Page 61 - Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilience

30 Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilence

The second basic belief derived from emotion theory that I find extremely
useful is the idea that, fundamentally, emotions are adaptive. “Emotions
have motivational functions that give them critical adaptive qualities; for
example, interest gives focus and selectivity to perception; fear and antici-
patory shame protect from physical and psychological harm; guilt moti-
vates moral reasoning, empathy, and reparation of damaged relationships;
and joy works as an antidote for stress and a stimulus to social interaction
and creative thinking” (Izard, 2001, p. 253).
Understanding the emotions as fundamentally adaptive has broad
human implications. It shapes our notions of the helper’s goals, methods,
and the meaning of progress. This view of emotionality affects how we
define normality and pathology and affects our focus in our efforts to work
with people. What we see as important, worthy of our attention, memo-
rable, and so on, depends on our basic stance toward human emotionality.
Henry Krystal (1975) has been critical of what he calls “riddance” theories
that assume it is always a goal to diminish emotionality. In teaching, I
have referred to the implicit “pus theory of emotions” that I believe many
clinicians (and nonclinicians) hold. It was especially popular in the 1970s
to believe that if we could express (rather than suppress) anger in treat-
ment, we would be cured of our troublesome emotions. To me, this reflects
an antiemotionality prejudice.
Along with the concept that the emotions are fundamentally adaptive,
I also believe that every emotion has an optimal range of intensity. Too
little, even of painful agitation, is as much of a problem as too much. We
would probably be as concerned if an infant never cried as we would be
if crying took up her whole waking life. I don’t assume my aim should be
to cure anyone of their intense feelings although, eventually, we may try
to help someone be better able to modulate them. I begin with a relatively
unformulated sense that a person’s agitation is her current (perhaps often
ineffective) emotional language.
The belief that emotions are fundamentally adaptive has especially
important implications for how we define ideal health in human beings.
For example, many behavioral and cognitive approaches would see agita-
tion as a symptom and something to cure. This pits one aspect of a human
being against another aspect. If I am working to cure a person of her agi-
tation, I am working to cure her of a part of her. Bromberg (1998) has
been especially clear about how such a position can become problematic.
Referring to Freud’s treatment of Emmy von N, Bromberg says:
Even though she welcomed his trying to “cure” her, she didn’t want him to
“cure” her of being herself. She was “unruly” because she needed to get all of