Shame without Distress-Anguish

• Quiz Time by Jim Duffy, 4/29/97
  • (...)
    
    • Neat Post-Quiz Thought! by Jim Duffy, 5/8/97
      
      

Jim,

This is another great question because it raises a number of interesting points about our current undertaking to teach affect theory. Please keep in mind that all the people involved in the learning/teaching process that forms the basic mission of the Tomkins Institute have gotten into this position because we were dissatisfied with prior theories of emotion. All of us learned Tomkins by starting at the beginning with his delineation of affect theory presented in Volumes I and II of "Affect/Imagery/Consciousness." In these early volumes, Tomkins details the very beginnings of his theory of the biologic basis of the 9 innate affects and the triggering stimuli for each. For instance, it is here that he describes how shame is triggered whenever there is an impediment to either of the 2 positive affects—interest-excitement and enjoyment-joy.

This was quite a revelation to all of us when we finally understood what he meant. Since then, we have been able to trace every shame reaction back to its roots as some form of impediment to positive affect. However, like Tomkins, we are ultimately interested in an overall theory of personality and moved on to AIC Volumes III and IV to study Tomkins's considerations of script theory, cognition, memory and other aspects that cannot be overlooked if one is to consider the whole person. In essence we learned that the entire process is just as complex as everyone assumes it must be. For instance, once a child has an affect such as shame, that affect will begin to be changed from its "pure" form as the child reacts to the affect, as others react to the child having the affect, as the child reacts to others reacting to his or her experience of the affect, etc. Ultimately the person's emotional reaction may bear no resemblance whatsoever to shame as Don has made so clear in his description of the library of scripts to shame that he calls the Compass of Shame. (see Nathanson "Shame and Pride") In other words, it can be very difficult to see shame as the motivating force driving a wealthy businessman who must buy possession after possession and is never satisfied.

As a result, we have made the decision to do what Tomkins did (after all, we think he was smarter than we are anyway), and teach the 9 innate affects in such a way that the triggering source can be understood more clearly. We believe that without understanding of the actual triggering source, proper therapy (or understanding of human motivation), no matter how well intentioned, will be misguided and not work. In so doing, however, we have created some oversimplifications as a teaching tool. For instance, can you or I have a shame reaction from an impediment to positive affect and not have that reaction influenced almost instantaneously by our scripts? Not often, but maybe. What about a situation where you are saying something to someone in your professional role where you are very comfortable that you know what you are doing. And let's say that you completely botch the pronunciation of a word you have said a million times and is very important to the point you are trying to make. I believe that the brief impediment to your interest in having the other see you as a competent professional will cause a brief moment of mild shame (embarrassment) and then quickly dissipate. Such a situation will likely not produce a stimulus condition of an above optimal, steady-state experience sufficient to trigger distress-anguish. On the other hand, situations that trigger more intense shame are more likely to tap into memory, scripts, etc. in such a way that it stays with us for a longer time at a more dense level, making it a more competent stimulus for distress-anguish.

I hesitate to go on from here because Tomkins has anticipated many such questions and therefore outlined a large number of rules for affect dynamics which can be found in Chapter 9 of AIC Vol I.

• Thank You, Vick, for a Really Clarifying Reply by Jim Duffy, 5/13/97