A	>>	B	>>	C	>>	D	>>	E
F	>>	G	>>	H	>>	I	>>	J
K	>>	L	>>	M	>>	N	>>	O
P	>>	R	>>	S	>>	T	>>	U
V	>>	W	>>			X	>>	Z

Erskine Childers - "Riddle of the Sands"

R. F. Murray/Andrew Lang - "His Poems with a Memoir by Andrew Lang"

H. Rider Haggard - "King Solomon's Mines"

Richard Harding Davis - "The Lost Road, etc."

The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals

C >> Charles Darwin >> The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals




As the power of intercommunication is certainly of high service to
many animals, there is no _a priori_ improbability in the supposition,
that gestures manifestly of an opposite nature to those by which certain
feelings are already expressed, should at first have been voluntarily
employed under the influence of an opposite state of feeling.
The fact of the gestures being now innate, would be no valid objection
to the belief that they were at first intentional; for if practised
during many generations, they would probably at last be inherited.
Nevertheless it is more than doubtful, as we shall immediately see,
whether any of the cases which come under our present head of antithesis,
have thus originated.

With conventional signs which are not innate, such as those
used by the deaf and dumb and by savages, the principle of
opposition or antithesis has been partially brought into play.
The Cistercian monks thought it sinful to speak, and as they
could not avoid holding some communication, they invented
a gesture language, in which the principle of opposition seems
to have been employed.[2] Dr. Scott, of the Exeter Deaf and
Dumb Institution, writes to me that "opposites are greatly used
in teaching the deaf and dumb, who have a lively sense of them."
Nevertheless I have been surprised how few unequivocal instances
can be adduced. This depends partly on all the signs having
commonly had some natural origin; and partly on the practice
of the deaf and dumb and of savages to contract their signs as much
as possible for the sake of rapidity?[3] Hence their natural
source or origin often becomes doubtful or is completely lost;
as is likewise the case with articulate language.


[1] `Naturgeschichte der Saugethiere von Paraguay,' 1830, s. 55.

[2] Mr. Tylor gives an account of the Cistercian gesture-language
in his `Early History of Mankind' (2nd edit. 1870, p. 40), and makes
some remarks on the principle of opposition in gestures.

[3] See on this subject Dr. W. R. Scott's interesting work, `The Deaf
and Dumb,' 2nd edit. 1870, p. 12. He says, "This contracting
of natural gestures into much shorter gestures than the natural
expression requires, is very common amongst the deaf and dumb.
This contracted gesture is frequently so shortened as nearly to lose
all semblance of the natural one, but to the deaf and dumb who use it,
it still has the force of the original expression."

Many signs, moreover, which plainly stand in opposition to each other,
appear to have had on both sides a significant origin.
This seems to hold good with the signs used by the deal and dumb
for light and darkness, for strength and weakness, &c. In a future
chapter I shall endeavour to show that the opposite gestures of
affirmation and negation, namely, vertically nodding and laterally
shaking the head, have both probably had a natural beginning.
The waving of the hand from right to left, which is used as a negative
by some savages, may have been invented in imitation of shaking the head;
but whether the opposite movement of waving the hand in a straight
line from the face, which is used in affirmation, has arisen through
antithesis or in some quite distinct manner, is doubtful.

If we now turn to the gestures which are innate or common to all
the individuals of the same species, and which come under the present
head of antithesis, it is extremely doubtful, whether any of them
were at first deliberately invented and consciously performed.
With mankind the best instance of a gesture standing in direct opposition
to other movements, naturally assumed under an opposite frame of mind,
is that of shrugging the shoulders. This expresses impotence or
an apology,--something which cannot be done, or cannot be avoided.
The gesture is sometimes used consciously and voluntarily, but it
is extremely improbable that it was at first deliberately invented,
and afterwards fixed by habit; for not only do young children
sometimes shrug their shoulders under the above states of mind,
but the movement is accompanied, as will be shown in a future chapter,
by various subordinate movements, which not one man in a thousand
is aware of, unless he has specially attended to the subject.

Dogs when approaching a strange dog, may find it useful to show by their
movements that they are friendly, and do not wish to fight. When two young
dogs in play are growling and biting each other's faces and legs, it is
obvious that they mutually understand each other's gestures and manners.
There seems, indeed, some degree of instinctive knowledge in puppies
and kittens, that they must not use their sharp little teeth or claws
too freely in their play, though this sometimes happens and a squeal
is the result; otherwise they would often injure each other's eyes.
When my terrier bites my hand in play, often snarling at the same time,
if he bites too hard and I say GENTLY, GENTLY, he goes on biting,
but answers me by a few wags of the tail, which seems to say "Never mind,
it is all fun." Although dogs do thus express, and may wish to express,
to other dogs and to man, that they are in a friendly state of mind,
it is incredible that they could ever have deliberately thought of drawing
back and depressing their ears, instead of holding them erect,--of lowering
and wagging their tails, instead of keeping them stiff and upright,
&c., because they knew that these movements stood in direct opposition
to those assumed under an opposite and savage frame of mind.

Again, when a cat, or rather when some early progenitor of the species,
from feeling affectionate first slightly arched its back, held its
tail perpendicularly upwards and pricked its ears, can it be believed
that the animal consciously wished thus to show that its frame
of mind was directly the reverse of that, when from being ready
to fight or to spring on its prey, it assumed a crouching attitude,
curled its tail from side to side and depressed its ears?
Even still less can I believe that my dog voluntarily put on his
dejected attitude and "_hot-house face_," which formed so complete
a contrast to his previous cheerful attitude and whole bearing.
It cannot be supposed that he knew that I should understand
his expression, and that he could thus soften my heart and make me
give up visiting the hot-house.

Hence for the development of the movements which come under
the present head, some other principle, distinct from the will
and consciousness, must have intervened. This principle appears
to be that every movement which we have voluntarily performed
throughout our lives has required the action of certain muscles;
and when we have performed a directly opposite movement,
an opposite set of muscles has been habitually brought into play,--
as in turning to the right or to the left, in pushing away or
pulling an object towards us, and in lifting or lowering a weight.
So strongly are our intentions and movements associated together,
that if we eagerly wish an object to move in any direction,
we can hardly avoid moving our bodies in the same direction,
although we may be perfectly aware that this can have no influence.
A good illustration of this fact has already been given in
the Introduction, namely, in the grotesque movements of a young
and eager billiard-player, whilst watching the course of his ball.
A man or child in a passion, if he tells any one in a loud voice
to begone, generally moves his arm as if to push him away,
although the offender may not be standing near, and although there
may be not the least need to explain by a gesture what is meant.
On the other hand, if we eagerly desire some one to approach
us closely, we act as if pulling him towards us; and so in
innumerable other instances.

As the performance of ordinary movements of an opposite kind,
under opposite impulses of the will, has become habitual in us
and in the lower animals, so when actions of one kind have become
firmly associated with any sensation or emotion, it appears natural
that actions of a directly opposite kind, though of no use,
should be unconsciously performed through habit and association,
under the influence of a directly opposite sensation or emotion.
On this principle alone can I understand how the gestures and expressions
which come under the present head of antithesis have originated.
If indeed they are serviceable to man or to any other animal,
in aid of inarticulate cries or language, they will likewise be
voluntarily employed, and the habit will thus be strengthened.
But whether or not of service as a means of communication, the tendency
to perform opposite movements under opposite sensations or emotions would,
if we may judge by analogy, become hereditary through long practice;
and there cannot be a doubt that several expressive movements due
to the principle of antithesis are inherited.



CHAPTER III.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EXPRESSION--_concluded_.

The principle of direct action of the excited nervous system
on the body, independently of the will and in part of habit--
Change of colour in the hair--Trembling of the muscles--
Modified secretions--Perspiration--Expression of extreme pain--
Of rage, great joy, and terror--Contrast between the emotions
which cause and do not cause expressive movements--Exciting and
depressing states of the mind--Summary.


WE now come to our third Principle, namely, that certain actions which we
recognize as expressive of certain states of the mind, are the direct
result of the constitution of the nervous system, and have been from
the first independent of the will, and, to a large extent, of habit.
When the sensorium is strongly excited nerve-force is generated in excess,
and is transmitted in certain directions, dependent on the connection
of the nerve-cells, and, as far as the muscular system is concerned,
on the nature of the movements which have been habitually practised.
Or the supply of nerve-force may, as it appears, be interrupted.
Of course every movement which we make is determined by the constitution
of the nervous system; but actions performed in obedience to the will,
or through habit, or through the principle of antithesis, are here
as far as possible excluded. Our present subject is very obscure,
but, from its importance, must be discussed at some little length;
and it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance.

The most striking case, though a rare and abnormal one,
which can be adduced of the direct influence of the nervous system,
when strongly affected, on the body, is the loss of colour in the hair,
which has occasionally been observed after extreme terror or grief.
One authentic instance has been recorded, in the case of a man
brought out for execution in India, in which the change of colour
was so rapid that it was perceptible to the eye.[1]

Another good case is that of the trembling of the muscles,
which is common to man and to many, or most, of the lower animals.
Trembling is of no service, often of much disservice,
and cannot have been at first acquired through the will,
and then rendered habitual in association with any emotion.
I am assured by an eminent authority that young children do
not tremble, but go into convulsions under the circumstances
which would induce excessive trembling in adults. Trembling is
excited in different individuals in very different degrees.
and by the most diversified causes,--by cold to the surface,
before fever-fits, although the temperature of the body is then
above the normal standard; in blood-poisoning, delirium tremens,
and other diseases; by general failure of power in old age;
by exhaustion after excessive fatigue; locally from severe injuries,
such as burns; and, in an especial manner, by the passage of
a catheter. Of all emotions, fear notoriously is the most apt
to induce trembling; but so do occasionally great anger and joy.
I remember once seeing a boy who had just shot his first snipe
on the wing, and his hands


[1] See the interesting cases collected by M. G. Pouchet in the `Revue
des Deux Mondes,' January 1, 1872, p. 79. An instance was also
brought some years ago before the British Association at Belfast.
trembled to such a degree from delight, that he could not for
some time reload his gun; and I have heard of an exactly similar
case with an Australian savage, to whom a gun had been lent.
Fine music, from the vague emotions thus excited,
causes a shiver to run down the backs of some persons.
There seems to be very little in common in the above several
physical causes and emotions to account for trembling;
and Sir J. Paget, to whom I am indebted for several of the above
statements, informs me that the subject is a very obscure one.
As trembling is sometimes caused by rage, long before exhaustion
can have set in, and as it sometimes accompanies great joy,
it would appear that any strong excitement of the nervous system
interrupts the steady flow of nerve-force to the muscles.[2]

The manner in which the secretions of the alimentary canal
and of certain glands--as the liver, kidneys, or mammae are
affected by strong emotions, is another excellent instance
of the direct action of the sensorium on these organs,
independently of the will or of any serviceable associated habit.
There is the greatest difference in different persons in the parts
which are thus affected, and in the degree of their affection.

The heart, which goes on uninterruptedly beating night and day in so
wonderful a manner, is extremely sensitive to external stimulants.
The great physiologist, Claude Bernard,[3] has shown bow the least
excitement of a sensitive nerve reacts on the heart; even when a nerve
is touched so slightly that no pain can possibly be felt by the animal
under experiment. Hence when the mind is strongly excited, we might
expect that it would instantly affect in a direct manner the heart;
and this is universally acknowledged and felt to be the case.
Claude Bernard also repeatedly insists, and this deserves especial notice,
that when the heart is affected it reacts on the brain; and the state
of the brain again reacts through the pneumo-gastric nerve on the heart;
so that under any excitement there will be much mutual action and reaction
between these, the two most important organs of the body.


[2] Muller remarks (`Elements of Physiology,' Eng. translat. vol. ii. p.
934) that when the feelings are very intense, "all the spinal nerves become
affected to the extent of imperfect paralysis, or the excitement of trembling
of the whole body."

[3] `Lecons sur les Prop. des Tissus Vivants,' 1866, pp. 457-466.

The vaso-motor system, which regulates the diameter of the
small arteries, is directly acted on by the sensorium, as we see
when a man blushes from shame; but in this latter case the checked
transmission of nerve-force to the vessels of the face can,
I think, be partly explained in a curious manner through habit.
We shall also be able to throw some light, though very little,
on the involuntary erection of the hair under the emotions
of terror and rage. The secretion of tears depends, no doubt,
on the connection of certain nerve-cells; but here again we can
trace some few of the steps by which the flow of nerve-force through
the requisite channels has become habitual under certain emotions.


A brief consideration of the outward signs of some of the stronger
sensations and emotions will best serve to show us, although vaguely,
in how complex a manner the principle under consideration of the direct
action of the excited nervous system of the body, is combined with
the principle of habitually associated, serviceable movements.

When animals suffer from an agony of pain, they generally
writhe about with frightful contortions; and those which
habitually use their voices utter piercing cries or groans.
Almost every muscle of the body is brought into strong action.
With man the mouth may be closely compressed, or more commonly
the lips are retracted, with the teeth clenched or ground together.
There is said to be "gnashing of teeth" in hell; and I
have plainly heard the grinding of the molar teeth of a cow
which was suffering acutely from inflammation of the bowels.
The female hippopotamus in the Zoological Gardens, when she
produced her young, suffered greatly; she incessantly walked about,
or rolled on her sides, opening and closing her jaws, and clattering
her teeth together.[4] With man the eyes stare wildly as in
horrified astonishment, or the brows are heavily contracted.
Perspiration bathes the body, and drops trickle down the face.
The circulation and respiration are much affected.
Hence the nostrils are generally dilated and often quiver; or the
breath may be held until the blood stagnates in the purple face.
If the agony be severe and prolonged, these signs all change;
utter prostration follows, with fainting or convulsions.

A sensitive nerve when irritated transmits some influence to the
nerve-cell, whence it proceeds; and this transmits its influence,
first to the corresponding nerve-cell on the opposite side of the body,
and then upwards and downwards along the cerebro-spinal column
to other nerve-cells, to a greater or less extent, according to
the strength of the excitement; so that, ultimately, the whole
nervous system maybe affected.[5] This involuntary transmission
of nerve-force may or may not be accompanied by consciousness.
Why the irritation of a nerve-cell should generate or liberate
nerve-force is not known; but that this is the case seems to be
the conclusion arrived at by all the greatest physiologists,
such as Muller, Virchow, Bernard, &c.[6] As Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks,
it may be received as an "unquestionable truth that, at any moment,
the existing quantity of liberated nerve-force, which in an inscrutable
way produces in us the state we call feeling, MUST expend itself
in some direction--MUST generate an equivalent manifestation
of force somewhere;" so that, when the cerebro-spinal system is
highly excited and nerve-force is liberated in excess, it may be
expended in intense sensations, active thought, violent movements,
or increased activity of the glands.[7] Mr. Spencer further maintains
that an "overflow of nerve-force, undirected by any motive,
will manifestly take the most habitual routes; and, if these do
not suffice, will next overflow into the less habitual ones."
Consequently the facial and respiratory muscles, which are
the most used, will be apt to be first brought into action;
then those of the upper extremities, next those of the lower,
and finally those of the whole body.[8]


[4] Mr. Bartlett, "Notes on the Birth of
a Hippopotamus," Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 1871, p. 255.

[5] See, on this subject, Claude Bernard, `Tissus Vivants,' 1866, pp.
316, 337, 358. Virchow expresses himself to almost exactly the same
effect in his essay "Ueber das Ruckenmark" (Sammlung wissenschaft.
Vortrage, 1871, s. 28).

An emotion may be very strong, but it will have little tendency
to induce movements of any kind, if it has not commonly led to
voluntary action for its relief or gratification; and when movements
are excited, their nature is, to a large extent, determined by those
which have often and voluntarily been performed for some definite
end under the same emotion. Great pain urges all animals, and has
urged them during endless generations, to make the most violent
and diversified efforts to escape from the cause of suffering.
Even when a limb or other separate part of the body is hurt,
we often see a tendency to shake it, as if to shake off the cause,
though this may obviously be impossible. Thus a habit of exerting
with the utmost force all the muscles will have been established,
whenever great suffering is experienced. As the muscles of the chest
and vocal organs are habitually used, these will be particularly liable
to be acted on, and loud, harsh screams or cries will be uttered.
But the advantage derived from outcries has here probably come
into play in an important manner; for the young of most animals,
when in distress or danger, call loudly to their parents for aid,
as do the members of the same community for mutual aid.


[6] Muller (`Elements of Physiology,' Eng. translat. vol. ii. p. 932) in
speaking of the nerves, says, "any sudden change of condition of whatever kind
sets the nervous principle into action." See Virchow and Bernard on the same
subject in passages in the two works referred to in my last foot-note.

[7] H. Spencer, `Essays, Scientific, Political,' &c., Second Series,
1863, pp. 109, 111.

[8] Sir H. Holland, in speaking (`Medical Notes and Reflexions,'
1839, p. 328) of that curious state of body called the _fidgets_,
remarks that it seems due to "an accumulation of some cause
of irritation which requires muscular action for its relief."

Another principle, namely, the internal consciousness
that the power or capacity of the nervous system is limited,
will have strengthened, though in a subordinate degree,
the tendency to violent action under extreme suffering.
A man cannot think deeply and exert his utmost muscular force.
As Hippocrates long ago observed, if two pains are felt
at the same time, the severer one dulls the other.
Martyrs, in the ecstasy of their religious fervour have often,
as it would appear, been insensible to the most horrid tortures.
Sailors who are going to be flogged sometimes take a piece of lead
into their mouths, in order to bite it with their utmost force,
and thus to bear the pain. Parturient women prepare to exert
their muscles to the utmost in order to relieve their sufferings.

We thus see that the undirected radiation of nerve-force from
the nerve-cells which are first affected--the long-continued habit
of attempting by struggling to escape from the cause of suffering--
and the consciousness that voluntary muscular exertion relieves pain,
have all probably concurred in giving a tendency to the most violent,
almost convulsive, movements under extreme suffering; and such movements,
including those of the vocal organs, are universally recognized
as highly expressive of this condition.

As the mere touching of a sensitive nerve reacts in a direct manner
on the heart, severe pain will obviously react on it in like manner,
but far more energetically. Nevertheless, even in this case,
we must not overlook the indirect effects of habit on the heart,
as we shall see when we consider the signs of rage.

When a man suffers from an agony of pain, the perspiration
often trickles down his face; and I have been assured by a
veterinary surgeon that he has frequently seen drops falling
from the belly and running down the inside of the thighs
of horses, and from the bodies of cattle, when thus suffering.
He has observed this, when there has been no struggling
which would account for the perspiration. The whole body
of the female hippopotamus, before alluded to, was covered
with red-coloured perspiration whilst giving birth to her young.
So it is with extreme fear; the same veterinary has often
seen horses sweating from this cause; as has Mr. Bartlett
with the rhinoceros; and with man it is a well-known symptom.
The cause of perspiration bursting forth in these cases is
quite obscure; but it is thought by some physiologists to be
connected with the failing power of the capillary circulation;
and we know that the vasomotor system, which regulates
the capillary circulation, is much influenced by the mind.
With respect to the movements of certain muscles of the face
under great suffering, as well as from other emotions,
these will be best considered when we treat of the special
expressions of man and of the lower animals.

We will now turn to the characteristic symptoms of Rage. Under this
powerful emotion the action of the heart is much accelerated,[9]
or it may be much disturbed. The face reddens, or it becomes purple
from the impeded return of the blood, or may turn deadly pale.
The respiration is laboured, the chest heaves, and the dilated
nostrils quiver. The whole body often trembles. The voice is affected.
The teeth are clenched or ground together, and the muscular
system is commonly stimulated to violent, almost frantic action.
But the gestures of a man in this state usually differ from the purposeless
writhings and struggles of one suffering from an agony of pain;
for they represent more or less plainly the act of striking or fighting
with an enemy.

All these signs of rage are probably in large part, and some of them
appear to be wholly, due to the direct action of the excited sensorium.
But animals of all kinds, and their progenitors before them,
when attacked or threatened by an enemy, have exerted their utmost
powers in fighting and in defending themselves. Unless an animal
does thus act, or has the intention, or at least the desire,
to attack its enemy, it cannot properly be said to be enraged.
An inherited habit of muscular exertion will thus have been gained
in association with rage; and this will directly or indirectly
affect various organs, in nearly the same manner as does
great bodily suffering.

Copyright (c) 2007. fullstories.net. All rights reserved.