The dusty soapbox. ([info]faintlygrinning) wrote in [info]academic_empath,
@ 2005-12-16 18:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Hello!
(Reposted from user introduction posts, down yonder.)

My name is Justin, I'm 23 years old, living (and currently, shivering) on the Jersey Shore, having just completed a Bachelors in Liberal Arts from Eugene Lang College at the New School. I studied social theory, political philosophy, and issues in the philosophy of morality and religion, and I had a great time, though it must be said that the seminars were largely seas of abstraction. Before graduating I chanced on a copy of "Looking for Spinoza" and was struck with the notion there may be different ways to answer the big questions about social meaning.

More recently I've applied to graduate programs in social psychology, with a particular interest in the psychophysiology of stress markers, as exhibited during interpersonal communication about moral issues. I'm interested in explanations of the bio-psychological properties of empathy, including the evolution of social cognition in nonhuman primates-- and, of course, human primates as well-- and issues in the "Theory of Mind" theory, emotional development during childhood, and the existence of social "information-processing" channels that aren't accessible to consciousness.

I have a few years experience working with autistic children. In fact, one way I can get my cards on the table immediately is to say that my father has been working in special education since before I was born, with a focus on autistic students, so I've always known about autism and its implications and that's had a powerful effect on the way I think about empathy.

Philosophically speaking what one might call a "qualified relativist" or "radical pragmatist", very abstruse ways of conveying that I believe our moral, religious and aesthetic explanations of our fellow human beings are not capable of being metaphysically justified; but since meaning is processed, and made significant, through bodily processes, the existence or non-existence of a metaphysical realm doesn't really matter for human meaning, because we feel our beliefs through with our bodies.

A psychological way of saying this is that I believe the true significance of social interaction lies in our bodily representations, just as much as our cognitive representations. Empathy refers to all of the ways that people impact upon each other, and refers to all systems of the body, including the cortex, the so-called "limbic" or subcortical regions, the autonomic nervous system, muscular contractions, heart rate, blood pressure, posture, etc... my, I could go on. I take a particular interest in the writings of Antonio Damasio, Jay Schulkin and Richard Shusterman on these issues. I would recommend Schulkin's book "Bodily Sensibilities" to anyone.

I'm familiar with work like the article above through the writings of Jay Schulkin, Paul Ekman, and Simon Baron-Cohen, among others. I've thought for a long time about the implications of the existence of reflexive neural systems for our social interaction, our social dispositions, our concept of social life. I guess an early interest in autism has made it impossible for me to look at empathy or social interaction in anything like a "given" way. I believe that so much of our interactions with each other are shaped, though not determined, by what lies beneath the surface of our skull and skin.

At the same time I think that acknowledging the power of nonconscious processes in social life should give us a great deal of hope, and take nothing away from the idea of human dignity. It may just be that a moral education involves not teaching concepts and laws about morality, but instead teaching people how to talk to each other in such a way that we don't reinforce habitual programs of fearful, anxious and domineering behavior. Knowing that Darwin and not Augustine got it right doesn't make me more pessimistic about this possibility; if anything it has the opposite effect. There are so many different routes by which humanity can evolve.

I hope these were adequate and interesting enough answers for you, dear moderator; to you and the rest of the community I cheerfully say hello and I look forward to reading, and hopefully participating in, some interesting discussions about sociality.



(Post a new comment)


[info]saizai
2005-12-18 10:10 am UTC (link)
Would you mind summarizing Spinoza, Baron-Cohen and Schulkin, or at least, what you got from them? (/me is wondering whether to add it to the all-too-long list of "books I should read eventually")

How would you explain empathy? You mention TOM and philosophy - how do you feel about theory-theory, sim-theory, or any other variants; or generally how would you solve the "other minds" or "mind-body" problems (if indeed you think that that's a well-formed question...)?

Basically, please *do* go on, on any of what you said that bears elaborating.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]faintlygrinning
2005-12-20 12:41 am UTC (link)
"Looking for Spinoza" was written by Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist at the University of Iowa Medical College. Baruch Spinoza was a 15th-century philosopher who proposed an early alternative to Cartesian philosophy about the passions, by venturing a co-equal relationship between passion and reason. He believed that the passions could never be thwarted or extinguished by "higher reasoning", nor should they be, but rather that they work in a complex and symbiotic relationship. He is known for the wonderful quote, "Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand." Damasio is known for his outstanding research about the neural basis of emotion and the relationship of emotion to "problem-solving" modules in the brain, specifically social problem-solving. What I obtained from the book "Looking for Spinoza" was a heightened respect for the role that seemingly everyday emotions play in our navigation of the social environment, and a renewed conviction that my intuitions, namely, that the emotions are the best place to start when posing questions about social cohesiveness, can one day bear fruit.

Jay Schulkin is someone who I think you'd take a great interest in. He's a clinical researcher in neuroendocrinology at Georgetown, and has written many books, though two I know of: "Roots of Social Sensibility and Neural Function" and "Bodily Sensibility", the first of which discusses "social modules" in the brain like mirror neurons, eye gaze detectors, emotional substrates of empathy, etc., in regard to their neural substrates, function and evolutionary development. "Bodily Sensibility" is one of my favorite books of the moment, placing Schulkin's earlier observations about the neural basis of social sensibility into the context of bodily systems and the innate "desire" of the organism to maintain homeostasis. Schulkin is a brilliant researcher and I gladly recommend any of his books, but those two in particular, to anyone who takes interest in neural / bodily explorations of social sensibility.

Simon Baron-Cohen's work has done extensive research on the neural correlates of social function, particularly about their development in childhood, and the role that developmental abnormalities play in conditions like autism and Asperger's Syndrome. He coined the term "mindblindness" (which refers to autistic individuals' seeming lack of empathy) in his eponymous book. Also, curiously enough, he's the cousin of Sacha Baron-Cohen (also known as "Ali G".) More information here: http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc/staff_member.asp?id=33

As for your other, interesting questions, I'll just throw out initial attempts at answers here, to be drawn out by further discussions, rather than bludgeon you with an attempt to summarize a few years' worth of pondering. I believe empathy can be understood on two levels of analysis: phenomenological and biological (one could say "software" and "hardware" if they prefer). Phenomenologically, the basic trait of empathy is nothing more complicated than an individual's greater or lesser susceptibility to feeling the perceived or imagined emotional states of others, in a process that social psychologists have called "emotional contagion". It seems to me that all mammals are capable of empathy conceived of in such a way. However, only humans have the cognitive modules (neocortex) to represent the felt experience of empathy in varying ways. So empathy is felt and experienced in countless different ways, but at the heart of the phenomenon lies the empathetic individual's susceptibility to emotional contagion. I firmly believe that the initial "experience" of empathy is a non-reflective, largely nonconscious process that gets translated into bodily sensations and thus mental representations; I also believe that empathy is universal, a cross-species (and cross-mammalian) "ability" vital to our continued survival as creatures born to a social universe. My convictions in this belief are rooted in my understanding of empathy as a biologically based process, hence the other level of understanding, the biological level-- but my opinions on that are best gleaned through readings of the aforementioned authors.

What's your take on this attempt at a definition? Hope this serves as a spur to interesting conversation.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…