Avoiding the Social in Social Anxiety
1495
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-1495,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0.1,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1200,qode-theme-ver-29.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.8.0,vc_responsive

Avoiding the Social in Social Anxiety

Avoiding the Social in Social Anxiety

April 9, 2013

Joseph LeDoux’s opinion piece in The New York Times, “For the Anxious, Avoidance Can Have an Upside,”  is an interesting essay that—like so many reports of neuroscience research in the mass media—miseducates the public.

Here’s the formula, as I see it. Take a phenomenon of human social life—in this case, social anxiety and responses to trauma and stress. Present some pre-neuroscience results of lab experiments on animals and generalize these results to human beings. Then present current research that shows where and how the brain accounts for the behaviors in question and again generalize—this time not from animal to human, but from brain to living being-in-the-world.

The topic is social anxiety and the types of avoidance people and rats exhibit in the face of perceived danger. There’s what’s called active avoidance and passive coping, as when rats who receive an electric shock paired with a sound will then freeze whenever they hear the sound again, or when people “with social anxiety problems” avoid social situations. Then there’s what’s called proactive avoidance and active coping, as when the sound is turned off when the rat makes any kind of movement at all and gradually learns (through the use of what psychology calls negative reinforcement) that the sound is not a threat, or when people develop strategies, like breathing or relaxation techniques, that make being in social situations tolerable. In the case of both rats and people, it’s better to be active and take control of what’s stressing you out.

At this point you may be thinking, as I was, “Huh?”This is common sense” (folk psychology, if you will). Not to mention that conditioning has the topic of the first chapters of Psych 101 texts for the past 75 years.

Apparently, what makes the rat experiment and its generalization to humans worthy of being recycled is research showing that different parts of the brain do different things and that “the active coping response, proactive avoidance…requires that the information processed in the input region be redirected to a different output controller in the amygdala, one that engages goal-directed actions.” All this, apparently, to justify this conclusion:

“When avoidance prevents one from dealing with life, it is maladaptive. But when avoidance is proactive and part of active coping and agency, it helps the person control the accelerator, brakes, and the track switches. It is a useful adaptive activity.”

I might not have stopped to share my thoughts on this essay (or even to give it any thought) if it were not about avoidance. Because what struck me as a peculiar irony of the essay was the author’s apparent unawareness of his own avoidance—an avoidance of the social in the scientific path he was taking to social anxiety.

I’m all for learning everything we can about how our brains work and discovering/creating the value this new learning can have. But to use brain research as somehow explanatory of the incredible complexity of human life, to reduce the pain of social anxiety a particular person experiences to internal information processing pathways is silly, dangerously so. It’s silly and dangerous in the way that reductionistic science has always been. In the way that psychology has for a century avoided the fundamental socialness of human life by going inward instead of outward, and by distorting who we are in order to explain us—instead of embracing who we are in order that we might be empowered to go beyond who we are.

As a step in this direction, we could locate what the experts are calling social anxiety in the broader culture and the way people live their lives, ask ourselves how it came to be that people can be afraid to talk to one another, that loneliness can be someone’s life companion, that we are seduced by the knowers of the world even though they’ve failed us time and time again, that it’s become harder and harder for more and more people to see and seize upon possibilities for creativity and growthful transformation of their lives, and that trying to avoid uncertainty in an uncertain world makes us crazy. Let’s continue studying the brain—by not relating to it as if it doesn’t reside in the social world we’ve created.

 

14 Comments
  • loisholzman
    Posted at 18:14h, 02 May

    Thanks for the lovely comment, Hilda!
    I love your phrasing — “the passionate protest for the protection of the relational and contextual…”

  • Hilda Nanning
    Posted at 17:52h, 02 May

    Love the gorgeous conversation Lois’ response to this article has engaged and I appreciate the passionate protest for the protection of the relational and contextual in analysis and meaning making… I as well appreciate the acknowledgement of the propensity for pathologizing in analytics (which leaves behind the invitation to honor strength, resilience and ‘the other’. I find it can be a challenge to avoid the limitations of binary positioning when responding to dominant ideology that can be seen as tending towards essentialism (and hegemony). I enjoyed the ironic note as an alternative to this Lois! I too am heartened by the many who chose to look outward in practice. I find this article and discussion to be all that.

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 22:06h, 22 April

    Thanks for you comment, Alvaader. I agree…and yet am hearterned by the many who don’t accept that inward looking in what they practice.

  • Alvaader Frazier, Esq.
    Posted at 20:27h, 22 April

    Looking outward into our human cultures as in how we live together seems such an ordinary world view. Perhaps the establishments you have challenged here are practicing their own social avoidance and once again insisting that we all look inward to the void…Thanks.

  • Lonny Meinecke
    Posted at 21:50h, 18 April

    Thanks Piroska, that type of massage/touch therapy is new to me. From first perception, I think the main value in many homeopathic and naturalistic approaches is the eliciting of trust and hope between caregiver and client, more than the therapy itself. These seem to form temporary bonds whose impact is to relieve tension via that period of dependent trust (touch is always a good thing, I am just unsure if we can ascertain more empirical evidence on its emotional aspects). I will try and learn more though, thank you.

    Mostly what I meant was based on Lois’ nice statement “. . . instead of embracing who we are in order that we might be empowered to go beyond who we are.” Neuroscience can be wonderful, and we have made great strides in understanding ourselves better. But this last 60 years or so it seems we are “running” from who we are by encapsulating all this unpredictable, intimate humanity into detached descriptions of functional and non-functional “machine parts”, and that emotions are hysterias we are ashamed of rather than reminders of how endearing this world and its people can be to us. If we begin with the stance that our emotional self is something bad, something we are ashamed of, even something to be avoided — then how will we discover the positive benefits (for self/others) of daring to reach out to others emotionally? Recent studies suggest we have VENs (Von Economo neurons) which are fundamental to self-awareness and social cognition (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22578500) and when these fail, we lose our social cognition (we “stop caring”). Neuroscientific evidence like this gives me hope we will come to realize what Lois is suggesting – not that we are confident, cognitive structures with lapses of cognition, but that we are anxious, affective, doubtful creatures at our core, yet we dare to express our need and our compassion (either within ourselves and for ourselves, or to others who need us to do so) — and build cognitive social schemata out of that to help make this mutual need happen. What do you think?

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 16:36h, 18 April

    Thanks, Evan. I appreciate your comment and viewpoint. For me, I don’t put a “but” between humans being social animals and being individuals. We are both social and individual. Indeed, the concept and felt experience of being “individual” is a social-cultural-historical creation of monumentl proportions! Social is a tricky word…when it means being with others, I’m with you on your desire (although I don’t call it “inner”); when it means sociall created by human beings, I don’t think there’s anything we do or think that’s not social.

  • Evan Hanks
    Posted at 20:13h, 17 April

    Lois,
    As one interested in the psyche (as opposed to brain study), I think you’ve put a finger on a major problem in the statistical viewpoint. By its very nature the individual is left out of account. But, there is in my mind another side to the problem. I find myself to be an introvert in an extraverted society. It’s always been so. I don’t suffer from “social anxiety”, rather an intense gravitational pull inward (at times) according to my nature. it’s a kind of of being thrown back on one’s self. Of course, the pull inward is perceived by an extraverted science (the study of objects outside ourselves, even when they happen to be inside, but outside consciousness) as an anomaly and translated into social anxiety. But there are a great many people who simply have an inward orientation — less social sometimes than can be comprehended by an outward oriented culture. We are social animals for sure, but we are also individuals whose natures sometimes pull us in a different direction from what is perceived as the norm. The doubling effect of unconscious inner demands often creates such contradictions in our perceptions.Thanks for pointing out the most obvious contradictions in our increasingly scientific view of the world.
    Sincerely,
    Evan Hanks

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 21:42h, 15 April

    Thanks for your comments Piroska and David.

  • Piroska
    Posted at 20:45h, 15 April

    Love your line of thinking Lonny. Im also a student of Dr. Chikly Brain Therapy.
    I have personally seen amazing result come about just from the simple technique of ‘down regulating’. Dr Daniel Amen has worked out a protocol was well. We touch the structures of the brain, guided by the brain, to help it balance itself. A fellow student Ann House has done a demo, you can see here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ0q0JWRVn4
    The demo of Brain work here by Dr. Chikly himself : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95h0YGrWfrk&feature=youtu.be

  • Dave Jetson
    Posted at 18:31h, 15 April

    In working with clients and guiding them to their core emotional issues, there are consistent patterns that exist. In researching the brain from the perspective of these patterns, the brain research can be helpful in explaining how the brain works and impacts these patterns, yet does not cure the problem. Understanding aspects of the brain, how they communicate with each other and how feelings remain stuck or get resolved is helpful in creating emotional change. I have just written a book on this topic that is called “Finding Emotional Freedom, Access the truth Your Brain Already Knows.” The purpose of this book is not to have the brain be the end all and determine ways to manipulate it, rather it is the starting point in understanding the recovery process and how to deal with the unresolved feelings in the brain that negatively impact every decision in our life until we work through and release them.

  • Lonny Meinecke
    Posted at 20:56h, 11 April

    Lois, I love your thoughts. Maybe there is a connection here, between neurobiological focus vs psychosocial focus, and your article “Is Emotion Nothing More Than a Form of Cognition?” In reply to that evocative article, I suggested “If I may, perhaps our question is . . . whether cognition is nothing more than a form of emotion attempting to make sense of itself?”

    We seem so urgent to be certain; we make such efforts to wrap up things that make us uncertain or uncomfortable into objects, and then distance ourselves from them via hopeful ambivalence so we can diffuse that uneasiness. Isn’t the neuroscientific trend – like our new penchant for reams of duplicate information – a means to distance ourselves via exclusion of emotion from fears that it might as well have been us? All our significant effort to obtain certainty seems to suggest how very uncertain and anxious we are. If only we can exactly pin down the locus of future fight or flight, we can be sure it never happens to us. But what if urgency is the substance of who we are, and it is this very thing we fear that is our hope we will someday come together out of mutual need? Then by omitting from our future research the measure of urgency and its ability to elevate empathy within us, maybe like you say so well here Lois, we may lose our anxiety, and too, our compassion with it.

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 13:32h, 11 April

    Well said!

  • w.s.
    Posted at 06:42h, 11 April

    What makes brainresearchers love the brain so much ? Hate of impulsive human
    behavior ? Dislike of the romantic language of oldfashioned psychology ? Social anxiety
    disquised as science ? As long as we cannot understand the roots of their behavior,
    we are powerless to change their strong need to portray people as slaves of their brains.
    My quess is : social anxiety caused by the fact that we all have to live in a world full
    of massdestructionwaepons and subsequently the severe hidden depression which we are
    powerless to combat. And they too.

  • Andrea Rieniets
    Posted at 12:18h, 10 April

    Lois, I love this! In working with kids to support them to lead change in their communities, the social, being, collaborating muscles are what we are strengthening. I too am interested in the workings of things, of us…But I am tired to death of our adoration of the head and all that resides within it above and beyond all else. In Chinese medicine too many thoughts can be a sign of too much heat in the heart. ie we, as beings, are gardens and organisms and communal spaces that thrive in interconnectedness both internally and externally. Not a series of wired up machine parts – like so much of even the elasticity of the brain work still seems to reference. (Wow! Isn’t it amazing that something takes over the function when we sever this connection??? Better to sit on your hands in the company of brain researchers if you don’t want to lose a finger!)
    Keep up your rich conversations so we can be recalled into social well-being.

Post A Comment