May, 1988
More about catathetic signals
Russell Gardner has pointed out the intricate
interweaving of catathesis with anathesis that occurs
in sophisticated human exchange such as that between Mr. Knightley
and Emma. Mr. Knightley certainly knew how to
"sugar the pill" of his catathetic signals as far as Emma was
concerned, or, as Benjamin Disraeli's father said of
Pierre Bayle, how to "wreathe the rod of criticism
with roses".
Did Mr.
Knightley intend to put Emma down, or build her up,
or both? You will have noticed that I have not used
"intention to lower RHP" as the
sender's definition of catathetic signals, in the way "intention to
harm" has been used to define
"aggression" (see Bandura (1983), Moyer (1976)
and Eibl-Eibesfeldt
(1975, p339-340) for a discussion of this point). Anathesis
being more recent than catathesis in phylogeny, anathetic intent is probably mediated by a higher level
of the nervous system than catathetic intent, so that there may be no mechanism for
ensuring that output is consistently one
or the other. Mr. Knightley loved Emma and may have wanted
to make her a better person, more admired by others and more acceptable as his wife; at the same time he may have thought her
too "cocky" and opinionated,
and have wanted to humble her a little.
I think
the answer to this problem lies in the components of RHP. In Fabrics of the Mind I
suggested that RHP consists of a substantive component, consisting of size, strength,
skill, weapons and allies (and, in
Emma's case, correct deportment);
a ritual component which can be reduced by catathetic
signals and increased by anathetic signals; and an
endogenous or thymic
component which varies with mood (there is also a situational component which is affected by such things as
being on home ground and being "in
the right"). It seems likely that Mr. Knightley
was trying to reduce Emma's ritual RHP but to increase her substantive RHP.
Words, threats or blows?
There
is a lot of folklore about the relative painfulness of words and blows. There is the schoolboy jingle:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt
me."
This is in direct opposition to the teaching of
the Bible:
"The blow of a whip raises a welt, but a blow of the tongue crushes bones." Ecclesiasticus 28, 17.
Giacomo Leopardi
(1834) sided with the Bible:
Men
are ready to suffer anything from others, or from heaven itself, provided that, when
it comes to words, they are untouched.
Pensieri,
Vol. 1, trans. W.F.Weaver
The potential interchangability
of blows and insults was demonstrated in a chimpanzee who was trained to use sign
language by Fouts (1974). Eibl-
Eibesfeldt (1975) describes the interaction as
follows:
"Once
while learning the sign monkey she was observed exchanging threats with a mature
male rhesus monkey. Fouts interfered and showed her
monkeys in other cages. Upon being asked Lucy correctly named siamangs and squirrel monkeys with the monkey sign. The
rhesus monkey, however, was described in answer to each of Fouts'
several questions as dirty monkey. Since then she has been observed to use the dirty
sign as an adjective to describe
experimenters who refused to grant her requests. Prior to this time the sign was used to
describe soiled items and faeces only. This seems to be the genesis of an insult." p138.
In the above example, Lucy did not actually
make the "dirty" sign to the
rhesus monkey, so that we cannot say for certain that the sign was interchangable with
the non-verbal threats; but she showed
that she could have done by going one
stage further in using sign language to disparage her opponent to a third party (the
experimenter). She must be the first non-human primate in the whole of
history to use this typically human
method of displacing aggression.
If she
had made such a catathetic signal to another
sign-language- speaking chimpanzee, would the latter have had the capacity to
receive it as a catathetic
signal, to realise that he was being called a "shit" and to be hurt by it and to suffer loss of RHP? Or would he have received it as a nurturing signal,
like "Excuse me, but I think you've forgotten to wipe your bottom"?
More about criticism
The work of Peter McLean and his colleagues in
When
one, for example, gives a scientific paper (or a contribution to the ASCAP
newsletter) to a colleague for "constructive criticism", one is asking
for a boost in one's substantive RHP (an improvement in the paper and so
eventually in one's reputation) at the risk of some loss of ritual RHP; but it is difficult not to hope for a boost
in ritual RHP too. As Somerset Maugham
put it (Of Human Bondage): "People ask for criticism but they only want
praise".
References
Bandura, A.
(1983) Psychological mechanisms in aggression. In Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews. Vol. 1:
Theoretical and Methodological Issues, (R.G.Green
& E.I.Donnerstein, Ed.).
Eibl-Eibesfeldt,
Fouts, R.S. (1974) Communication
with chimpanzees. In Hominisation und Verhalten
(ed. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt & G.Kurth).
McLean, P.D., Ogston,
K., Grauer, L. (1973) A behavioral
approach to the
treatment of depression. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,
4, 323-330.
Moyer, K.E. (1976) The Psychology of Aggression.