Invloed en stabiliteit samen

IT is evident that a child, in actively submitting to its mother's commands/^ must place its motor self under the iiitegrative control of motor stimuli evoked by the mother. This control consists, in the first place, of dictation by the mother as to which parts of the motor self shall be reinforced. That is to say, the determining cause which influences the child to reinforce the motor discharge innervating his grasping muscles

will consist of the mother's command rather than the object which is grasped. If the infant is grasping a rod and the rod is pulled in a direction opposite to the child's grasp upon it, his motor self reinforces itself as a response to motor stimuli evoked by the antagonistic moving of the rod. Let us suppose, on the other hand, that the child is holding one end of a steamer rug, which he is helping his mother to fold after a picnic on the beach. The rug is heavy, and the mother must exert a considerable pull on her end of the rug in order to straighten it out. The child, having no dominant set, or primary emotional response toward the rug, allows it to slip a little way through his fingers, as the weight of the rug and the mother's pull upon it move it in a direction antagonistic to his grasp.

" Hold it tight, Teddy," commands the mother. And Teddy immediately reinforces his grasp upon the rug until he supports its entire weight in the manner required. In this case the child responds almost exclusively with a submission response to the mother, rather than with a dominance response toward the rug. Later, of course, Teddy may learn to use his dominant responses to carry out submission reactions (D -f S), in which case Teddy would express a true dominance response toward the rug adapted to his submission response to the mother.

D + S Gives Organism a Resting Balance

We might suppose in this instance, that the motor stimuli evoked by the mother's command, being in jevery respect allied with the motor self of the child, were able to gain motor discharge simultaneously with the child's own tonic impulses over the efferent paths leading to the grasping muscles which held the rug. The increased tension of these muscles which follows, would reflexly reinforce the particular portion of the tonic motor discharge leading back to the rug-grasping muscles, both through the operation of the muscular proprioceptors giving additional stimulation when the tension of the muscles increases, and also through corresponding centra] reinforcement mechanisms. This would account adequately, it seems, for active submission responses which would thus appear to be the natural ally of, and complement to dominance reactions.

The motor self of the subject would not, at any time during submission response, be thrown out of its natural reflex balance in control of the organism. Yet within itself, the total tonic discharge might be redistributed with appropriate partial reinforcement and dimunition according to the dictates of the submission stimulus. This stimulus, in turn, in order to remain in complete alliance with the motor self would be compelled to dictate to the motor self the most harmonious and efficient adjustment possible to the total environment. Thus the submission stimulus would simply supplant the environmental stimuli to dominance, and compliance, in evoking perfect adjustment of the motor self to the total environmental stimulus situation, the motor self remaining in its natural or normal balance more effectively by virtue

of its submissive relationship to the submission stimulus. This integrative condition would represent, then, a resting balance of the motor self, supplemented and made secure by the directing presence of its superior ally.

Inducement Response Requires an Unstable State of Reflex Equilibrium

With regard to inducement response, the integrative picture must be quite different. Inducement is a type of reaction which seems to procure the presence of an ally within certain selected portions of the total discharge pattern of the motor self. Inducement is not, primarily, a resting adjustment of the motor self to total environment. The motor self must bring

about its own adaptation to surrcxinding dominance and compliance stimuli. It must also maintain itself at an increased level t of strength, in order to secure the continued presence of the weaker, allied impulses in those portions of the tonic motor discharge pattern where the allied impulses are to be captured and controlled.

Let us attempt to reconstruct the integrative situation which must obtain within the organism of the mother, who in the submission incident just analysed, induced submission successfully from her small son with respect to the folding up of a rug. The mother in that instance first observed that her weaker ally, Teddy, was growing too weak to maintain his alliance with her in their joint project. Her problem, then, was one of increasing and rearranging her own motor self in

such a way that the ally might be strengthened. This increase and rearrangement of strength took place when the mother commanded her child to strengthen his grip on the rug. Throughout the remainder of the process of folding the rug, the mother must similarly have continued to exert herself on Teddy's behalf, to the extent of issuing instructions as to the movements she wished the child to make, together with a continuous supervising attitude, making sure that Teddy was performing the appropriate movement at the proper time.

The mother must, moreover, exert her power upon Teddy in accordance with Teddy's organism, as well as her own. A command, for example, directing the child to ftold the rug with his teeth or with his feet would be futile. Again, any relaxation of the influence exerted upon Teddy would bring his assistance to an end, since he was responding to the mother and not to the rug itself. First then, within the mother's own organism, her motor self must permit the allied, weaker, motor stimuli representing Teddy, to select those parts of her own total motor discharge pattern wherein motor stimuli and motor self may continuously reinforce one another. Secondly, the parts of the mother's motor self already occupying these paths must be strengthened, in order to reduce the resistance in the common paths sufficiently for the weaker allied motor stimuli to enter them. \Vhile this condition persists, the weaker motor stimuli would be kept as allies in the common paths; but only so long as the motor self keeps itself selectively reinforced in the requisite pattern.

This integrative condition of inducement response must be an

unstable one due to the constant tendency on the part of the motor self to return to its natural resting state or equilibrium, thus lapsing from its temporarily assumed, selective increase, which alone holds the weaker allied impulses in a state/)f captivation. The only way in which the mother's integrative adjustment could be made permanent, or stable, would be through the strengthening of the allied motor stimuli to a level where they would not only remain in their present state of alliance without assistance, but also would be able actively to select the paths of alliance wherein the mother's motor self should be decreased or diminished.

In other words, the mother's natural reflex equilibrium could not be restored to a completely resting, or balanced condition, until Teddy had learned to perform his part of the rug-folding process perfectly, and was further able to take the initiative in directing his mother's movements so that they would co-operate completely with his own. This, of course, would constitute a reversal of the initial relationship between mother and child, with the mother submitting and the child inducing. Looked at from the point of view of the mother, this termination of inducement response by supplanting it with submission would not only restore her integrative equilibrium to its natural, or resting state, but it would also accomplish in a permanent way the need for which the inducement response was striving; namely, the acquiring of a permanent ally in tfiat particular undertaking.

/ is to S as C is to D

If the suggested mechanisms by which inducement and

submission responses are brought about are approximately accurate, then inducement bears the same relationship to submission, when the two occur successively, that compliance bears to dominance response. Inducement can persist as the controlling primary emotional response of the organism only so long as the environmental inducement stimulus keeps the organism actively engaged in holding the stimulus in allied relationship. When this inducement reaction stops, the motor self, if it continues to react to the same environmental stimulus, which is allied, though weaker than itself, will automatically assume the state of adjustment most closely allied with the environmental stimulus as it then is, without any

effort to bring the stimulus into closer alliance with itself. This condition would constitute a stale of passive submission response. The allied stimulus, in such a case, would possess sufficient powe^r to attract the motor self into a pattern determined by the stimulus; but it would not exert sufficient power over the motor self to compel it to perform actively within that pattern. Active inducement response, therefore, tends to be followed automatically by submission.

If, on the other hand, inducement is successful, as in the instance of the mother directing her child in folding the rug, the complete success of the inducement response itself would tend to bring about an attitude of active submission immediately following ttye successful inducement. Inducement response contemplates, as its ultimate purpose, the increasing of the

strength of the allied stimulus to such a degree that it will become superior in strength to the motor self, rather than inferior to it. Consider, for example, the unlearned child behaviour reported by Watson wherein the infant extends its feet or hands to invite stimulation, or spontaneously hugs its mother as an inducement to her to continue petting the child. In such cases the inducement response is designed to increase the strength of the allied stimulus to a point where the child may submit once more to the stimulus thus increased.

Teaching is I + S

Any teaching which has for its purpose the increasing of a student's own knowledge or ability to deal successfully with a certain type of subject matter tends to bring about the ultimate result that the student, when he has increased his knowledge sufficiently, will be able to call upon the teacher for such further instruction as may be best suited to the student's principal needs and abilities. The skilful teacher exercises only sufficient initial inducement to raise the pupil to an intellectual strength where the teaoher can submit to him effectively. Thus, we find the elementary college course, in America at least, consisting largely of lectures and arbitrary instructions to the student as to required procedures necessary to master the elementary technique of a given subject. The most advanced courses in this same field will be found to consist largely of seminars and research work, in which the student undertakes original investigations or theoretical expositions of his own devising, calling upon the professor and upon his

fellow students for help and criticism at the points where such assistance is needed.

Again, if we consider the student's controlling emotional responses in the behaviour mentioned, we discover that the seeker after knowledge has been obliged to offer inducement of some sort to the teacher, before the latter agreed to undertake the instruction of the student at all. This first inducement response on the part of the prospective student was a comparatively brief one, possibly consisting of paying the requisite fee to the college, arranging the proper application and registration for the course in question, and perhaps, asking the professor's personal consent to the student's enrolment in that course. This brief inducement behaviour, Jiowever, if successful, resulted immediately in an increase in the strength of the professor as compared to the student, which enabled the instructor to induce and the student to submit throughout the academic period set for the study in question. Thus the total series of prevailing responses, in this type of behaviour, might be listed thus :

(1) Student induces professor to accept student's enrolment in the professor's course.

(2) Professor submits to student's inducement by accepting him as requested.

(3) Professor induces student to follow certain mental behaviour prescribed as work in the course.

(4) Student submits by performing this work.

(5) Student, in advanced courses following, induces professor to give special assistance in student's own problems.

(6) Professor submits by giving help required.

(7) Student submits by altering his methods accordingly. In the above series of inducement-submission responses,

as also in the series of infantile inducement responses before mentioned, two aspects of the relationship between inducement and submission might be noted. First, submission in all cases eventually supercedes inducement. Secondly, inducement responses act as selective agents determining the nature and strength of the submission responses which follow.

Learning by I 4- S is Pleasant; Learning by Trial and Error

(C + D) is Painful

The proper relationship between the primary emotional responses of inducement and submission, as analysed above,

zw EMOTIONS OF NORMAL PEOPLE

is a 'most important and beneficial one to the organism as a whole. By this method, the organism is permitted to seek guidance and help from persons more developed in some particular than the subject. The subject, thereafter, is enabled

to submit to the instruction imposed, or assistance given, as soon as the more highly developed person has been induced to give all the leadership required by the subject. It is by this emotional mechanism, combining in proper relationship the responses of submission and inducement that human beings and animals, to a lesser extent, are enabled to accomplish without suffering the same or better results than those attained by the harsh method of compulsory compliance, followed by compensatory dominance. The latter method of learning is known as " experience ", or " the trial and error method ".

Without inducement and submission responses, the pain and suffering of human and animal life, great as it already is, would be inconceivably increased. Every acquired response of compliance with intensity entails a certain amount of inevitable unpleasantness or suffering while it is in the process of being learned. The dominance response, moreover, which must follow and counteract this enforced compliance, is often more intensely unpleasant than was the original compliance. In contrast to this double dose of unpleasantness, experienced in learning by the C -f D method, we find, in the inducementsubmission mechanism, a possible method for acquiring the requisite action ability even more effectively, so far as ewl result goes, with a double dose of pleasantness attached to the process of learning.

Both inducement and submission responses, when, in the proper relationship one to the other as analysed above, are capable of rendering sustained pleasantness of motation as a background to the entire learning process. Compliance with

intensity responses acquired by animals and human males in the course of the " struggle for existence ", and under the rule of " survival of the fittest ", usually entail positive destruction of important portions of the learner's body and consciousness. Nearly all the unpleasant, abnormal feelings of childhood, and the perverted and exaggerated reactions of over compliance and needless dominance which eventually lead to the office of a physician or psychiatrist in adult life, may be classed as injuries received in the process of learning by the compulsory compliance method. Learning by the

inducement submission method, on the other hand, never entails injury or loss of function to body or consciousness, provided only that inducement and submission responses are kept in proper relationship one to the other. If the teacher selected for learning by inducement-submission method possesses an erroneous or inadequate knowledge of his subject, the student, after learning the teacher's faulty technique, may suffer injury in attempted application of his false knowledge, that is, in trying to manipulate the environment with inadequate tools. But in that case, though a wrong choice of inducer was originally at fault, the actual injury is suffered as before, in the course of compliance and dominance behaviour which attempts to utilize the supposed knowledge.

Anglo-American Law Forbids Use of Dominance Toward Human Beings

It is possible to differentiate sharply between the normal reactions of human subjects to other human beings, and the normal reactions of human subjects to the inanimate objects of nature, by discovering the difference between environmental stimuli adequate to compliance-dominance responses, and environmental stimuli adequate to submission-inducement reactions. 1 It can be shown that the basis of civilization, including its laws and all its social institutions, rests upon a prohibition of the use of compliance-dominance behaviour toward kuman beings, and compulsory use of inducementsubmission behaviour in all social relationships. The common law, which has been the source of English and American jurisprudence, attempts, by its law of crime and punishment, to prevent the use of dominant compulsion in business and economic relationships between human beings. Unrestrained dominance can only be exercised over human beings, according to common law principles, by the state itself; and the state in thus compelling its citizens to comply with its intensity is acting, at least theoretically, in submission to the highest needs of the greatest possible proportion of those human beings who constitute its citizenry.

The constitution of the United States, embodying this principle, contains the well known provision that no citizen

1 The author has in preparation a volume dealing with problems of social psychology, based upon this differentiation between responses to people and reactions to things.

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or f the pursuit of happiness " without due process of law ". In terms of primary emotional responses, this protects from compliance with intensity, not only when their fellow citizens might attempt to exercise such dominance over them, but also in case the agents of the state itself should attempt to do so. The individual human being is conceived of as possessing an inherent right not to be made to comply with dominant intensity imposed upon him by any other human being, except as a punishment for having committed a similar act against some other citizen. Confessions obtained by torture and physical violence are not admissible, theoretically at least, in court proceedings. Police are not permitted. by law to compel obedience to their commands by direct imposition of physical attack of sufficient intensity to compel compliance, unless they themselves or some other citizens are threatened with similar violence by an offender against the peace of the community.

Parents and teachers are not allowed by law to compel compliance from unruly children by whippings of sufficient intensity to enforce compliance upon a stubborn child. The child must be brought to court, and the court may restrain, but cannot whip the child. If the parent does impose physical punishment of intensity sufficient to compel compliance from the child, it is frequently the parent who is brought to court on criminal charges of cruelty to the child. This provision against compulsion by dominance is evep carried to the point of forbidding the use of this method in the training or treatment of animals. Statutes in nearly all American states provide criminal penalties for "cruelty to animals ".

Not only is man, under the common law, prohibited from

responding to his fellow man with the same dominance response that he is encouraged to use against inanimate objects, but also, in matters of commerce and trade, he is forbidden to take full advantage of certain dominant compulsions which forces of nature may exert upon other human beings. The United States' statute called the Sherman Anti- Trust Act, forbids certain " combinations in restraint of trade ". This federal statute recognizes that dominance may be exerted upon the public indirectly, by a group of people who have obtained a monopoly of a certain commodity which has become necessary to the comfort and well-being of the community. If some " trust " is able to corner this commodity

and fix the price upon it at an exhorbitant figure highly profitable to itself, the psycho-physiological laws oi the human organism may compel large numbers of people to pay the extortionate price demanded.

Maximum price fixing on food, rentals, ancf clothing, by government regulation, became a well accepted legal principle during the world war. There, again, we find recognized the principle of protecting human beings against physical compulsion, even when such compulsion is actually exercised by their own bodies, by the climate, and by other antagonistic forces of the environment, and is subsequently taken advantage of by profiteering fellow humans. Even the extent to which the state can go in exercising dominant compulsion upon an offender against its laws is now being limited by humane public opinion and legislative enactment. Capital punish-

ment, the theory of which is that threat of complete destruction will exercise the maximum possible dominant compulsion upon prospective killers, is being abolished in the United States. Tortures, and " cruel and unusual punishments " have long been abolished by American law, as methods which the state may not employ to compel compliance, either before or after conviction for a crime.

Common Law Enforces the I + S Relationship in Business

Following our analysis of common law principles into the field of Commercial law, including the law of contracts, and the law of sales, we find that the basis of business law appears to rest upon taci t recognition of the proper and normal relationship between successive inducement and submission responses. Common law, in general, requires that delivery of goods, or payment of money must follow either a contractual agreement to make such delivery or payment, or an actual enrichment of one party to the proceeding at the expense of the other party, if such enrichment is accepted by the person enriched. In terms of primary emotions, the legal principle of contract and sale reveals itself as follows : The seller A, induces the buyer B, to submit to A by paying over a certain sum of money for goods which A is to deliver to B at a subsequent date. The law does not, of course, require that A shall induce B, or that B must respond by submitting to A's inducement. But once B has responded by submitting to A, the law requires that A must regard B's payment as an inducement stimulus, to

which A must respond by submission consisting of delivering over the goods in question. We have already noted that this legally enforced succession of inducement-submission responses is the integra^tively correct one. A's inducement having been successful, he must follow his inducement by a submission response to the individual whom he himself has made into an adequate submission stimulus to himself. It is curious indeed that the integrative principles of primary emotions should be found thus deftly formulated into the principles of jurisprudence, hundreds of years before the primary emotion mechanisms themselves were suggested.

If the subject, A, fails completely to submit to the person B, whom A has indeed induced into becoming an adequate submission stimulus to himself, and if it can be demonstrated that subject A never intended to submit to B even before he had induced B to submit to him, then both English and American law would probably hold A guilty of a crime called " obtaining goods under false pretences ". If, on the other hand, A intended in good faith to submit to B after B had submitted to him, but was prevented from doing so by circumstances outside A's control, then it is clear that B would be able only to bring a civil action against A's property, and not a criminal action against A's person. In this distinction we may trace another recognition of the proper distinction between primary emotional responses to things and persons. If A has not offended against B by treating B as a thing, B is not aided by the state to punish A by similar treatment. But A is considered to have forfeited his preferential rights over the thing, or property, in his own possession by having failed to control this property properly in B's behalf. B is thereupon permitted, through the submission relationship which A has incurred toward him, to compel the things possessed by A to

conform to the relationship to B which A had undertaken to enforce upon the property in question, but had failed to carry out.

There are strict legal limits, moreover, to the completeness with which A's submission must correspond with his inducement. The maxim, " Caveat Emptor ", arose from the situation wherein B, the person induced, volunteers a certain amount of submission to A, over and above the amount which should reasonably be attributed to A's original inducement. That is, A says, " I have for sale the most marvellous watch

in the world ". He then^shows B the watch, making the while, certain exaggerated statements concerning the merits of the time piece. This type of inducement, the law says, is not capable, per se, of evoking the submission response of paying an exhorbitant price for the watch corresponding in amount to the selling talk of A; because B is presumed to be acting with mixed emotional responses of dominance and B is not expected to yield to the full strength of A's inducement unless the article put up for sale itself stimulates B to a response of dominance toward the watch, which, by the degree of desire it evokes, justifies payment of the price demanded. Thus the law again recognizes that appetitive dominance is a proper and commendable response toward things,.which are the ultimate objects of trade; while, at the same time, requiring that an integratively proper sequence of inducement-

submission responses must be employed in the human relationships arising during the course of mutual dealings with the inanimate object.

Law Recognizes I -f S as Proper Learning Method

Finally, in this connection, it is interesting to note that the law recognizes, to a considerable extent, the merits of inducement-submission relationships between certain classes of persons, of supposedly mature development, and other classes of less developed individuals. It will be remembered that, b^n virtue of the inducement-submission relationship, learning of diverse sorts can be obtained without the suffering inevitable in the " school of experience ", where dominancecompliance learning methods prevail. The common law, seemingly basing itself upon this integrative principle of the primary emotions, provides for the existence of various relationships, designed to require this type of training and protection by the inducement-submission method of learning. Such a relationship is legally known as a "status". The legal rights pertaining to a certain status do not arise from particular agreements, consisting of isolated inducement and submission responses between the persons concerned. The legal rights and duties pertaining to a given status arise from the status itself, and are of comparatively fixed and constant nature, until the status is dissolved.

A child below " legal age " is regarded by the common law as occupying the status of a " minor." Toward a minor, the

parents or guardians are required by law to respond with various types of inducement and submission reactions. They are required, for instance, to induce the child to attend school, to obey the law of state; and community, to eat proper food in sufficient quantity, to sustain health, and to behave, in general, in such a way as not to offend the currently accepted proprieties and conventions of the community in which the child and his parents reside. All these reactions toward the child which are required of the parents by law are simple inducement responses. The child, on the other hand, is also required by law to submit to his parents' commands in respect to all the points of behaviour mentioned. He is also required to submit to various other persons who are placed in relationships where they express inducement toward him, such as his teachers in school, the city doctor, health authorities, and others. When the minor passes the legal age of sixteen, eighteen, or twenty-one as the case may be, his submission status to his parents and other persons ceases as does their status of required inducement toward the child.

Other instances in which an inducement-submission status is established by law are police and private citizens; a country and its citizens; husband and wife (though in this status, at the present time, practically identical inducements and submissions are required mutually of both parties); and prison authorities and prisoners.

It seems an extremely interesting fact that the principles of jurisprudence, which have evolved practically unaided by science, should reflect thus accurately the fundamental principles of inducement-submission relationships between human beings. These legally devised relationships are able, if rightly utilized, to bring about the teaching and training of

both adult and juvenile individuals by the I + S method, the only normal method for human learning. Persons inferior in some particular are thus related by law to persons of presumably superior development, in such a way as to avoid, or at least to mitigate, the inevitable suffering entailed in the dominance-compliance " survival of the fittest ".