The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin (adult books to read TXT) 📕

When, on the other hand, we wish to exclude any odour, the contraction, I presume, affects only the anterior part of the nostrils.

[4] `Mimik und Physiognomik,’ ss. 84, 93. Gratiolet (ibid. p.

155) takes nearly the same view with Dr. Piderit respecting the expression of contempt and disgust.

[5] Scorn implies a strong form of contempt; and one of the roots of the word `scorn’ means, according to Mr. Wedgwood (Dict. of English Etymology, vol. iii. p. 125), ordure or dirt.

A person who is scorned is treated like dirt.

Various odd little gestures likewise indicate contempt; for instance, snapping one’s fingers. This, as Mr. Taylor remarks,[6] “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.

[6] `Early History of Mankind,’ 2nd edit. 1870, p. 45.

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.[7]

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.[8]

[7] See, to this effect, Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood’s Introduction to the `Dictionary of English Etymology,’ 2nd edit.

1872, p. xxxvii.

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.

[8] Duchenne believes that in the eversion of the lower lip, the corners are drawn downwards by the depressores anguli oris.

Henle (Handbuch d. Anat. des Menschen, 1858, B. i. s. 151) concludes that this is effected by the musculus quadratus menti.

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.[9] 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.

[9] As quoted by Tylor, `Primitive Culture,’ 1871, vol. i. p. 169.

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.”

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.[11]

[10] Both these quotations are given by Mr. H. Wedgwood, `On the Origin of Language,’ 1866, p. 75.

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