Biological necessity, emotional transformation, and personal value.

Abstract

Anyone who honestly surveys the past hundred years of work on the emotions must surely experience both humility and impatience. The sheer volume of the literature is overwhelming. Shibles's (1974) general bibliography lists about five hundred studies while Hillman (1961), who concentrates on the theoretical literature, refers to over five hundred studies which are largely different from those listed by Shibles.When we turn to the various specialties within the field, the literature becomes a quagmire. Izards (1971) bibliography of work relevant to the facial expression of emotion, Arnold's (1960a, b) account of the relevant physiological literature, Bandura's (1973) account of the work relevant to aggression, each lists over five hundred different references; and one can only speculate as to the number of completely different references to love, to fear, or to emotion within the psychoanalytic literature. Furthermore, while much of this work has merit, many investigators seem either to ignore or misunderstand the work that preceded their own, and many theories seem quite unrelated to either the facts or to other theories. Hence, we have a situation such that Hillman's careful delineation of theories requires the presentation of eighteen different types of theories of emotion. (There are over a hundred distinguishable theories and definitions of what an emotion is.) In order to see what we have learned about emotion, we must select, and this very selection 364

Emotions as Transformational Structures

“…Further, it may be argued that these patterns or relational structures involve the transformations of relationships that are involved in emotions, and constitute emotional processes (de Rivera, 1985). Hence, it seems worthwhile to ask about how we might construct an account of the interplay between cultural signs and a natural history that deals with a biological substrate.…”

“…Certainly there are many patterns of behavior, such as the passing back and forth of bits of food by courting birds, that might be characterized as “affection” yet are not “constructed” or influenced by culture (though our seeing or not seeing the behavior as “affectionate” involves culture). Further, it may be argued that these patterns or relational structures involve the transformations of relationships that are involved in emotions, and constitute emotional processes (de Rivera, 1985). Hence, it seems worthwhile to ask about how we might construct an account of the interplay between cultural signs and a natural history that deals with a biological substrate.…”