To attribute these effects of emotion to repression from conflict is only to express the facts in different terms. But it would be often an over-emphasis to describe what takes place as a specific conflict between particular sentiments. It is often rather the discharge of a blind impulsive force in every direction which, like a blast of dynamite, suppresses or dissociates every other process which might come into consciousness and displace it.
Systematized dissociation.—Quite commonly the dissociated field, by whatever force isolated, instead of being general may be systematized. By this is meant that only certain perceptions, or groups or categories of ideas that have been organized into a system, or have associative relations, are prevented from entering the personal synthesis. In other respects the conscious processes may be normal. The simplest type is probably systematized anesthesia, exemplified in every-day life in anyone who fails to perceive his eye-glasses, or any other object he is in search of that is lying under his nose on the table before him; and by the post-hypnotic phenomenon exhibited by the subject who fails to perceive a marked playing card or to hear or see a given person, though he perceives all the other cards in the pack and everyone else in the room; and by the hysteric who likewise fails to perceive certain systematized sensations, such as the printing on a page which, itself, therefore appears blank. That which is dissociated in these examples is a comparatively very simple complex, but it may involve larger and larger groups of remembrances, perceptions, sentiments (with their emotions and feelings), settings, attitudes, instincts, and other innate dispositions, etc., organized into a system about the sentiment of self. Such groups and systems may, as we saw when studying the organization of complexes (Lecture IX), be dissociated in that they cease to take part in the functioning of the personality. The personality becomes thereby contracted.
1. The principle involved is this: When a specific idea or psycho-physiological function (memory, sensation, perception, instinct) is by any force dissociated, the exiled idea or function tends to carry with itself into seclusion other ideas and functions with which it is systematized. The dissociation is apt to involve much more than the particular psychological element in question in that it “robs” the personal consciousness of much else. I have already cited in a previous lecture (p. 318) examples of this principle. I need merely remind you of the observation with Miss B., where the systematized dissociation of auditory images pertaining to the experimenter carried with it the associated secondary visual images of him necessary for tactile perception of his hand. Similarly, in B. C. A., the general dissociation of tactile images carried with it the secondary visual images necessary for the visualization of her body. A large number of examples drawn from all kinds of dissociative phenomena might be given. I will content myself with mentioning two or three more: In automatic writing the dissociated muscular control of the hands usually robs the personal consciousness, so far as the hand is concerned, of all sensory perception, and in automatic speech the dissociation of the faculty of speech often robs the personal consciousness of the auditory perception of the subject’s own voice. In hysterics, the specific dissociation of one class of perceptions carries away others systematized with them. In systematized anesthesia it is often easy to recognize this fact. A good example of this is that recorded in the case of Miss B., who, believing she had lost her finger rings, not only could not be made to see or feel them, but also not even the ribbon on which they were hung round her neck, or to hear them click together, or to feel the tug of the ribbon when I pulled it.[[246]] The perceptions of these associated sensations were therefore also withdrawn. The same principle can be demonstrated by suggestion in suitable subjects. Thus, for example, I suggest to one of these subjects in hypnosis that she will forget an episode associated with a certain person named “August.” After waking she has amnesia not only for the episode but for the name of the person and for the word in its other meanings, e. g., the name of a calendar month. She cannot recall that a month intervenes between July and September.
In these examples the source of the dissociating force is not in every case obvious. But this need not concern us now. What I want to point out is that when the dissociation is the consequence of an emotional discharge the same principle frequently comes into play, the same phenomenon of systematization is of common occurrence. It may be recognized with considerable exactness when a conflict between sentiments has been artificially created. Thus the phenomenon, described in the last lecture (p. 476), of inhibition of sentiments by a self-suggested antagonistic sentiment, may equally well be cited in evidence of this principle. Similarly, O. N. suggested to herself a sentiment antagonistic to a specific sentiment which she previously entertained regarding a particular person. Not only was the latter sentiment dissociated but a number of other allied sentiments systematized around the same person were also incidentally and unintentionally repressed and withdrawn from consciousness, so much so that her whole point of view was altered.[[247]] (It was easy in hypnosis by the procedures already stated to synthesize the sentiments at will so as to drive out, with suggested antagonistic sentiments, the undesired ones. The change of viewpoint and feeling after waking from hypnosis was often quite dramatic.)
2. By this mechanism we can explain the dissociation of large systems of sentiments leaving a contracted personality—a mere extract of its former self—dissociated and distinguished from what it was by different sentiments, instincts and other innate dispositions.[[248]] The facts seem to show that the awakening of the emotional impulses of certain sentiments inhibits, not only those particular antagonistic sentiments with which the former are incompatible, but large systems of sentiments, and many instincts and other innate dispositions with which the inhibited sentiments are systematized. The contracted self may or may not be able to recall to memory the fact of having previously experienced the dissociated sentiments. But whether so or not the latter no longer functionally participate in the personality.
This mechanism, to be sure, is an interpretation but the facts are easily demonstrated. Minor types of such dissociations result in what we have described as “moods.” More extreme types are pathological and characterized as phases of personality.
3. The contrast of the sentiments in such moods and phases with the habitual sentiments having identically the same objects is striking. In other words the object is organized with an entirely different group of emotions (instincts). The subject’s sentiment of husband or wife or father or son no longer contains the emotions of love and reverence, etc.; but, perhaps, there are organized within it the emotions of anger, hatred, contempt, etc. A self-regarding sentiment of self-subjection with shame, “feelings” of inadequacy and depression may be substituted for self-assertion, pride, self-respect, etc. These clinical facts are matters of observation. B——n suffers from constantly recurring and very intense attacks of asthma which have certain characteristics which stamp it as an hysterical tic. In the attacks it is noticeable that her personality and disposition—normally amiable, gentle, and affectionate—undergo a change. The parental instinct and sentiments of affection for her family, of whom she is very fond, of modesty, of pride, of consideration for others, etc., disappear and are replaced by others of an opposite character. Fear, anger, and resentment are easily aroused, etc. B. C. A. in phase B of personality knew nothing of remorse, self-reproach, or despair which characterized the normal phase, and experienced only emotions and feelings of pleasure and happiness.[[249]]
Janet, with his customary accuracy in observing facts, has noted these changes, although I think in his attempt at interpretation he has not quite recognized the mechanism by which they are brought about. “With Renée,” this author remarks, when noting the facts, “we have gradually seen disappearing the taste for finery; her coquetry—vanity, even—disappeared. With others, the love of property is gone; they lose all that belongs to them and do not care. Bertha formerly had great timidity; she now wonders at the loss of it. She goes and comes at night; she looks at dead bones of which she was afraid in past years, and asks: ‘Why does all this make no impression on me now?’ Marie, especially, is very curious as to that. She takes no longer any interest in things or people. Overwhelmed with misfortunes, consequences of her malady, and, after having been in comfortable circumstances, reduced to extreme poverty, she does not perceive that her situation is serious. She loses money, when she has only a few pennies left; she mislays her clothing, can scarcely keep on the dress she is wearing and does not seem to trouble herself about it in the least. Yet we observe that she is still intelligent and might provide against her situation. She does so very little, and only wonders at her indifference. ‘Formerly I took care of my things; now I do not.’ There are some still more characteristic facts to be observed in this patient. Formerly she loved her husband and was even quite jealous about him. She was devoted to her two children. Since her illness she has gradually abandoned her children, who have been reared by her sisters, and she finally left her husband. For the last three years, instead of her former happy life, she leads about Paris the most miserable existence. Not once did she inquire about her husband or her children. She heard indirectly of the former’s death. ‘Strange!’ she said, ‘it does not affect me in the least; yet, I assure you, it does not make me happy, either ... I simply don’t care.’ ‘But if we were to tell you that your little Louis [it was her favorite child] is dead, too?’ ‘How do you suppose it can affect me? I have forgotten him!’”[[250]]
4. Janet, when interpreting such phenomena, attributes them to “psychological feebleness” in consequence of which the personality cannot synthesize more than a certain number of emotions and ideas to form the personal self-consciousness. It certainly cannot perform the synthesis involved in retaining certain formerly possessed sentiments, etc., but it is not because of feebleness. Many hysterics can synthesize quite as many psychological elements as a normal person, but not sentiments and emotions of a certain character, i.e., those which pertain to certain experiences, to certain systems of remembrances. M. Janet has quite correctly pointed out that, in spite of the apathy and lack of emotionality of hysterics in certain directions,—which, I would insist, in the last analysis means the absence of particular sentiments and instincts—in other directions these patients are “extremely excitable and susceptible of very exaggerated emotions,” which in turn means the retention of particular sentiments and instincts. These last dominate the personality. Here is the key to the enigma.
From this point of view, the effect of the impulsive force of the dominating emotions has been misinterpreted by M. Janet. These emotions are the causal factors in determining the apathy, i.e., absence of particular sentiments and instincts, and explain why they cannot be brought within the personal synthesis. If we bear in mind that emotion means discharge of force, an adequate explanation of such phenomena in a great many instances, at least, is to be found in the principle of conflict and dissociation. The conflict is between the impulsive forces of the emotions pertaining either to antagonistic instincts or to sentiments organized within different systems. With the excitation of emotion, instincts and sentiments which have opposing conative tendencies are inhibited, repressed, or dissociated, and with them the systems with which they are organized. The emotion does not so much cause “psychological feebleness” in consequence of which the personality cannot synthesize sentiments, as it inhibits and dissociates antagonistic sentiments, etc., which consequently cannot be synthesized. The result you may call “feebleness” if you like.