Catharsis
‘Every night shall I make my bed to swim; with my tears shall I water my couch.’ (Augustine 2013, Kindle Location 20515)
Michael Trimble observes that the neurological functions that appertain to emotion and emotional response ‘are found way down the evolutionary scale, and become well developed in mammals…’ (Trimble 2012, pp.18 - 19) That emotions are innate is undoubted, as testified by personal experience. Shedding tears can feel as an overwhelming release, but it can also be distressing, as generally the act of crying is involuntary and can become difficult to control. ‘Emotional weeping is not only uniquely human, but universal.’ (Trimble 2012, p.19) Yet, to weep is to bring release; certainly, a physical reaction to pressure within the lachrymal glands, via the expulsion of tears. Yet, it also brings a prevailing sense of symbolic release; letting go, submitting, releasing, and so subjugating strong emotional arousal. That catharsis is a palpably strong human emotion, or drive, is evident through empirical example. Yet, catharsis is a complex and largely misunderstood, even misinterpreted reaction.
Freud and Breuer in their Studies on hysteria (Breuer & Freud, 1893-1895) offer a very familiar interpretation of catharsis and the psychological symptoms which instigate its manifestation. The process of catharsis, they suggest, involved the expulsion of the destructive emotion through a hostile action akin to revenge. Their view largely survives, that the retention of harmful emotions will result in psychological traumas which are more injurious to the one beset with rage that to the perceived object, the cause of the rage. The subsequent internal compression of fury is tantamount to a physical pressure, which is more tangible than symbolic, and required some form of venting, of expulsion in order for the cathartic process to be actualise.
Brad Bushman (Bushman 2002, p.725) explains how earlier experimentation with the venting of anger have resulted in some unexpected outcomes. Subjects in a study by Hornberger (1959) were berated by insults; half expelled their pent-up ire through a ten-minute vent in the form of pummelling nails, whilst the other half were forced to remain inactive. This seemingly whimsical activity was followed by all participants actively admonishing their accusers. Perhaps surprisingly, the results revealed that the nail hammerers displayed more anger towards their verbal assailant than the inactive group.
That this reaction seems in contradiction to expectation is possibly a cultural response coupled with the seemingly inevitable surge of adrenalin that such caustic insults would prompt. An adrenalin rush usually has one sure method of expulsion; it could be called the fight or flight response, but it is defiantly physical by nature. The heart rate will increase, and therefore blood pressure; muscled will respond with surge in strength, and so some form of physical action appears to be the more efficacious retort. That a brutal act, such as pummelling nails, is a chemical reaction, a cultural reaction is also plausible. The wish to respond, to rejoinder in a manner which befits the indignity suffered, is instinctive. The wish to respond with equal weight is also a cultural construct.
Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbour, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (The Bible 2011, p.123)
A like response, through which the grievance of a verbal slight, a telling affront, a disfiguring of dignity, should in some form equal the gravity of the insult is, on reflection, implausible, even foolhardy. How should the gravity or severity of the response be measured against the severity or injuriousness of the insult? Being called an idiot may be returned through a violent physical action such as smashing a china plate against a wall. In terms of symbolism, the breakage is suitably vicious, abrupt, ear-splitting and brutal; gloriously nihilistic and unashamedly fierce; even primitive. The broken china is merely a proxy, and a more suitable proxy, to a broken nose. The response is thus as much a response to social conditioning rather than evolutionary; it volunteers a preferred outcome.
Bushman is clear that studies prove that venting is not merely ineffective, but it will not reduce anger but actually exacerbate the problem. Should the respondent vent towards the provocateur, then there is a measurably beneficial effect, but this requires the respondent to trust that the provocateur will not retaliate. With regards to a proxy, Bushman is adamant: ‘Venting against substitute targets does not reduce arousal.’ (Bushman 2002, p.725)
Extract from In search of the untethered mind: thinking, thought and reflective practice in education (in progress)
Augustine, Saint., 2013. The Complete Works of Saint Augustine: The Confessions, On Grace and Free Will, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine, Expositions on the Book Of Psalms. Kindle Edition.
Breuer, J., Freud, S. (1893-1895). Studies on hysteria (Vol. II). London: Hogarth.
Bushman, B., 2002. Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis, Rumination, Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding. Sage Journals Volume: 28, issue: 6, pp.724 - 731 [online]. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202289002 [Accessed 20th September 2017]
Crossway Bibles, 2011. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Good News Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Trimble, M., 2012. Why Humans Like to Cry: tragedy, evolution, & the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press