Monday, July 30, 2012

My Chemical Romance

I came home from the Courage conference super-stressed and exhausted. My brain is just starting to come back on line, but I'm still a little slow – I'm hoping to get around to the last parts of my series soon, but I'm not quite there yet.
In the meantime, I got a fascinating comment on “Forbidden Fruit, Hidden Lies,” which I would like to respond to. The relevant paragraph is here:

Savia: “Women experience a flood of oxytocin — the same hormone which they produce in labor and in nursing a baby. Oxytocin causes a woman to be forgetful, decreases her ability to think rationally — and causes an incredibly strong emotional attachment to form with the man she is with. Men also produce some oxytocin during sexual intercourse. But their bodies also produce a hormone called vasopressin. Vasopressin, called “the monogamy molecule,” kicks in after sexual activity, and its impact is to heighten a man’s sense of responsibility. It encourages that part of him which says, “My gosh, she may be carrying my child! I’d better get serious about life! I’ve got to get to work, to provide for this family!” 

Savia is presenting a lovely narrative, and one that I am profoundly inclined to agree with – but one which suffers from the usual problems involved in trying to narrativize biology. What I mean by that is that biology does not contain simple “meanings” in the sense implied by this analysis of chemical sexuality. There is no “monogamy molecule,” nor, for that matter, is oxytocin really a bonding chemical – it's primary effect is to cause uterine contractions, which is why they put you on an oxytocin drip in order to induce labour. Now, the body processes these chemicals, oxytocin and vasopressin, in a variety of ways, some of which are purely physiological, and others of which are psychological or neurological, which is where we arrive at this idea of chemicals which cause emotional attachment and chemicals which heighten a sense of responsibility. In studies of men and women, it has been discovered that these chemicals seem to produce certain emotional reactions. I'm not sure whether the studies have looked at brain activity, or just at self-reported emotional states, but my analysis is the same either way.

The problem is this: biochemical processes never take place in isolation. The brain is not a piece of hardware, like a computer, in which the activation of particular circuits always produces singular and predictable results. Brains are organic and heuristic, that is, they learn, and in the process of learning they grow and take on new characteristics. The reactions that a person has when a simple neurochemical is introduced into their system are conditioned by the ways in which the brain has learned, often from a very young age, to process that chemical. This means that a human emotion is a complicated, multivalent reality: it's not just a neurological syndrome predictably produced by the release of certain chemicals and the activation of certain brain centres.

It could get more complicated, but for the moment I'll stick a simple three-tiered model of human emotion:

1. Neurophysiology: This component of emotion might be called “feeling.” It is simple, uncomplicated, and fairly stable across cultures. The feelings of anger, fear, pleasure, and so forth are basically neurological, and they have a fairly constant physiognomy, including attendant physical sensations and facial expressions.

2. Learned social behaviours: We learn how to express and understand our emotions through constantly reinforced social constructs. These take the form of imagery (think of the way that advertising effects emotional landscapes), behavioural conditioning (punishment, reward, etc.), examples, role-modeling, ideology, language conventions, spiritual practices, and so forth.

3. Voluntary habits: We choose how to express, repress, sublimate, or otherwise process our culturally conditioned emotions. By choosing to expose ourselves to particular emotional experiences, we are able to deliberately train ourselves: for example, a person who regularly engages in thrill-seeking will be more likely to be energized, as opposed to paralyzed, by fear when it confronts him.
All three of these elements of emotional experience play into one another. Neurological reactions are conditioned and reinforced by cultural and voluntary habits; cultural tropes arise from the voluntary decisions of many individuals as they try to cope with their neurological reality; and of course volition is always working within the constrains of biology and culture. What this means is that any “meaning” which is discovered in a particular psychochemical reaction is always going to be, in part, a product of the particular culture in which the study is done. If a study of 2000 contemporary Western women finds that oxytocin reduces logical thinking, and increases feelings of intense emotional bonding, really all we've proven is that Western women in the early part of the 3rd Millenium generally have an experience of sentimentality and bonding related to sex, birthing and breast-feeding – a fairly obvious and not especially impressive finding.

Now, the obvious question to ask me personally is why would I be so cynical about this particular narrative? After all, it reinforces everything that I believe about the language of the body, the purpose of sexuality, and the proper order of nature. From where I'm standing it is certainly a convenient story, and it's even a beautiful one, one which shows forth a great deal of truth. So what's my beef?
Well...I don't actually have a problem with the narrative that says that oxytocin is a bonding chemical which runs like a golden thread through female sexuality, from intercourse through labour and into nursing. I quite like the idea myself. Nor do I have a problem with the notion that vasopressin produces feelings of increased responsibility and protectiveness in men after they have sex. It's a lovely story. My problem is with the subtle underlying implication that people are more or less neurological puppets pulled about by biochemical strings.
This notion goes back a long way in Western thought, and is the natural derivative of a tradition which sees emotion as something which happens to a person. You can see this in the close etymological relationships between the Latin passeo (I suffer), the English “passive” and the traditional use of the term “the passions” to refer to the emotions. Emotions in the West are generally conceived of as powerful psychological, or neurological forces which are fundamentally irrational and involuntary.

I'd like to challenge that notion, and I think that the example of the effects of oxytocin on a woman's psyche is a great example. In theory, “Oxytocin causes a woman to be forgetful, decreases her ability to think rationally — and causes an incredibly strong emotional attachment to form with the man she is with,” or, I would add, with the child that she is birthing or nursing. Now, I have a pretty good idea of what a hit of oxytocin feels like – I've nursed a lot of babies, and there is definitely a very distinctive chemical feeling, very similar to the chemical feeling that one gets after making love, which kicks in at a certain point in the nursing process. Although I can't prove it, I suspect that small amounts of the same chemical are released when a woman sees some kitschy, sentimental image that reminds her of babies: Anne Geddes photographs, Precious Moments figurines, and so forth. Certainly the psychochemical experience is very similar.
The problem is, my brain does not automatically process this psychochemistry as a positive, emotional-bonding type of feeling. My automatic response to seeing a Precious Moments figurine is a very visceral, gut-wrenching desire to throw it into the nearest wall. I was pretty disturbed when I started nursing my first baby, and found that it produced a very similar sense of profound alienation, discomfort and dislocation. I would feed my daughter, and I would feel really intensely sad and anxious...sad and anxious in much the same way that I often felt about sexual intimacy, particularly with men. My psychological experience was not one of close-bonding, but rather a sort of “get away, run away” reaction.
I suppose that I could think of myself as the victim of an affective disorder, but that's not how I like to construct my narrative. Instead, I would prefer to think that my reaction probably has something to do with the hyper-rationalization of my personality that I've subjected myself to at various points in my life – remember the point about oxytocin reducing rational thinking. For me, a reduction in rationality very naturally causes my rational faculties to kick into overdrive in order to compensate. My feelings of alienation and discomfort in the presence of extreme sentimental stimuli is probably the result of my brain being overtaxed as it tries to simultaneously process a reason-inhibiting chemical, and to grapple with Foucault or John Paul II at the same time.

In any case, I have found that it is possible to overcome my “natural” reactions to this chemical. I concentrated on studying that feeling of sadness and anxiety, I worked with it, massaged it, altered my mental state, changed my breathing and relaxation, prayed about it, and eventually I figured out how to experience that rush as a pleasant, loving, glowing emotion, one well ordered to the stimuli that provoked it. Once I'd done it once, it was just a matter of taking the time to do it over and over again as I nursed my babies until my brain learned to adopt that response by default. If I'm stressed, or in a hurry, or distracted, or if I'm trying to do heavy intellectual work, then I'll still fall back into that original, discomfort reaction, but for the most part I now find both the experience of nursing, and the sexual afterglow, to be positive and pleasurable.

The point is that by conceiving of emotion as something which I do, a process in which I am actively involved, and by thinking about my emotions as a form of intelligible and intelligent engagement with the world, I've found that it's possible to slowly work to reorganize my emotional reactions in order to conform them to the Good, the Beautiful and the True. The “feelings,” the underlying neurological and biochemical experiences, remain the same, but the fully formed emotions which arise out of them can be radically altered – so much so that an experience which began as one of pain and alienation could become one of intense love and joy.


  1. I think you hit the nail on the head. The comment you quoted didn't ring true for me either, but you put your objections to it better than I felt able to put mine. Thank you for this post.

  2. Hi Melinda,
    You speak about overcoming your natural reactions. This infers that you discovered that this reaction was either not good or not natural (some people may make a distinction between good and natural).
    I think that this is an important premise that others may not not have. What if they don't think that their reaction is un-natural or bad at all, but is just the way they are, and they see no need to change it.

    I think that this difference gets to something at the core of the discussion of homosexuality today. What do you think?

  3. Excellent, excellent question, Dan.

    So, Melinda, if you "can overcome your natural reactions ...", are you implying that homosexuals can overcome their natural aversions to the opposition gender. I'm not really sure if 'aversion' is the correct noun, here.

    This is much like what NARTH, et. al., are speaking ... whether it be aversion therapy through nausea producing drugs, electrical stimuation, etc. Or, through the use of pornography to achieve the desired result of 'attraction' to the opposite gender; along with the client understanding their family dynamics of a distant father, over-protective mother ... maybe, with some sexual abuse. (NARTH's opinion of the disorder of homosexuality).

    How far can you take this example, Melinda? Are you possibly implying, Melinda, (and, I mean no disrespect here) ... paraphrasing here for my own purpose:

    I concentrate on studying that feeling of distance and anxiety, I work with it, massage it, alter my mental state, change my breathing and relaxation, pray about it, eventually I'll figure out how to be sexually attracted to men?

    Is there, indeed, a substantial difference in the chemical(s) (I'm of the opinion there's more going on there chemically) bonding of nursing and homosexual feelings?

    Also, Dan, are you, also, implying that persons with same sex attractions can alter their attractions? Are attractions simply feelings?

    Interesting post, Melinda.

  4. Teresa,

    I really don't know if someone can alter their attractions.

    From my observations of society today (as imperfect as that may be), it seems to me that there is a prevalent attitude that if someone has a feeling about something, whatever it is, that that feeling must be confirmed and validated.

    Melinda gave the example of the visceral reaction to seeing a precious moments figure. If someone has a reaction to something (any reaction), is it to be affirmed as "truth for them" that becomes sacrosanct and cannot be questioned. In other words, are we to say, "that reaction is ok, but it is something about your nature, and is therefore fine, hunky-dory and natural."

    Was it good or normal for Melinda to feel viscerally about this (just speaking rhetorically)? Should she have been encouraged to re-evaluate this feeling in light of what most do feel about this?

    Perhaps, this gets to the heart of the matter of what the term, dis-order, means.

    I don't really know the answers. I'm just asking the questions.

  5. "Instead, I would prefer to think that my reaction probably has something to do with the hyper-rationalization of my personality that I've subjected myself to at various points in my life – remember the point about oxytocin reducing rational thinking. For me, a reduction in rationality very naturally causes my rational faculties to kick into overdrive in order to compensate. My feelings of alienation and discomfort in the presence of extreme sentimental stimuli is probably the result of my brain being overtaxed as it tries to simultaneously process a reason-inhibiting chemical, and to grapple with Foucault or John Paul II at the same time."

    Indeed. I can relate, though in a different context. I've tried to describe to family members what it's like inside my mind when I'm confronted with a situation of injustice: it's like I'm hit with not only a wave of emotions - just anger, sadness, frustration etc. but a wave of arguments at the same time because I've done my best to train myself not to be too sentimental. This is always loads of fun to handle as an actress - you are supposed to be open and emotionally available to follow through with your impulses and my head gets in the way all the time.

  6. There was only one incident in my life where I accidently became tipsy - a person had refilled my glass with more alcohol than Pepsi and I drank it quickly before realizing. I had the experience of my thoughts feeling very far away from me and I hated it - yet, apparently this is why a lot of people drink! I insisted that I was tipsy and no one believed me because I was speaking so rationally - but I was doing so to compensate for the fact that I felt fuzzier than I ever had been and it was extremely disconcerting. So the nice "buzz" or relaxation people speak of that they get from turning off their brains is not appealing to me at all. I like my brain on.


Please observe these guidelines when commenting:

We want to host a constructive but civil discussion. With that in mind we ask you to observe these basics of civilized discourse:

1. No name calling or personal attacks; stick to the argument, not the individual.

2. Assume the goodwill of the other person, especially when you disagree.

3. Don't make judgments about the other person's sinfulness or salvation.

4. Within reason, stick to the topic of the thread.

5. If you don't agree to the rules, don't post.

We reserve the right to block any posts that violate our usage rules. And we will freely ban any commenters unwilling to abide by them.

Our comments are moderated so there may be a delay between the time when you submit your comment and the time when it appears.