ETC.—HELPLESSNESS—PATIENCE—AFFIRMATION AND NEGATION.
Contempt, scorn and disdain, variously expressed—Derisive
smile—Gestures expressive of contempt—Disgust—Guilt, deceit, pride,
&c.—Helplessness or impotence—Patience—Obstinacy—Shrugging the
shoulders common to most of the races of man—Signs of affirmation and
negation.
Scorn and disdain can hardly be distinguished from contempt, excepting
that they imply a rather more angry frame of mind. Nor can they be
clearly distinguished from the feelings discussed in the last chapter
under the terms of sneering and defiance. Disgust is a sensation rather
more distinct in its nature and refers to something revolting,
primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually perceived or
vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which causes a similar
feeling, through the sense of smell, touch, and even of eyesight.
Nevertheless, extreme contempt, or as it is often called loathing
contempt, hardly differs from disgust. These several conditions of the
mind are, therefore, nearly related; and each of them may be exhibited
in many different ways. Some writers have insisted chiefly on one mode
of expression, and others on a different mode. From this circumstance
M. Lemoine has argued[1101] that their descriptions are not
trustworthy. But we shall immediately see that it is natural that the
feelings which we have here to consider should be expressed in many
different ways, inasmuch as various habitual actions serve equally
well, through the principle of association, for their expression.
Scorn and disdain, as well as sneering and defiance, may be displayed
by a slight uncovering of the canine tooth on one side of the face; and
this movement appears to graduate into one closely like a smile. Or the
smile or laugh may be real, although one of derision; and this implies
that the offender is so insignificant that he excites only amusement;
but the amusement is generally a pretence. Gaika in his answers to my
queries remarks, that contempt is commonly shown by his countrymen, the
Kafirs, by smiling; and the Rajah Brooke makes the same observation
with respect to the Dyaks of Borneo. As laughter is primarily the
expression of simple joy, very young children do not, I believe, ever
laugh in derision.
The partial closure of the eyelids, as Duchenne[1102] insists, or the
turning away of the eyes or of the whole body, are likewise highly
expressive of disdain. These actions seem to declare that the despised
person is not worth looking at or is disagreeable to behold. The
accompanying photograph (Plate V. fig. 1) by Mr. Rejlander, shows this
form of disdain. It represents a young lady, who is supposed to be
tearing up the photograph of a despised lover.
Scorn and Disdain. Plate V
The most common method of expressing contempt is by movements about the
nose, or round the mouth; but the latter movements, when strongly
pronounced, indicate disgust. The nose may be slightly turned up, which
apparently follows from the turning up of the upper lip; or the
movement may be abbreviated into the mere wrinkling of the nose. The
nose is often slightly contracted, so as partly to close the
passage;[1103] and this is commonly accompanied by a slight snort or
expiration. All these actions are the same with those which we employ
when we perceive an offensive odour, and wish to exclude or expel it.
In extreme cases, as Dr. Piderit remarks,[1104] we protrude and raise
both lips, or the upper lip alone, so as to close the nostrils as by a
valve, the nose being thus turned up. We seem thus to say to the
despised person that he smells offensively,[1105] in nearly the same
manner as we express to him by half-closing our eyelids, or turning
away our faces, that he is not worth looking at. It must not, however,
be supposed that such ideas actually pass through the mind when we
exhibit our contempt; but as whenever we have perceived a disagreeable
odour or seen a disagreeable sight, actions of this kind have been
performed, they have become habitual or fixed, and are now employed
under any analogous state of mind.
Various odd little gestures likewise indicate contempt; for instance,
_snapping one’s fingers_. This, as Mr. Taylor remarks,[1106] “is not
very intelligible as we generally see it; but when we notice that the
same sign made quite gently, as if rolling some tiny object away
between the finger and thumb, or the sign of flipping it away with the
thumb-nail and forefinger, are usual and well-understood deaf-and-dumb
gestures, denoting anything tiny, insignificant, contemptible, it seems
as though we had exaggerated and conventionalized a perfectly natural
action, so as to lose sight of its original meaning. There is a curious
mention of this gesture by Strabo.” Mr. Washington Matthews informs me
that, with the Dakota Indians of North America, contempt is shown not
only by movements of the face, such as those above described, but
“conventionally, by the hand being closed and held near the breast,
then, as the forearm is suddenly extended, the hand is opened and the
fingers separated from each other. If the person at whose expense the
sign is made is present, the hand is moved towards him, and the head
sometimes averted from him.” This sudden extension and opening of the
hand perhaps indicates the dropping or throwing away a valueless
object.
The term ‘disgust,’ in its simplest sense, means something offensive to
the taste. It is curious how readily this feeling is excited by
anything unusual in the appearance, odour, or nature of our food. In
Tierra del Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold preserved
meat which I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter
disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being
touched by a naked savage, though his hands did not appear dirty. A
smear of soup on a man’s beard looks disgusting, though there is of
course nothing disgusting in the soup itself. I presume that this
follows from the strong association in our minds between the sight of
food, however circumstanced, and the idea of eating it.
As the sensation of disgust primarily arises in connection with the act
of eating or tasting, it is natural that its expression should consist
chiefly in movements round the mouth. But as disgust also causes
annoyance, it is generally accompanied by a frown, and often by
gestures as if to push away or to guard oneself against the offensive
object. In the two photographs (figs. 2 and 3, on Plate V.) Mr.
Rejlander has simulated this expression with some success. With respect
to the face, moderate disgust is exhibited in various ways; by the
mouth being widely opened, as if to let an offensive morsel drop out;
by spitting; by blowing out of the protruded lips; or by a sound as of
clearing the throat. Such guttural sounds are written _ach_ or _ugh_;
and their utterance is sometimes accompanied by a shudder, the arms
being pressed close to the sides and the shoulders raised in the same
manner as when horror is experienced.[1107] Extreme disgust is
expressed by movements round the month identical with those preparatory
to the act of vomiting. The mouth is opened widely, with the upper lip
strongly retracted, which wrinkles the sides of the nose, and with the
lower lip protruded and everted as much as possible. This latter
movement requires the contraction of the muscles which draw downwards
the corners of the mouth.[1108]
It is remarkable how readily and instantly retching or actual vomiting
is induced in some persons by the mere idea of having partaken of any
unusual food, as of an animal which is not commonly eaten; although
there is nothing in such food to cause the stomach to reject it. When
vomiting results, as a reflex action, from some real cause—as from too
rich food, or tainted meat, or from an emetic—it does not ensue
immediately, but generally after a considerable interval of time.
Therefore, to account for retching or vomiting being so quickly and
easily excited by a mere idea, the suspicion arises that our
progenitors must formerly have had the power (like that possessed by
ruminants and some other animals) of voluntarily rejecting food which
disagreed with them, or which they thought would disagree with them;
and now, though this power has been lost, as far as the will is
concerned, it is called into involuntary action, through the force of a
formerly well-established habit, whenever the mind revolts at the idea
of having partaken of any kind of food, or at anything disgusting. This
suspicion receives support from the fact, of which I am assured by Mr.
Sutton, that the monkeys in the Zoological Gardens often vomit whilst
in perfect health, which looks as if the act were voluntary. We can see
that as man is able to communicate by language to his children and
others, the knowledge of the kinds of food to be avoided, he would have
little occasion to use the faculty of voluntary rejection; so that this
power would tend to be lost through disuse.
As the sense of smell is so intimately connected with that of taste, it
is not surprising that an excessively bad odour should excite retching
or vomiting in some persons, quite as readily as the thought of
revolting food does; and that, as a further consequence, a moderately
offensive odour should cause the various expressive movements of
disgust. The tendency to retch from a fetid odour is immediately
strengthened in a curious manner by some degree of habit, though soon
lost by longer familiarity with the cause of offence and by voluntary
restraint. For instance, I wished to clean the skeleton of a bird,
which had not been sufficiently macerated, and the smell made my
servant and myself (we not having had much experience in such work)
retch so violently, that we were compelled to desist. During the
previous days I had examined some other skeletons, which smelt
slightly; yet the odour did not in the least affect me, but,
subsequently for several days, whenever I handled these same skeletons,
they made me retch.
From the answers received from my correspondents it appears that the
various movements, which have now been described as expressing contempt
and disgust, prevail throughout a large part of the world. Dr.
Rothrock, for instance, answers with a decided affirmative with respect
to certain wild Indian tribes of North America. Crantz says that when a
Greenlander denies anything with contempt or horror he turns up his
nose, and gives a slight sound through it.[1109] Mr. Scott has sent me
a graphic description of the face of a young Hindoo at the sight of
castor-oil, which he was compelled occasionally to take. Mr. Scott has
also seen the same expression on the faces of high-caste natives who
have approached close to some defiling object. Mr. Bridges says that
the Fuegians “express contempt by shooting out the lips and hissing
through them, and by turning up the nose.” The tendency either to snort
through the nose, or to make a noise expressed by _ugh_ or _ach_, is
noticed by several of my correspondents.
Spitting seems an almost universal sign of contempt or disgust; and
spitting obviously represents the rejection of anything offensive from
the mouth. Shakspeare makes the Duke of Norfolk say, “I spit at
him—call him a slanderous coward and a villain.” So, again, Falstaff
says, “Tell thee what, Hal,—if I tell thee a lie, spit in my face.”
Leichhardt remarks that the Australians “interrupted their speeches by
spitting, and uttering a noise like pooh! pooh! apparently expressive
of their disgust.” And Captain Burton speaks of certain negroes
“spitting with disgust upon the ground.” Captain Speedy informs me that
this is likewise the case with the Abyssinians. Mr. Geach says that
with the Malays of Malacca the expression of disgust “answers to
spitting from the mouth;” and with the Fuegians, according to Mr.
Bridges “to spit at one is the highest mark of contempt.”[1110]
I never saw disgust more plainly expressed than on the face of one of
my infants at the age of five months, when, for the first time, some
cold water, and again a month afterwards, when a piece of ripe cherry
was put into his mouth. This was shown by the lips and whole mouth
assuming a shape which allowed the contents to run or fall quickly out;
the tongue being likewise protruded. These movements were accompanied
by a little shudder. It was all the more comical, as I doubt whether
the child felt real disgust—the eyes and forehead expressing much
surprise and consideration. The protrusion of the tongue in letting a
nasty object fall out of the mouth, may explain how it is that lolling
out the tongue universally serves as a sign of contempt and
hatred.[1111]
We have now seen that scorn, disdain, contempt, and disgust are
expressed in many different ways, by movements of the features, and by
various gestures; and that these are the same throughout the world.
They all consist of actions representing the rejection or exclusion of
some real object which we dislike or abhor, but which does not excite
in us certain other strong emotions, such as rage or terror; and
through the force of habit and association similar actions are
performed, whenever any analogous sensation arises in our minds.
_Jealousy, Envy, Avarice, Revenge, Suspicion, Deceit, Slyness, Guilt,
Vanity, Conceit, Ambition, Pride, Humility, &c_.—It is doubtful whether
the greater number of the above complex states of mind are revealed by
any fixed expression, sufficiently distinct to be described or
delineated. When Shakspeare speaks of Envy as _lean-faced_, or _black_,
or _pale_, and Jealousy as “_the green-eyed monster_;” and when Spenser
describes Suspicion as “_foul, ill-favoured, and grim_,” they must have
felt this difficulty. Nevertheless, the above feelings—at least many of
them—can be detected by the eye; for instance, conceit; but we are
often guided in a much greater degree than we suppose by our previous
knowledge of the persons or circumstances.
My correspondents almost unanimously answer in the affirmative to my
query, whether the expression of guilt and deceit can be recognized
amongst the various races of man; and I have confidence in their
answers, as they generally deny that jealousy can thus be recognized.
In the cases in which details are given, the eyes are almost always
referred to. The guilty man is said to avoid looking at his accuser, or
to give him stolen looks. The eyes are said “to be turned askant,” or
“to waver from side to side,” or “the eyelids to be lowered and partly
closed.” This latter remark is made by Mr. Hagenauer with respect to
the Australians, and by Gaika with respect to the Kafirs. The restless
movements of the eyes apparently follow, as will be explained when we
treat of blushing, from the guilty man not enduring to meet the gaze of
his accuser. I may add, that I have observed a guilty expression,
without a shade of fear, in some of my own children at a very early
age. In one instance the expression was unmistakably clear in a child
two years and seven months old, and led to the detection of his little
crime. It was shown, as I record in my notes made at the time, by an
unnatural brightness in the eyes, and by an odd, affected manner,
impossible to describe.
Slyness is also, I believe, exhibited chiefly by movements about the
eyes; for these are less under the control of the will, owing to the
force of long-continued habit, than are the movements of the body. Mr.
Herbert Spencer remarks,[1112] “When there is a desire to see something
on one side of the visual field without being supposed to see it, the
tendency is to check the conspicuous movement of the head, and to make
the required adjustment entirely with the eyes; which are, therefore,
drawn very much to one side. Hence, when the eyes are turned to one
side, while the face is not turned to the same side, we get the natural
language of what is called slyness.”
Of all the above-named complex emotions, Pride, perhaps, is the most
plainly expressed. A proud man exhibits his sense of superiority over
others by holding his head and body erect. He is haughty (_haut_), or
high, and makes himself appear as large as possible; so that
metaphorically he is said to be swollen or puffed up with pride. A
peacock or a turkey-cock strutting about with puffed-up feathers, is
sometimes said to be an emblem of pride.[1113] The arrogant man looks
down on others, and with lowered eyelids hardly condescends to see
them; or he may show his contempt by slight movements, such as those
before described, about the nostrils or lips. Hence the muscle which
everts the lower lip has been called the _musculus superbus_. In some
photographs of patients affected by a monomania of pride, sent me by
Dr. Crichton Browne, the head and body were held erect, and the mouth
firmly closed. This latter action, expressive of decision, follows, I
presume, from the proud man feeling perfect self-confidence in himself.
The whole expression of pride stands in direct antithesis to that of
humility; so that nothing need here be said of the latter state of
mind.
_Helplessness, Impotence: Shrugging the shoulders_.—When a man wishes
to show that he cannot do something, or prevent something being done,
he often raises with a quick movement both shoulders. At the same time,
if the whole gesture is completed, he bends his elbows closely inwards,
raises his open hands, turning them outwards, with the fingers
separated. The head is often thrown a little on one side; the eyebrows
are elevated, and this causes wrinkles across the forehead. The mouth
is generally opened. I may mention, in order to show how unconsciously
the features are thus acted on, that though I had often intentionally
shrugged my shoulders to observe how my arms were placed, I was not at
all aware that my eyebrows were raised and mouth opened, until I looked
at myself in a glass; and since then I have noticed the same movements
in the faces of others. In the accompanying Plate VI., figs. 3 and 4,
Mr. Rejlander has successfully acted the gesture of shrugging the
shoulders.
Englishmen are much less demonstrative than the men of most other
European nations, and they shrug their shoulders far less frequently
and energetically than Frenchmen or Italians do. The gesture varies in
all degrees from the complex movement, just described, to only a
momentary and scarcely perceptible raising of both shoulders; or, as I
have noticed in a lady sitting in an arm-chair, to the mere turning
slightly outwards of the open hands with separated fingers. I have
never seen very young English children shrug their shoulders, but the
following case was observed with care by a medical professor and
excellent observer, and has been communicated to me by him. The father
of this gentleman was a Parisian, and his mother a Scotch lady. His
wife is of British extraction on both sides, and my informant does not
believe that she ever shrugged her shoulders in her life. His children
have been reared in England, and the nursemaid is a thorough
Englishwoman, who has never been seen to shrug her shoulders. Now, his
eldest daughter was observed to shrug her shoulders at the age of
between sixteen and eighteen months; her mother exclaiming at the time,
“Look at the little French girl shrugging her shoulders!” At first she
often acted thus, sometimes throwing her head a little backwards and on
one side, but she did not, as far as was observed, move her elbows and
hands in the usual manner. The habit gradually wore away, and now, when
she is a little over four years old, she is never seen to act thus. The
father is told that he sometimes shrugs his shoulders, especially when
arguing with any one; but it is extremely improbable that his daughter
should have imitated him at so early an age; for, as he remarks, she
could not possibly have often seen this gesture in him. Moreover, if
the habit had been acquired through imitation, it is not probable that
it would so soon have been spontaneously discontinued by this child,
and, as we shall immediately see, by a second child, though the father
still lived with his family. This little girl, it may be added,
resembles her Parisian grandfather in countenance to an almost absurd
degree. She also presents another and very curious resemblance to him,
namely, by practising a singular trick. When she impatiently wants
something, she holds out her little hand, and rapidly rubs the thumb
against the index and middle finger: now this same trick was frequently
performed under the same circumstances by her grandfather.
This gentleman’s second daughter also shrugged her shoulders before the
age of eighteen months, and afterwards discontinued the habit. It is of
course possible that she may have imitated her elder sister; but she
continued it after her sister had lost the habit. She at first
resembled her Parisian grandfather in a less degree than did her sister
at the same age, but now in a greater degree. She likewise practises to
the present time the peculiar habit of rubbing together, when
impatient, her thumb and two of her fore-fingers.
In this latter case we have a good instance, like those given in a
former chapter, of the inheritance of a trick or gesture; for no one, I
presume, will attribute to mere coincidence so peculiar a habit as
this, which was common to the grandfather and his two grandchildren who
had never seen him.
Considering all the circumstances with reference to these children
shrugging their shoulders, it can hardly be doubted that they have
inherited the habit from their French progenitors, although they have
only one quarter French blood in their veins, and although their
grandfather did not often shrug his shoulders. There is nothing very
unusual, though the fact is interesting, in these children having
gained by inheritance a habit during early youth, and then
discontinuing it; for it is of frequent occurrence with many kinds of
animals that certain characters are retained for a period by the young,
and are then lost.
As it appeared to me at one time improbable in a high degree that so
complex a gesture as shrugging the shoulders, together with the
accompanying movements, should be innate, I was anxious to ascertain
whether the blind and deaf Laura Bridgman, who could not have learnt
the habit by imitation, practised it. And I have heard, through Dr.
Innes, from a lady who has lately had charge of her, that she does
shrug her shoulders, turn in her elbows, and raise her eyebrows in the
same manner as other people, and under the same circumstances. I was
also anxious to learn whether this gesture was practised by the various
races of man, especially by those who never have had much intercourse
with Europeans. We shall see that they act in this manner; but it
appears that the gesture is sometimes confined to merely raising or
shrugging the shoulders, without the other movements.
Mr. Scott has frequently seen this gesture in the Bengalees and
Dhangars (the latter constituting a distinct race) who are employed in
the Botanic Garden at Calcutta; when, for instance, they have declared
that they could not do some work, such as lifting a heavy weight. He
ordered a Bengalee to climb a lofty tree; but the man, with a shrug of
his shoulders and a lateral shake of his head, said he could not. Mr.
Scott knowing that the man was lazy, thought he could, and insisted on
his trying. His face now became pale, his arms dropped to his sides,
his mouth and eyes were widely opened, and again surveying the tree, he
looked askant at Mr. Scott, shrugged his shoulders, inverted his
elbows, extended his open hands, and with a few quick lateral shakes of
the head declared his inability. Mr. H. Erskine has likewise seen the
natives of India shrugging their shoulders; but he has never seen the
elbows turned so much inwards as with us; and whilst shrugging their
shoulders they sometimes lay their uncrossed hands on their breasts.
With the wild Malays of the interior of Malacca, and with the Bugis
(true Malays, though speaking a different language), Mr. Geach has
often seen this gesture. I presume that it is complete, as, in answer
to my query descriptive of the movements of the shoulders, arms, hands,
and face, Mr. Geach remarks, “it is performed in a beautiful style.” I
have lost an extract from a scientific voyage, in which shrugging the
shoulders by some natives (Micronesians) of the Caroline Archipelago in
the Pacific Ocean, was well described. Capt. Speedy informs me that the
Abyssinians shrug their shoulders but enters into no details. Mrs. Asa
Gray saw an Arab dragoman in Alexandria acting exactly as described in
my query, when an old gentleman, on whom he attended, would not go in
the proper direction which had been pointed out to him.
Mr. Washington Matthews says, in reference to the wild Indian tribes of
the western parts of the United States, “I have on a few occasions
detected men using a slight apologetic shrug, but the rest of the
demonstration which you describe I have not witnessed.” Fritz Müller
informs me that he has seen the negroes in Brazil shrugging their
shoulders; but it is of course possible that they may have learnt to do
so by imitating the Portuguese. Mrs. Barber has never seen this gesture
with the Kafirs of South Africa; and Gaika, judging from his answer,
did not even understand what was meant by my description. Mr. Swinhoe
is also doubtful about the Chinese; but he has seen them, under the
circumstances which would make us shrug our shoulders, press their
right elbow against their side, raise their eyebrows, lift up their
hand with the palm directed towards the person addressed, and shake it
from right to left. Lastly, with respect to the Australians, four of my
informants answer by a simple negative, and one by a simple
affirmative. Mr. Bunnett, who has had excellent opportunities for
observation on the borders of the Colony of Victory, also answers by a
“yes,” adding that the gesture is performed “in a more subdued and less
demonstrative manner than is the case with civilized nations.” This
circumstance may account for its not having been noticed by four of my
informants.
These statements, relating to Europeans, Hindoos, the hill-tribes of
India, Malays, Micronesians, Abyssinians, Arabs, Negroes, Indians of
North America, and apparently to the Australians—many of these natives
having had scarcely any intercourse with Europeans—are sufficient to
show that shrugging the shoulders, accompanied in some cases by the
other proper movements, is a gesture natural to mankind.
This gesture implies an unintentional or unavoidable action on our own
part, or one that we cannot perform; or an action performed by another
person which we cannot prevent. It accompanies such speeches as, “It
was not my fault;” “It is impossible for me to grant this favour;” “He
must follow his own course, I cannot stop him.” Shrugging the shoulders
likewise expresses patience, or the absence of any intention to resist.
Hence the muscles which raise the shoulders are sometimes called, as I
have been informed by an artist, the patience muscles. Shylock the Jew,
says,
“Signor Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto have you rated me
About my monies and usances;
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug.”
_Merchant of Venice_, act i. sc. 3.
Sir C. Bell has given[1114] a life-like figure of a man, who is
shrinking back from some terrible danger, and is on the point of
screaming out in abject terror. He is represented with his shoulders
lifted up almost to his ears; and this at once declares that there is
no thought of resistance.
As shrugging the shoulders generally implies “I cannot do this or
that,” so by a slight change, it sometimes implies “I won’t do it.” The
movement then expresses a dogged determination not to act. Olmsted
describes[1115] an Indian in Texas as giving a great shrug to his
shoulders, when he was informed that a party of men were Germans and
not Americans, thus expressing that he would have nothing to do with
them. Sulky and obstinate children may be seen with both their
shoulders raised high up; but this movement is not associated with the
others which generally accompany a true shrug. An excellent
observer[1116] in describing a young man who was determined not to
yield to his father’s desire, says, “He thrust his hands deep down into
his pockets, and set up his shoulders to his ears, which was a good
warning that, come right or wrong, this rock should fly from its firm
base as soon as Jack would; and that any remonstrance on the subject
was purely futile.” As soon as the son got his own way, he “put his
shoulders into their natural position.”
Resignation is sometimes shown by the open hands being placed, one over
the other, on the lower part of the body. I should not have thought
this little gesture worth even a passing notice, had not Dr. W. Ogle
remarked to me that he had two or three times observed it in patients
who were preparing for operations under chloroform. They exhibited no
great fear, but seemed to declare by this posture of their hands, that
they had made up their minds, and were resigned to the inevitable.
We may now inquire why men in all parts of the world when they
feel,—whether or not they wish to show this feeling,—that they cannot
or will not do something, or will not resist something if done by
another, shrug their shoulders, at the same time often bending in their
elbows, showing the palms of their hands with extended fingers, often
throwing their heads a little on one side, raising their eyebrows, and
opening their mouths. These states of the mind are either simply
passive, or show a determination not to act. None of the above
movements are of the least service. The explanation lies, I cannot
doubt, in the principle of unconscious antithesis. This principle here
seems to come into play as clearly as in the case of a dog, who, when
feeling savage, puts himself in the proper attitude for attacking and
for making himself appear terrible to his enemy; but as soon as he
feels affectionate, throws his whole body into a directly opposite
attitude, though this is of no direct use to him.
Let it be observed how an indignant man, who resents, and will not
submit to some injury, holds his head erect, squares his shoulders, and
expands his chest. He often clenches his fists, and puts one or both
arms in the proper position for attack or defence, with the muscles of
his limbs rigid. He frowns,—that is, he contracts and lowers his
brows,—and, being determined, closes his mouth. The actions and
attitude of a helpless man are, in every one of these respects, exactly
the reverse. In Plate VI. we may imagine one of the figures on the left
side to have just said, “What do you mean by insulting me?” and one of
the figures on the right side to answer, “I really could not help it.”
The helpless man unconsciously contracts the muscles of his forehead
which are antagonistic to those that cause a frown, and thus raises his
eyebrows; at the same time he relaxes the muscles about the mouth, so
that the lower jaw drops. The antithesis is complete in every detail,
not only in the movements of the features, but in the position of the
limbs and in the attitude of the whole body, as may be seen in the
accompanying plate. As the helpless or apologetic man often wishes to
show his state of mind, he then acts in a conspicuous or demonstrative
manner.
In accordance with the fact that squaring the elbows and clenching the
fists are gestures by no means universal with the men of all races,
when they feel indignant and are prepared to attack their enemy, so it
appears that a helpless or apologetic frame of mind is expressed in
many parts of the world by merely shrugging the shoulders, without
turning inwards the elbows and opening the hands. The man or child who
is obstinate, or one who is resigned to some great misfortune, has in
neither case any idea of resistance by active means; and he expresses
this state of mind, by simply keeping his shoulders raised; or he may
possibly fold his arms across his breast.
_Signs of affirmation or approval, and of negation or disapproval:
nodding and shaking the head_.—I was curious to ascertain how far the
common signs used by us in affirmation and negation were general
throughout the world. These signs are indeed to a certain extent
expressive of our feelings, as we give a vertical nod of approval with
a smile to our children, when we approve of their conduct; and shake
our heads laterally with a frown, when we disapprove. With infants, the
first act of denial consists in refusing food; and I repeatedly noticed
with my own infants, that they did so by withdrawing their heads
laterally from the breast, or from anything offered them in a spoon. In
accepting food and taking it into their mouths, they incline their
heads forwards. Since making these observations I have been informed
that the same idea had occurred to Charma.[1117] It deserves notice
that in accepting or taking food, there is only a single movement
forward, and a single nod implies an affirmation. On the other hand, in
refusing food, especially if it be pressed on them, children frequently
move their heads several times from side to side, as we do in shaking
our heads in negation. Moreover, in the case of refusal, the head is
not rarely thrown backwards, or the mouth is closed, so that these
movements might likewise come to serve as signs of negation. Mr.
Wedgwood remarks on this subject,[1118] that “when the voice is exerted
with closed teeth or lips, it produces the sound of the letter _n_ or
_m_. Hence we may account for the use of the particle _ne_ to signify
negation, and possibly also of the Greek mh in the same sense.”
That these signs are innate or instinctive, at least with Anglo-Saxons,
is rendered highly probable by the blind and deaf Laura Bridgman
“constantly accompanying her _yes_ with the common affirmative nod, and
her _no_ with our negative shake of the head.” Had not Mr. Lieber
stated to the contrary,[1119] I should have imagined that these
gestures might have been acquired or learnt by her, considering her
wonderful sense of touch and appreciation of the movements of others.
With microcephalous idiots, who are so degraded that they never learn
to speak, one of them is described by Vogt,[1120] as answering, when
asked whether he wished for more food or drink, by inclining or shaking
his head. Schmalz, in his remarkable dissertation on the education of
the deaf and dumb, as well as of children raised only one degree above
idiotcy, assumes that they can always both make and understand the
common signs of affirmation and negation.[1121]
Nevertheless if we look to the various races of man, these signs are
not so universally employed as I should have expected; yet they seem
too general to be ranked as altogether conventional or artificial. My
informants assert that both signs are used by the Malays, by the
natives of Ceylon, the Chinese, the negroes of the Guinea coast, and,
according to Gaika, by the Kafirs of South Africa, though with these
latter people Mrs. Barber has never seen a lateral shake used as a
negative. With respect to the Australians, seven observers agree that a
nod is given in affirmation; five agree about a lateral shake in
negation, accompanied or not by some word; but Mr. Dyson Lacy has never
seen this latter sign in Queensland, and Mr. Bulmer says that in Gipps’
Land a negative is expressed by throwing the head a little backwards
and putting out the tongue. At the northern extremity of the continent,
near Torres Straits, the natives when uttering a negative “don’t shake
the head with it, but holding up the right hand, shake it by turning it
half round and back again two or three times.”[1122] The throwing back
of the head with a cluck of the tongue is said to be used as a negative
by the modern Greeks and Turks, the latter people expressing _yes_ by a
movement like that made by us when we shake our heads.[1123] The
Abyssinians, as I am informed by Captain Speedy, express a negative by
jerking the head to the right shoulder, together with a slight cluck,
the mouth being closed; an affirmation is expressed by the head being
thrown backwards and the eyebrows raised for an instant. The Tagals of
Luzon, in the Philippine Archipelago, as I hear from Dr. Adolf Meyer,
when they say “yes,” also throw the head backwards. According to the
Rajah Brooke, the Dyaks of Borneo express an affirmation by raising the
eyebrows, and a negation by slightly contracting them, together with a
peculiar look from the eyes. With the Arabs on the Nile, Professor and
Mrs. Asa Gray concluded that nodding in affirmation was rare, whilst
shaking the head in negation was never used, and was not even
understood by them. With the Esquimaux[1124] a nod means _yes_ and a
wink _no_. The New Zealanders “elevate the head and chin in place of
nodding acquiescence.”[1125]
With the Hindoos Mr. H. Erskine concludes from inquiries made from
experienced Europeans, and from native gentlemen, that the signs of
affirmation and negation vary—a nod and a lateral shake being sometimes
used as we do; but a negative is more commonly expressed by the head
being thrown suddenly backwards and a little to one side, with a cluck
of the tongue. What the meaning may be of this cluck of the tongue,
which has been observed with various people, I cannot imagine. A native
gentleman stated that affirmation is frequently shown by the head being
thrown to the left. I asked Mr. Scott to attend particularly to this
point, and, after repeated observations, he believes that a vertical
nod is not commonly used by the natives in affirmation, but that the
head is first thrown backwards either to the left or right, and then
jerked obliquely forwards only once. This movement would perhaps have
been described by a less careful observer as a lateral shake. He also
states that in negation the head is usually held nearly upright, and
shaken several times.
Mr. Bridges informs me that the Fuegians nod their heads vertically in
affirmation, and shake them laterally in denial. With the wild Indians
of North America, according to Mr. Washington Matthews, nodding and
shaking the head have been learnt from Europeans, and are not naturally
employed. They express affirmation by describing with the hand (all the
fingers except the index being flexed) a curve downwards and outwards
from the body, whilst negation is expressed by moving the open hand
outwards, with the palm facing inwards. Other observers state that the
sign of affirmation with these Indians is the forefinger being raised,
and then lowered and pointed to the ground, or the hand is waved
straight forward from the face; and that the sign of negation is the
finger or whole hand shaken from side to side.[1126] This latter
movement probably represents in all cases the lateral shaking of the
head. The Italians are said in like manner to move the lifted finger
from right to left in negation, as indeed we English sometimes do.
On the whole we find considerable diversity in the signs of affirmation
and negation in the different races of man. With respect to negation,
if we admit that the shaking of the finger or hand from side to side is
symbolic of the lateral movement of the head; and if we admit that the
sudden backward movement of the head represents one of the actions
often practised by young children in refusing food, then there is much
uniformity throughout the world in the signs of negation, and we can
see how they originated. The most marked exceptions are presented by
the Arabs, Esquimaux, some Australian tribes, and Dyaks. With the
latter a frown is the sign of negation, and with us frowning often
accompanies a lateral shake of the head.
With respect to nodding in affirmation, the exceptions are rather more
numerous, namely with some of the Hindoos, with the Turks, Abyssinians,
Dyaks, Tagals, and New Zealanders. The eyebrows are sometimes raised in
affirmation, and as a person in bending his head forwards and downwards
naturally looks up to the person whom he addresses, he will be apt to
raise his eyebrows, and this sign may thus have arisen as an
abbreviation. So again with the New Zealanders, the lifting up the chin
and head in affirmation may perhaps represent in an abbreviated form
the upward movement of the head after it has been nodded forwards and
downwards.