A brief history of melancholy Courtney Stephens

Sadness is part of the human experience,

but for centuries there has
been vast disagreement

over what exactly it is and what,
if anything, to do about it.

In its simplest terms,

sadness is often thought of

as the natural reaction
to a difficult situation.

You feel sad when a friend moves away
or when a pet dies.

When a friend says, “I’m sad,”

you often respond by asking,
“What happened?”

But your assumption that sadness
has an external cause outside the self

is a relatively new idea.

Ancient Greek doctors didn’t
view sadness that way.

They believed it was a dark fluid
inside the body.

According to their humoral system,

the human body and soul were controlled
by four fluids, known as humors,

and their balance directly influenced
a person’s health and temperament.

Melancholia comes from
melaina kole,

the word for black bile,
the humor believed to cause sadness.

By changing your diet
and through medical practices,

you could bring your humors
into balance.

Even though we now know
much more about the systems

that govern the human body,

these Greek ideas about sadness

resonate with current views,

not on the sadness we all
occasionally feel,

but on clinical depression.

Doctors believe that certain
kinds of long-term,

unexplained emotional states are at least
partially related to brain chemistry,

the balance of various chemicals
present inside the brain.

Like the Greek system,

changing the balance of these chemicals
can deeply alter

how we respond to even extremely
difficult circumstances.

There’s also a long tradition
of attempting to discern

the value of sadness,

and in that discussion,

you’ll find a strong argument
that sadness is not only

an inevitable part of life
but an essential one.

If you’ve never felt melancholy,

you’ve missed out on part of
what it means to be human.

Many thinkers contend that melancholy
is necessary in gaining wisdom.

Robert Burton, born in 1577,

spent his life studying the causes
and experience of sadness.

In his masterpiece
“The Anatomy of Melancholy,”

Burton wrote, “He that increaseth wisdom
increaseth sorrow.”

The Romantic poets of
the early 19th century

believed melancholy allows us to more
deeply understand other profound emotions,

like beauty and joy.

To understand the sadness of the trees
losing their leaves in the fall

is to more fully understand the cycle
of life that brings flowers in the spring.

But wisdom and emotional intelligence seem
pretty high on the hierarchy of needs.

Does sadness have value on
a more basic, tangible,

maybe even evolutionary level?

Scientists think that crying
and feeling withdrawn

is what originally helped our
ancestors secure social bonds

and helped them get the support they needed.

Sadness, as opposed to anger or violence,
was an expression of suffering

that could immediately bring people closer
to the suffering person,

and this helped both the person
and the larger community to thrive.

Perhaps sadness helped generate
the unity we needed to survive,

but many have wondered whether
the suffering felt by others

is anything like the suffering
we experience ourselves.

The poet Emily Dickinson wrote,

“I measure every Grief I meet
With narrow, probing Eyes -

I wonder if it weighs like MIne -
Or has an Easier size.”

And in the 20th century,

medical anthropologists,
like Arthur Kleinman,

gathered evidence from the way
people talk about pain

to suggest that emotions aren’t
universal at all,

and that culture, particularly the way
we use language,

can influence how we feel.

When we talk about heartbreak,

the feeling of brokenness
becomes part of our experience,

where as in a culture that talks
about a bruised heart,

there actually seems to be a different
subjective experience.

Some contemporary thinkers
aren’t interested

in sadness' subjectivity
versus universality,

and would rather use technology to
eliminate suffering in all its forms.

David Pearce has suggested
that genetic engineering

and other contemporary processes

cannot only alter the way humans
experience emotional and physical pain,

but that world ecosystems
ought to be redesigned

so that animals don’t suffer in the wild.

He calls his project
“paradise engineering.”

But is there something sad about
a world without sadness?

Our cavemen ancestors and favorite poets

might not want any part
of such a paradise.

In fact, the only things about sadness
that seem universally agreed upon

are that it has been felt by most
people throughout time,

and that for thousands of years,

one of the best ways we have to deal
with this difficult emotion

is to articulate it, to try to express
what feels inexpressable.

In the words of Emily Dickinson,

“‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -

“And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -”

悲伤是人类经历的一部分,

但几个世纪以来,对于

它到底是什么以及如何处理它(
如果有的话)一直存在巨大的分歧。

用最简单的术语来说,

悲伤通常被认为是

对困难情况的自然反应。

当朋友离开或宠物死去时,你会感到难过

当朋友说“我很难过”时,

你通常会问:
“发生了什么事?”

但是你认为悲伤
有一个外部原因的假设

是一个相对较新的想法。

古希腊医生不
这么看待悲伤。

他们认为这是体内的黑色液体

根据他们的体液系统

,人体和灵魂
由四种流体控制,称为体液

,它们的平衡直接影响
一个人的健康和气质。

忧郁症来自
melaina kole,

黑色胆汁的意思,
被认为会引起悲伤的幽默。

通过改变你的饮食
和医疗实践,

你可以使你的体液
达到平衡。

尽管我们现在
对支配人体的系统有了更多的了解

,但

这些希腊关于悲伤的想法

与当前的观点产生了共鸣,

而不是我们
偶尔会感到的悲伤,

而是临床抑郁症。

医生认为,
某些长期的、

无法解释的情绪状态至少
部分与大脑化学有关,即大脑内存在

的各种化学物质的平衡

就像希腊系统一样,

改变这些化学物质的平衡
可以深刻地

改变我们应对极端
困难情况的方式。

尝试辨别悲伤的价值也有着悠久的传统

,在那次讨论中,

你会发现一个强有力的论点
,即悲伤不仅

是生活中不可避免的一部分,
而且是必不可少的一部分。

如果你从未感到忧郁,

那么你就错过
了作为人类的部分意义。

许多思想家认为忧郁
是获得智慧的必要条件。

出生于 1577 年的罗伯特·伯顿

一生都在研究悲伤的原因
和经历。 伯顿

在他的杰作
《忧郁的解剖》中

写道,“增加智慧的人
增加了悲伤。” 19世纪初

的浪漫主义诗人

认为忧郁能让我们更
深刻地理解其他深刻的情感,

如美丽和快乐。

了解秋天树叶落叶的悲伤,

就是更充分地
了解春天开花的生命周期。

但智慧和情商
在需求层次上似乎相当高。

悲伤
在更基本的、有形的,

甚至是进化的层面上是否有价值?

科学家认为,哭泣
和退缩

感最初是帮助我们的
祖先建立社会纽带

并帮助他们获得所需支持的原因。

与愤怒或暴力相反,悲伤
是一种痛苦的表达

,可以立即使人们更
接近受苦的人

,这有助于个人
和更大的社区繁荣发展。

也许悲伤有助于产生
我们生存所需的团结,

但许多人想知道
其他人所感受到的痛苦是否与

我们自己所经历的痛苦一样。

诗人艾米莉·狄金森写道:

“我用狭隘、探寻的眼睛来衡量我遇到的每一个悲伤
——

我想知道它是否像我的一样重——
或者有一个更简单的尺寸。”

在 20 世纪,

像 Arthur Kleinman 这样的医学人类学家

从人们谈论疼痛的方式中收集了证据

,表明情绪根本不是
普遍的

,文化,尤其是
我们使用语言的方式,

会影响我们的感受。

当我们谈论心碎时,

破碎的感觉
成为我们体验的一部分,

而在谈论心碎的文化中

实际上似乎有不同的
主观体验。

一些当代思想家

对悲伤的主观性
与普遍性不感兴趣,

而宁愿使用技术来
消除各种形式的痛苦。

David Pearce 建议
,基因工程

和其他当代过程

不仅可以改变人类
体验情感和身体痛苦的方式,

而且应该重新设计世界生态系统

使动物不会在野外遭受痛苦。

他称他的项目为
“天堂工程”。

但是
没有悲伤的世界有什么悲伤的地方吗?

我们的穴居人祖先和最喜欢的诗人

可能不想要
这样一个天堂的任何部分。

事实上,唯一似乎普遍同意的关于悲伤的事情

是,大多数人自始至终都感受到它

而且几千年来,

我们处理这种困难情绪的最好方法之一

就是表达它, 试图表达感觉无法表达的
东西。

用艾米莉·狄金森的话来说,

“‘希望’是长着羽毛的东西
——栖息在灵魂里——

“唱着没有歌词的曲调——
而且永远不会停止——根本——”