Second half of
paper Home Another
publication
THE AGONIC AND HEDONIC MODES:
DEFINITION, USAGE AND THE PROMOTION OF MENTAL HEALTH
Abstract
It is suggested that the two modes are useful
in describing episodes in relationships, so that, at any one time, a
relationship can be said to be either in the agonic or the hedonic mode. Dyadic interaction in the agonic mode is
characterised by a) mutual orientation towards agonistic behaviour, b)
non-redundancy of the definitional components of communications, c) aversiveness of the other's approach behaviour and rewardingness of the other's escape behaviour and d)
evaluation of the other in terms of the self, whereas in hedonic competition A
evaluates B in terms of C,D,E, etc. Many mental health problems are related to
social competition, which occurs in both modes, but is continuous and more
pathogenic in the agonic mode. Mental
health promotion is therefore concerned with facilitating the switch from
agonic to hedonic, and discouraging the switch from hedonic to agonic.
Key words: aggression,
agonistic behaviour, communication, depression, group dynamics, mental health,
relationships
Preamble
I am happy to take part in this symposium on
the agonic and hedonic modes because I think the mode concept is a major
conceptual breakthrough in behavioural science.
What Michael Chance has done is to recognise two quite separate ways of
social functioning, in which not only is the social interaction different, but
the mentalities of the interactants differ in such
fundamental areas as emotion, cognition, perception, memory and
goal-setting. What is particularly
remarkable is that the habitual modes of social functioning of two species of
infra-human primate should both occur in man, not only in different human goups, but actually in the same group at different
times. The reason
that the agonic mode was discovered in monkeys and not in man is probably due
the effect of the observer. When
an experimenter watches monkeys he does not alter the social structure of the
group to any great extent, but when a research worker or a doctor joins a human
group, the group structure changes, and if it was in the agonic mode it is
likely to switch to the hedonic mode because the intruder is seen as a high
status figure (and the mode depends on the relations of the high status members
of the group). Therefore, most observers
of human groups have probably never seen a group operating in the agonic
mode. To apprehend the agonic mode, we
either have to live through it ouselves (such as in
our own marriages) or we have to rely on the accounts of informants. And even then we may only recognise it if we
have the concept clearly in our minds in advance. In my work as a clinical psychiatrist, I have
found the two modes concept invaluable in analysing the situations of my patients.
Introduction
The
problem we now face with the two modes concept is to adapt it for use with
human beings. It was derived from a
difference between species, but we want to use it for differences within a
species, partly to describe differences between human groups, but mainly to
describe changes within human groups from time to time. This seems at the moment the most promising
use of the concept, to describe the way that human groups (or dyads) can switch
from the hedonic mode into the agonic mode and back again. This kind of switching describes a phenomenon
with which we are all familiar (particularly in marital relationships) but
which our existing terminology lacks descriptive terms for. In order to prepare the two modes concept for
this task, we need to "humanise" it and to clarify its meaning so
that it really does shed light rather than confusion on what is undoubtedly a
very complex and confused field of study.
Much progress towards this end was achieved by Michael Chance's book Fabrics
of the Mind, but some loose ends remain.
In the
first section I will discuss the manifestation of the agonic and hedonic modes
in dyads compared with groups of more than two; then I will comment on the definition
of the two modes; then I will describe
some uses of the concept, including the effect of mode on dyadic interaction,
and the importance of switching from one mode to the other. I will then discuss the interface between the
mode of dyadic interaction and the mentalities of the interactants. Finally, I will try to indicate how the two
modes concept may contribute to the theoretical base underlying psychotherapy.
Group size - two is best
To begin with, one must distinguish between the
agonic and hedonic modes in a dyadic relationship and the same two modes in a
group of three or more. They are not
necessarily the same. In a large group
of human beings there is a tendency for polarisation into two opposing
factions, so that the group as a whole is in the agonic mode but each faction
on its own is in the hedonic mode. Romeo
and Juliet is a good example of this.
The social action in the streets of
Thus,
in humans, the modes typically define dyadic relationships; and not as a trait variable but as a state
variable, implying that relationships may switch from one mode to the other, so
that the modes could be said to define episodes in relationships.
Marriage as a model dyad
The basic unit in which a mode may be
manifested is the dyadic
relationship. Let us
consider a marriage. Often this starts
with a honeymoon period in which there is no conflict. Especially when the two are in love, there is
little jockeying for position, except perhaps that each is trying to be the
slave of the other. In this phase the
marriage can be said to be operating in the hedonic mode.
Sooner
or later the couple find that they cannot agree over everything and conflict
appears. Often it takes the form of
"rows" or "spats" over trivial matters, and it is difficult
for the couple to understand why they become so heated over something so
unimportant. The rows tend to take a
stereotyped form, with the same complaints about the partner appearing every
time, and often concerning things that happened long ago, and often attacking
the spouse's mother, as in the rows
precipitated experimentally by Raush et al. (1974).
During
a row, while hostilities (catathetic signals) are
being exchanged, the couple are by definition in an episode of agonistic
behaviour. Then one of two things may
happen. Either they have a reconciliation, often sealed with an act of sexual
intercourse, and they return to the hedonic mode. Or they fail to reconcile, and they move into
a phase characterised by mutual resentment, brooding silences and occasional
sniping. This is the agonic mode. They are making each other unhappy, and
because they are busy doing this they cannot concentrate properly on their
tasks. They are not actually fighting
but they are oriented towards fighting.
Then they may have an act of reconciliation and switch to the hedonic
mode.
Later
in this paper I describe a marriage which switches into a prolonged agonic mode
because of a difference of opinion about a child's education. Another fictional marriage of interest is portrayed
in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda; this marriage is
between Gwendolyn who is used to dominating her social circle and Grandcourt who has a typically authoritarian
personality; the marriage begins in the
agonic mode as a struggle for what the author calls "mastery" as a
result of which Gwendolyn is crushed and sinks into a state of subordination
and depression. I use fiction for
illustration because there are no data from experimental psychology in this
field; the
issues are too important for people to suffer experimentation about them. I could offer case histories, as we are
familiar with such situations from clinical work, but fictional accounts have
the advantage of being open for all to see, and there are no problems of
confidentiality. A good fictional
example of an agonic symmetrical marriage is Edward Albee's
Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, and of an agonic complementary
(one-up/one-down) marriage Daphne du Maurier's Jamaica Inn.
Hedonic competition
The agonic/hedonic dichotomy should not be
confused with the difference between cooperation and competition. There is no cooperation in the agonic mode,
but there is competition in the hedonic mode. However, it is quite different from agonic
competition. Both Barkow
(1989 and 1991) and Gilbert (1989 and 1992) have pointed out that whereas
agonic competition is based on intimidation, hedonic competition is based on
attraction; two rivals in the hedonic
mode, instead of trying to intimidate each other, vie for attractiveness in the
eyes of one or more third parties. The
most advanced form of hedonic competition is the political election, but
similar activity is going on all the time in an informal way. The third parties vote by expressing
approbation or disapprobation, and the end result is the differential
allocation of prestige to the two rivals.
The differential prestige is the basis of a ranking system, so we should
not think of the hedonic mode as only applying to egalitarian social
groups. The important thing is that the
ranking in the hedonic mode is decided by third parties, rather than by the
rivals themselves. The two rivals may
not meet, or if they do they may have an agonic relationship, but they know that
they cannot influence their relative rank by the methods of the agonic
mode. This was illustrated well in the
film All About Eve in which two rival actresses had a relation of agonic
bitchiness, but they knew that the more bitchy they appeared, the less
attractive they appeared to their judges; only when they were on their own was
it possible to "put the boot in" in the hope of making the other
depressed and therefore less attractive to others. Since there are always at least two rivals
and one judge involved, this kind of competition could be called polyadic to distinguish it from the dyadic competition
which occurs when a couple is in the agonic mode.
Polyadic competition, in the form of attempts to win
prestige from outsiders, is probably not important in the dyadic competition of
marriage, at least in our society. Many
aphorisms exhort the hearer "not to intervene between husband and
wife". The anathesis-eliciting
behaviour of polyadic competition is, within a
couple, directed at the partner in the form of courtship, and so has quite a
different meaning. Gilbert (1992) has
suggested that polyadic competition evolved via
courtship. The competition of the
hedonic mode is not homogeneous over time and space. There are times and places when people are
actively evaluating each other (as in an election, or a formal meeting, or a
contest of some sort, or at receptions where name-dropping and jockeying for
position occur), and these occasions have been described by Erving
Goffman (1959) as being "frontstage"
whereas at other times evaluation is not on the agenda and these times may be
thought of as "backstage";
although it is probably true to say that there is no time at which some
form of evaluation is not occurring, even if it is an evaluation of how good
someone is at getting "backstage".
To extend Goffmann's metaphor, if we call the
dyadic interaction of the agonic mode "the (boxing) ring", then we
can say that social competition normally takes place in the "arena"
which includes both the agonic ring and the hedonic frontstage,
while the hedonic backstage and offstage areas are relatively free of social
competition. It is probably true to say
that a dyad is either competing in the agonic mode or cooperating, whereas a
group is either competing in the hedonic mode or cooperating.
The hedonic mode is also compatible with a
rank order which has been established by fighting or other agonic means but
which has come to be accepted by the losing parties; then, the definition components of the
communications being redundant (see later), the actors are no longer oriented
towards agonistic behaviour and the requirements of the hedonic mode are met.
Dimension or
category?
Should we talk about a relationship being
either agonic or hedonic, or should we use a dimensional terminology and say
that it is more agonic or less agonic? I
feel that a categorical terminology is justified because the middle ground
between the two modes tends to be unstable, subject to positive feedback processses whose end-points lie in one mode or the
other. This reflects the common feeling
of "The more angry he got, the more she retaliated." There must be exceptions, such as cases when
one member of a dyad behaves as though the relationship is agonic when the
other is behaving as though it is hedonic, but such instances are probably
exceptions, examples of pathological social functioning, and worthy of study as
such.
Ethologists have made the point that it is advantageous for animals to
switch out of the agonic mode as soon as possible. There is certain work to be
done in the agonic mode, that of intrasexual selection, which takes the form of
partitioning of territory and allocation of social rank, but time spent in the
agonic mode cannot be used for building shelters or training offspring, and
many animals during the agonic mode are conspicuous to predators. Therefore communication mechanisms are likely
to have evolved to enable animals to signal to each other their choice of mode,
and to calibrate the mode within dyads.
I
cannot produce evidence but predict from personal experience, observation of
friends, reports of patients and portrayals in fiction that, if couples were
sampled randomly at various times and measured on a scale representing a
hypothetical agonic/hedonic dimension, there would be a bimodal distribution of
scores, both between and within couples.
It has
been suggested (Kallmann Glanz,
personal communication) that the mode concept is unworkable because of the
complexity of human social interaction.
People may appear to be competing only for prestige but they may be
putting their competitors down in very subtle ways, either directly or to third
parties, such as by damning them with faint praise. Likewise lobbying or "sucking up
to" powerful individuals may inlude both
motivation to rise oneself and motivation to put
someone else down. Although there are
real difficulties here, I feel they are not sufficient to undermine the
usefulness of the agonic/hedonic dichotomy.
The criterion should be whether behaviour is motivated to enhance oneself
or to reduce someone else - this is a very fundamental distinction in evolutionary thinking
about competition. Because the
motivations may sometimes be mixed, and because we may sometimes feel
automatically reduced by someone else's enhancement, it is no reason to forego
the distinction.
The Concept of Mode
No one has attempted a typology of modes, of
which there are probably an infinite number, but some modes such as the sexual
mode are probably biologically prepared.
The same applies to the agonic mode.
The hedonic mode is really no more than the absence of the agonic
mode; it is a convenient way of saying
that the actors are not oriented towards agonistic interaction, and that
therefore in their brains all the systems which subserve the agonic mode are
switched off (what Gilbert (1992) calls the interpersonal defense
systems). Is it more useful to talk
about the agonic mode being "on" or "off",
or should we talk about the organism switching from mode to mode, such as
agonic to joking to sexual to task-oriented to playful to alimentary etc,
etc? In some sense the agonic mode takes
precedence over other modes, being used to negotiate irreconcilable differences
which may arise in any other mode. Also,
the emotion of anger, when directed at a particular person, is specific to the
agonic mode, and the emotions of anxiety and depression bear a close
relationship to it, so in dealing with these phenomena our main concern is
whether or not the agonic mode is operating, regardless of what other mode is predominant
if it is not. Therefore the duality of agonic and hedonic is preferable to a
multiplicity of modes at the same logical level.
DEFINITION OF THE TWO MODES
The agonic mode
Michael Chance's original definition of the
agonic mode stated that the animals were oriented towards fighting, although
fighting was not actually taking place.
This emphasised the fact that in a group of macaques the psychological,
physiological and muscular preparations for fighting are in operation when the
mode is agonic, and these preparations may be continued for a long time in the
absence of fighting. This concept of
chronically inhibited aggression is important for psychosomatic medicine. However, in humans, fighting (in the form of
the exchange of catathetic, putting down, signals)
may be so subtle that it is almost impossible to tell whether it is occurring
or not; and
there is the added problem that omission of an anathetic
signal, such as a customary act of deference, may be equivalent to a catathetic signal (frustrative non-reward) so that even if
nothing is actually happening, the fight may still be going on. Therefore it seems best in humans to use the
term agonic to describe a relationship which is oriented towards fighting,
whether or not fighting is actually occurring.
I think this slight change of definition may make the concepts easier to
use in relation to humans, and therefore more useful.
The hedonic mode
The mind of each partner to an hedonic
relationship must be characterised by acceptance, with no underlying objection
or resentment, of whatever degree of social asymmetry may exist; and he must be
reassured that the other partner is similarly accepting. In a symmetrical relationship the partners
are not trying to "put each other down" or to "get one up"
on each other. If one partner occupies
subordinate status, he accepts it, and he has no aspiration to take unilateral
action to narrow or reverse the status gap; nor is he apprehensive that the other
will try to widen the gap. Likewise the
partner with dominant status is satisfied with the
existing gap in status, nor is he apprehensive that the other wishes to narrow
or reverse the gap. In this hedonic
condition, status is not an issue to either partner, and is therefore not a focus
of attention, so that attention is free to concentrate on affiliation or on
matters external to the relationship.
A definition in terms of redundancy of
communication
I think we can get a more precise definition of
the agonic mode than "oriented towards fighting". Gregory Bateson and
his successors at the Mental Research Institute in
To
give a clinical example, one patient of mine was a submissive wife whose
depression enabled her to accept her husband's definition of their
relationship, which was that he was having an extramarital affair. Then he redefined the relationship by
bringing his mistress to live in the house, ostensibly as a live-in babysitter. The wife could not accept this new definition
and offered a counter-definition, which was that the mistress should
leave. The wife suffered many months of
humiliation, driven into the kitchen while the husband and the baby-sitter
disported themselves in the sitting room, and this made her very
depressed. But even her new depth of
depression did not make her sufficiently apathetic to accept the new definition
by the time she came for treatment, and she was still feeling angry with her
husband (a symptom of a participant in an agonic episode in a relationship).
When
we come to a larger group, going by what I said above, the group is in the
hedonic mode when the definition statements of the two most powerful
individuals are redundant. This should generally
be true, except in cases when numbers three, four and five are strong enough to
gang up and challenge one and two. This definition accounts for the persisting hedonic mode in a
In
passing, I should add that Bateson only told half (or
two thirds) of the story when he divided communication into definitional and
informational components. In their
nurturing role, people spend a lot of time comforting those in trouble, often
over long periods, and it is neither the informational nor definitional aspects
of their communication that they are attending to; rather, they are hearing what might be
termed the expressive/affective component of the communication. This ties in with Talcott
Parsons' (1978) distinction between the expressive female role and the male
instrumental role (although both sexes perform both functions, particularly in
the present age!). We could say that, in
the agonic mode, the ear is tuned to hear the definitional component; in the hedonic
mode, when the social action is task-oriented, the ear is tuned to the
informational component; in the hedonic
mode, when the social action is oriented towards nurturance and care
giving/receiving, the ear is tuned to the expressive/affective component of
whatever communication is taking place.
There is, of course, a reflexive loop between mode and communication, in
that the communication helps to determine the mode, and the mode determines
what aspect of the communication is attended to (and how it is interpreted) as Cronen et al. pointed out (1982). (See later section for development of this
argument.)
Rewards and punishments
The kind of behaviour that is socially
rewarding and aversive differs between the two modes. For instance, A runs
away from B. In the hedonic mode this is
aversive for B, because the implication is that A does
not love B and rejects B as a partner in the affiliative activity of the
hedonic mode. It is an adverse comment
on B's social attractiveness and therefore is a catathetic
signal and lowers B's self-esteem.
However, in the agonic mode it is rewarding for B because it is a form
of yielding and sends B the message, "You are stronger than me; you have won". This is an anathetic
message and raises B's self-esteem.
Mutual
gaze is anathetic (boosting) in the hedonic mode, but
catathetic (putting down) in the agonic mode. Consider the interaction between the newly
married Grandcourt and Gwendolyn in Daniel Deronda ("His eyes were still fixed upon her, and
she felt her own eyes narrowing under them as if to shut out an entering
pain") and compare this experience of a couple in the agonic mode with the
hours of pleasurable mutual gaze indulged in by normal newlyweds.
USES OF THE TWO MODES CONCEPT
Change of behaviour with social context
The modes explain the change of individual
behaviour with social context. For
instance, a married couple is in the agonic mode, quarrelling or maintaining
hostile silence. They then go out to
friends, where the husband is the "life and soul of the party". They
then go home and, as so many wives report, "as soon as the door closed behind him his
whole personality changed and he became hostile or silent." The husband is simply behaving according to
the mode of the social group he is in.
His marriage was in the agonic mode, therefore alone with his wife, both
before and after the party, he behaved agonically. But the group at the party was in the hedonic mode, and so
he behaved hedonically - still competing, but competing by showing off rather
than by putting down.
Constructive criticism
Criticism has a different meaning in the two
modes, and this can give rise to misunderstanding. In particular, the recipient may get upset
when offered constructive criticism, and the donor may have difficulty in
understanding this response.
In the
hedonic mode, criticism is a means of improving the other person, and usually
occurs in a teaching or advising context.
A points out a fault in B so that B can remedy
it and increase his competence and therefore his self-esteem. The criticism is both intended by A and
received by B with this overall meaning.
For instance, "When you feel like crying I think it would be better
if you came and cried on my shoulder rather than crying on your own." However, in order to make the recipient
function better, the critic has to comment on what is not yet perfect, and such
a comment on the recipient's deficiencies may be received as a putting-down
signal.
In the
agonic mode criticism is a disparagement of the other person designed to lower
his self-esteem. It is both intended and
received as a putting-down or catathetic signal
(Price, 1988). For instance, "You
do nothing but cry all the time."
Like other catathetic signals criticism can
cause a switch from the hedonic to the agonic mode (see below). When this occurs, the constructive element of
an item of constructive criticism may not be attended to, so that the whole of
the communication is received as catathetic; the result then is
not a rise but a fall in self-esteem.
This misinterpretation is likely to occur if the recipient is
temperamentally sensitive, or if the hedonic mode has only been of short
duration. Hence its occurrence in cases
of marital disharmony.
The quality of depression
The function of depression is different in the
two modes. Depression evolved in the
agonic mode because it enabled the individual to accept being forced into the
one-down role in a dyadic relationship (Price, 1991). The mental state appropriate to this is one
of inferiority and the behaviour is submission or withdrawal.
In the
hedonic mode this function is obsolete, but there is still a need for episodes
of self-effacement. These occur when a
negative social evaluation has been made or is anticipated. The mental state of these is a combination of
submissiveness with shame or guilt (Gilbert and Trower,
1990), sometimes associated with social anxiety.
Group
members (in most societies, probably) feel they are being evaluated according
to two main criteria: whether they
maintain the standards of the group and whether they keep the regulations of
the group. Anticipation of negative
evaluation concerning standards leads to shame, anticipation of negative
evaluation concerning regulations leads to guilt. In both cases the emotion facilitates
acceptance of lowered status in the group; in the case of shame there may also be
behaviour directed to self-improvement, and in the case guilt, behaviour
directed to self-reform. The
evolutionary function of the emotion is to induce an appropriate response to
the received or anticipated negative evaluation.
Getting one's own way in depression
The two modes concept explains a paradox about
patients suffering from depression. From
an evolutionary perspective, depression is a yielding response (Sloman et al.,
1989), and therefore patients should be seen to yield and let others get their
own way. However, sometimes depressed
patients give the impression of not yielding, but rather of manipulating others
successfully and getting their own way.
The
concept of the two modes explains this paradox.
Depression is a form of yielding in agonic interaction, and, indeed, in the
agonic mode depressed patients do not get their own way. However, they often appear to get their own
way in the hedonic mode where they are treated as people in need of nurturance. They get their own way in terms of being
nurtured, and this, of course, depends on there being people available who are
willing to nurture them. It also
depends, at least to some extent, on the fact that depression may present
itself with the metaphor of physical illness.
In many societies, the depressed person is not seen as depressed, but
rather as physically ill, and therefore is treated in the way that physically
ill people are treated. This makes the
yielding even more effective, because the signal is given not only to the adversary
in the form of "I am sick and therefore no threat to you", but also
to the actor's family and friends, in the form of "I am sick and therefore
out of action, so please do not push me into the arena to fight on your
behalf." Returning to Romeo and Juliet,
let me rewrite the play and assume that before his confrontation with Romeo, Tybalt becomes depressed.
A depressed Tybalt wanting to avoid
confrontation with the Montagus might well have been
pushed into it by his friends; but a physically ill Tybalt would have been taken off the streets of
A
detailed discussion of this argument is given in the July 1990 and subsequent
issues of the Across Species and Psychiatry (ASCAP) newsletter (obtainable from
Professor Russell Gardner, Jr, MD, University of Texas Medical Branch,
Galveston, Texas, 77550).
Second half of
paper Home Another
publication