In the mid-20th century, a school of psychologists attempted to establish a system for objectively identifying basic universal emotions, agreed upon by all people regardless of of cultural differences and individual experiences. Their idea, based on the research of Paul Ekman, was that these basic emotions were like chemical elements, fundamental units of feeling in the human mind that were biologically predetermined in all people, from which all other emotions arose. Ekman and his assistants traveled to a small number of places and showed people photographs of facial expressions, then asked them to match those expressions with a short list of emotions that Ekman had prepared ahead of time.
Contempt was one of seven basic emotions identified by Ekman through this process.
In a cruel twist, Ekman’s study showed contempt for the people it surveyed. The research showed them photographs of actors pretending to express emotions, in exaggerated poses rather than showing images of authentic emotions. It offered only the faces of people of European ancestry. It only allowed people to choose from a small number of predetermined choices based in English language cultural presumptions, instead of allowing people to speak from their own culture.
In short, Ekman’s study was a setup that systematically railroaded people into the same number of predetermined responses. It’s no wonder that Ekman’s research appeared to show universal responses. His research methods made it practically impossible for people to offer any responses other than what Ekman expected from them.
It was as if Ekman and his colleagues didn’t perceive people in other cultures as worth anything other than confirming the supposed universality of the American way of seeing the world. He called his research scientific, but the scientific framework he relied upon was thoroughly mired in cultural bias.
The emotion of contempt involves the feeling that the subject of contempt is not important enough to be taken seriously. Contempt seethes with offense and judgment at the same time. So, contempt actually includes aspects two other of Ekman’s basic emotions: Anger and disgust. It also contains a heavy dose of hatred, disdain, and dismissal. These emotional ingredients are brusquely stirred within the mind of the contemptuous person, creating a roiling experience in which a number of resentful and aggressive feelings roll into conscious awareness in succession.
So, is contempt a single emotion, or is it a constellation of feelings? Either way of thinking of contempt is correct, from a certain perspective. There isn’t a single objective version of contempt that’s been scientifically isolated through meticulous experimentation. Emotions are subjective experiences. Some of their physical manifestations can be studied by scientists, but feelings themselves are in the mind, beyond the reach of scientific observation.
Consciousness is real. It’s not an illusion. We all feel it. We know it directly. The fact that it can’t be reduced to simple expressions in the body doesn’t make it unworthy of consideration.
Those who hold subjective experience in contempt because it evades their stiff efforts at conceptual control should not be trusted with the authority to define emotion and tell us how we feel.
