Verified by 
“…our underlying beliefs influence what we see… we sometimes will ourselves to see what we want to see, or what we are accustomed to seeing.”
– Laura Snyder, 2015 (Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing, 1995, pages 120-121)
Do we still overlook the importance of feelings? We noted previously that feelings, combined over time with self-reflection and reason, account for our behaviors and actions.
Have there been other times in history during which human beings struggled to appreciate the validity of new knowledge about ourselves and the world around us? Certainly the resistance to the discoveries by Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642) about the relationships between the earth and sun and planets would fall under this heading. Another instance of the slowness of spread and acceptance of knowledge—our misunderstanding and overlooking discoveries in nature for centuries—involves the germ theory of disease.
I am suggesting we continue to overlook the significance of feelings and how they work. Later on I will argue that over the past few decades clinical and theoretical discoveries have been made which change our view of the world we live in, behaviors, and our inner selves.
I further suggest that Darwin launched a revolution which has allowed us to see and understand feelings. Freud continued this process and explored the idea of unconscious feelings, i.e. feelings of which we are not readily aware. Finally, I contend that in the past several decades, discoveries have been made which give us a much more sophisticated understanding of feelings, what feelings we are born with, how they operate, and how they develop into our complex adult emotional lives. These discoveries have been made by Tomkins, Ekman, Basch, Izard, Nathanson, and others.
A Parallel: The Germ Theory of Disease
We switch scenes and go back to the 1600s. A cloth merchant from the Dutch Republic has improved upon existing magnifying lens and made increasingly-sophisticated microscopes. His name is Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723).
Antoni was born in the city of Delft in the Netherlands. He was a contemporary in Delft of the artist Johannes Vermeer. Before Antoni’s sixth birthday, in 1638, his father died, and Antoni ultimately went into the cloth business. There he learned a skill which “would not only alter Antoni’s life but transform science: examining objects through a convex lens. A magnifying glass was a crucial instrument for cloth merchants. It provided the only way to distinguish the thread count—and thus the quality—of fabrics. This was most likely the first time Antoni had ever used a lens—the first time he would have marveled at the fact that a piece of glass could allow him to see what could not be seen with the naked eye” (Snyder, 2015, p. 55).
Over time, Leewenhoek developed remarkable lenses and microscopes. He also devised more effective methods of observation, such as “dark ground illumination,” in which direct light is blocked so only scattered light reaches the microscope (Snyder, 2015, p. 295). These enabled him to see things that humans had never before seen or even conceptualized. He kept his methods of making microscopes to himself, but he reported on what he saw to other scientists, for instance, the Royal Society of London. He also increasingly allowed others to view his discoveries through his microscopes.
So what did he see? He saw protozoa, bacteria, blood cells, even wriggling spermatozoa. He called the live little creatures “animalcules” (Lehrer, 2006; Snyder, 2015). Laura Snyder does a marvelous job of illuminating the development of these advances—and problems—“seeing” things which were invisible to the naked eye (2015).
Here’s how Leeuwenhoek himself described what he was able to see:
“All the particles aforesaid lay in a clear transparent medium, wherein I have sometimes also seen animalcules a-moving very prettily; some of 'em a bit bigger, other a bit less, than a blood globule, but all of one and the same make. Their bodies were somewhat longer than broad, and their belly was flatlike, furnish with sundry little paws, where with they made such a stir in the clear medium and among the globules that you might e’en fancy you saw a pissabed [dandelion] running up against a wall; and albeit they made a quick motion with their paws, yet for all that they made but slow progress.” 1
1 Gillen A, Oiver D. Antony van Leeuwenhoek: creation “magnified” through his magnificent microscopes. August 15, 2012. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/profiles/antony-van-le…. Accessed September 12, 2014. As cited in JAMA 314: 1131-1132.
Leeuwenhoek also became a master at microdissection, and he studied the organs of various animals and insects. He examined eyes, optic nerves, testicles, ovaries, intestines, and much more. His microscopic findings led to an understanding of the interactions of eggs and sperm in gestation and development. He made profound contributions to anatomy, physiology, and nature.
Van Leeuwenhoek trained himself to see what was there, rather than what he expected to be there. As Snyder notes, “Beliefs, expectations, desire, and prior knowledge all play a role in how we see the world… It was, as van Leeuwenhoek realized, necessary to learn to see” (2015, p. 316).
Apropos of our current topic of feelings, one might say it is easier to see behaviors than to see the feelings behind the behaviors. Leeuwenhoek became increasingly famous and was visited by a variety of dignitaries with whom he shared his discoveries. For example, in 1679, he showed James, the Duke of York and future King James II of England, the sperm of a dog. And in 1698, Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, visited and enthusiastically watched a variety of Leeuwenhoek's discoveries. Leeuwenhoek was especially excited to show his visitors “what he considered the most exciting spectacle of his entire career, the circulation of blood in the capillaries of tadpoles” (Snyder, p. 292).
However, stunningly, Leeuwenhoek and others could not adequately conceptualize that these animalcules might have much to do with human disease processes. The concept of “spontaneous generation” held sway: life forms arose from their surroundings; various aspects of the atmosphere were responsible. Leeuwenhoek felt some affection for the little animals he had discovered, and “he refused to believe that the animals might have made him sick” (Snyder, p. 304).
However, there were subtle rumblings of a germ theory of disease. Much earlier, in 1546, a man named Girolamo Fracastoro of Verona wrote a book called De Contagione in which he suggested that living particles were responsible for some diseases; and in 1658, Athanasius Kircher hypothesized that “small living animals invisible to the naked eye” spread contagious diseases (Nuland, 2003). As time went on, these rumblings increased. In the 1700s, Lazzara Spallanzani of Italy performed a series of experiments. “The conclusion to be drawn from these experiments was inescapable: Living organisms were necessary for putrefaction. Spontaneous generation was a myth” (Lehrer, p. 113). In the late 1700s, an Englishman named Jenner began realizing that people who had the illness “cowpox” tended not to get the much more severe disease “smallpox.” Jenner actually began successfully inoculating people with cowpox material in order to prevent their developing smallpox. But, still, an adequate connection between human disease and the animalcules was not appreciated.
Now we fast forward to the 1840s… about how many years since the late 1600s and Van Leeuwenhoek’s discovery of the animalcules? Can it be over 150 years?! Our focus turns to a specific problem: women dying of childbed fever, or puerperal fever—i.e. events surrounding childbirth. A Scottish physician, Alexander Gordon, wrote about the contagious nature of this problem in the late 1700s; and, in America, a young physician named Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) was suggesting some form of transmission by medical practitioners.
But the major player is an unusual young physician named Ignác Semmelweis (1818-1865) working in Vienna at the Allgemeine Krankenhaus (General Hospital). He observed the high mortality rates in the obstetrics wards. He also noticed that doctors were going directly from the autopsy room to examine women in labor. Semmelweis stated “puerperal fever was nothing more or less than cadaveric blood poisoning” (Nuland, 2003, p. 100) In 1847, Semmelweis began insisting the doctors and other medical attendants wash their hands with chlorinated lime solutions before entering the birthing rooms. The results were dramatic; the death rates dropped significantly (Semmelweis, 1861).
However—there is an however—it was not clear why the death rates dropped. There was tremendous resistance. Controversy reigned. Semmelweis saved lives—but no one knew why hand-washing worked. Now—let’s not forget our friend Leeuwenhoek, who had observed his animalcules over 150 years before.
Sherwin Nuland (2003) put it nicely: “Had Ignác Semmelweis so much as once asked the microscopist Joseph Hyrtl to study a drop of pus from one of the dead mothers, he would have found it to be teeming with the same kinds of organisms that Lister later found in his infected wounds. The invisible organic particles would have been shown to be bacteria. The leap of genius that had allowed Semmelweis to reach this astonishing insight was incalculable in its potential implications. But just as incalculable was the power of obstinate blindness that had stopped him at that very point … It would remain for others to identify the nature of lethal microorganisms …” (pages 180-1).
In 1854, John Snow (1813-1858) of England, the founder of epidemiology, traced the source of a cholera epidemic in London. Filippo Pacini (1812-1883), an Italian anatomist, became posthumously famous for isolating the cholera bacillus Vibrio cholerae in 1854, well before Robert Koch’s more widely accepted discoveries some 30 years later (Snyder, 2015). And these “others” would come on the scene very shortly … and their names would be Pasteur, Lister, and Koch.
How are we to understand this? What is this blindness? Is it simply a question of needing time to develop the scientific viewpoint and technology? Or is there something else about human capacities to learn and conceptualize? Why could people not see and understand for so many years … years after Leeuwenhoek saw the animalcules?
There is a term in psychiatry: hallucination, or seeing something that is not really there. There is another term as well: negative hallucination, not seeing something that really is there. Or to put it differently: consider looking at an x-ray and having no idea what you are looking at, just black and white and gray … until the radiologist begins pointing out the heart, lungs, ribs, vessels, kidney shadows, and so on. Then you “see.”
Silvan Tomkins (1981) highlighted the importance of the face in communication—feelings are right under our nose, he would say! And the facial expressions of infants show us the eight to nine primary feelings with which all human beings are born.
So this is the story of how we continue to struggle to see and understand feelings. Despite some terrific discoveries over the years—Darwin, Freud, Winnicott, Kohut, Tomkins, Ekman, and many others—we are so often still blind to feelings. Behaviors are easy to see—the feelings causing behaviors are sometimes not so easy to see.
As Laura Snyder (2015) noted, Leeuwenhoek and then others “proved the existence of a previously invisible part of nature… [people] came to understand that we must learn to see” (p. 319). We can do that too, with feelings.
REFERENCES FOR INTERESTED READERS
Basch MF (1983). Empathic understanding: A review of the concept and some theoretical implications. Journal American Psychoanalytic Association 31: 101-126.
Darwin C (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. 1st Edition. The Descent of Man; and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd Edition. London: John Murray, 1874. Quotes from 2nd Edition, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998.
Lehrer S (2006). Explorers of the Body: Dramatic Breakthroughs in Medicine from Ancient Times to Modern Medicine (2nd Edition). iUniverse Inc.
Nuland SB (2003). The Doctors’ Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignác Semmelweis. New York: WW Norton & Co.
Semmelweis IP (1861). The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Translated and Edited by K. Codell Carter, 1983. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Snyder LJ (2015). Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing. New York: WW Norton.
Tomkins SS (1981). The quest for primary motives: Biography and autobiography of an idea. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 306-329.
GOOD NEWS!
Mongolia has become the 49th country to prohibit all corporal punishment of children.
Recommended Books of the Month
Untangled: Guiding Teenage Girls Through the Seven Transitions into Adulthood
Lisa Damour, Ph.D.
New York: Random House, 2016
The seven transitions she writes about are:
• Parting with childhood;
• Joining a new tribe;
• Harnessing emotions;
• Contending with adult authority;
• Planning for the future;
• Entering the romantic world; and
• Caring for herself
Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World
Adam Grant
New York: Viking, 2016
An interesting book which highlights the importance of understanding the affect of interest (curiosity) in children and tapping into their authenticity.
Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents
Christine Carter, Ph.D.
New York: Ballantine, 2010
An easy-to-read book with useful information about childhood development and parent-child relationships.
The Conscious Parent
Shefali Tsabary, Ph.D.
Vancouver, Canada: Namaste Publishing, 2010
This is an engaging book which deals in readable fashion with a variety of important issues in child development.
The Happy Kid Handbook: How to Raise Joyful Children in a Stressful World
Katie Hurley, LCSW
New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2015
What Katie does particularly well in this book is highlight the importance of empathy—understanding the feelings of another person. She notes that if parents are empathic with their children, the children will be empathic in turn.
Empathic children:
"Are aware of their own feelings.
Can read facial cues (determine when others are sad, happy, angry, etc.) and body language, and react accordingly.
Are aware of their individuality. (I feel this way, but that boy might feel another way.)
Can distinguish their own feelings from the feelings of others, and will attempt to help a friend in a way that is meaningful to that friend.
Can anticipate how others might feel in a variety of situations.
Understand how their behavior affects others.
Can be caretakers at times.
Are more aware of feelings in the room, and sometimes carry the feelings of others with them” (p. 116).
(Also see Mike Basch’s 1983 paper on empathic understanding, as listed in the References for Interested Readers.)
About Dr. Paul C. Holinger
Dr. Holinger is the former Dean of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis and a founder of the Center for Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy. His focus is on infant and child development. Dr. Holinger is also the author of the acclaimed book What Babies Say Before They Can Talk.
