“…The additional interest of Bell’s work, however, is the importance he gave to bodily movements, especially of the heart and lungs, as not only outward signs, but also as constitutive causes of emotional experience. He recognised that the idea that the emotions might “proceed from or in any degree pertain to the body” might not “willingly be admitted” by his readers (Bell, 1824, pp. 20–21).…”
Section: Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, he tried to persuade them that the “organs of breathing and speech” were necessary not only to the “expression” of emotions, but also to their “development.” Bell pressed the point further, arguing that the operation of the organs of expression preceded “the mental emotions with which they are to be joined,” and strengthened and directed them. He even argued that the reason that all people experienced the same “internal feelings and emotions or passions” was because of the uniform operation of the bodily organs (Bell, 1824, pp. 20–21).…”
The word “emotion” has named a psychological category and a subject for systematic enquiry only since the 19th century. Before then, relevant mental states were categorised variously as “appetites,” “passions,” “affections,” or “sentiments.” The word “emotion” has existed in English since the 17th century, originating as a translation of the French émotion, meaning a physical disturbance. It came into much wider use in 18th-century English, often to refer to mental experiences, becoming a fully fledged theoretical term in the following century, especially through the influence of two Scottish philosopher-physicians, Thomas Brown and Charles Bell. This article relates this intellectual and semantic history to contemporary debates about the usefulness and meaning of “emotion” as a scientific term.
“…The additional interest of Bell’s work, however, is the importance he gave to bodily movements, especially of the heart and lungs, as not only outward signs, but also as constitutive causes of emotional experience. He recognised that the idea that the emotions might “proceed from or in any degree pertain to the body” might not “willingly be admitted” by his readers (Bell, 1824, pp. 20–21).…”
Section: Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, he tried to persuade them that the “organs of breathing and speech” were necessary not only to the “expression” of emotions, but also to their “development.” Bell pressed the point further, arguing that the operation of the organs of expression preceded “the mental emotions with which they are to be joined,” and strengthened and directed them. He even argued that the reason that all people experienced the same “internal feelings and emotions or passions” was because of the uniform operation of the bodily organs (Bell, 1824, pp. 20–21).…”
The word “emotion” has named a psychological category and a subject for systematic enquiry only since the 19th century. Before then, relevant mental states were categorised variously as “appetites,” “passions,” “affections,” or “sentiments.” The word “emotion” has existed in English since the 17th century, originating as a translation of the French émotion, meaning a physical disturbance. It came into much wider use in 18th-century English, often to refer to mental experiences, becoming a fully fledged theoretical term in the following century, especially through the influence of two Scottish philosopher-physicians, Thomas Brown and Charles Bell. This article relates this intellectual and semantic history to contemporary debates about the usefulness and meaning of “emotion” as a scientific term.
“…In the depressing passions it is the reverse." 5 Bell entered another controversy when after experiments on the nerves in the ass, he erred in asserting that the fifth and seventh cranial nerves innervated the muscles of the face. Mayo (1796-1852) had earlier given the correct anatomy, but Bell later corrected his error: "the sensibility of the head and face depend upon the fifth pair of nerves ... the portio dura of the seventh nerve is the principal muscular nerve of the face".…”
“…In bodily pain the jaws are fixed and the teeth grind; the lips are drawn laterally, so as to expose the teeth and gums; the nostrils are distended to the utmost, and at the same time drawn up; the eyes are largely uncovered, and the eyebrows elevated; the face is turgid with blood, and the veins of the forehead and temples distended, the breath being suspended, and the descent of the blood from the head impeded. Much of the expression results from the strong action of the muscles closing the jaws, and the strong action and consequent stringiness of the cutaneous muscles of the neck R, plate II, which at the same time draws down the corner of the mouth.(Bell, 1824, p. 96)…”
The study of pain has a history as long as that of Western medicine. In the 20th and 21st centuries much has been made about the epistemological problem of seeing somatic as well as psychic pain in the clinical setting. The two schools seem to be those which rely on self-reporting and those that rely on the interpretation of visual materials (expression or brain scans) by trained specialists. That this problem was central to the 19th century study of pain is clear as these origins (especially Darwin) are often cited in today's literature as 'proof' of their validity. That the problem was also central to one of the early 20th century thinkers most indebted to Darwin, Sigmund Freud, is less well known and how he resolved this paradox of self-reporting versus seeing seems to have been overlooked.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
