Taming the Beast Within
Buy Issue for $25 at JHUPcognition, emotion, therapy, depression
I agree with Whiting and others that there can be more to emotions than the cognitive attitudes that inform them, including valuational attitudes. Emotion can also be awakened without these. For that matter, feeling can actually fly in the face of thought. I suggest that despite this, however, even recalcitrant emotions might be more responsive to cognitive intervention than Whiting allows. This could be important, particularly where more sure-fire noncognitive therapies are lacking. The therapeutic interest of a person's cognition is not wholly dispelled, even in the hard cases Whiting brings to our attention.
Whiting's challenge to cognition-based therapy for emotional (and related) problems is not to the principle on which such therapy is based, but to the scope of that principle. He concedes that many emotional responses crucially depend on how their host represents the things affecting him. However, Whiting thinks these form but one type of case. In other cases, this picture is misleading and cognition-based therapy more apt to be futile. There are, he thinks, cases in which what is dysfunctional about an emotional response or attitude partly consists in the very fact that it is resistant to the appropriate cognitions. Thus, the way a person feels can be strikingly at odds with what the person actually thinks and resistant to the influence of reforms in that. This is one of the reasons for thinking that emotion is not always the creature of cognition, either causally or conceptually.1
The general fact that emotional responses can arise from noncognitive sources and remain in the thrall of these is of interest partly because the emotional aspects of at least some mental disorders might involve this. Where this was so, the question would arise as to what these sources variously were and what therapies, if any, they might respond to. Whiting's paper concentrates on the theoretical stage setting that would generate these challenges. That it generates them is part of the interest of his paper.
Whiting's examples of noncognitively sourced emotional feelings are various in kind: alcohol-induced sadness, coffee-induced edginess, stress anxiety, and endogenous and opaque responses such as pedophilic excitation. Presumably there are other, less obviously or mundanely chemically sourced responses. And to these might be added the experience of other people's emotion. There is a direct affective vulnerability to the manifestations of emotion in others: The intimidating glare, infectious sadness or joy, and so on. (That is, we respond with feeling to the very expression of emotion, emotion as it is shown to us, sometimes as directed at us, and this is not the same as thoughts we have about others' emotions, to which we may also, of course, be susceptible emotionally.) But what is of clinical interest is not response episodes that reflect happenstance (too much coffee, catching sight of a snake underfoot), but more [End Page 251] chronic emotional dispositions. And there are numerous prima facie candidates for these to add to Whiting's examples of pedophilic arousal and depression (e.g., phobias, mood swings, anxiety, flatness, proneness to runaway anger). Some, of course, would query how far our noncognitive (or precognitive) vulnerabilities really extend. Appearances can deceive, and the relation of emotional response to cognition can be subtle. Where emotion seems at odds with thought and resistant to changes in it, this can still owe to the presence of controlling thoughts that are concealed, even from the affected person. Pivotal thoughts may elude a particular confused person, or they may be tacit, as yet unrecognized. It is possible to be self-deceived, mistaken about what one believes, where, for instance, one is subject to wishful thinking about what one really believes ("The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God"). And this raises the whole question of what "cognition," "thought," or "represents" actually can mean. These are umbrella terms for a variety of possible attitudes. Except for behaviorists, what one is...
