1 A TELEOLOGICAL THEORY OF EMOTIONS: APPLICATIONS IN PSYCOTHERAPY

Zenon Lotufo Jr. Francisco Lotufo Neto Causal and Teleological Explanations In a very general way, when trying to explain a behavior, we may, in one hand, align factors that constitute the cause of such conduct, as if we could answer to a question why?, or, on the other hand, refer to objectives, functions or intentions. In this case, we will be answering to the question what for? We call these teleological explanations, from the Greek tlos, which means finality, objective (Hegemberg, 1969, Braithwaite, 1965). The causal explanations, in what concerns behavior disorders, have been the preference, as far as they 1) avoid that it may blame the individual (which is very desirable) and 2) favor the priorization and, sometimes, the exclusivity of interventions which are economically profitable (which is questionable) (Monteleone, 2000). Causal and teleological approaches do not exclude mutually, that is, they may be equally true. We believe, however, as we will try to demonstrate that, from the point of view of facilitating changes in behavior, the teleological perspective offers very worthy advantages. Teleological explanations of emotions The first to call the attention to the objectives of emotions was Charles Darwin, in a lesserknown book, published in 1872, and only recently translated to Portuguese The Expression of Emotions in Men and Animals. Coherent to his theory, he postulates that each one of the emotions has a defined role in the survival as well as in the well-being of the individual or the species. Going further, Darwin tried to prove that the expression of emotions has a very clear use for animals. Says Darwin: each movement of expression seems to have some natural and independent origin, but, once they are acquired, these movements may be applied voluntary and consciously, as a means of communicating. Even children, if they are carefully attended, discover at a very early age that their screaming brings relief, and they start to use them voluntarily. (Darwin, 1872/2000). As an example of this use, he mentions expressions related to fierceness showing teeth, yelling or groaning. They initially had the character of preparing for combat, but as it frequently is the case, a simple display of these signs ended up intimidating and driving away the enemy, which is a very worthy advantage. This way, then become habitual and, with time, hereditary. Currently, the main person to propose a theory of emotions under Darwinian inspiration is Robert Plutchik, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Nova York. In his book Emotion: a Psychoevolutionary Synthesis he affirms that each emotion is a behavior sequence, each having a defined function based in its evolutionary history (Plutchik, 1980a). Seconding his thesis, Plutchik cites observations as the ones of the psychologist Donald Hebb who, working with chimpanzees, at the Yerkes Regional Primate Center in Atlanta, Georgia, registers: The peculiar characteristic of a tantrum crisis is the inclusion of clear attempts of self-aggression: the child holds out the breath, pulls her hair, throws herself against the wall, while observes what effect it will cause in the adult who is denying her what she wants. There is a purpose element which is also evident in the one-year-old chimpanzee, which glances surreptitiously to its mother between its attacks of mortal choking or head-banging on the floor. (Plutchik, 1980b) Important function of emotions: communicate As we can see, one of the main functions of emotions is communicating, This function is known by a considerable number of author, among who Klineberg (1967), Asch, (1966), Saul (1956), Hillman (1991), Axline (1980), Szas (1979), Wlatlavsky, Bevin e Jackson (1981), Groddeck (1991), Beier e Valens (1976), Harris (1996), Hinton (1999), Turner (2000), Planalp (1999) are worth mentioning. One of the most interesting studies on emotional reactions as a way of communication was carried out at the Suffolk Child Development Center, in Long Island, New York, by the psychologists Edward Carr and Mark Durand. Working with autistic and mentally challenged children, certain behaviors they demonstrated called their attention: one would repeatedly bang her head on the edge of a table, another one would violently try to injure her professor; a third one (whose medical exams did

2
not indicate any reason for it) would scratch herself as far as hurting herself severely. Their conclusions: Our research as they write has convinced us that these serious behavior problems often are not acts with no purpose, but they are rather primitive attempts of getting through to others. In fact, the aggression towards others or against themselves, the tantrum attacks are, most of the times, the only efficient ways a child has of expressing its needs. (Carr e Durand, 1987) Carr e Duran mentioned the works of the psychologists Silvia Bell and Mary Ainsworth who related the babies crying to communication, showing that, the more the child can communicate through facial expressions, gestures and speaking, the less it will cry the work of Ivar Lovaas, psychologist at the University of California, who suggests a child with schizophrenia has often a self-destructive behavior because they are trying to ask for something that every child needs: attention. As they proceed: Although most children we have studied are autistic or mentally retarded, their behavior problems also seem to be ways of communicating. Weve found that these children tend to be more aggressive or to hurt themselves when they are seeking for the attention of the adults or are trying to avoid unpleasant situations. Their odd behavior is a way of saying please pay attention to me, or please, dont ask me to do that. A relevant aspect of Carr and Durands findings is that, when children are taught normal ways of expressing their needs, they may give up on their abnormal behavior; when children are trained to express through speaking or gestures what they want, the extravagant behavior reduces drastically. Discriminating: manipulative emotions. spontaneous and emotions caused by false information or mistaken interpretation of reality, are, to all effects, spontaneous). The human being, unlike other animals, is able to carry emotions, which was once an advantage. We do it through a process of mental feedback through images and internal dialogues. Besides, as we cultivate emotions artificially, they may become consistent and until they result in totally inappropriate behaviors. This is particularly true in terms of anger. In a nutshell, here are the differences: Spontaneous Emotions: they last while the stimulus lasts are qualitative and quantitatively proportional to their stimulus are important to our individual and collective survival.

Manipulative Emotions are retro-fed by the own person may last indefinitely are used to manipulate others are responsible for most of the human suffering

Taking the distinction into consideration, we may also say that there are two different types of psychological sufferings: the ones caused by spontaneous emotions and the ones created by our own selves through manipulative emotions. The ones of the second kind result from selfaggression and are a large portion of the human suffering. Systemic View of the M.E. The family environment plays a relevant role in the formation of our personality, of our mental habits and, thus, in the quality of life we will have and the destiny of our lives. Comprehending our emotional reactions and ourselves implies understanding how we learn how to use our emotions with our relatives. Since the 1950s, with studies as the one by Dr. Murray Bowen, at the time, a professor in psychiatry in the Medical Center of the University of Georgetown, in Washington, a great number of data have been accumulating about how the family environment influences the emotional and affective development of its members. Although great part of these researches emphasize, in a special way, the origin of schizophrenia, it is increasingly evident

A very important contribution from Eric Berne (Berne, 1964; English, 1971), essential to the comprehension of the human behavior from our stand point, is the distinction of two kinds of emotions: a) the spontaneous, which we share with other people and, at great extent, with higher mammals and b) the manipulative, learned through social interaction and generated with the main objective of communicating and controlling other people. The first only last as long as what has caused it lasts; the others, particular of the human kind, may last indefinitely, because we do not allow it to cool off nor disappear (As far as we are interested,

3
that the observations apply, mutatis mutandis, to all families. Probably the most important result of these studies was the new way that people are facing human behavior and its disturbances. Individual problems started to be seen as a part of the process that involves all members of the family. The systemic approach, as it was called, broadening the focus in order to comprise the patients relatives, has let us discover a new sense in the their attitudes. As of this point, new strategies in psychotherapy that treat the family group as a whole and not only one of its members started to arise. As a consequence of the good results, this is one of the areas of psychology that developed the most in the last few years Kerr, 1988, Elkam, 1990, Selvini Palazzoli, Boscolo e Prete, 1970). On the other hand, family therapy has an obvious limitation which is the difficulty of gathering all members of a family for a process of this nature. Not only there are personal resistances, but also many family members live in other localities, or have even passed away. It looks proper, then, not to limit the use of this knowledge to family or couples therapy; it could be of great value in the treatment of individual problems when the rest of the family, for some reason, cannot be gathered. This family approach leads to the comprehension of how habits are acquired in the heart of the family, and how these habits harm the individual and those with whom they live. Different Types of Family Environment To our goals and taking the two types of emotions into account we will classify the family environments into two large groups, always bearing in mind that we will hardly find the pure type of family. In fact, we are talking about two extremes of a continuum that, in each family, leans toward one side or another. As a matter of fact, variations of position occur in the long run as internal and external circumstances impose their influence. Therefore we have: - families entangled by artificial emotions (Type X) - families united by spontaneous emotions (Type Y) A Type-X family characterizes mostly for the strong presence of the False Belief - You are responsible for what I feel and I am responsible for what you feel. After reminding the reader that we are still talking about manipulative emotion, what we have here is the material with which the threads of net interconnect and tie one member of the family to another. In fact, it lies on a device that goes off automatically, causing guilt and anxiety at the smallest site of doubt over this net. It is worth mentioning one more time: we are not responsible for the manipulative feelings of others; in their essence, they are the instruments of manipulation. However, we may be responsible for spontaneous feeling. This topic is delicate because any type of community life requires its members to take a certain amount of responsibility over one another. And this is valid may we be referring to our family, our church, our company, our nation, or even human kind as a whole. Taking responsibility, however, does not mean feeling guilty. I may not feel guilty for having unattended children around me, wandering around the streets, homeless, with no food nor care. However I cant help but feel responsible for their fate. Guilt looks back and tends to produce artificial feelings; responsibility looks forward and bases itself on spontaneous feelings. In the same line of thought, it is necessary to consider that suffering is suffering, be it clean or contaminated. Knowing that someone is suffering due to manipulative emotions shouldnt lead you undermine him/her nor disqualify his/her pain. Not very often, this is the only way a person child or adult finds to express its true needs. The question if we can be much more useful when we avoid letting contramanipulative feelings govern our attitudes. It is also not the case to feel at ease to say or do (or neglect to do) to others whatever one pleases, under the assumption that each one is liable for their own feelings (Taken to the last consequences, this thesis leads to a wild individualism with nasty repercussions over people and the societies) Personal growth, which may be reach as we better deal with out own emotions, is only a true growth when it frees us to be more sensitive to the needs of others, more available to a spontaneous love, uncontaminated by artificial factors. Whats the use? Few things are so important in our lives as are stable relationships with the people who are important to us. We need to feel loved and

4
secure that this love will last for all time. It would be ideal that love was seen as something unconditional, as if we were constantly exchanging in messages like: I love you because you exist or The fact that you exist enriches my life (which is very different from You are responsible for my happiness.) In order to feel safe, it is important that the people involved show themselves to be emotionally stable and bearing values of beliefs that praise harmonious relationships. But, more important than anything else, the own individual needs to see him/herself as someone worthy of being loved. One who has grown in an environment unfavorable to the evolution of a favorable concept about its own value, in a place where he/she felt rejected or valued only for its efforts (not for being but for doing), this person will probably feel unworthy of being loved simply for what they are, for existing. His/her great problem, then, will be: How can I feel safe in this relationship? It is rather visible that the possibility of anyone loving this person for him/herself is absolutely out of the question. Therefore, he/she needs to come up with nets that allow him/her to tie and control others in some way. Their alternatives may be based on ideas such as: If he/she feels sorry for me, then he/she wont leave me. If he/she is afraid of me, he/she wont leave me. If he/she depends on me, he/she wont leave me If he/she feels grateful for me, he/she will not let me down. In other words, it is the conviction of being able to provoke emotions on others that gives them the sensation of security that this person needs so much. Of course, in these terms, the relationships will be inevitably unsatisfactory, when not really stormy. It is probably an environment such as this that Jules Rennards title-character boy Poil-de-Carotte refers to when he claims Family is a bunch of people who hate one another and are doomed to live together. Therefore, if one of the members of the couple or family simple stops contramanipulating, that is, to respond emotionally to the manipulation this person is the target of, it is not strange that this provokes a boom in the intensity of emotion of the other(s), resulting, mostly, from the fear that this connection could be broken. It will take time and persistence to realize that this relationship is not based on threats but, rather, it will become more solid and more satisfactory once the strategies of control are put aside. Advantages of the teleological explanation The great advantage of a teleological explanation in regards to causal explanations of behavior is the favoring of the conscience that one has of being able to take control over their emotions and behavior. The teleological perspective, when conceptualizing the emotional disturbance and demonstrating the dynamics of the process as something generated inside the own being (and not as something caused by factors that this person cannot control) may contribute substantially so that this control be actually reached. (Banmdura, 1997) Discriminating: Responsibility and Guilt It is of utmost importance, for the therapy to be successful, that one knows the difference between being responsible for their own behavior (and life) and being guilty for it. In therapy of people whose self-esteem is severely damaged, to attribute them the responsibility that whatever is going wrong may even worsen the situation. Putting responsibility on the subconscious or on the ego (as some oriental lines of thinking may say), or, as the Transactional Analysis may say, in an inner child, may be a useful resource as a way of showing that their problems may be the result of their won attitudes and behavior, at the same time that it avoids making them feel guilty. The therapy will be guided, therefore, to the comprehension and modification of these factors which are internal but strangers to the real I (Horney, 1966). It is possible to treat some psychological disturbances as it is the case of most phobias through techniques or drugs, only, without interfering on the personality per se. In most cases, however, there cannot be a personal growth without investments in the modifications of the personality, what, in turn, implies questionings about values and taking responsibility, that is, taking over control. The three emotions objectives of manipulative

We generate emotions in ourselves with three types of objectives. a) Obtaining something from someone. The emotion generated aims at asking for things like help, protection, care attention, support,

5
condescendence, compassion, etc. The emotional expression, in this case, tries to demonstrate, weakness, helplessness, impotence. b) Freeing us from someone. In light of the demandings, pressure, expectations and requirements, emotional strategies which may involve tantrum, bad mood, irritability, rebellion, etc can be used. The message one intends to send can be summarized in: Leave me alone c) Making someone feel guilty. The strategy consists of showing suffering as the objective of communicating something like: Look at how I am because of you. It is common in circumstances in which the individual feels hurt or this person believes to be the victims of an injustice. On the other hand, although there are practical reasons for considering it a bearer of a specific objective, it is possible that this hidden goal make him/her feel valuable. In this case, the objective would fit into item a. Peoples reaction real or imaginary would satisfy in some way the need of rescuing his/her selfesteem. Contra-manipulation It is important to bear in mind that the individual who one wishes to control through manipulative emotions tend to react generating in him/herself another emotion which also aims at controlling. This is what is called manipulating and contra-manipulating. Example of theory application: Systemic Cognitive Analysis We present, as follows, a sample of the application of the theory exposed hereby. The method is called Systemic Cognitive Analysis The patient is a woman around the age of 45 who sought therapy to try to overcome the anxiety that resulted from her difficulties in her relationship with her parents. She loves them, and dedicates a great amount of time, taking care of their needs. But she cannot she cannot seem to handle their over-demanding on her, mostly through manipulative strategies in which they show themselves to be helpless and fragile. The patient has moments in which she feels 1) guilty and anxious for, for instance, taking a weekend to travel with her husband and children, even though she knows two brothers may help in case of an emergency with her parents 2) irritability and resentment for feeling invaded and deprived of the freedom of dedicating herself to activities of her interest. The following steps elaborated by the patient herself, after some sessions where she discussed the strategies involved and where she received instructions on how to proceed show schematically how feel the relief of the symptoms by substituting inadequate messages, related to negative feeling, for others which adequately express what she intends. Situation: I feel bad due to the excessive demandings my parents impose on me. Convictions: 1) I am responsible for what they feel. 2) They make me feel bad with all this demanding 3) If I dont feel bad, they wont stop with the demanding. Contesting: 1) Im not responsible for feelings they are creating to control me. 2) They are not responsible for my feeling bad. Im the one who hurts myself in order to ask them to stop doing that. 3) I cant make them stop it, but hurting myself does not help at all. If I dont hurt myself, I will remain better, and so I will be able to think clearly and, possibly, Ill find more appropriate strategies to deal with the situation. Message of their inner child: Help, take care of us. We are helpless because we are old. Weve lost everything, we are very dependent. You are liable for whatever happens to us and for what we feel. If you dont give us enough attention, we will feel insecure and it will be your fault. (Observation: The following steps involve dramatization in a Gestalt-therapy style (empty chair) in imagination.) Message of my Inner Child: For the love of God, stop with the demanding. Dont blame for what you feel. Its because of you that I get so upset. Look at how bad you are making me feel. Alternative Messages: I love you and Id really like for you to feel good, but Im not responsible for what you feel,

6
as youre not for what I feel. Im not going to punish myself to plead you to stop demanding so much from me (dramatize mentally the attitude youll no longer have). Ill help you, but only hen I can and when I feel good. If you choose to feel bad, Ill keep loving you, but I will not hurt myself. BIBLIOGRAPHY Asch, S. Psicologia Social , So Paulo, Cia. Editora Nacional, 1966. Axline, V. Terapia do Grupo Familiar, S. Paulo, Francisco Alves, 1980. Berne, E. Trading Stamps, Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 3:127, Abr. 1964. Bandura, Albert Self-Efficacy The Exercise of Control, New York, W.H. Freeman, 1997 Beier, E. e Valens, E. People Reading - How We Control Others, How They Control Us, Warner Books, Nova York, 1976. Braithwaite, R. B. La Explicacin Cientfica, Madrid, Tecnos, 1965. Carr, E. e Durand, M. See Me, Help Me, em Psychology Today, Vol. 21, No. 11, Nov. 1987. Darwin, C. , A Expresso das Emoes nos Homens e nos Animais, S. Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 2000. Elkam, M. Se Voc me Ama, No me Ame Abordagem Sistmica em Psicoterapia Familiar e Conjugal, Campinas, SP, Papirus, 1990. English, F. The Substitution Factor: Rackets and Real Feelings, Transactional Analysis Journal, Vol. 1, N0 4, Out. 1971 Groddeck G. O Livro Disso, So Paulo, Perspectiva, 1991. Harris, P. Criana e Emoo S. Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1996. Hegemberg, L. Explicaes Cientficas, S. Paulo, EDUSP, 1969. Hillman, J. Emotion, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1991. Hinton, A. L. Biocutural Approaches to the Emotions, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Horney, K. Neurose e Desenvolvimento Humano, Rio de Janeiro, Civilizao Brasileira, 1966. Kerr, M. E. Chronic Anxiety and Defining a Self The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 262, N0 3, Set. 1988 Millon, T. Uma Abordagem Atravs da Aprendizagem Biossocial em Millon, T. (org.) Teorias da Psicopatologia e Personalidade, Rio de Janeiro, Interamericana, 1979. Monteleone, P. P. R., Relaes Perigosas, Folhas de S. Paulo, 11/02/2000 Otto Klineberg Psicologia Social ,So Paulo, Editora Fundo de Cultura, 1967 . Planalp, S. Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral and Cultural Process, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Plutchik, R. Emotion: a Psychoevolutionary Synthesis, Nova York, Harper and Row, 1980a. A Language for the Emotions em Psychology Today, Vol. 13, No 9, Fev, 1980b. Salvini Palazzoli, M. , Boscolo, L. e Prata, G. Paradosso e Contraparadosso, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1970. Saul, L. Bases of Human Behavior, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1956. Szas, T. O Mitgo da Doena Mental Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1979. Turner, J. H. On the Origins of Human Emotions: A Sociological Inquiry into the Evolution of Human Affect, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2000. Warner, S. Self-Realization and SelfDefeat, New York, Grove Press, 1966 Wlatlavsky P., Beavin J., Jackson, D. Pragmtica da Comunicao Humana So Paulo, Cultrix, 1981.
Zenon Lotufo Jr. filosofo, ps-graduado em Cincias Sociais e analista transacional. E-mail zenonjr@uol.com.br. Francisco Lotufo Neto mdico psiquiatra e professor do Departamento de Psiquiatria da Faculdade de Medicina da USP E-mail franciscolotufo@uol.com.br. Endereo dos autores: Av. Faria Lima, 2121, conj. 72 CEP 01452-001 S. Paulo SP Tel. 11-2812-3711; 3812-3921

Summary: The Authors propose a paradigm on teleological basis in the approach of emotional disturbances, putting in evidence the manipulative role of large amount of human emotions. Bringing into focus the origin of such manipulative strategies in the familial context, they emphasize the importance of developing in the patient the sense of responsibility and of control as well as suggesting that such beliefs as those following play a decisive role in the genesis of emotional disturbances: Negative feelings come from outside and are caused by other people and by circumstances. Others are responsible by what I feel, and I am responsible by what they feel. Unless I am able of inducing some kind of feelings in people, I will

7
be not able to maintain them with me. They finally present a draft of a cognitive therapeutic method that uses the above concepts. Key words: Emotions. Communication. Psychotherapy. Therapy. Cognitive. Manipulation. Responsibility. Systemic.