|
Love in a scientific climate
In the
third of this series on neuroscience and psychotherapy, Roz Carroll considers
how neuroscience can expand our understanding
of the impact of the human face
and differentiate aspects of love.
Many therapists are wary of the
influence that science might have on psychotherapy.They are concerned with
both the theoretical implications and the practical applications and the way
psychotherapy is perceived in the light of new research. I believe that to
make science useful to psychotherapy, we need to be selective about what we
read. Only where there has been a considerable amount of assimilation and
contextualisation done already by the authors can we begin to consider its
relevance to the subtle processes of psychotherapy. Secondly, we need to deconstruct
both the external and internalised hierarchies which get set up between science
and psychotherapy. We need to dialogue as equals, not masochistically submit,
or narcissistically appropriate or denigrate.
Scientific ‘knowledge’ is always
provisional, political, and approximate. I think of the new models emerging
from neuroscience as suggestive hypotheses to free associate to rather than
fully established facts. What we have in common with scientists is our commitment
to observation. Therapists, like scientists, are always engaged in constructing
and deconstructing hypotheses – our own and our clients. Therapy involves
weaving and re-weaving threads, undoing knots, and reviewing the pictures
that emerge. Science is not as open-ended, but despite the need to declare
results, substantiate hypotheses and so on, scientific discourse has no actual
end point, no ultimately objective account.
Science is, however, inevitably
concerned with accuracy and precision. In contrast, I am willing to be a bit
‘fast and loose’ with the models generated from research. There are risks
of course in popularising science – not least exasperating scientists – still,
words like adrenalin, progesterone, oestrogen, testosterone, opiate, DNA are
part of our culture now. And more recent terms, like oxytocin and cortisol
are increasingly familiar.
Neuroscience is offering
new metaphors, and new metaphors can re-orient and re-frame our thinking about
process, without excluding ideas from other sources. Any neuroscientific proposal
depends on an implicit metaphor: for example we’ve moved from ‘brain as computer’
to ‘brain and body as psychobiological state’, a shift I find encouraging.
In fact, for me, the touchstone of the relevance of a proposed scientific
explanation for any psychological phenomenon is: is it congruent with my experience
and does it expand my understanding?
Its on this basis that I want to
summarize Allan Schore’s hierarchical model of self-regulation, because it
provides a neurobiological context for how people have an impact on one another.(Schore
2000) Schore’s strength is in his ability to take a very wide range of research
and integrate this with psychoanalytic theory into an overarching theory of
development. He makes detailed proposals linking cognitive/ emotional/bodily
developmental stages in an integrated way with precise accounts of sensitive
and critical periods for brain changes. What follows is a very simplified
version of his very complex and substantial model of development, which I
use to consider the varieties of love/aspects of attachment.
The human face of science
Evolutionary arguments are often
used in crude ways which deny the incredibly complex and life-shaping interaction
which take place between individuals and the environment. Schore really turns
this bias on its head by insisting that the powerful innate genetically driven
process of development is inextricably bound up with the attachment relationship,
because, he argues, ‘brain-mind-body’ development is ‘experience-dependant’.
What is more, his model bridges the gap between theories which focus on reflexive
responses, which are relatively primitive and unmediated expressions of instincts,
and theories about the internalisation of an elaborate and complex social
environment.
Schore’s work emphasizes the powerful
trajectory of development which is marked by radical shifts in brain organisation
and the ways in which information is processed and stored. The key neurological
sites for these levels of regulation include the amygdala (active at birth),
the cingulate (on-line around 3 months), the orbito-frontal cortex (rapidly
re-organising in two phases, 10-14, and 14-16 months), and the dorsolateral
cortex (on line at 18 months). Interactions between self and other generate
body states which become encoded and act as a representational system which
influences future behaviour. These hierarchically organised areas of the brain
all interconnect with each other and with the autonomic nervous system.
The sequence
of these stages of brain re-organisations influence and are affected by the
baby’s experience of relationship. Through intricate and subtle aspects of
interaction – or non-interaction - the infant internalises the mother, and/or
the major caregiver(s), and through her the culture which has shaped the mother’s
way of being . One of the primary vehicles for this is the mother’s face.
Significant studies are confirming the depth and extent of the impact of facial
expressions preceding the capacity for, and often overriding the experience
of, verbal communication. (Bateson’s double bind theory was the first to articulate
the effects of incongruence between different aspects of perceived communications).
The infant is born with an interest
in and sensitivity to expressions on faces. Meltzoff has shown that infants
barely an hour old can imitate the facial expression of an adult. Initially
appraisal is fairly crude – there is an inborn response to faces with fear
or anger registered immediately via the amygdala. Within months, a baby can
discriminate among surprise, fear, sadness and make corresponding faces of
his or her own. At 10 months, the infant seeks out affective information from
the partner’s face to help them interpret the environment. (Beebe)
The mother’s face has particular
importance as a ‘hidden biological regulator’ of the infant. The mere perception
of emotion on the mother’s face creates a resonant emotional state in the
baby. Dilation in pupil size, for example, which is associated with interest,
engagement and pleasure, makes babies smile more. The expression on the mother’s
face triggers changes in the baby’s own autonomic state, the felt body feeling.
Studies suggest that expressions can be detected and a positive or negative
valence put on them in under a 100 milliseconds (a percept must be held on
line for 500 milliseconds to be conscious). The baby is responsive to every
dimension of change – in the face, tone, body posture. Intense face to face
transactions – traumatic or loving - becoming imprinted in long-term memory
and act throughout the lifetime of the individual as an internal regulating
object, whether consciously remembered or not.
Just today a client comes with
a set of incidents which I suggest to him are related to the theme of gifts.
Deprived of the gift of a mother’s loving face, he is doubtful of his capacity
to receive another’s love, although he yearns for it. He has always found
it difficult to make eye contact with me and for the first 15 minutes of the
session, he doesn’t look directly at me. He is frustrated with his friends’
insensitivity to his feelings and his needs. When I point out that I have
something to give him, he looks at me for the first time. Later in the session
he remembers a dream – an encounter with a seven year old boy in a state of
panic. They make contact – a long intense look which feels very loving. After
the session, I am so moved still by the emergence of this new intense experience
in my client and between us, that I put my hand on my own belly and feel the
wordlessness of it.
What kind of love is this? We could
say it is welcome, recognition, a moment of meeting defined by what Sander
refers to as matched specificities, that is, mutual adjustment and re-organisation.
So far, so not very new, as far as psychotherapy is concerned. How can neuroscience
help unpack this further?
Three tiers, three facets of love
The autonomic nervous system (ANS)
maintains homeostasis and manages basic body/affect state changes. It used
to be thought that the ANS had fixed functions and operated autonomously (hence
its name), ie independently from the Central Nervous System. Interest in the
ANS is increasing as its role in regulating the tides of energy, mood and
feeling are mapped. Schore has focused particularly on the developmental
process by which the ANS becomes more integrated within a hierarchy of brain
functions. With good enough parenting the infant internalizes, through a neurobiological
process of structuralisation, a range of self-regulating strategies. Environmental
failures derail this critical process and leave individuals with life-long
difficulties in managing feelings and relationships.
There are many internal and external
cues which influence the ANS, but Schore focuses on three key areas of the
brain which have a direct effect on its function: the amygdala, the cingulate
and the orbito-frontal cortex. Each of these areas is a convergence zone for
information related to learning from experience and each acts as a representational
system. The amygdala governs basic survival responses – it attributes an immediate
good (safe) or bad (unsafe) valence to sensory information. The cingulate
is involved with shared pleasure, motivation, vocalisation and the beginnings
of self-other awareness. It stimulates and is stimulated by social interaction.
The orbito-frontal cortex is much more complex in its operations, and its
development parallels the critical early phase of separation-individuation
(6-18 months). As the infant matures with good enough parenting, the orbito-frontal
cortex mediates and stores more elaborate, finely-tuned representations of
qualities in its interactions with others. Whilst the baby responds spontaneously
to the human face, the older child and adult will often be embroiled in a
more complex relationship to faces, negotiating self and other, inner and
outer, past and present.
The role of the amygdala is to
make a rapid first assessment of an event – it triggers reflex actions such
as the startle response. Its appraisal is crude, and related to survival priorities.
Mapping the role of the amgydala has significantly advanced understanding
of trauma. (Rothschild, Schore, 1997) Traumatised individuals are susceptible
to over-activation of amygdala. In infancy safety is equated with autonomic
equilibrium. When that is disturbed through hunger, waking, an urge for contact,
the immediacy of the appropriate touch, taste, smell can forestall alarm.
We could say that the amygdala monitors the adequacy of – in Winnicott’s term
- the environmental mother. In terms of therapy, a detail or fleeting expression
on the therapist’s face can trigger terror in some clients. Often the fear
of looking at the therapist’s face amplifies the projection. At such moments
I will often invite the client to really scrutinize my face – the longer the
gaze, the more likely they are to perceive the actual detail of my face and
its expression. The cingulate mediates a very different level of interaction,
which involves contact and play behaviours, laughing and crying, and making
faces. Its activation around 3 months correlates with an expanding intersubjective
sense. An fMRI study even implicates the cingulate in the anticipation of
being tickled! The cingulate seems to be active during mother-baby ‘proto
conversations’ and its critical period of onset coincides with the infant
forming a discriminate attachment to the mother’s face. The cingulate is also
involved with pain and temperature regulation and may be responsible for the
acute physical experience of pain related to loss of the attachment figure
– the longing for the body of the other. In addition, feeling cold in association
with conscious or unconscious feelings of abandonment, may reflect a subtle
breakdown of temperature regulation involving this social part of the brain
and its connection to the ANS
The cingulate is involved in a
more complex representation of body image – a mapping of motor and sensory
elements of the body-engaged-with-another. It supports co-regulation of states,
a sense of mutuality. Neuroscientists are suggesting that the cingulate has
a key role to play in the infant becoming more aware of the other’s state
of consciousness. Apparently, the cingulate is relatively large in dolphin
brains - perhaps this has some bearing on their social and sonar skills. (Panksepp,
334) Physical damage to the cingulate – as a result of a stroke, for example
– results in a condition called akinetic mutism – the complete absence of
motivation (not capacity for) moving or vocalizing. Damasio reports of such
a brain-injured patient that when she recovered, she commented of her akinetic
mute phase, “I really had nothing to say”. (Damasio, 73)
The amygdala influences the autonomic
state which pertains to immediate safety or danger, and the cingulate modulates
this via social reponsiveness. The orbito-frontal cortex develops connections
to the ANS in two phases: the first is about the infant’s capacity to tolerate
high levels of excitement and arousal (the wiring occurs in a critical period
of 10-14 months); the second phase involves refining the capacity to modulate,
slow down or inhibit impulses (this involves the emergence of a second circuit
in the brain at 14-18 months) At the end of this major re-organisation of
the brain, the orbito-frontal cortex will have – given optimal experience
– added a new dual circuit of higher control and flexibility.
Schore calls the orbital cortex
the ‘executive centre’ of the right brain, because of its role in more complex
assessment of and response to incoming sensory information. As the orbital
cortex is rapidly myelinating at 9 months, the infant becomes capable of ‘joint
attention’, the ability to shift between an object and a person.The gradual
maturation of this area – which is highly dependant on experiences within
the attachment relationship - allows the infant to self-regulate on the basis
of experience, with an embodied memory and able to manage more complex simultaneous
processing.
So far, up to 18 months, all these
levels of self-and-other representation involve a bodily sense combined with
visual images, sounds etc encoding the interaction in a pre-verbal form. This
hierarchy of key sites in the brain can modify the level of arousal, the orchestration
of responses to stress, or pleasure, loss, frustration etc. Subsequently,
the left cortex– involved with language and logic – comes on line at 18 months,
adding the structural potential for a further level of representation and
regulation. This evolution of the nervous system – which continues into adulthood,
with further concentrated periods of change - supports the emergence of increasingly
complex emotional (psychobiological) states.
With an increasingly detailed map
of developmental sequences Schore and others have been able to formulate hypotheses
as to how failures in the early environment have such detrimental long-term
consequences. (19994, 1997) Experience is what activates the necessary re-organising
of the brain and body: if the critical window is missed, such shifts are harder
to initiate at a later date. The good news is that it is possible through
psychotherapy – and other relationships – to generate sufficient appropriate
experience to make change possible. Despite limitations in the technololgy
for mapping the dynamic activation of the brain and body during psychotherapy,
preliminary studies do suggest that amygdala, cingulate and orbito-frontal
cortex are all engaged and structurally modified in the course of psychotherapy.
(Schore, 1994, 468; Cozolino)
I haven’t answered the question
I posed myself in relation to my client: what kind of love is this? First
I want to say that when I am sitting with a client I am not analysing which
parts of the brain are being activated, but rather trying to be present in
the relationship and in the psychotherapeutic process. My client’s history
is one of severe early trauma, of violence and hatred on the mother’s face,
rather than loving acceptance. I think that 3 aspects of love – the experience
of basic safety (amygdala), of social contact (‘someone is out there and interested
in me’, cingulate) and relationship (anticipation, negotiation, boundaries
between self and other, orbito-frontal cortex) – were highly compromised in
this client’s early life. In very heightened moments, I am sure that the brain
as a whole is dynamically activated – just as we see the total animation in
the body – and that quite possibly in the moments I described all 3 layers
of the hierarchy are in operation.
Bibliography
Beebe, B & Lachman,
F (2002) Infant Research and Adult Treatment: Co-constructing Interactions (Analytic Press, Hilsdale)
Carroll (2000) ‘The Autonomic
Nervous System: barometer of intensity and internal conflict’ www.thinkbody.co.uk
Carroll, R (2002) “Intrinsic
Potentials: Panic, Seeking and Play in Psychotherapy’ (The Psychotherapist,
19, Autumn 2002)
Carroll, R (2002) Interdisciplinary
Thinking; an introduction to some neuroscientists (The Psychotherapist, 18,
Spring 2002)
Cozolino, L (2002) The
Neuroscience of Psychotherapy (Norton, New York)
Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes
Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (Putnam, London)
Meltzoff, A (1990) ‘Foundations
for developing a sense of self’ in ed.Cicchetti The Self in Transition (pp.139-164) (Chicago)
Pallly, R. (2000) The
Mind-Brain Relationship (Karnac,London)
Panksepp, J (1998)
Affective Neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions (Oxford
University Press)
Rothschild, B (2000)
The Body Remembers: The Psychophysiology of Trauma and Trauma Treatment (Norton, London)
Schore, A. (2000) ‘Attachment
and the Regulation of the Right Brain’ Attachment and Human development vol 2, no 2
Schore, A. (1997) Early
organisation of the non-linear right brain and development of a predisposition
to psychiatric disorders’ Development and Psychopathology 9 (1997)
595-631.
Schore, A (1994) Affect
Regulation and the Origin of the Self (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove)
Interview with Allan
Schore, July 2001 ‘The American Bowlby’ – www.psychotherapy.org
Trevarthen, C & Aitken,
K.J. (2001) ‘Infant Intersubjectivity: research, theory and clinical application’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry vol 42, no 1 pp3-48
Go
back
|