Catharsis (from Greek κάθαρσις katharsis meaning "purification" or "cleansing") is the purification

and purgation of emotions—particularly pity and fear—through art[1] or any extreme change in
emotion that results in renewal and restoration.[2][3] It is a metaphor originally used by Aristotle in
the Poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator to the effect of a cathartic on
the body.[4][5]

Contents

• 1Dramatic uses
o 1.1Purgation and purification
o 1.2Intellectual clarification
o 1.3Literary analysis of catharsis
o 1.4Attempts to subvert catharsis
• 2"Catharsis" before tragedy
• 3Therapeutic uses
• 4Social catharsis
o 4.1Stages
o 4.2Motives
o 4.3The grapevine effect
o 4.4Collective catharsis
o 4.5Effect on emotional recovery
• 5See also
• 6Notes
• 7References
• 8External links

Dramatic uses[edit]
Catharsis is a term in dramatic art that describes the effect of tragedy (or comedy and quite possibly
other artistic forms)[6] principally on the audience (although some have speculated on characters in
the drama as well). Nowhere does Aristotle explain the meaning of "catharsis" as he is using that
term in the definition of tragedy in the Poetics(1449b21-28). G. F. Else argues that traditional, widely
held interpretations of catharsis as "purification" or "purgation" have no basis in the text of
the Poetics, but are derived from the use of catharsis in other Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian
contexts.[7] For this reason, a number of diverse interpretations of the meaning of this term have
arisen. The term is often discussed along with Aristotle's concept of anagnorisis.
D. W. Lucas, in an authoritative edition of the Poetics, comprehensively covers the various nuances
inherent in the meaning of the term in an Appendix devoted to "Pity, Fear, and Katharsis".[8] Lucas
recognizes the possibility of catharsis bearing some aspect of the meaning of "purification, purgation,
and 'intellectual clarification'" although his discussion of these terms is not always, or perhaps often,
in the precise form with which other influential scholars have treated them. Lucas himself does not
accept any one of these interpretations as his own but adopts a rather different one based on "the
Greek doctrine of Humours" which has not received wide subsequent acceptance. Purgation and
purification, used in previous centuries, as the common interpretations of catharsis are still in wide
use today.[9] More recently, in the twentieth century, the interpretation of catharsis as "intellectual
clarification" has arisen as a rival to the older views in describing the effect of catharsis on members
of the audience.

Purgation and purification[edit]

In his works prior to the Poetics, Aristotle had used the term catharsis purely in its medical sense
(usually referring to the evacuation of the katamenia—the menstrual fluid or other reproductive
material).[10] Here, however, he employs it as a medical metaphor. F. L. Lucas maintains, therefore,
that purification and cleansing are not proper translations for catharsis; that it should rather be
rendered as purgation. "It is the human soul that is purged of its excessive passions."[11] Gerald F.
Else made the following argument against the "purgation" theory: "It presupposes that we come to
the tragic drama (unconsciously, if you will) as patients to be cured, relieved, restored to psychic
health. But there is not a word to support this in the "Poetics", not a hint that the end of drama is to
cure or alleviate pathological states. On the contrary it is evident in every line of the work that
Aristotle is presupposing 'normal' auditors, normal states of mind and feeling, normal emotional and
aesthetic experience."[12]
Lessing sidesteps the medical attribution. He translates catharsis as a purification, an experience
that brings pity and fear into their proper balance: "In real life", he explained, "men are sometimes
too much addicted to pity or fear, sometimes too little; tragedy brings them back to a virtuous and
happy mean."[13] Tragedy is then a corrective; through watching tragedy, the audience learns how to
feel these emotions at proper levels.

Intellectual clarification[edit]
In the twentieth century a paradigm shift took place in the interpretation of catharsis with a number of
scholars contributing to the argument in support of the intellectual clarification concept.[14] The
clarification theory of catharsis would be fully consistent, as other interpretations are not, with
Aristotle's argument in chapter 4 of the Poetics (1448b4-17) that the essential pleasure of mimesis is
the intellectual pleasure of "learning and inference".
It is generally understood that Aristotle's theory of mimesis and catharsis are responses to Plato's
negative view of artistic mimesis on an audience. Plato argued that the most common forms of
artistic mimesis were designed to evoke from an audience powerful emotions such as pity, fear, and
ridicule which override the rational control that defines the highest level of our humanity and lead us
to wallow unacceptably in the overindulgence of emotion and passion. Aristotle's concept of
catharsis, in all of the major senses attributed to it, contradicts Plato's view by providing a
mechanism that generates the rational control of irrational emotions. All of the commonly held
interpretations of catharsis, purgation, purification, and clarification are considered by most scholars
to represent a homeopathic process in which pity and fear accomplish the catharsis of emotions like
themselves. For an alternate view of catharsis as an allopathic process in which pity and fear
produce a catharsis of emotions unlike pity and fear, see E. Belfiore, Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on
Plot and Emotion. Princeton, 1992, 260 ff.

Literary analysis of catharsis[edit]

The following analysis by E. R. Dodds, directed at the character of Oedipus in the paradigmatic
Aristotelian tragedy, Oedipus Rex, incorporates all three of the aforementioned interpretations of
catharsis: purgation, purification, intellectual clarification:
...what fascinates us is the spectacle of a man freely choosing, from the highest motives a series of
actions which lead to his own ruin. Oedipus might have left the plague to take its course; but pity for
the sufferings of his people compelled him to consult Delphi. When Apollo's word came back, he
might still have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated; but piety and justice required him to act. He
need not have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban herdsman; but because he cannot rest
content with a lie, he must tear away the last veil from the illusion in which he has lived so long.
Teiresias, Jocasta, the herdsman, each in turn tries to stop him, but in vain; he must read the last
riddle, the riddle of his own life. The immediate cause of Oedipus' ruin is not "fate or "the gods"—no
oracle said that he must discover the truth—and still less does it lie in his own weakness; what
causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth.[15]
Attempts to subvert catharsis[edit]
There have been, for political or aesthetic reasons, deliberate attempts made to subvert the effect of
catharsis in theatre. For example, Bertolt Brecht viewed catharsis as a pap (pabulum) for
the bourgeois theatre audience, and designed dramas which left significant emotions unresolved,
intending to force social action upon the audience. Brecht then identified the concept of catharsis
with the notion of identification of the spectator, meaning a complete adhesion of the viewer to the
dramatic actions and characters. Brecht reasoned that the absence of a cathartic resolution would
require the audience to take political action in the real world, in order to fill the emotional gap they
had experienced vicariously. This technique can be seen as early as his agit-prop play The
Measures Taken, and is mostly the source of his invention of an epic theatre, based on a distancing
effect(Verfremdungseffekt) between the viewer and the representation or portrayal of
characters.[16][citation needed]

"Catharsis" before tragedy[edit]

Catharsis before the sixth-century rise of tragedy is, for the Western World, essentially a historical
footnote to the Aristotelian conception. The practice of purification had not yet appeared in Homer,
as later Greek commentators noted:[17] the Aithiopis, an epic set in the Trojan War cycle, narrates the
purification of Achilles after his murder of Thersites. Catharsis describes the result of measures
taken to cleanse away blood-guilt—"blood is purified through blood",[18] a process in the development
of Hellenistic culture in which the oracle of Delphi took a prominent role. The classic example—
Orestes—belongs to tragedy, but the procedure given by Aeschylus is ancient: the blood of a
sacrificed piglet is allowed to wash over the blood-polluted man, and running water washes away the
blood.[19] The identical ritual is represented, Burkert informs us, on a krater found at Canicattini,
wherein it is shown being employed to cure the daughters of Proetus from their madness, caused by
some ritual transgression.[20] To the question of whether the ritual obtains atonement for the subject,
or just healing, Burkert answers: "To raise the question is to see the irrelevance of this distinction".[20]

Therapeutic uses[edit]
In psychology, the term was first employed by Sigmund Freud's colleague Josef Breuer (1842–
1925), who developed a cathartic method of treatment using hypnosis for persons suffering from
intensive hysteria. While under hypnosis, Breuer's patients were able to
recall traumatic experiences, and through the process of expressing the original emotions that had
been repressed and forgotten, they were relieved of their hysteric symptoms. Catharsis was also
central to Freud's concept of psychoanalysis, but he replaced hypnosis with free association.[21]
The term catharsis has also been adopted by modern psychotherapy, particularly Freudian
psychoanalysis, to describe the act of expressing, or more accurately, experiencing the deep
emotions often associated with events in the individual's past which had originally been repressed or
ignored, and had never been adequately addressed or experienced.
There has been much debate about the use of catharsis in the reduction of anger. Some scholars
believe that "blowing off steam" may reduce physiological stress in the short term, but this reduction
may act as a reward mechanism, reinforcing the behavior and promoting future
outbursts.[22][23][24][25] However, other studies have suggested that using violent media may decrease
hostility under periods of stress.[26] Legal scholars have linked "catharsis" to "closure"[27] (an
individual's desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity) and
"satisfaction" which can be applied to affective strategies as diverse as retribution, on one hand, and
forgiveness on the other.[28] There's no "one size fits all" definition of "catharsis", therefore this does
not allow a clear definition of its use in therapeutic terms.[29]
Social catharsis[edit]
Emotional situations can elicit physiological, behavioral, cognitive, expressive, and subjective
changes in individuals. Affected individuals often use social sharing as a cathartic release of
emotions. Bernard Rimé studies the patterns of social sharing after emotional experiences. His
works suggest that individuals seek social outlets in an attempt to modify the situation and restore
personal homeostatic balance.
Rimé found that 80–95% of emotional episodes are shared. The affected individuals talk about the
emotional experience recurrently to people around them throughout the following hours, days, or
weeks. These results indicate that this response is irrespective of emotional valence, gender,
education, and culture. His studies also found that social sharing of emotion increases as the
intensity of the emotion increases.[30]

Stages[edit]
Émile Durkheim[31] proposed emotional stages of social sharing:

1. Directly after emotional effects, the emotions are shared. Through sharing, there is a
reciprocal stimulation of emotions and emotional communion.
2. This leads to social effects like social integration and strengthening of beliefs.
3. Finally, individuals experience a renewed trust in life, strength, and self-confidence.
Motives[edit]
Affect scientists have found differences in motives for social sharing of positive and negative
emotions.
(1) Positive emotion
A study by Langston[32] found that individuals share positive events to capitalize on the positive
emotions they elicit. Reminiscing the positive experience augments positive affects like temporary
mood and longer-term well-being. A study by Gable et al.[33] confirmed Langston's "capitalization"
theory by demonstrating that relationship quality is enhanced when partners are responsive to
positive recollections. The responsiveness increased levels of intimacy and satisfaction within the
relationship. In general, the motives behind social sharing of positive events are to recall the positive
emotions, inform others, and gain attention from others. All three motives are representatives of
capitalization.
(2) Negative emotion
Rimé studies suggest that the motives behind social sharing of negative emotions are to vent,
understand, bond, and gain social support. Negatively affected individuals often seek life meaning
and emotional support to combat feelings of loneliness after a tragic event.[30]

The grapevine effect[edit]

If emotions are shared socially and elicits emotion in the listener then the listener will likely share
what they heard with other people. Rimé calls this process "secondary social sharing". If this
repeats, it is then called "tertiary social sharing".[30]

Collective catharsis[edit]
Collective emotional events share similar responses. When communities are affected by an
emotional event, members repetitively share emotional experiences. After the 2001 New York and
the 2004 Madrid terrorist attacks, more than 80% of respondents shared their emotional experience
with others.[34] According to Rimé, every sharing round elicits emotional reactivation in the sender
and the receiver. This then reactivates the need to share in both. Social sharing throughout the
community leads to high amounts of emotional recollection and "emotional overheating".
Pennebaker and Harber[35] defined three stages of collective responses to emotional events.
In the first stage, a state of "emergency" takes place in the first month after the emotional event. In
this stage, there is an abundance of thoughts, talks, media coverage, and social integration based
on the event.
In the second stage, the "plateau" occurs in the second month. Abundant thoughts remain, but the
amount of talks, media coverage, and social integration decreases.
In the third stage, the "extinction" occurs after the second month. There is a return to normalcy.

Effect on emotional recovery[edit]

This cathartic release of emotions is often believed to be therapeutic for affected individuals. Many
therapeutic mechanisms have been seen to aid in emotional recovery. One example is
"interpersonal emotion regulation", in which listeners help to modify the affected individual's affective
state by using certain strategies.[36] Expressive writing is another common mechanism for catharsis.
Joanne Frattaroli[37] published a meta-analysis suggesting that written disclosure of information,
thoughts, and feelings enhances mental health.
However, other studies question the benefits of social catharsis. Finkenauer and colleagues[38] found
that non-shared memories were no more emotionally triggering than shared ones. Other studies
have also failed to prove that social catharsis leads to any degree of emotional recovery. Zech and
Rimé[39] asked participants to recall and share a negative experience with an experimenter. When
compared with the control group that only discussed unemotional topics, there was no correlation
between emotional sharing and emotional recovery.
Some studies even found adverse effects of social catharsis. Contrary to the Frattaroli study, Sbarra
and colleagues[40] found expressive writing to greatly impede emotional recovery following a marital
separation. Similar findings have been published regarding trauma recovery. A group intervention
technique is often used on disaster victims to prevent trauma-related disorders. However, meta-
analysis showed negative effects of this cathartic "therapy".[41]