How does animal stimulus and mechanical motion hook up? The
exploration of this question formed a good deal of the research program of
nineteenth century psychology. The mediating element was electricity, which operated as a discursive image more
than as a physical object up until the neurological advances of the early
twentieth century.
In a sense, what happened in the early Enlightenment was a
kind of coincidence of programs in the sciences. As electricity and the physics
of shock, or collision, became clearer, so, too, did at least one element in
physiology: there were no animal spirits. The entire two thousand year old
structure of humors and animal spirits collapsed in the 18th
century, a Götterdämmerung not unlike the end of paganism – or, perhaps, a
codicil to the end of paganism. The wood and river spirits that were exorcised
by Christianity were followed by the spirits of the liver, the heart, and the
lungs exorcised by physiology. The interior forest was vacated. Now, these
spirits had done the work of explaining feeling not only for the learned, but
for the peasant and the townsman as well. The history of this moment is an
oddly foreshortened thing. It isn’t only a minor episode in the history of
physiology and psychology. It is a history in the emotional customs of the
West. The twilight of the animal spirits created a hole in the way people
described, or thought about, feeling.
That such holes can happen is a controversial topic in the
anthropology of emotions. Robert Levy, who did his fieldwork in Tahiti, wrote a
series of essays and a book about Tahitian emotional customs that introduced
the idea of hypocognition: “I have suggested that some
sets of feelings are relatively
"hypercognized," controlled, so to
speak, by discrimination, whereas others are "hypercognized" and controlled by cultural
invisibility or at least by difficulty of access to communication.” This rather
confusing use hypercognized to indicate two forms of control is clarified by
calling the latter hypocognition – that is, a non-alignment between the
discursive resources of a culture and the raw feeling that individuals in the
culture encounter in their circumstances – encounter as reactions, so to speak,
to stimulus. In the case of Tahitians, Levy, famously, thought that sadness was
underconceptualized in the Tahitian schema of feelings. Sadness was rather
taken as a marker of illness. Interestingly, that Tahitian conception is
increasingly paralleled with the contemporary, post-Prozac idea, among
Americans, that sadness is always a form of ‘depression’. The emergence of
‘depression’ as a widespread synonym for sadness in the American emotional
vocabulary seems to indicate some deeper change in the emotional conceptual
schema. And it is especially noteworthy for indicating the porousness between
‘educated’ or ‘scientific’ feeling terms and concepts and folk psychology.
Levy’s work is often taken up in the battle
between those who maintain that emotions are universal and those who maintain
that they are cultural. However, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that emotions
are cultural – rather, it indicates that raw feelings are represented in the
emotional customs of a culture in ways that differ among cultures, and that can
also change within a culture. Its salience as to the feelings themselves
derives from the notion that knowing a feeling is a crucial part of the
experience of feeling. It is crucial to the person who ‘has’ the feeling, and
it operates, as well, on the feeling,
in as much as it can change the laters relations to other feelings the
person has, or the person’s longer term judgments about his or her life.
The importance of mediating images and
theories of feeling within a society is, then, obvious. To understand how
electricity was first discovered, and understood, in physiological and
psychological terms, we have to understand the hypocognitive moment of the
early modern era. To do that would require an enormous data set of all
references, in whatever genre (from doctor’s report to trial transcript to poem
to letter) in which feelings are referenced. And one would also expect to find
the co-existence of different schemas of emotional sense-making – humoral psychology did not collapse evenly
and among all social levels, but was retained and used and comes up again and
again in ordinary folk psychology and (increasingly) dissident, or alternative
(or crackpot) medicine.
Surrounded as I am by the universal
artificial paradise, the isle of Synthetica, with a lifestyle founded on zero
and one, plug and play, voltage and plastic, I have to make a truly stoic
effort to wipe away the impressions of my environment in order to reach back to
the moment –the genealogical instance – in which shock, electricity and animal
magnetism came into play in Europe and America – in which, for certain groups,
these became concepts-in-practice. It is against this background that one can
go forward and ask questions about shock.
I sing the body electric – but is this
Franklin’s electricity, or Mesmer’s magnetic fluid, generated in the nerves?
Has it come from the laboratory, the theater, or the old woman who runs a surreptitious
business as the street’s healer, fortune teller and abortionist?
No comments:
Post a Comment