SOC344 2020 Tut 2 – Fri 12.30pm

The mind/body debate was one that I had previously had not considered prior to this week’s content, however it made me reflect on my experiences of the topic. I took time to reflect on love, and say in reality TV when people are making decisions they often say “I have to decide whether I go with my heart or my head”. This obviously further convinces people that the mind has a separate way of thinking to the way that the body feels, and that it can override those bodily feelings . Theories about the separation of the mind and body is noted during religious times, where punishment and sin was a threat made by adherents that people had to repent for (Patulny & Olsen 2019, pp. 10-11). For example, lust was a sin, therefore people would be heavily punished if they pursued their emotion. Reflecting on the Disney film from 1943, there are also interesting imagery about lust being portrayed as sinful. The depiction of the male making sexual advances caused by “emotion” plays in to this stereotype that men are inherently sexual beings and it dictates their emotions. In contemporary literature, there’s been a shift that has identified a dualism between the mind and boy, which is what is explored in Disney’s ‘Inside Out’. This depiction is one that I am more convinced by, as my own experiences have meant that I often feelings things that make up my decisions. However, is this a personal thing and something that we have our own control over? Wouters explains how manners can be used to depict status, as a weapon of self-control and function as a regime (2004, 196). If I think about essential ideas of defence force personnel, manners are certainly prioritised during the training process. Is this idea of teaching someone strict manners a way to distinguish a difference between the mind and body, and establish power amongst people in the social ladder? If defence force personnel must decide to take someone’s life, surely their emotions are yelling at them not to do it, but their mind and rationality is more dominant. So, is the teaching of manners a way for defence force personnel to feel disassociated with their emotions and perform duties with their head?

Who we are is not simply our thoughts or our feelings but the two combined. The mind and the body work in a symbiotic relationship and both react to each other. An example of mind over body may be if we were in a specific social situation, such as at work, and we were feeling angry at our boss. The emotion comes before reason, and naturally we would probably lash out as an emotional reaction to anger. However, we would usually then apply logic to this and in knowing that lashing out results in getting fired, we can use reason to then manipulate our emotion to adhere to social expectations. Barbalet refers to the works of philosopher David Hume and his views that “passion directs the will, and reason serves the passion” and “actions are emotionally motivated and executed by means selected with and applied through reason” (Barbalet, 1998), indicating that our body reacts physically to our surroundings through emotion and then we can decide how we react to that by using our reason. ‘Reason and Emotion’, 1943, creates a clear separation between the two rather than how they collaborate, expressing that letting your emotion control you is bad and leads to consequences. Watching this short film made me extremely frustrated as I believe emotions are an integral part of humanity and we should consider expressing our feelings more often. ‘Inside Out’, 2015, expresses that emotions control our actions and therefore our reasoning or logic is derived from how we feel, which I believe is a much more accurate depiction of the mind and the body. In regards to the 'Reason and Emotion' film, are the characters really 'reason' and 'emotion' or do you think that the character of 'reason' was actually just social convention?

The mind body split originated from the ancient greeks, since forming there has been various changes and deviations. Throughout the Ancient Greek era, ancient greeks venerated the body (soma). This high regard and standpoint is known ss ‘materialistic’ because it recognised the material (physical) influence of the body on the mind.  Amygdala, a key region in the brain - stores emotional memories. Stimulus is sent to BOTH the emotion AND the thought forming parts of our brains for simultaneous risk assessment. While emotions are universal, each person may experience them and respond to them in a different way. Some people may struggle with understanding what emotion they are experiencing.Thoughts and emotions have a profound effect on one another. Thoughts can trigger emotions ( and also serve as an appraisal of that emotion. How we attend to and appraise our lives has an effect on how we feel. William-Lange Hypothesis: the physical, bodily response comes before we feel the emotion (or are aware we are feeling it) - our bodies and emotions sometimes compel us to act before we are even aware we are feeling it which suggests that habits and emotions are core to understanding the pragmatic efficiency of our everyday behaviour.  Barbalet operates hand in hand with rational processes/outcomes and dont disturb them , so are not seen as irrational. They motivate and work together with rational thinking. The Disney movie, inside out, expresses Joy, Anger, Disgust, Fear, and Sadness inside the head of the main character is contrasting to the 1943 Disney World War 2 Propaganda film which is the opposite of rationality. Inside out, 2015, showcases a more contemporary and recent philosophical and scientific thinking in ascribing a value and importance to emotions. The cognitive function of the brain was viewed as imposing reason and rationality. It controlled emotions by suppressing or disregarding them. Inside Out is also very contrasting to Ancient Greek Plato’s ideologies of emotions which were seen as a variety of reckless impulses that were unthinking and could be considered potentially dangerous. Although these two Disney films are very dissimilar with each other as well as Plato and Descartes ideologies,At what point are our feelings and emotions seen as irrational ? #S344UOW20  #Fri1230

I think it's fair to say that we are reflections of societal norms and expectations. Although we are in a society that gives us the opportunity to have "free thoughts" and we're allowed to feel however we want; there's always a limit and restriction. E.g. Hochschild's idea of deep acting and shallow acting (1993) and Goffman's face theory (1955). Although previously our body and mind were split entities, now we see them as interconnected entities that have influence over/are influence by our emotions. E.g. when we're happy we inadvertently smile, when we're sad we unwillingly frown, when put in dangerous situations that cause fear our body is put into a fight or flight response. Looking at the relationship between reason and emotion today, Barbalet notes that there are 3 approaches including (but not limited to) the approaches of Max Weber who saw rationality as oppositional to emotion and Descartes who saw emotion and rationality as entities that had influence on one another. The approach that can be seen in both films indicate that emotion and rationality are interconnected and have influence on one another.

Mind and bodily emotions I believe to be somewhat connected as how would our cognitive thoughts influence our physical behaviour. The film titled "Reason and Emotion" filmed in 1943, relies heavily on how a person adopts the ability to think and solve problems logically or through the emotional side of their brain. They explain how emotions are an integral part of the growing process. "Inside out" the film of 2015 taps into our cognitive processes and makes us aware that each emotion has its individual personality and one always plays a roll to do with the other emotions. Uncontrolled emotions and "core memories" are taught to influence our later emotions. Thinking about a situation rationally is something that grows with age as you see in the inside out film from a young age she is being put in different situations and reacting to those differently as she becomes older. This film also shows personified emotions and the ability we have to put a name to how we are feeling. These films also display a theme of the "unconscious" and how we are somewhat separated into two bodies of thought this being social and parental standards, and how our upbringing contributes to our personal connection to society. The mind-body connection is negative or positive emotions effecting our biological functioning which can develop our sense of self and determine who we are in the future.

As somebody who hadn’t previously given any thought to the influence of our bodies on the mind, this topic became of substantial interest to me. The stark contrast in Western History between the perspectives of Plato (428-348BC) and Descartes undoubtedly got my mind ticking, placing emphasis on the socially constructed effect of mind over body and emotions. In the lecture, I came to learn that Weber suggested a difference between two types of rationality: formal rationality (engaging in calculation of means and ends) and substantive rationality (achieving the best ends), a disparity that I could grasp from simply reflecting on the choices I have made in my life – those that were guided by rules, as opposed to those influenced by values. As noted in both the lecture and reading, Barbalet’s three approaches to the topic - conventional, critical and radical – propose dissimilar, yet valid reasoning as to the difference between rationality and emotion; yet, I struggled to solely agree with one. However, in the reading, Barbalet addresses the “background emotions” which are deemed necessary for instrumental rationality – a point that I deemed plausible, because if the emotion disturbs rational processes, then follows, unreasonable action. Hence, my question is this: how can the conventional approach account for the rational decisions that are made in conclusion of satisfaction, or trauma?

Can we really accept that "extreme differences between all social groups in terms of power, ranking, behaviour and management of emotion diminished"?

Barbalet outlines three general approaches to the mind/body split of reason and rationality from emotions. The conventional approach, as described by Weber, attempts to establish reason as independent from emotion. The obvious issue which arises, and of which Weber himself was aware, is that certain feelings and evaluations are present within reason. Hence, the definition of emotion is altered to exclude those feelings which are associated by Weber to be reasonable. These excluded feelings are then defined as attitudes. The radical approach supposes instead to understand all thinking and reasoning in terms of their inherent emotion and feeling. James asserts that the feeling of reason and rationality is one derived from assurance and security, and generally arises from a familiarity with the situation within which one reasons. This contends with the fundamental uncertainty of the future. Predicted futures are thus reasoned toward through emotional faith. Question: if the student from the story Barbalet references was backed up by the other students in his anger, would his anger then have been rational?

Franks (2015) focuses on the work of neurologists to explain the physical side to neurosociological concepts, bringing a better understanding to reason and emotion through brain function. Franks (2015) argues that through the work of Antonio Damasio (1994) rational decisions can only be made through the aid of emotions, due to the frankly infinite number of choices possible to the decision maker (Franks, p. 270). This, to me, shows us that reason and thought are not as separate as society would have us believe, but are in fact entwined throughout our daily lives. Due to this linking of neurology with sociology we have a much better understanding of the relationship between reason and emotion, but this isn’t necessarily taken up or known by society. Rather I would argue that society is still heavily under the impression that thought and reason are separate to emotions and that if one simply thinks rationally they can find their way out of emotional situations. In light of this, to what extent would society benefit from recognising the importance of the relationship between reason and emotion?

The depiction that makes more sense to me was the 1943 clip, in a sense where. In particular situations, it isn’t so bad to allow emotion to take over reason but also to allow reason to play a bigger role but also have them equal at times. In the clip where the man allowed his emotions to take over and say what he wanted to the lady, instead of letting reason take control and be more respectful and polite, is an example on how reason allows an individual to not make a fool of themselves or to be rude to others and can benefit you In the long run. Whereas, when he was using his emotions only, he was rude and disrespectful, and it didn’t get him anywhere. Emotion should be used when you have used reason or at the same time because, like mentioned emotions cause do more harm them good, if you aren’t thinking straight. #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

Barber (1998) points out three approaches of emotion social theory: conventional, critical and radical. In this week’s comment, my interest lies in the arguments for the radical approach, where Barber argues for the continuous nature of humans going from emotions to reasoning. The approach agrees with the critical exponents that in thoughts and actions, the whole humans is involved and the process isn’t simply boiled down to your brain controlling your body or vice versa. However, the radicals do not see emotions and reason as two separate entities that function in opposition to each other; rather, James (Barber, p.17) points out that they are only distinct names for a continuous process. When we are thinking with fluency, it’s actually a combination of emotions we are feeling that enables us to constitute the sentiment of rationality (Barber, p.23). In other words, rationality and the feeling of rationality is arguably the same. The role of emotion in rationality is “to permit action which otherwise would be dismissed if it were to only rely on logic and calculation.” In her TED Talk, Schnall (2014) goes further to stress that our perception of reality is a reflection of our internal state, which blurs the split between our mind and body since one can majorly affect the other. A question can be raised through this week’s topic is our perception of the future. If, according to the radicals, that our thought process is a constant jump between emotion and reason, then can we ever think rationally about the future? Or would there be some emotion elements in thinking about the unforeseeable? # S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

Barbalet (1998, p. 29) distinguishes that ‘emotion is the opposite of reason’. Disney’s film ‘Reason and Emotion’ (1943), highlights that logic is the driver inside one’s mind, and that emotion is uncontrollable and is seen to be a negative force supporting Barbalet’s ideology about emotion and reason. ‘Inside Out’ (2015) does quite the opposite, it implies that it is emotions and reason that must work together, as emotions on their own can be irrational, yet to only have reason as the driver of one’s mind, takes away from any feelings and experiences. It is through the ‘Inside Out’ Disney film that depicts emotions in human action, it shows how with various emotions working together and reason with one another that portrays what human’s do. Do you think if reason was the sole controller inside our minds, people would become heartless and have minimal emotions? #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

Dualism views the mind and body as independent parts of the individual with emotions and rationality as opposed aspects (Barbalet 1998), this forms the conventional approach. This approach highlights emotions connected to body and rationality connected to the mind. The opposite attitude to Dualism is the radical approach, whereby emotion and rationality are viewed as continuous and interlinked. Barbalet (1998) explains this approach through William James’ view. In saying “intellect, will, taste and passion…support eachother (therefore) reason and emotion are not opposed phenomena but distinct names for aspects of a continuous process (Barbalet 1998), James explains how the two relate. Some areas of society today have a better understanding of emotions and rationality however, the conventional approach remains heavily in some areas particularly politics and the gendered view of emotion and rationality. This example clearly demonstrates how emotions and rationality are in some regard still viewed as separate entities. However, through the two Disney films it is clear that the understanding of the two aspects has changed. ‘Reason and Emotion’ (1943) demonstrates emotions in a negative sense with negative repercussions to the mind. Whereas, Inside Out (2015) explains emotions with a ‘radical approach’ in that emotions and rationality are unable to be separated.

There is no lie that the depiction of ‘emotion’ and ‘reason’ are drastically different between the two Disney films. This was due to the previous beliefs that our mind and body were separate. Disney’s show film “Emotion and reason”, depicts this through the juxtaposition of ‘Emotion’ and ‘Reason’. They are portrayed to be conventional opposites to each other, emphasising this depiction of mind/body split. For example, Emotion is a caveman and reason is suited and "proper". For this reason, ‘Emotions’ cannot be in the front seat of our decision making as it would impact us negatively, as emotions are irrational and need to be controlled in the back by reason. On the other hand, “Inside out” personifies the core emotions to allow them to apply ‘reason’ with each other to form decisions rather than these two aspects to be two separate entities of ‘emotion’ and ‘reason’. I believe that this film makes a lot more sense as we simply do not make decisions purely based on emotion or reason. It is a complex process, that involves both thinking and recognition of how we feel in certain situations. #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

Conventionally, emotion is seen as the opposite of reason. Emotions are compulsive forces that cannot be rationalised, and we cannot control them (Barbalet, 1998). More recent theories, however, describe emotion and reason as parts of the same process, and claim that we cannot understand one without the other (Barbalet, 1998). These two approaches can be seen in two Disney cartoons, one from 1943, the other from 2015. Inside Out (2015) depicts emotions as complex processes of the human brain. A process that is essential to reason, as expressed by the role of the ‘control panel’ that is central to Riley’s brain and controlled by her emotions. The detailed personification of emotions shows off the complexity of human emotion and strays far away from the conventional approach that claims the emotion and reason are opposites and instead places emotion and reason on an even playing field. This complexity is not seen in its 1943 predecessor ‘Reason and Emotion’ which shows only two mental processes; emotion as one and reason as the other. We can see that character that personifies emotion is irrational and childlike, whereas the character that personifies reason is depicted as an elderly woman who keeps emotion in check and controls the brain. It is for these reasons, that ‘Inside Out’ (2015) offers a deeper understanding of emotion and its relation to reason. #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

In Franks (2015) chapter discussing emotions and neurosociology, the relationship between emotions and rationality are explored. Franks refers to Antonio Damasio’s (1994) research that studies decision making among persons who have damaged neurons (Franks 2015, p. 269). Findings from Damasio and his colleagues position emotions and rationality as neurologically intertwined (Franks 2015 p. 270). What may be considered the most critical component of these findings is that ‘rationality cannot occur without emotionality’ (Franks 2015 p. 270). This alludes to the importance of emotion when the brain is required to act. In Disney’s 1943 film Reason and Emotion, emotion is depicted as damaging to common sense. This film is extremely biased in that it prioritises reason and paints emotion as tumultuous and uncontrollable. In contrast to Disney’s 2015 film Inside Out, emotions are centred as the main characters and drivers of the film. Interestingly, the producers chose to exclude ‘logic’ as an emotion out of fear ‘it’s presence would have unforeseen implications’. This decision confirms that duality between mind and body/emotions continues, albeit grossly socially constructed. As my peer Athena states, Inside Out does appear to portray emotion accurately and might I add, intelligently to ensure accurate messaging to various audience demographics. Is it fair to say that emotions positively guide rational thought? #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

The mind body split originated from the ancient greeks, since forming there has been various changes and deviations. Throughout the Ancient Greek era, ancient greeks venerated the body (soma). This high regard and standpoint is known ss ‘materialistic’ because it recognised the material (physical) influence of the body on the mind.  Amygdala, a key region in the brain - stores emotional memories. Stimulus is sent to BOTH the emotion AND the thought forming parts of our brains for simultaneous risk assessment. While emotions are universal, each person may experience them and respond to them in a different way. Some people may struggle with understanding what emotion they are experiencing.Thoughts and emotions have a profound effect on one another. Thoughts can trigger emotions ( and also serve as an appraisal of that emotion. How we attend to and appraise our lives has an effect on how we feel. William-Lange Hypothesis: the physical, bodily response comes before we feel the emotion (or are aware we are feeling it) - our bodies and emotions sometimes compel us to act before we are even aware we are feeling it which suggests that habits and emotions are core to understanding the pragmatic efficiency of our everyday behaviour.  Barbalet operates hand in hand with rational processes/outcomes and dont disturb them , so are not seen as irrational. They motivate and work together with rational thinking. The Disney movie, inside out, expresses Joy, Anger, Disgust, Fear, and Sadness inside the head of the main character is contrasting to the 1943 Disney World War 2 Propaganda film which is the opposite of rationality. Inside out, 2015, showcases a more contemporary and recent philosophical and scientific thinking in ascribing a value and importance to emotions. The cognitive function of the brain was viewed as imposing reason and rationality. It controlled emotions by suppressing or disregarding them. Inside Out is also very contrasting to Ancient Greek Plato’s ideologies of emotions which were seen as a variety of reckless impulses that were unthinking and could be considered potentially dangerous. Although these two Disney films are very dissimilar with each other as well as Plato and Descartes ideologies,At what point are our feelings and emotions seen as irrational ? #S344UOW20  #Fri1230

To think equals reason, to feel equals emotion and so within the mind of each of us both reason and emotion go to war for ultimate supremacy, this a key concept presented in the short film emotion and reason (1943). Emotion and Reason (1943) deduce emotion as impulsive urge and so reason is needed to save the mind from the irrationality presented when emotion is left to act out willingly. Inside out (2015) Is revolutionary in comparison as it creates a synergy between emotion and reason and correlates all emotions to all reason thus a totality and oneness to the decision making process and the co-creation that is present between emotion and reason. Barbalet (1998, p. 33) references Ren'e Descarte's and Immanuel Kant who both share that reason is central to the human being and so consequently emotion is to be distrusted this is supports the overall portrayal from the short film Emotion and Reason (1943), in that it to shows distrust toward emotion and the mastery of reason in the human experience (Descartes 1649)(Kant,1781). Barbalet (1998, p.38) offers theory from Max Weber that assumes and sets out to portray that reason and emotion are not opposed but rather they are different faculties (Weber, 1905). Barbalet (1998, p.38) furthers Weber theory supports the portrayal of reason and emotion in Disney's inside out (2015) in that these different faculties share divisions of labour in which their different capacities contribute to a unified outcome between emotion and reason (Weber, 1905). #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

I would argue that Inside Out is an excellent depiction of how emotions exist and develop within an individual. Personifying the key emotions within the protagonist’s mind shows how emotions are influenced and/or triggered by social and cultural processes. This supports the sociocultural constructionist theory where emotions are individual beings that are brought to the forefront in appropriate situations. This film could also be viewed as supporting the psychodynamic perspective, specifically the unconscious mind. For example, the protagonist’s emotions process outside stimuli and argue among themselves without her knowledge. This is consistent with the concept of complex emotions; the character’s mood is impacted in a way that is difficult to comprehend for herself and the people around her. This film suggests that emotions and thoughts are separate yet have a crucial impact on how each other function. Therefore, Inside Out portrays a highly accurate depiction of emotion. #S344UOW20 #Tut2 #Fri1230

The crucial difference between the two films is that Inside Out presented the idea that emotions are key to reason and decision making, whilst Emotion and Reason portrayed emotions as having a negative and disruptive influence on reason. Emotion and Reason employed a conventional approach to suggest an opposition between reason and emotion. As highlighted by Barbalet (1998, p. 33), this approach “places reason at the centre of human being and, consequently, distrusts emotion”. This distrust is shown in the film through putting Reason in the ‘driver’s seat’ and Emotion in the ‘backseat’. However, I think Inside Out’s radical approach makes more sense. The removal of the character Logic was appropriate, as it allows for The Emotions to apply reason and shows, as put by Barbalet (1998, p. 45), that reason “is not an independent operation of mind”. Interestingly, both films played on the viewers emotions, using fear, joy and sympathy, to convey their message. So, are there really any situations where you can completely separate emotion and reason?

The core idea that changed between Reason and Emotion (1943) and Inside Out (2015) was that emotion is something that can be put in the metaphorical backseat. Many of our actions, whether consciously or not, are influenced by our emotions. Stemming from the philosophy of David Hume is the idea that emotion is required for rationality to operate, or there is a lack of purpose behind our actions (Barbalet 1998, p. 31). Inside Out’s (2015) decision to cut out Reason as a driving force makes sense because reason and emotion are not separate but interwoven together. There is logic in joy or fear because emotions are based on past experiences or striving towards future experiences. Reason and Emotion (1943), however, is much more aligned with the conventional approach and greatly embodies the quote “If I am because I think, then I am undone if I feel” (Barbalet 1998, p. 34). The short film reflects Weber’s idea that emotion disrupts logic and should be mostly placed at a distance (Barbalet 1998, p. 37). But is it possible to live without allowing our emotions to control how we interact with the world? What are the real-world consequences that result from attempting to remove emotion from our actions?

Previously it was believed that mind and body were separate aspects of individuals. Thought and rationality were linked to the mind and emotions were associated with the body (Barbalet 1998, p. 34, Descartes 1649). This dualist approach fails to acknowledge the fluidity of interaction between one’s thoughts and feelings. Barbalet (1998) describes this fluidity as the radical approach (p. 29). Barbalet expands on this with James’ (1897) idea that rationality itself is a feeling. De Rivera (1977) in turn calls this feeling the ‘emotion of security’, and it is upon this emotion that individuals are able to think and act in a ‘rational’ manner. One’s thoughts then cannot be separate from the body and feelings, but are rather integrated. With this approach in mind, the depiction of emotions in ‘Inside Out’ (2015) makes more sense. Certain events elicit emotions that influence thought and ultimately action. Emotions are portrayed in a complex manner, as opposed to ‘Reason and Emotion’ (1943), which shows emotions as disruptive to thought.

The 1943 short film Reason and Emotion portrays the relationship between the two to be one of constant conflict, depicting the two as being the opposite of the other and spreading a propaganda message that individuals should be driven by reason and not be controlled by emotional influence. This parallels with the Conventional Approach to considering rationality and emotion, which considers the two be in opposition and asserts that individuals should aim to suppress their emotions so that they can remain reasonable (Barbelet 1998). However, the 2015 film Inside Out contrasts this by portraying the idea of a group of core emotions working in collaboration with each other to help individuals make decisions in their everyday life, with a balance between those emotions being necessary for an individual to have some semblance of rationality. This portrayal is like the Critical Approach to emotions and reason, which asserts that emotions can work in conjunction with reason as they help organise mental faculties which enables for rational thinking and decision making (Barbelet 1998). Whilst Inside Out (2015) does acknowledge that uncontrolled emotion can lead to irrationality, it differs from its 1943 predecessor by maintaining that negative emotions should be thoughtfully embraced alongside positive emotions so as to help organise rational thought, whereas Reason and Emotion encourages reason over suppressed emotion, with only ‘fine, strong’ emotions being acceptable and allowed to accompany reason. The portrayal of the role of emotions in Inside Out (2015) therefore makes more sense to me. Does Barbelet’s discussion of the critical approach also align with Inside Out’s (2015) personification of emotions evolving and developing through learning and experience?