Furthermore when we bear in mind that sentiments thus originating and organized are conserved in the subconscious forming what I call the "setting" which gives idea meaning, the meaning being the most important component of any idea, and when we bear in mind that this subconscious setting is an integral part of the total mechanism of thought—each sentiment in the setting striving to carry itself to completion, and for this purpose repressing every conflicting sentiment—I think we find a satisfactory explanation of the disturbances due to conflict in the psycho-neuroses. Such a mechanism gives full value to any one and all of the emotional instincts without giving primacy to any one.
DR. WALTER B. SWIFT, Boston: In regard to the origin of emotions: I understood Dr. Hall to say that they were not instinct. Of late I have been observing two young children develop certain emotions. The starting point of that development has seemed to be in the imitation of motions seen in others. It is plain to see that this is along the line of the James-Lange hypothesis. So that before these motions were seen there was no emotion in the child. If these motions were observed and imitated by the children then the emotions developed. I would, therefore, like to ask President Hall whether he would consider imitation of motion seen in another as the starting point of the development of emotion.
DR. TOM WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C.: The value of formulation we know. It has been well illustrated by Dr. Hall's paper that he has by definite concept followed out by investigation of this. The disadvantage of formulation is very well shown by over-formulation by the scholastics in the Middle Ages. I think Dr. Hall's wonderful contribution to our psychological researches should be kept in mind by those who have excessively formulated in a certain direction in order that some of us at least may apply to some of the other emotions what others have attempted concerning libido. Dr. Prince has long appealed for other methods than those which have been applied so exclusively to the sexuality. In reference to the manifestation of the anger trend, for instance, it may be not only a definitely conscious manifestation, but it may perhaps produce a crisis even in dream-thought. I am speaking of a case. A young boy at boarding school who was a musical genius had been very much bullied. He suffered a great deal from this, but did not retaliate until one night in the dormitory with eight boys while asleep, he being badgered by neighbors, got up while asleep and attacked these larger boys and discomfited them. It was the subject of conversation in the dormitory, whether he was really asleep or not. The boy became so terrible in his anger on future occasions and so successful as a fighter that his bullying thereafter ceased, and his status in the school thereafter was different. Whether this really occurred in a dream state or was mere simulation I cannot say.
DR. A. A. BRILL, New York City: I must say that the mechanisms described so interestingly by Pres. Hall are found in our patients during analysis and I believe that almost all of them belong to the love and hate principles. This may not seem so on superficial examination, thus, I have on record nine cases of women who were suffering from various forms of psychoneurosis, one of whose symptoms was screaming. Every once in a while they had to scream. It was an obsessive screaming. Questioning elicited that the screaming always occurred when they were thinking of some terrible or painful thought. For instance, one woman went through fancies of killing her husband and when she came to the idea of shooting him, she began to scream. Here one might think that it was an ethical struggle which had nothing to do with sex, but if one considers that it was against her husband that her anger was directed, that she wished to kill him because he abused her and that there was another man in the case, it becomes quite clear that the anger had a sexual motive.
Concerning new formulations, I feel that there is nothing against promulgating new attitudes and theories, provided one has sufficient cause for doing so. Formulations based on insufficient data and hastily constructed are dangerous, to say the least. Prof. Freud is most careful in formulating new theories. He gathers his material for years before he puts it forth in the form of tentative theories and does not hesitate to modify them if occasion demands. Nor is it true that the Freudians ignore the work done by others. Freud and his followers give due credit to other observers, but as the Freudian mechanisms have opened up so many new fields for investigation, we naturally give most of our time to this work. That does not at all signify that we ignore everything else, as some believe. Freud himself continually urges that the psychoanalytic problems should be taken up by observers in other fields than medicine and I was, therefore, extremely pleased to hear Prof. Hall's formulations of anger. I do not believe, however, that his paper shows that we are overestimating the sexual impulse. Basically, all his mechanisms come under the heading of "Sex," as we understand it.
DR. L. E. EMERSON, Boston, Mass: I wish to express my delight in President Hall's paper. It seems to me what he has done has been to show the breadth of the Freudian conception of sex. The word sex as the Freudians use it, includes all personal relations and even personality; and it is apparently in question only as to whether one is going to draw a line at one place and say everything on this side is sex and the other side personality, or whether one is going to enlarge the concept of sex to include personality. That as I understand it, is what Dr. White has also said. It seems to me the value of the sex conception lies in the fact that while it can be expanded, and is illimitable, at the same time it focuses, it does come to a point. Personalities as talked of ordinarily have no point, they are too vague. On the other hand, a man who has a mind no bigger than a pinhole is too circumscribed to be capable of understanding any very broad generalization. If one can grasp a conception that does have a center, even though no circumference, he has got hold of a very valuable generalization.
DR. E. E. SOUTHARD, Boston: Dr. Jelliffe has just brought into ridicule what he terms "pinhole psychiatry;" but as I remember it, there is a technical method in psychology whereby things may be more clearly visible through a pin-hole!
The valuable thing about President Hall's communication is that the fundamental distinction is brought out between two groups of workers in psychopathology. I should be inclined to divide the people in this room into what might be termed emotional monists and emotional pluralists. The Freudian theory is in general a theory of emotional monism and therefore fundamentally must satisfy a great many of the Hegelian tenets. Hence, perhaps Dr. Putnam's adherence to both Hegel and Freud. Now as I understand it, what Dr. Prince wants is an emotional pluralism such as might well be founded upon the data in MacDougall's "Social Psychology" and in Shand's work on "The Foundations of Character." This view of emotional pluralism is one which I should myself be compelled to hold. We must remember, however, that the work of Cannon on various types of emotion may possibly show that different emotions which look vastly unlike (e. g. fear and rage) may be in some sense equivalents. Fear may be equivalent to rage much as different types of energy in the physical universe are equivalent to one another. The emotions may be interchangeable in some sense so that it might be possible that sex emotion and the emotion of fear are translatable. In this way there might be constructed a fundamental monism of emotion in the same sense that energetics is a science which unifies electricity, heat, magnetism, etc. It would not seem to me, however, appropriate to identify all kinds of emotion with the sexual.
PRESIDENT HALL: It would take an encylopedia and an omniscient mind. and many hours and days to exhaust such a topic as this. Dr. Southard has said some of the things I would have said. I supposed this society was primarily interested in pragmatic discussions. At any rate, I left the American Philosophical Society some years ago and entered this to get rid of metaphysics and arid abstractions. As to what Dr. Swift says, it seems to me imitation plays a great but is by no means the sole role. It is of course purely instinctive, and the social instinct comes in everywhere, so much so that discussion on almost any topic is liable to raise the question of the individual versus the social forces in the world. As to Dr. Jelliffe's opinion whether after all hate and love are at bottom the same, he perhaps bottoms on the recent discussions of what I might call the expanded theory of ambivalence, as represented by Weissfeld. But I do not interpret this to mean that there is any sense whatever that has any pragmatic value in the statement that love and hate are the same. If you assume this, one is dizzy and the world seems to spin around. Hegel showed a sense in which being and not being are the same but that is a most abstract and purely methodological statement. What in the world is more opposite than love and hate, from every practical and truly psychological point of view? We must not be credulous about the unconscious and ascribe to it absurdities, nor must we lose our orientation for surely up and down, right and left, light and dark, do differ. If the unconscious can be used to cause a darkness in which everything loses its identity and fuses into a general menstrum, as Hegel said all cows were black in the dark, it seems to me we can get nowhere. Ought we not to start by admitting that there are certain immense differences in the emotions, whether conscious or unconscious, and that the tendency to find a common background or identify them is a matter largely of speculative interest?
DR. MORTON PRINCE, Boston, read by title a paper entitled "The Theory of
'Settings' and the Psychoneuroses."