• About

affecognitive

~ religion, film, affect, academia

affecognitive

Monthly Archives: July 2015

Harper Lee, White privilege, and Silvan Tomkins

23 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by mghamner in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

affect theory, race, Tomkins

go-set-a-watchman-and-to-kill-a-mockingbird  The release of Go Set a Watchman, the sequel to Harper Lee’s, To Kill a Mockingbird, is generating a fascinating public fold between fiction and reality. [I have not yet read the new book but am reflecting here on the media outpouring around the book’s release.]

After 50 years of teaching, screening and idolizing Atticus Finch as a man whose love for humanity wields the triumphant sword of racial justice, the new release, by all reports, depicts the man as a bitter, aging racist and a figure who ably (i.e., cynically or instrumentally) navigates the subtle nuances of mid-century Southern state politics.

The announcement of this startling plot twist shifts quickly in news reportage to expressions of distress and sometimes shame: what do we do now with this book, this character we have loved? Such sharp and prevalent affective responses delineate the fascinating fold between fiction and reality that holds my attention here. Has Atticus finch attained a stature in US society unusual for a merely fictional character in a novel? Are there other literary characters whose changing moral sway would so sway us?

What if we consider Atticus less as a fictional hero and more as a kind of totem for a certain White disposition, that is, a totem that stands in for a set of rules for processing White memories and experiences?  This consideration requires a word about totem, and about disposition. I am using totem in the Durkheimian sense of a collective symbol of both society and society’s gods; in this case, the totemic god is liberal humanism or democratic society, and totemic society is America writ large (and contradictorily posed through simultaneous assertions of equality and White supremacy, since Atticus Finch is clearly the White savior). [1] I am using disposition as an analogy to what Silvan Tomkins terms ‘script’ or a set of rules for “predicting, interpreting, responding to, and controlling a magnified set of scenes,” where scenes are memories of interpersonal experiences saturated with affect and meaning. [2] This White script, totemized by Atticus Finch, can be understood as something like a congratulatory orientation towards systemic Black oppression in the U.S., in general, and towards the fury of the 1960s Civil Rights movements, in particular. This script has effectively organized scenes of racial tolerance and harmony so as to sustain and aggregate affects of interest and joy, and arranged scenes of racial intolerance and racial pugilism so as to sustain and aggregate affective distress, anguish, or disgust. It has functioned, that is, as a psychic and material mechanism for a White privilege that disavows structural racism in the same gesture by which it congratulates tolerant and even justice-seeking White individuals.

If the media reports about the aging Atticus are correct, then Lee’s newly published book will shred the legitimacy of this totemic function and the congratulatory orientation it constellates. It will show up those carefully managed affecognitive scenes as fraudulent or illusory and will plop the White bodies disposed to this particular totem right back into the chaotic, violent, bloody stuckness of US race relations. While horrific race relations ‘always already’ frame and penetrate US history (and not just Southern history), the release of Lee’s new book does seem to punctuate the racial tension that has been growing in the U.S. since Trayvon Martin’s death in February, 2012, just as her classic novel, published in 1960, punctuated a decade of growing racial tension, and anticipated the next decade of Civil Rights activism and legislation.

Such a show of collective distress or shame in the face of a tumbling totem can indicate an important moment of potential White re-assessment, as anxiously suggested by articles on how, now, ‘we’ (presumably the White ‘we’) are to move forward in teaching To Kill a Mockingbird since the bitter racist Atticus of Go Set a Watchman will proleptically imbricate his beloved predecessor. This potential re-assessment leans on what Tomkins describes as the social good of shame, the way in which shared shame both solidifies established hierarchies, thereby ensuring transmission of social order and shared norms to the next generation, but also can challenge established hierarchies. The challenge arises when the affective dynamics of identification (the levers of joy and interest that make shared shame effective) are conjoined with an expanded affective sensibility, affective bond or gesture of empathy. Tomkins gives the example of a dominant [White] body witnessing a marginal body (he actually writes about “the Southern Negro”) shamed into and reduced to existence as this marginal position by a dominant body. [3]

This witnessing of vicarious shame from the position of privilege boomerangs back to the witnessing body as shame for her own dominance, shame not for getting out of place (for disrupting social norms) but shame precisely for being caught up in a social norm that shames another into her place. Tomkins notes, “If the society is ever to change, there must be some tension sustained between the society’s definition of the situation and the individual’s script.” [4]  In trying to think both the totemic function of Atticus Finch for sustaining White America’s denial or disavowal of structural racism and also the persistent violence against non-White bodies since…well, since forever, but particularly within the living memories of those of us who grew up with Atticus Finch, I find myself acutely curious about this socially disruptive shame born out of a felt reception of and disgust for a specific social norm, a norm that structures human relationships through shame and therefore cements the structures of shame as the felt propriety of social reality. I am acutely interested in a socially disruptive shame that sustains tension between society’s narrative and the individual’s script (where, again, a script is a set of rules for managing and magnifying scenes of memory and experience).

The dynamics of this reception-disgust that constitutes disruptive shame might be akin to what Foucault discusses as the historical ontology of oneself, a process that defamiliarizes the norms of the present by a sudden (or researched) experience of their contingency. White supremacy is not necessary, not eternal, not stamped with transcendent approval. More importantly, White privilege is damnably entrenched and difficult to defamiliarize. The ‘scenic’ disturbance generated by Go Set a Watchman can ripple through established White scripts and unsettle them. But where that slight dislodging will lead, is anyone’s guess.

Notes

[1] Émile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

[2] Silvan Tomkins, Shame and its Sisters, 180.

[3] Tomkins, 156-162.

[4] Tomkins, 180.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Pixar’s “Inside Out” and Silvan Tomkins

16 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by mghamner in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

21INSIDEOUT1-master495  Pixar Studio’s new release, Inside Out decisively confirms our cultural turn to affect. Here is a movie that does not simply take the protagonists’ affects seriously, but personifies them as five edgy blocs of being inside the head of an eleven-year-old girl, Riley [1]. Color-coded Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust [2] all work alongside each other in Headquarters, a large traffic control tower for emotional experiences, presumably situated in the center of Riley’s brain, set up to use screen technology to ‘peer out’ onto the world as Riley sees it, and arranged in work stations so that the five emotions can plot and steer Riley’s daily emotions. To me, the five emotional blocs of being are the discursive and interactive analogs to the personality “Islands” that surround Headquarters. These “Islands”—Family, Goofball, Honesty, Friendship, and Hockey—are fueled by core memories and long-term memories, but both Islands and memories can be tuned and retuned by the Emotions.

41oQ5YJtb8L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_  It is useful to consider this film alongside Silvan Tomkins’ theories of affect. For instance, we might think of the Islands of Personality as what Tomkins terms Ideas, that is, densely structured interweavings of affective encounters and cognitive processing and reflection. Tomkins describes Ideas as “centrally emitted blueprints for activating, guiding, and finally stopping the feedback mechanism” [3]. Feedback systems—e.g., if I am hungry I cry; if I am hurt, I scream—are initially disconnected from affect systems according to Tomkins, but they imbricate in early childhood, so that the constellation of affect, cognition, and feedback generates “central assemblies” that are themselves arranged into Ideas [4]. Similar to the depiction of the film’s Personality Islands, these “Ideas” in Tomkins are not airy forms but clunky, moving, material machines that generate rules for dealing with affective and cognitive experience.

Later in his career, Tomkins writes not of Ideas but of “scripts”, borrowing from AI researchers Roger Schank and Robert Adelson. These latter define scripts as “structures that describe appropriate sequences of events in particular contexts” [5]. Tomkins himself states that a script deals with “the individual’s rules for predicting, interpreting, responding to, and controlling a magnified set of scenes” [6], where a scene is, as he puts it so poetically, “the basic element in life as it is lived” [7].

The Goofball Island, for instance, can be understood as a complex Idea or script for receiving, processing, and acting on certain specific experiential ‘scenes’, cues, or assemblies. And the emotional blocs of being represented by Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust are the vessels, the vehicles of mediation and remediation for generating scenes and assemblies that then are directed into Ideas or scripts.

Tomkins even has a developmental model that might explain why Riley so completely decompensates in the face of her family’s move to San Francisco (though her miraculous change of heart remains fit only for the movie screen). Tomkins calls it the “iceberg model of affective development,” and, yes, it’s Joy’s fault. After a young childhood of mostly positive affects and loving response from his parents, this individual, Tomkins says, experiences “a continuous history of successful achievements through childhood and adolescence.” Any distress-shame experiences “serve only to strengthen his counteractive efforts to maximize his positive experiences” [8] When, however a distress comes along that he cannot counteract, he dissolves into shame and humiliation. Tomkins writes, “In such a case, the iceberg of childhood learning may suddenly intrude itself as an utterly alien experience, so disturbing as to produce further negative affect and depression or withdrawal.” [9]

What Tomkins describes in this model of affective development is a particular social type, that of a privileged child raised by loving and well-to-do parents, a child certain of her ability to overcome whatever obstacles life tosses in her path. When this child of privilege cannot control the world around her, however, it is as if her personality Ideas or scripts slam into an iceberg, break up, and sink. This is, in fact, almost precisely the way Inside Out depicts Riley’s distress, anguish, and shame.

Frustratingly for this affect theorist, the film retains a Cartesian split between body and brain, in that Riley’s emotions, personality planks, and even sedimented memory all located inside her brain. This Headquarters is indeed literally in the head. Also, I wonder how it would change the film to include the two affects Tomkins considered most important, interest and shame. In the film, Joy seems to colonize interest, and Sadness, shame.

Notes

[1] voice by Kaitlyn Dias

[2] voices by Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Bill Hader, and Mindy Kalin, respectively.

[3] Tomkins, Shame and its Sisters, Duke UP 1995, 68.

[4] Tomkins, Shame and its Sisters, 44-73.

[5] Schank and Adelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, 1977, 41.

[6] Tomkins, 180.

[7] Tomkins, 179.

[8]Tomkins, 124.

[9] Tomkins, 125.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014

Categories

  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: