Leeper, R. W. (1948). ‘A Motivational Theory of Emotion to Replace ‘Emotion as Disorganised Response’ in M. Arnold, The Nature of Emotion.Middlesex: Penguin.
This paper influenced Rogers (1951), particularly his sixth proposition on emotion. Leeper challenges the ‘Disorganisation Theory’ (DT) of emotion, which considers emotion to be merely a disturbance of action and behaviour, not something necessary for a full and wholesome life. In my view, DT would make congruence with one’s emotions impossible; after all, emotions are considered to be disorganising. Leeper uses analytic methods to deconstruct Disorganisation Theory and assert his Motivational Theory: “Emotional processes operate primarily as motives. It means they are processes which arouse, sustain, and direct activity! (Leeper: 185)”. Leeper’s view is more wholistic than DT in considering emotion as necessary for a full life. Leeper also considers the cultural origins of Disorganisation Theory (Rationalism, Psychoanalysis, and technological society). I suspect that Rogers’ view of congruence is also significantly indebted to this paper.
CONCLUSION 1: Our conclusion has been, therefore, that the whole framework of the discussion of emotion as disorganising has been absurdly inadequate (Leeper: 184).
CONCLUSION 2: Emotional processes operate primarily as motives. It means they are processes which arouse, sustain, and direct activity! (Leeper: 185).An attempt to reject the false dichotomy between affection and conation (motivation).
1. The value of discussing emotions
1) A means of studying theoretical efforts of psychology research; 2) An increasing interest of psychologists in fields whereby emotional processes play important roles;3) A problem worthy of study in its own right: emotion clearly plays an important part in personality disturbances, social prejudices, etc. |
2. Disorganisation Theory, dominant model
DT THESIS: Emotions are basically disorganising to the personality and disruptive to visceral functions, behaviour, and consciousness.· Example: Emotion is “an acute disturbance of the individual as a whole, psychological in origin, involving behaviour, conscious experience, and visceral functioning” (from Munn 1946).Emotions disorganise three aspects of life:1) visceral functioning;2) behaviour; and3) conscious experience. * Theoreticians: Munn, Woodworth; Claparede, Duffy; John Dewey; Pradines
- Emotion is something to outgrow
3. Cultural origins of Disorganisation Theory
1) Rationalism (Locke, Smith): man should be rational; intellect dominates emotions.2) Psychoanalysis (Freud): emotions part of the Id, trouble-making instinct to be repressed by the Ego. Emotions dominate intellect. Not giving reassurance or stability to the personality.3) Technological Society: whereby emotions are considered as obstructing an ‘objective’ ideal of living; (also, e.g. marketing as intellectually superior in emotionally exploiting consumers; negative political propaganda as appealing to emotions (e.g. Nazis, Klu Klux Klan).) * False conflict between (1) and (2)? After all, Freud is saying that life would be better if intellect was master, but that this hope is unfounded. In both, emotions are unnecessary for a full, wholesome life.
- Therefore, Disorganisation THESIS is no straw man (in Leeper’s time).
- Challenging the Disorganisation Theory as resting upon poorly defined terms
The pitfalls of developing an adequate (psychological) theory 1) The risk of surveying too narrow a range of facts when formulating or evaluating an abstract proposition; 2) The risk of using vague or poorly defined, or misinterpreted terms, so consistency of terms is not explicit; so difficult to see whether factual knowledge supports or contradicts the abstract proposition. |
Contradictions in data and definitions of Disorganisation Theory
Leeper’s definitions
Disorganisation theorists do not define key terms, so Leeper defines them himself. * Meaning of the terms, ‘disorganise’/’organise’, ‘disorganisation’/etc.
- (2): Disorganisation Theory is bereft of definitions; does not stick to the same definitions.
Example: Conflation of ‘disorganised’ and ‘disorganising’ (or disturbance/disturbing); referring to either of three contradictory usages:
i) The disturbance/disorganisation of behaviour is the emotion; orii) The emotion is what produces this disturbance; oriii) Emotion is both the disturbance and that which produces the disturbance of the previous processes.· Example: “All but the mildest emotions disturb or upset whatever activities” (Munn, 263; my italics). But: he also says: emotion is “an acute disturbance of the individual”. Contradiction: ‘mild emotions’ cannot both disturb and not disturb. “A definition of a key term in psychology must cover the phenomenon as it appears in all degrees” (Leeper: 178). 1.
- No connotation of good/bad:
i) Example: an organised gang is not necessarily something good.ii) So, ‘organised’ not meaning ‘useful’, ‘wholesome in its influence’;
‘Organised’ means: · “When one part of it is functioning harmoniously with other parts” (Leeper: 179).· “When the parts fit, or dovetail, or are congruous with one another” (ibid.).· Congruent!· Integrated.‘Disorganised’ means:· “When the subordinate parts operate at cross purposes with each other” (ibid).· Incongruent!‘Organising’ means: · “Something has an organising influence in a system when it tends to produce order or co-operation or harmony between different subordinate parts or subordinate activities” (ibid). |
A qualification: ’Organisation’ is always purchased at the price of interfering with what is inconsistent with the basis of organisation. For example, when we say that effective study or effective thinking is an ‘organised’ process, we need to recognise that the person’s activity tends to inhibit or side-track some processes which otherwise would occur, or which were occurring previously (Leeper: 179) * So, hunger, competing interests and surround sounds are ignored; The criterion of organisation, consequently, is not a matter of whether there is some interference with preceding activities or with subordinate activities. It is the question whether this interference is relatively chaotic and haphazard, or whether the suppressions and changes of subordinate activities are harmonious with some main function which is being served (Leeper: 179). Consistency between factual data and reasonable definitions 1) 'Disorganisation of visceral functioning:· Example: strong fearà digestion slowed or stopped, heart beats more rapidly, breathing more rapid, blood driven more extensively into the skeletal muscles rather than into digestive organs, etc.· Cross purposes or congruent organ-isation?From the standpoint of the main function for which the organism is now prepared, is this interference with digestion a mark of disorganisation, or is it more truly a mark or organisation? […] The person is organised during fear or anger. He is organised viscerally so that he can most naturally do something consistent with his fear or anger […] Viscerally, the ’individual as a whole’ is not disorganised (Leeper: 180).
2) 'Disorganisation of behaviour: · Example: stage-frightà not playing piano well.· Counter-example: stage-fright tends to organise the pianist’s behaviour along lines consistent with fear, i.e. avoiding playing piano on stage, rather than lines consistent with the competing interest of playing the piano well. |
3) 'Disorganisation of conscious experience: · Example: Psychiatric patient in a chronic but well organised mood; seemingly impossible to shake off a feeling of personal worthlessness; strong organisation, resilient to a psychiatric change of feeling and thoughts. |
Objections by Disorganisation Theorists
Objection 1· DTs: true to above, but there is a disorganisation of behavioural and conscious activity that went before. Emotions are disorganisations because preceding (behavioural and conscious) activities are terminated and replaced by other activities;· Leeper: But every psychological process has this effect of terminating preceding activity (e.g. players in a symphony orchestra re-organising when they see the conductor), yet this does not make them emotions. |
Objection 2· DTs: but the shift in activity is a change from constructive/useful to foolish/inappropriate/destructive activity;· Leeper: maybe. But ‘organise’/’disorganise’ are descriptive, neutral in regards to value-judgements: “A shift from a wise behavioural organisation to an unwise behavioural organisation is not a shift from organisation to disorganisation” (Leeper: 182) |
Objection 3· DTs: Extreme emotion inhibits proper action (e.g. the angry boxer loses his skill and fights ineffectively); this is disorganisation in the Leeper’s sense.· Leeper: True. But it is fallacious to generalise a disorganised process resulting from extreme emotions to all degrees of emotional intensity. “We do not determine the functions in the body of normal amounts of salt, iodine, fluorine, or any other material by discovering the influence of these same materials when consumed in extreme doses” (182-3) |
Fallacies obstructing Motivational Theory Alternatives theories * What we need: i) Definition: Agreement of subject-matter to be covered by such terms as emotion;ii) Facts: Abstract propositions about this subject matter representing the best of our factual knowledge (see above ‘pitfalls’). Defining emotion1) ‘Pointing’ method: emotions are fear, anger, enjoyment of beautiful music;2) What properties mark all the phenomena, “at least when not carried to rare extremes” (184)? Even in such emotions as fear and anger we saw that disorganisation occurs ordinarily merely at the price of achieving some dominating organisation, and that consequently it is not truly disorganisation. (184).Factual knowledge * Arousing anger increases the probability that behaviour will be directed and sustained in a certain direction;
Positive and negative emotionsDTs refer only to negative emotions (fear and anger) as disorganising. What about positive emotions of joy, love, satisfaction, hope, pride? Leeper implies that such emotions are counterintuitive as being ‘disorganisational’. The DTs have ignored this fact. 1.
- Arousing sympathy increases the probability that behaviour will be directed and sustained in a different direction;
- “The stronger the emotional process aroused (short of extremes that will perhaps run into qualitively different effects), the more certainly will his behaviour be governed in a way consistent with his emotional reaction. This is a principle which permits prediction and control of human behaviour and conscious experience” (185).
- Therefore: “Emotional processes operate primarily as motives. It means they are processes which arouse, sustain, and direct activity!”
Reflections * Leeper asserts that Disorganisation Theory is no straw man. But is DT a straw man of these days? How relevant is challenging it?
Congruence: Disorganisation Theory conflicts with the idea of being congruent with one’s emotions!
- Leeper appears to have had a significant influence upon Rogers’ concept of congruence.
- ‘Competing motives’ and incongruence
- (cf. philosophy of action.)