A heuristic comment
Shame and Affect Theory (Nathanson)
A heuristic comment
by blynch, 3/20/98
For heuristic purposes:
I have found ,as I go along, that maybe classifying the affects into positive and negative
might not be such a good idea right off the bat. They are in themselves all
neutral, are they not? Thinking of them as positive and negative kept me, for a long time,
from realizing that the positive affects could be used for ‘negative’ ends. Each culture
develops scripts and assigns moral value to the action that follows form the use of those
scripts. “Positive” scripts take on a morally “good” sense and “negative” scripts are
associated with “bad”. Likewise the resulting actions of withdrawal, attack other and self
and avoidance all have a negative connotation. This makes one, at the beginning, think of
the compass as all bad even though it is clearly pointed out that the actions have a range
from appropriate to non appropriate. My point simply being that the descriptive terms
from the beginning influence greatly the course of learning the theory. I understand one
has to start somewhere and that eventually it is very useful to divide them into positive
and negative. I understand that they are neuro-physiologically different.