SOC344 2018 Tut 2 – Mon 12.30pm

We have long conceived of a separation between mind and body in western society, with supremacy of mind over body. This basic idea that reason should dominate is captured in the classic statement by Descartes ‘cogito ergo sum’, ‘I think, therefore I am’. However, if your thoughts are affected by your bodily feelings, or even your perceptions of how the society around you sees you, then what are you? What are your thoughts? Are they really separate from your body and your feelings? And do we have a better understanding of the relationship between reason and emotion as a society today? Compare Disney’s take on the role of emotions in human action in 1943 and in 2015 (and note that the producers of the 2015 ‘Inside Out’ film considered including ‘logic’ as an emotion, but later decided to drop it). Which of these depictions makes more sense to you?

#S344UOW18  #Tut2  #Mon1230

Posted in SOC327 - Emotions Bodies and Society, UOW.

25 Comments on SOC344 2018 Tut 2 – Mon 12.30pm

Amy Calladine said : Guest Report 9 months ago

I think it is interesting how Disney depicts Emotion to be a literal cave man, and Reason to be a dry, foppish old man in the 1943 War Time film- Reason and Emotion. It seems to me to be a reflection of the time, in which a war largely based on opposing ideologies, (Communism vs Democracy, East vs West, tradition vs modernism, etc.), reinforced in the global consciousness a mentality of Us versus Them. The film epitomises this ‘war of opposing forces’ in depicting how emotion and reason are constantly at odds and fighting for dominance in the mind of the modern man, (and woman). This depiction, much like the conventional approach, is outdated and flawed. If we consider Barbalet’s account of Hume (1998) that actions are emotionally motivated and executed via applied reason, then these forces are actually complimentary: it is emotion that guides reason on how to act. (p31) Inside Out (2015) seems to have more nuance to it, suggesting that emotions are not just a bundle of primitive urges, but the guiding force behind our feelings, thoughts, and subsequent actions. It is certainly critical, and almost radical in its approach, depicting the strong link between its 5 base emotions and the body. It is a shame that they chose not to incorporate a Logic character into the final edit, considering just how much deeper they could have explored the role of reason in influencing emotion, and vice versa. (James via Barbalet, p.49) One thing the film does do well is depict Western society’s evolving views of emotions as necessary and valuable entities in both our social lives, and in survival. For these reasons I think Inside Out is the more relevant film to our current society, although we still have a ways to go in giving emotion the ‘front seat’ it deserves up there with reason.

Angus Wren said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The debate between whether or not human behaviour is controlled by reason or emotion remains a widely debated topic up until today. According to Barbalet (1998), there are 3 popular beliefs surrounding this debate in the contemporary world. 1- The Conventional approach; where reason and emotion are separate, 2- The Critical approach; where reason and emotion work together in order to form salience and goal formulation, and 3- The Radical approach; where emotion and reason are both seen to be continuous mental states. Walt Disney has tried to capture the construct of human behaviour through multiple films. When comparing the wartime film 'Reason & Emotion' in 1943, to the film 'inside out' in 2015, we immediately see a shift in perception to human action, going from reason over emotion, to emotion over reason. Interestingly, in the instance of 'inside out' (2015), 'reason' was completely ignored in its contribution to human behaviour in spite to popular belief of reasoning superiority. This film is a prime example of changing attitudes towards reason and bodily emotion. Contrasted to the short film ‘reason & emotion’ (1943), highlights the conventional approach. This film Characterises reason as being the primary driver in decision making, with emotion following behind reason in the background of human behaviour. This idea directly relates to Descartes ideology of mind over body in his statement; ‘i think, therefore i am’, which emphasises the importance of reason over emotion. Although both of these films accurately articulate the attitudes of body and mind, I believe that human action is highly dependent on the situation in which an individual is in. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Kate Sharp said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The Mind-Body Split Suggesting a separation between mind and body is a continuous debate since the origins of time. It is through the statement by Barbalet (1998) "emotion is the opposite of reason… although we experience emotions even when we are rationally calculating" explores it is emotional expression that conceptualises the body in our initial response to certain situations. Thus our use of emotion and/or rationality is portrayed differently in every circumstance and shapes us as humans/individuals. This is distinctively portrayed within the Disney films 'Emotion & Reason' (1943) & 'Inside Out' (2015) as there is a distinct indifference between the use of emotion and logic, demonstrated within each characters response(s) to particular situations. In the Inside out Film (2015) it suggests that gender + genes, also known as 'Epigenetics', is a factor in the emotional and logical responses of the family members. Thus, understanding the critical approach from Barbalet (1998) establishes that both emotion and reason complement each other to effectively allow humans to respond in an engaging and attentive manner. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Christina Chhay said : Guest Report 9 months ago

In Disney's 'Reason and Emotion' film, the conventional approach is represented in saying that emotion is the opposite of reason. This is depicted through the two opposing characters who argue out certain situations in order to take control over decision making. When emotion wins over reason, it is usually consequential with negative results, which emphasises the belief that reason should dominate. Disney's 'inside out' film, follows more of a critical approach, where emotions can aid reason when it alone cannot solve certain problems. There are five core emotions depicted which is a simplified version of all the range of emotions humans are prone to feeling, however logic or reason is neglected. Instead, reason is embedded into the characters that make up the core emotions. For example, Sadness making the memory sad and therefore the other characters were trying to prevent her from reaching the other memories. From comparing these two segments of films, I believe that a critical approach between reason and emotion makes more sense as human beings, everything is always interrelated and connected instead of being separated. Also because emotions do not always have negative consequences but can function to strengthen reason.

Amelia Collier said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Reason and emotion are often depicted as two separate human functions but in reality, they work together in our everyday life. As it was stated in the lecture, there are times in which it is easier to act with our emotions and put reason aside e.g. while shopping at the supermarket and comparably, at times it is necessary to act with reason. I personally, do not believe that between the mind and body that one is superior to the other. Throughout our life, I believe our emotions affect our reason and our reason likewise, affects our emotions and that in turn impacts the society around us. Barbalet, 1998 speaks on Weber’s critical approach and says that even though reason and emotion are vastly different, their differences work together to “contribute to a unified outcome” (page 38). This is something that I strongly believe to be true compared to the belief that reason must always be in control #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Genevieve Sutton said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The concept of emotion portrayed in Disney’s “inside out” is an extremely simplistic version of what is a highly complex part of our thinking and reacting. The movie depicts emotions as though they are controlled as separate feelings and do not cause reactions between each other. For example a person who is angry will often follow that with sadness or hurt, which will often be followed by by other emotions such as acceptance or disgust which is completely dependent on context. As discussed by Barbalet (1998) emotion can effect reason but as the critical approach depicts emotion doesn’t overrule our instrumental reason. It is possible a person for a person who has the right control over their emotion and actions to be reasonable, in ways such as not using violence against someone due to anger.

Grey Mein said : Guest Report 9 months ago

#S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230 Barbalet’s “Emotion and Rationality” explains in great depth three major perspectives regarding how our emotions and our ability to rationalise interact, these being; the conventional approach, the critical approach, and the radical approach. She states that the conventional approach is widely understood and accepted, but the critical approach is more greatly acknowledged by specialists and academics in the field. This is an interesting distinction, but it is easily understood. Disney’s 1943 ‘Reason and Emotion’ is a clear demonstration of the conventional approach. Emotion is depicted as irrational, unpredictable, and almost primitive (see the juxtaposition of Emotion’s toga against Rationality’s more civilised suit and tie). In this clip, emotion seems only to be causing negative results for the body, such as weight-gain and pain. Contrastingly, rationality is credited with making correct decisions that enable not only survival, but also a series of socio-culturally acceptable decisions. Disney’s outlook by 2015 however, is very different, and seems to favour a critical approach. Here, a basic set of emotions work together to support good-decision making in the protagonist. Those familiar with the movie will know that without her emotions, the protagonist makes unwise decisions, which she ultimately regrets (arguing with family, attempting to runaway). From previously reading Lupton’s 1998, “Thinking through emotion” article, I have come to understand that emotions are not Objects that we posses, rather they are processes we undergo. This was a recurring theme in the article, supported by Harré (1991), Denzin (1984), and Hearn (1993). After completing Barbalet’s article, it is clear to me that despite the proliferation of the conventional approach, a critical stance is far more realistic.

Samantha Mackay said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The spilt between mind and body has been heavily contested and will continue to divide theorists. However, as we delve deeper into 21st century modern society there has been an increase in the correlation that the mind and body are interconnected. If we analyse Disney’s 1943 ‘Reason and Emotion’ and 2015 ‘Inside Out’ under Barbalet’s critical lens it is clear that each animation aligns with a different mind/body approach. ‘Reason and Emotion’ provides a conventional approach to suggest that reason is the ability to think opposed to emotion that is the ability to feel. This approach goes further to elucidate that if emotion is singularly “driving” individuals, this can cause destructive social interactions. However, this clip also aligns with the discussions of epigenetics and how ones social environment largely shapes reason/emotions by drawing on a child who has not yet experienced many situations therefore cannot use reason but rather mere emotion to make decisions. This contrasts to the critical and some extent radical approach of ‘Inside Out’ as the film draws on five of Ekman’s primary emotions to elevate the complex nature between of mind and body. Despite, ‘Reason’ not being singularly personified, the film suggests that both reason and emotion share the “drivers seat” established through the emotions reacting to surrounding together. ‘Inside out’ also highlights that emotions themselves can align to establish mixed complex feelings. Thus I believe that ‘Inside Out’ reflects that as a society today we have a better understanding of the relationship between reason and emotion. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Emily Draper said : Guest Report 9 months ago

A person is not just our thoughts. Our bodies, feelings and thoughts are linked and function together. Our bodily feelings influence our reasoning, motivating us. Fridja (2000) describes this process as 4 steps; bodily feelings, physiological changes, expressive body behaviour, and then inclinations to act. The 1943 depiction claims that babies only have emotion, no reason. But is crying only emotion, or reason to bring the necessary attention for survival? I disagree with Kaitlyn Poole’s claim that the film sees only reason as necessary as I would argue that the war film claims that our emotion and reason do need to collaborate (with emotional patriotism being acknowledged as important) though this view can now be seen as simplistic with ‘Inside Out’ (2015) dividing emotion into 5 basic emotions. These emotions function together creating a logic. Inside out reflects Barbelets critical approach that emotions motivate and give reason a direction. While the disregarded idea of having logic as an emotion complements the radical approach that rational thought is like an emotion.

Kelsea Latham said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Modern Western society is slowly developing greater understanding on how linked the mind and body are, and what role emotions have played in our evolution as mankind. I understand that we can still hold Descartes 'I think, therefore I am' in high regard as no matter what our thoughts are, they can still be unique to the individual, give great insight into perceptions and perspectives, and give proof of our own existence. The depiction of 'Reason and Emotion' in 1943 can be considered as a conventional approach, according to Barbalet's dominance of rationality, whereas the 2015 film 'Inside Out' leans towards a critical approach. Considering this, both representations make sense to me in different contexts. To reflect on Dr. Schnall's discourse, depending on how I am feeling will determine which film I can relate to more. The major conflict between reason and emotion in the 1943 film correlates to how I feel in times of high pressure, anger, anxiety or stress. I find that emotion will fight to control my body in these times and reason must take the bench. Whereas the 2015 depiction of emotions being complimentary (at most times) can relate to how I see my function in normal circumstances of day-to-day life, basic emotions working together to find balance, success and consistency. I think if Disney had included 'logic' in its 2015 film it would have had to delve deeper into emotions and the role they play, which would have affected the overall appeal and light heartedness of the kids' movie. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Eunkyu Kim said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Conventional perspective of mind and body explained by Descartes are well depicted in the Walt Disney War Time animation (1943). Descartes emphasised that emotions are natural behaviour that are unavoidable but inferior which the person should suppress these emotion with reason (Barbalet, 1998). The animation certainly shows this clearly through characterizing reason as the dominant controller over emotion. One of the thing that was interesting to me was that emotion were depicted as the character of uncivilised man while reason as a civilised, urban, strict looking man. However, I do not agree with this conventional perspective. I feel that the depiction of Inside Out (2015) is more sensible in speaking of mind and body than the war time animation. The main character in Inside Out (2015) makes decision with five interdependent emotions in her mind in the given situations. Emotion and reason are cooperated relation. ‘Rationality requires emotional guidance’ is a statement of critical perspective of mind and body (Barbalet, 1998) that explains the depiction of Inside Out well. It is also supported by the Tedx talks (2014) of Schnall. Professor Schnall states that thinking subjectively with emotion and objectively with rationality is not different. This is because emotional state plays a crucial role on making objective decisions and interpretations. Every decision making depends on emotional state that oneself has rather than objective reason. People who are feeling hungry are more likely to think positively about the pizza than who are not. Emotion and reason, thus, are not separated as conventional philosopher argue but are interrelated and support in decision making process. This makes Inside Out (2015) more sensible than the Walt Disney War Time (1943) animation. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Bridgitte Slinger said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Since the times of Plato and Descartes theories concerning mind-body dualism, the yearning to understand the relationship of the mind and bodily influence has sparked ongoing phenomena about ideas surrounding reason and emotions relationship. Traditionally, philosophers from the classical to the modern era pitted emotion against reason as opposing forces where they believed reason should dominate emotional thought (Honderich, T. 2018). This conventional outlook is conveyed in Disney’s 1943 animation, ‘Reason and Emotion’ where the two characters; Reason and Emotion are controlling what is happening inside the mind. They express their ideology metaphorically by having Reason at the wheel controlling all decision making and Emotion supressed from in the passenger seat. Today’s society understands that emotions should be embraced and not controlled. Disney’s 2015 movie ‘Inside Out’ utilises the work of Paul Ekman to convey how important emotions are how acknowledging and understanding how you feel can be more beneficial, healthier and adaptive than supressing them. Inside Out gives a more scientifically correct explanation and demonstrates that emotions can complement rationality instead of weaken it. I believe that although this movie only gives a sound explanation of the notion, it is still an important movie for young children to watch so that they can understand what is going on in their minds. My understanding is that people cannot make a rational decision without taking their emotions and other people’s emotions into consideration. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230 References Honderich, T. (2018). Your being conscious: Mind-body dualism, and objective physicalism. [online] Philpapers.org. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/HONYBC [Accessed 9 Mar. 2018].

Matilda Harriman said : Guest Report 9 months ago

To understand the connection between reason and emotion is certainly an intricate matter. Although, I believe in today’s society we have transformed the typical notions around the concept that the body and mind do not correlate. The Disney film ‘Inside Out’ (2015) comprehensively reflects this notion that emotion is unavoidable. However it doesn’t focus at all on ‘reason’ which for many years has been treated the more logical and socially fundamental of the two theories. I was unaware that the concept of ‘logic’ was considered in the development of this film, therefore encouraging me to feel like I’ve been left hanging in anticipation to have known how the film would have been portrayed if’ logic’ was incorporated in the end result. In the film ‘Reason and Emotion’ (1943), the audience can recognise the conventional approach, depicting emotion as a negative and destructive force that must be suppressed, in contrast to reason and its detachment to everyday life. The use of Paul Ekman’s nine paths to generating emotions is a strong foundation, however ‘Inside Out’ unsuccessfully conveys that emotions are inevitable but are multidimensional and depending on the individual experiencing the particular emotion, everyone’s understanding will be dissimilar. Lastly, I believe that there’s room for more thorough analysis to be considered when understanding the way emotion and reason interrelate and the importance this holds on an individual’s everyday conjunctions. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Chloe Aubin said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The idea of the separation between mind and body is indeed complex. As explored by Simone Schnall in the TEDx Talk, our thoughts are a function of how we are feeling at any given moment. For example, a hill may seem steeper to someone who has less energy when compared with someone who has an excess of energy. This is a subjective notion that compliments the theory of a relationship between the mind and the body. Complementary to this, Rene Descartes’ philosophy portrays the distinction of the mind and body. Descartes thesis reaches the conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind, a thinking, non-extended thing, is completely different from that of the body, an extended, non-thinking thing. Following this, it is possible for one to exist without the other. While I find the philosophy as presented by Descartes to be fascinating and true to some extent, I firmly agree with the notion that is explored by Simone Schnall. Our body and mind are separate to an extent, however, a relationship between them is necessary. Similarly, the belief that reason and emotion are separated is a contested notion. As discussed in the 1943 Disney clip, there is a battle for mastery between reason and emotion. Reason is our ability to think, and emotion is our ability to feel. There are consequences when emotion is acted upon without reason and vice versa. It is important that there is a relationship between reason and emotion, quite like body and mind, in order to keep control. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Kaitlyn Poole said : Guest Report 9 months ago

As medicine and neuroscience develop, deeper understanding of the way in which the body and emotion is linked. The development of epigenetics highlights the strong impact emotion, especially emotions such as stress, has on altering the body physically (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/stress-hormone-causes-epigenetic-changes). However it seems that there is a discrepancy within society between recent medical discoveries and our understanding of the mind and the body. This, however, is shifting. The 1943 Disney film Reason and Emotion emphasises the importance of reason, valuing it above emotion. The split is very distinctive, reminiscent of classical approaches such as those of Descartes and even Plato. The influence of emotion is depicted as catastrophic for the individual, leading to inappropriate social conduct. In this film reason is depicted as the only way to achieve social normalcy. Stark differences can be drawn when comparing Reason and Emotion to Inside Out. Inside Out a critical approach if not even a radical approach (in the sense reason is absent and developed through engaging in stimuli and emotional responses) are depicted. It shows a far more complex interaction between the mind and the body. Not shown in the trailer is the way blended emotions develop in response to stimuli to create complex interactions and responses later on in the film, which distinguishes it from Emotion and Reason's 'black and white' representation of the mind and body. Therefore I think Inside Out is a better representation of the way the mind and body interact.

Serena Barsby said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Emotions direct reason; they establish and reinforce an individual’s purposes. This is the sentiment Barbalet (31, 1998) explains about the critical approach to emotions which sees emotions and rationality as complements. As mentioned in the earlier posts, Disney’s ‘Reason and Emotion’ WWII propaganda film (1943) presents Barbalet’s conventional approach (1998) which presents emotion and reason as stark opposites. The clip is explained as proving “what damage we can do by allowing our emotions to overtake our common sense.” Not only does this display Barbalet’s conventional dualism that previous posts have stated but it also adheres to the veneration of the mind (reason) over the body (temptations/ emotions) displayed by the Romans and Christians (as outlined in week 2 lecture). Just like these ancient cultures saw emotions akin to pesky temptations which distract from reason, Disney too believes this by allegorically representing emotions as equivalent to the ignorance’s of a toddler in the film. Decades later, Disney presents the mind/ body split in reference to Barbalet’s critical approach (and arguably to some degree as the radical approach) in their 2015 film ‘Inside out’. Previous blog posts have commended Disney’s new approach as a more realistic and authentic take on the complex relationship between reason and emotion, with some students explicably referencing the 2015 film as a more ‘…positive and constructive…’ perspective (Mikaela). Yet most students still noted the downfalls of this depiction, with most noting the unfortunate presentation of emotions as too simplistic. However, I think the film should specifically be commended for displaying emotions as the gate keepers and handlers of memories. In Week two’s lecture we learnt that Dimasio believes that people use somatic markers to guide their decisions and that Zadra and Clore found that emotions affect what we perceive. Thus, emotions appear to have a major role in what we perceive and what we remember which ultimately directs our logical thought processes. In this way, ‘Inside Out’ achieves a more authentic representation of the relationship between emotions and reason than the ‘Reason and Emotion’ film. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Carley Phillips said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The split between mind and body can be seen in the ideas portrayed in Barbalet’s (1998) paper and throughout Western society. This view is also portrayed in Disney’s 1943 war-time clip where it is explained that it can only be logic or emotion that sits in the driver’s seat, and chaos ensues if emotion were to drive us. In comparison to this, Disney’s 2015 “Inside Out” film trailer depicts that emotions heavily influence our behaviour, although it is limited in explaining complex emotions as it only displays the ‘basic’ emotions. Regardless of the limitations, the “Inside Out” film represents how modern society is beginning to understand that the mind and the body are not separate entities. This opposing view that the body and mind are not separate is one that makes more sense in explaining why people act the way that they do, but more emotions need to be considered to gain a better understanding of the link between the mind and the body. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Samantha Walker said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The mind and the body, despite western belief, are not separate entities. The mind, though dominant, cannot operate without the body and its responses. Reason and emotion in Barbalet’s (1998) writing are presented as two opposite sides of the spectrum, and this representation between reason and emotion is displayed through the two entities in the male and female forms during the Walt Disney War Time clip (1943). This clip represents the separation between the heteronormative ideas of logic and emotion, in which emotions encompass pleasure, whilst logic encompasses tranquillity and composure. Your thought process is determined by both emotion and reason. Barbalets explains this through the works of William James (1998) who explores the idea that reason and emotion cannot work without the other. Like the mind and body, there is a dominant figure, but instead of this dominant figure controlling the other, the dominant; which is emotion, must work together with reason to create the thought process that is then introduced to the mind and body. Inside Out (2015) is a perfect example of this idea that reason and logic work together to create the thought process. With the representation of the five main fundamental emotions and reasons, the film displays first the idea that emotions are more than just what we feel on the inside, it also shows that emotions can lead to reasoning as well as the actions played out by our mind and body. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Georgia Stack said : Guest Report 9 months ago

As mentioned in the comments below, Inside Out (2015) offers a limited view of emotion and reason, reflective of Barbalet’s (1998) critical approach. This movie focuses on 6 main emotions in accordance to Elkman’s (1992) theory of observable emotions. However, "recent research" shows the complexity of emotions through the study of mixed emotions and how they contribute to social and cultural experiences, thus making Inside Out (2015) an inadequate depiction of the complexity of emotions, even if it had included logic. Conversely, the Disney War Time Clip (1943) views emotion and reason through a combination of Barbalet’s (1998) conventional approach and Darwin’s evolutionary theory. It depicts emotion as a primitive being that reacts instinctively to desires and threats, whilst reason is depicted as a controlled being who considers the consequences and effects of the actions. This depiction is somewhat reflective of Freud’s theory of the Psyche < a href="https://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego/">"Freud's theory of the Psyche". Descartes suggested that reason dominates through cogito ergo sum, to accept this idea would lead to a constructivist loop where one would become sceptical of reality, however to reject this idea suggests that emotions are the driver behind all of our actions. I believe a partial rejection of Descartes is the best option, a view that suggests that we have instinctive reactions (cognitively and physiologically) that occur from our emotions, however we are able to override these emotions through the use of reason. "Cognitve Behavioural Therapy" shows a greater understanding of this relationship, however there is always room for further understanding.

Samantha McAuley said : Guest Report 9 months ago

In today’s society I believe we have changed the common views around the idea that the mind and body cannot work together. As seen in the Disney War Time clip (1943) it showed how only one could be in the ‘drivers’ seat and the other had to sit in the back. I disagree with the concept that our mind and body are completely split like this. This is because our body can influence us to feel a particular way and our emotions can affect our body, and this is where social interactions and our environment have a major impact on both, for example a person who is feeling fearful of a snake will be sweating and have shortness of breath, but may also have the reasoning to think of survival skills that could help them get out of the situation, showing the two co-existing. I also agree with the comments below that discuss Disney’s ‘Inside Out’ (2015) and how it doesn’t show all the many emotions one may feel. I believe that the movie doesn’t take into consideration how you may feel more than one emotion at one time, for example, you may be going for a job interview and feel super nervous/fearful but you can also feel excited/happy that you’ve gotten an opportunity. I believe that there is more in-depth understanding to be considered when looking at the idea of emotion and reason, and the importance of how they co-exist and align. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Mikaela Cleary said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Body and emotion are seen as being separate but link to each other. As Marcell Mauss stated, “the body is man’s first and most natural instrument”. According to this statement, the body may be seen as a tool used by the mind. In order to define what an emotion is, Peter Stearns states, “emotions are not simply biological reactions, but involve an interplay between body and mind”. The film “Reason and emotion” (1943), depicts emotions as separate to reason. Emotions are destructive to the individual and easily controlled by outside influences, while reason is sensible and constructive and is not easily influenced by outside circumstances. In contrast to this, in the film “Inside out” (2015), emotions were in control of the person’s feelings,actions and responses to situations, but in a much more constructive way than the previous film. Logic was chosen to not be included as one of the emotions. Today’s society seems to view the link between the body and emotion as much more positive and constructive, however still views reason as a separate concept. To answer the question of if our thoughts are really separate from our body and our feelings, I tend to believe that they are all connected and influence each other. For example, our bodily sensations can impact on the way we feel, and our feelings can influence our bodily sensations, based on our thoughts and reason. Our emotions, our bodies and our thoughts are equally important in defining who we are. #S344UOW18 #Tut2 #Mon1230

Teagan Starr said : Guest Report 9 months ago

Descartes centres rationality to the individual, thereby separating the rational from the emotional (Barbalet 1998). The conventional approach emphasises individual responsibility, stressing responsibility for one’s actions resulting from thought (Barbalet 1998). Representations of the mind/body split in ‘Reason and Emotion’ (1943) are problematic in that if actions are emotional, no individual responsibility exists, ignoring emotions in reasoned decision making. Therefore, if reason and emotion are truly separate, how does an individual prioritise action? More realistic is the critical approach, and to some degree the radical perspective (Barbalet 1998; Patulny 2018b). Radical theory suggests emotion and logic are on a continuous spectrum (Barbalet 1998; Patulny 2018b). Critical perspectives appreciate emotion in reasoned conduct and emotional influence on perception (Barbalet 1998; Patulny 2018b). Similarly, Joy and Despair represent emotional complexity influencing rational thought to navigate back to headquarters (‘Inside Out’ 2015). Therefore, I tend to disagree with previous posts in there being no emotional overlap in ‘Inside Out’. Furthermore, including Logic is representative of a lack of free will (Romano 2016), in a freedom valuing society this is problematic, though critically, the inclusion of Logic is truer to Barbalet’s model.

Abby Tozer said : Guest Report 9 months ago

The relationship between reason and emotions is clearly complex, however, with more in depth analyses of the relationship it is far more reasonable for us to develop an interrelated understanding of the two. Intrigued by Simone Schnall’s Tedtalk (2014), the concept of limited objectivity in our lives is very much a possibility, the example of bodily feelings influencing an ‘objective’ measurement is an interesting concept that supports in full the radical approach offered by Barbalet (1998, pg. 38). However, the comparison between the two films offers two opposing theories. ‘Reason and emotion’ (1943) offers a conventional approach, portraying emotion as a dangerous and damaging force that needs to be suppressed, as opposed to reason and its objectivity in daily life. This is opposed by the critical approach conveyed in ‘Inside Out’ (2015), where emotion is unavoidable. However, this unavoidability of emotion is very basic and individualistic with no emotional overlapping. The fact that ‘logic’ was originally considered in this film makes it a far more attractive depiction to me, proving that society is becoming far more curious about the connection between emotion and reason. Having said this, both are still limited in their understanding of the way reason and emotion interact to drive an individual’s decisions and actions in day to day life.

Melissa Mackay said : Guest Report 9 months ago

As a society, I think there is a more accepted understanding of emotion as unavoidable, as the critical approach to emotion suggests. This notion of the unavoidability of emotion is reflected in Disney’s film 'Inside Out' (2015), especially considering the film lacks the representation of reason, something that has for a long time been considered the more rational and socially significant of the two concepts. In the Disney film 'Reason and Emotion' (1943) one can see how the vastly contrasting conventional approach to emotion went uncontested, regarding feelings as merely a distraction from an individual’s end goal. The depiction of the woman on a diet was a perfect example that highlighted the notion of emotion as disruptive and potentially damaging. When analysing the depiction of emotion in 'Inside Out' however, I think that not all emotions are quite as easily classified as the depictions of Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Anger and Fear imply. In this sense, I agree with Liam’s comment that by using Paul Ekman’s model of emotions, the film fails to address the way in which emotions, whilst unavoidable, can also be multi-layered and may have different meaning for the person experiencing them. The way emotion and reason interact shape one’s experience of the world around them and I personally think that both Dinsey films are missing this key interaction.

Liam Thomas said : Guest Report 9 months ago

To me, the approach taken in “Inside Out” makes more sense. This movie appears to using Paul Ekman’s model of emotions as its basis. Although I do not fully agree with this model due to the limitations that it possesses modelling what I believe is a broad spectrum of emotions that are not easily classifiable, “Inside Out” does not separate emotions from reason. The very fact that “Logic”, often considered the process behind rational thought and separate to emotions, was to be included as a character working alongside the emotions supports this notion. Thus, in this film tradition Western philosophy’s mind/body is subverted. It places the locus of thought within the mind (represented by the characters) yet thoughts are deliberated and rationalised in order to enact actions by a humans emotions. In contrast, the 1943 Disney film follows the conventional approach, implying that the emotions of the body must be suppressed in order to let the superior logic of the mind emerge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked