Dr. Klein--Please Study Affect Theory

• Welcome to the BOL Forum on Shame and Affect Theory by John Grohol, 2/10/96
  • (...)
    
    • hyperactivity as shame by donald klein, 7/1/96
      
      

Dear Dr. Klein,

I have followed your work for many years, and recently have been especially appreciative of your postings on Ivan Goldberg's psycho-pharm list where I love to lurk. Your clear thinking and your fervor that our profession strive to prove the benefits of our therapies and our theories with valid, statistically significant studies is highly admired by me. And I truly believe that you would be thrilled to have your understanding of the human emotional system enhanced by learning the theory of affect proposed by Silvan S. Tomkins. If you ever have the time or interest to start with Volume I of "Affect, Imagery, and Conscious," written by Tomkins now over 30 years ago, you will appreciate his use of multiple research studies from the fields of psychology, learning, and neurology in forming his theory. It is true that some of these studies are now outdated, but I think you will be impressed by how much he, like you, is a stickler for detail and proof.

But most important, I believe, is that you will find that the specific delineation of the 9 innate affects is desperately needed if we are to continue to develop accurate treatments for the disease that is now called "depression." Don't you believe that "depression" is a wastebasket term that probably represents a number of different illnesses? The innate affects defined by Tomkins include several very specific negative affects, each with its own innately patterned biologic response to stimuli. Four of these are fear-terror, distress-anguish, anger-rage, and shame-humiliation. Do we not see some depressions in which a distress component--with the mouth set in the omega of melancholy and crying coming too easily--as the major feature; whereas in other depressions there is a great deal of "irritability" ie. anger as a major feature; whereas in other "depressions" there is a great deal of fear obvious on the face of the sufferer; whereas in others a great deal of shame proneness evidenced by the inability of the sufferer to look you in the eye and where that person feels easily rejected by others or is too readily made to feel worthless. In other words, depression looks very different in different people and at different times in the same person. Affect theory allows us to accurately specify which negative affect predominates and, we believe, that only by knowing this will researchers be able to discover the biological differences in the various kinds of affect disorders from which humans suffer. The Silvan S. Tomkins Institute is seriously seeking grant money, for instance, in order to run research projects that show that "depressions" where shame predominates respond best to SSRI's.

As I watch you jump into the shame discussion forum, it is like watching someone come in in the middle of a movie. I am afraid we are going to lose your much desired input because you will end up thinking that we have some random, idiosyncratic definition of shame that we acquired without much thought because shame is currently a popular topic in the mental health literature. I assure you this is not the case. Furthermore, I think that you will be excited to learn that our definition of shame is firmly rooted in human biology.

Since this is beginning to sound a bit like a sermon, I will not go on much longer. Let me simply apologize that if I do sound a bit sermony, it is because I found myself after a traditional training in child and adult psychiatry, both with some emphasis on Freud's work, somewhat lost about human emotion and the motivations behind human behavior. I feel much more firmly grounded since learning affect theory. I would be delighted to learn of your response if you ever are exposed to the details of affect theory.

Respectfully submitted,

Vick Kelly

No Replies