the hardships or sacrifice involved in securing the gift.
2. “Controlling generosity”: the proverbial gift with strings attached. This kind of pathological form is characterized by the need on the part of the giver to determine how the gift is used. One vivid example is the immigrant family who offers to pay for a child’s education if they attend medical school. (83) Akhtar notes, in this instance parents “confuse encouraging achievement with facilitating individuation.” Sometimes the "strings" attached may represent a mental balance sheet of debts owed in return for the gift. Controlling or coercive generosity can express itself also from the grave (posthumously) when a person’s estate is left to an heir on the condition they use it in a specified way.
3. “Unrelenting generosity”: has a pressurized or compulsive quality on the part of the giver, leaves them perpetually depleted and poorly correlates to the needs of the recipient. Often there is little understanding of the indulged party’s true needs and scant enjoyment in the act of giving for either person. This tendency may involve a rescue fantasy, financial overindulgence, or express itself in mothering offspring far into their adulthood. Such compulsive caretaking cloaks guilt, envy, and the wish to infantilize or control the other. The gift debilitates the recipient and hinders the enhancement of their wellbeing.
Akhtar notes lack of generosity may come from one’s “identification with a frustrating mother” whereas a different kind of problem results from modeling oneself after the bountiful mother or caregiver of abundance one did not have, but yearns to have had. (79) Generosity is inherent in childrearing and, while not always the case, Akhtar suggests childlessness is sometimes an expression of stinginess or the refusal to give.
On the healthy side of the spectrum there is the genuine good act of giving. What I call “attuned generosity” or adaptive giving arises when the beneficiary is in sync with the emotional needs of the receiver. This is especially relevant to parenting. Pediatrician D. W. Winnicott described a process of adaptive giving to the child by the mother in graduations—based on the extent of the child's needs and their growing independence. This kind of generosity enriches the self-sufficiency of the recipient. The gift may be nothing more than a simple gesture that recognizes and encourages, that fosters the other’s ability to depend on internalized good objects (their own good mental images of others) for developmental advancement, sustenance, and self-care.
“They might not need me; but they might. I'll let my head be just in sight; a smile as small as mine might be precisely their necessity” (poet Emily Dickinson).

_______________
Main Reference
Good Stuff: Courage, Resilience, Gratitude, Generosity, Forgiveness, and Sacrifice, by Salman Akhtar, Jason Aronson, 2013.

Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/mollycastelloe