The "Currents" section of today's Philadelphia Inquirer has a huge piece by psychologist Steven C. Hayes titled "Surviving Emotions." Unfortunately, the piece itself survives nowhere except in the Inquirer's hard copy, which makes it rather hard to comment intelligently on it in a blog post. But there's such a pretty picture accompanying the piece that I couldn't resist framing it in a photograph (or would that be photographing it in a frame?):

I like the way the heart and the brain are flying in different directions as the headless human skydiver (free-faller, whatever) tries to hold onto or capture his own heart while leaving his brain behind.

It's a shame that the text is not online, really, because the claims made by Hayes about his "Relational Frame Therapy" (more below) are remarkable. Utopian, even.

As the sub-headline warns, humankind is at risk:

Cognitive skill mixed with emotion has always been a volatile brew. Add modern technology, and the concoction can become untenable -- unless humankind takes specific steps.

It's challenging to come up with the gist of Hayes' concerns, but I'll try to come up with a quote (what a royal pain in the ass it is to transcribe; I hope someone appreciates my pain!):

The Internet, radio and TV pour out rhetoric that feeds fears and dehumanizes those with different religious or political views, providing endless reasons for our biases. Physical technology places every object of desire in front of us 24/7, from sugar-coated food to sex-charged images.

We begin to suppose that psychological discomfort of any sort is something that has to be gotten rid of immediately. Modern science suggests that this notion -- that if I feel discomfort prompted by an emotion, I should do something now to make it go away -- is the single most powerful reason people experience mental anguish in their lives. Unfortunately, this anguish can find expression in group violence.

Both of the primary ways of getting rid of an emotion -- indulging it or suppressing it -- make it impossible for us to carry what we feel and think into action in a way that is flexible and effective. We can see the results on our waistlines or in our children's inability to persist in difficult tasks. We can see it in the frequency and intensity of mental-health problems experienced in the developed world or in our amazing consumption of prescription drugs designed to remove difficult thoughts or feelings. And we can see it on the news shows or on our TV screens, as groups try to kill each other based on perceived wrongs or supposed threats.

What is the "process being fed"? Clearly there is emotional consumption going on. And what is consumption? Is it always voluntary? With food, infants are fed by others, and until they learn how to feed themselves they have to be fed. The process that we would call the feeding of the emotions, clearly that is not always chosen by the individual, but is often influenced (fed, if you will) by others. One of my concerns is that the emotional feeding by others be identified -- something that ought to begin with disclosure. Who does the feeding and why strikes me at least as important as dealing with the emotional fallout created by the feeding process. Whether ethics are involved, who should have the moral right to do be a feeder, and who has a duty to be fed, these are secondary to identification of a deliberate process.

In the Inquirer article, Dr. Hayes is mostly silent on the sources of food and the human volition involved. He focuses on dealing with the emotion that results, and he proposes a new kind of cognitive therapy which neither suppresses emotions, nor allows them to control (both of which lead to problems), by treating emotions not as emotions, but as thoughts about emotions.

"Happiness Isn't Normal" is how Time Magazine characterized Dr. Hayes' central philosophy. Whether ACT is a cult or not, a recurrent theme in Hayes's work is that it can save the world:

"We could get Muslims and Jews together in a workshop," Hayes said in Washington. "Our survival really is at stake."

My problem with the Inquirer version is that if this stuff can save the world, why not share it with the world, by putting it out there for the world to see?

As to the substance, I'm a skeptic, as is my wont. While I completely agree with Hayes that emotions should not control us and that stifling or suppressing them is a bad idea, he doesn't seem to tackle the problem of what to do about dissembled emotional triggers from external sources (those who emotionally "feed") -- a problem I see constantly in the use of manipulative language, code language, hidden undisclosed meanings. I think it is only fair to identify (at least try to identify) attempts at emotional manipulation for what they are. (This, I think, is especially true when the intent is intimidation.) Whether one stifles the emotions thus provoked, lives with them, recognizes them as mere thoughts about emotions is another issue. As is happiness. I tend to be a Buddhist in that regard, as I think life is suffering. Death ends it. Whether that life suffering can or should be relieved is, I think, up to the individual.

"Get rid of the emotion now" is certainly a poor approach to dealing with emotions. But what should be the approach when people insist on sharing their emotions, and even want them to be felt as they feel them? There's a bit too much of this going on as it is, but when it's concealed I call it emotional manipulation. Is it really fair to trick other people into feeling what you feel, but which they might not want to feel? I don't think it is, and I think it's at least as important as the question of how to deal with the resultant emotions.

Relational Frame Therapy might be a very helpful thing if it helps people cope with their emotions.

But is there anything wrong with avoiding emotional frameups?