|
Critical to the bargaining hypothesis is evidence that depression can improve one’s social environment (or would have in the EEA). Just as management would react negatively to a labor strike but still be forced to provide benefits, depression should cause negative reactions in others yet still elicit benefits from them. The substantial evidence that depression causes negative reactions in others (Segrin and Dillard 1992) implies conflict. Does depression nonetheless elicit benefits? For much of the last century in the West, researchers have viewed depression as an illness, so studies investigating its power to work deep, and ultimately positive, long-term changes in the lives of those afflicted have been few-to-none. However, accounts of depression’s transformative capabilities are frequently found in the penetrating autobiographies of those who have known the “black dog” (e.g., Jeffery Smith’s Where the Roots Reach for Water). In comparison to the current lack of objective evidence for long-term benefits, there is solid evidence that depression elicits short-term benefits. Before presenting the evidence for the benefits that are obvious predictions of the bargaining model, the rationale for an additional benefit — reduced risk of punishment — will be developed. Unilateral defection from a cooperative relationship, as occurs in the bargaining model, invites punishment for cheating (e.g., Axelrod and Dion 1988). If those choosing to withhold benefits could convince others that, despite not providing benefits, they were not taking benefits either, they might be able to avoid punishment for cheating, at least in the short term. The behavioral “shutdown” that characterizes major depression effectively prevents individuals not only from providing benefits, but also from taking benefits provided by others. It is important to have a thorough behavioral shutdown. Theoretical treatments of punishment and the evolution of cooperation make clear that error rates can be a critical parameter (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1992). If group members mistakenly perceive that an individual is taking benefits but not reciprocating, they might impose devastating costs. A marked loss of interest in virtually all activities can significantly decrease the odds that the depressed individual will be perceived by anyone to be taking benefits. A number of behavioral studies have demonstrated that although depression in one family member prompts negative feelings from other family members, it nonetheless appears to deter their aggressive behavior and to cause an increase in their tendency to offer solutions to problems in a positive or neutral tone and an increase in their solicitous behavior (e.g., caring statements), consistent with the bargaining model.7 In the short term, depression has also been shown to elicit help and support from nonfamily members (i.e., roommates) in naturally occurring as well as laboratory situations, although longer-term studies indicate high levels of hostility and a progressive decline in social contact and satisfaction with the depressed person. In non-EEAsocial settings where social partners such as roommates often do not have the power to make major social changes and are not dependent on the depressed, it is not surprising that depression continues unabated and that social partners elect to reduce social contact. For a review of this literature, see Sheeber et al. (2017). Behavioral studies thus confirm that depression causes an increase in provisioning of social benefits and a decrease in aggressive responses, as predicted. Similarly, the spouses of individuals experiencing PPD should increasing their investment in parenting, and in fact they do. Depression scores for one spouse were positively correlated with s of increasing investment in childcare by the other spouse (Hagen 2017). High levels of help from spouses and better interactions with infants in one study were also the only variables associated with remission of PPD (Campbell et al. 1992). Depression in the Ethnographic Record In small-scale, kin-based societies, which most closely resemble ancestral human communities, what little evidence exists suggests that depression occurs for the reasons predicted by the bargaining model, and that it has the predicted effects on the group. Among the Kaluli of the tropical forest in Papua New Guinea, for example, emotions (in general) and depression (in particular) must be understood for the roles they play in the system of reciprocity upon which Kalulian society is based (Schieffelin 1985). Emotions like grief and anger are appeals or demands to redress losses. If grief is an appeal to satisfy a “legitimate” claim, depression is an appeal to satisfy an “illegitimate” claim. Scheiffelin argues (p. 117) that depression should “arise in circumstances where an individual was placed unwillingly into a long-term life situation in which his or her assertive moves were regularly rebuffed or frustrated and in which there were no socially acceptable grounds for expressing anger or feeling owed.” Thus, according to both Schieffelin and the bargaining model, grief should occur when there is a loss but little conflict between the individual and powerful others, and depression should occur when there is loss (more accurately, an opportunity cost) but a significant conflict between the individual and powerful others. A careful study of an indigenous Quechuan malady, pena, which closely resembles depression (Tousignant and Maldonado 1989), also illustrates the impact of depressive symptoms on others in a small, kin-based society. Like major depression, severe cases of pena are characterized by a lack of concern for personal hygiene, loss of appetite often resulting in serious weight loss and dehydration, sleep disturbances, an inability to enjoy life, and a wish to die. Also, like major depression, pena is invariably associated with some kind of loss. Tousignant and Maldonado argue that pena functions to restore the balance of reciprocity upset by the loss and that “restitution of some form or another is the goal of the emotional strategy” (1989, p. 901). The impact of pena on the community closely matches the predictions of the bargaining model: [L]ong periods of sadness in a woman will attract the attention of kin. They will investigate with whom the fault lies, usually suspecting the husband, and see in what way the situation can be corrected. In case of failure, the eldest adults of the community will get involved and, if discussions fail, more stringent admonitions and punishments, even flogging, may be applied. As was pointed out by McKee [unpublished ms], guilt is not the core element of punishment. The goal of the intervention is not to make the abuser ashamed but to facilitate reparation. (Tousignant and Maldonado 1989, p. 900) Both Schieffelin (1985) and Tousignant and Maldonado (1989) argue that the meaning and social consequences of depression among the Kaluli and the Quechua can only be understood in the context of the central organizing principle of these societies: reciprocity. Given the ubiquitous importance of reciprocity in contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, depression may well have had the same meaning and social consequences among ancestral human foragers. Conclusion The conceptualization of depression in some larger-scale traditional societies is also quite similar to the bargaining model. The Bengali illness concept mathar golmal(disturbance of the head), which appears to include depression, is an example. It is caused by “shock” such as the death of a loved one, business or career failures, or rejection by a lover (Bhattacharyya 1981, p. 153). [T]hese emotional states all seem to point to frustration as a key cause. This frustration may be economic (money worries), academic (failure in exams), career (lack of advancement), or emotional (unrequited love). As several respondents have noted, being unable to obtain what is deeply desired is the source of frustration. The most extreme example of such frustration and the one most frequently cited is [intense grief] where the death of a loved one prevents the fulfillment of one’s desires. Thus, the primary attribute of “shock” is an emotional response to an intensely frustrating situation. The gratification of desires is prevented because of some obstacle which makes the desired outcome beyond one’s control, thus rendering one’s own efforts totally ineffectual. (Bhattacharyya 1981, p. 201) Consistent with the bargaining model, informants believe that the affliction “can be cured if the desires of the individual are met.” Examples include obtaining a spouse or securing the return of a boyfriend (Bhattacharyya 1981, p. 203).()，英语毕业论文，英语毕业论文 |
