Introduction
In the domain of psychological study, scientists have been trying hard to understand the nature of emotions since time immemorial. Two of the most prominent persons in this discussion are William James and Walter Cannon. According to James, bodily changes directly follow the perception of the exciting fact, and as a result, our feeling of the same changes as they occur is referred to as emotion (Keltner et al., 2014, p6). On the other hand, Cannon suggested that emotions are generated in the brain, not the peripheral organ. This paper will focus on different aspects of James and Cannon’s Points of view and present the evidence underlying each position. Moreover, it will make those divergent views consistent enough to understand human feelings in-depth.
Bodily Theory Of Emotion
The bodily theory of emotions argues that physiological processes in the body are part of our emotional experience. Proposed by William James, the theory explains that physical responses occur first and serve as a cause of emotional experiences (Keltner et al., 2014). According to James, people generally have emotions due to their bodily reactions towards stimuli, not the reverse. This theory contradicts the belief that emotions result from emotions originating exclusively from mental processes.
As far as evidence is concerned, James’ theory of Emotion, which he developed with Danish psychologist Carl Lange, is based on the view that physiological arousal occurs before the experience of the Emotion (Keltner et al., 2014). According to the theory, people experience emotions after discovering that their bodies behave differently; for example, their hearts beat faster, or their palms get sweaty. James also showed that there is more to feeling than body; he suggested that bodily sensations are just as intensely involved in the experiences as emotions (Keltner et al., 2014). For Instance, trembling knees may be interpreted as something fearful. In other words, bodily reactions are the essential ingredients of the emotional experience. James’ ideas resonate with modern views that explore physical and emotional interaction. Additionally, his ideas set the stage for other theories of Emotion, forming the foundation of numerous psychologists’ work in their studies on humankind’s emotional processes.
The Cannon-Bard theory Of Emotion
In the Cannon-Bard Theory of Emotion, Walter Cannon views the brain as initiating all emotions. As per the theory, the brain is the primary organ of Emotion. Unlike James, who only looked at bodily peripheral reactions, Cannon emphasized the role of the brain as the main organ that begins and controls emotional processes (Statharakos et al., 2022). As far as evidence is concerned, Cannon validates in several ways. First, he criticized the James-Lange theory, saying that the body’s reactions cannot explain how diverse our emotional experiences could be (Keltner et al., 2014). According to Cannon, emotions go hand in hand with integrated responses within the central nervous system, and the hypothalamus and amygdala are the brain structures that play a significant role in this process. In addition, Cannon adds that the brain, in collaboration, triggers mechanisms of stress and fear and plays a central role in emotional management (Keltner et al., 2014). These arguments are why Cannon’s work is believed to have played a critical role in paving the way for today’s neuroscientific studies of the neural bases of Emotion.
Comparison Between James and Cannon’s Theories of Emotions
Though James and Cannon approach the subject emotionally in contrasting ways, the correlation between their opinions can be seen. While the bodily reactions are integral components of emotions in both theories, the emphasis is different. On the other hand, both theories reveal that bodily changes sense the mood, which may be intertwined between physical sensations and emotional experiences (Keltner et al., 2014). However, there was considerable disagreement between James and Cannon on this as they studied Emotion in distinct ways. According to James’s sense-body theory, bodily sensations are the initial factors that give rise to emotions, and individuals subsequently judge their bodily states as particular emotions (Szanto & Landweer, 2020). Conversely, Cannon’s brain-centric approach highlights the critical role of the brain in generating and controlling emotions, hence his criticism of James’ peripheral-centric approach. Cannon suggests that the brain, such as the hypothalamus and amygdala, plays the most influential role in emotional experiences and not only bodily sensations.
Secondly, James’ and Cannon’s theories have encountered critics and mistakes. James’ theory was criticized for being too simplistic about the dance between the body’s feelings and emotions, purely with brain processes on the side. From Cannon’s perspective, “the responses of the autonomic nervous system, the changes in heart rate, breathing, sweat responses, and so on, is too diffuse to account for the varieties of emotional experience” (Keltner et al., 2014, p.118). James’ theory also needs more logic in explaining cases where emotional experiences are observed before physical changes are noticed. On the contrary, Cannon’s theory of emotional responses has been challenged for solely paying attention to central feedback loops and little or none to the influence of the body on emotional experiences (Statharakos et al., 2022). Additionally, Cannon’s theory has raised issues with the diversity and the intricate variation of emotional reactions in individuals and environments.
Conclusions on Validity
Based on findings gathered during this study, James and Cannon’s two theories share some insights critical to understanding human emotions. James’s bodily theory suggests that bodily sensations play a part in emotional experiences. On the other hand, Cannon’s theory emphasizes that the role of the brain in emotion regulation is paramount (Keltner et al., 2014). Regarding validation, the two theories are unavoidably contrasting as they see emotions from two different perspectives, making understanding the complex nature of emotions difficult. Regarding this, theories might only be applicable based on the context in which they are considered or on a particular aspect of Emotion.
Harmonizing and Synthesizing James and Cannon’s Theories of Emotions
Integrating James’ and Cannon’s views of Emotion would strengthen our knowledge on this topic. As such, another option is exploring the convergent aspect of their opinions. In this context, James’s concept that bodily experiences and sensations play critical roles in emotional experiences is contrasted with Cannon’s idea that the central nervous system is the central figure. This helps us to understand Emotion better because we address the two aspects. Contradictory results, on the other hand, may be resolved by recognizing interpersonal and neural factors’ roles in influencing emotions (Landa et al., 2020). Instead of assuming that these points of view are two separate things, synthesis can demonstrate how they interact and why. For Instance, the neural response of body feelings may influence the mental condition, and the other way could also be the case.
Conclusion
William James and Walter Cannon hold contradicting views on emotions in their respective theories, all of which have been explored in this study. From the bodily theory of James and the brain-centered view of Cannon, each one contributes essential points to the diversity of viewpoints of the human mind. As per James’s bodily theory, Emotion is a complex reaction arising from a delicate intertwinement of feelings and thoughts. As per Cannon’s theory, emotions are a product of neural responses in the human brain. Combining James’s idea of peripheral feedback systems and Cannon’s idea of the involvement of nervous activities in influencing emotions helps us understand emotions clearly. Therefore, by integrating, we can develop a more unified theory of Emotion. However, there is a need to consider incorporating different viewpoints and theories to study that complex area of human emotions further.
References
Keltner, D., Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (2014). Understanding emotions (p. 520). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Statharakos, N., Alvares, A. J., Papadopoulou, E., & Statharakou, A. (2022). Psychology of Emotions. In The Psychology of Anger (pp. 21–50). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Szanto, T., & Landweer, H. (2020). Introduction: The phenomenology of emotions—above and beyond ‘What it is like to feel.’ In The Routledge Handbook of Phenomenology of Emotion (pp. 1-37). Routledge.
Landa, A., Fallon, B. A., Wang, Z., Duan, Y., Liu, F., Wager, T. D., … & Peterson, B. S. (2020). When it hurts even more: the neural dynamics of pain and interpersonal emotions. Journal of psychosomatic research, 128, 109881.
write