On the Fringe of Intelligence. Emotion and Rationality in Television Series Fringe.

(1)

ON THE FRINGE OF INTELLIGENCE

E

MOTION AND RATIONALITY IN TELEVISION SERIES

F

RINGE

Daphne Boutens 5878047

MA Thesis 30 June 2014

Dhr. Dr. G. W. Van der Pol

MA Media Studies: Film Studies

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

In humanism the relation between rationality and emotion has been approached in a Cartesian dualistic manner, in which rationality has been central and emotion fundamentally different from rationality. However, the integration of body and mind into a holistic unity in posthuman theory suggests a more integrated concept of emotion and rationality, but a description of a new concept of intelligence that integrates emotion and rationality is left untouched. The theoretical concepts of bounded rationality, emotional intelligence and imagination shine a new light on the rationality/emotion dualism in the context of psychology and the process of individual decision-making. The representation of these concepts in television series Fringe provides an integrated understanding of emotion and rationality, in which intelligence as the ability to make appropriate decisions is dependent on both emotion and rationality. Fringe demonstrates that the posthuman subject is an extended emotional being that shapes others and is shaped by the emotions of others.

(4)

(5)

5

Acknowledgements

The process of writing this Master thesis has been a struggle as well as an opportunity to immerse myself in my personal preference for philosophy, psychology and my favourite television series. The reconciliation of my personal interests with the academic requirements of a thesis would not have been possible without the people that were supportive of me in this past year.

First of all I would like to thank my supervisor Floris Paalman from the University of Amsterdam for being patient with me, giving me the freedom to explore my ideas and giving me the guidance that I needed. Also, I thank Marc van Leeuwen who has advised me on structure and who has helped me to make some practical decisions. Then, last but not least, I thank my parents for the moral support and the brainstorming sessions about Walter, Observers and cyborgs.

(8)

(9)

9

Introduction

I had been advised early in life that sound decisions came from a cool head, that emotions and reason did not mix any more than oil and water. (Damasio 1994, p. xi) This quote by Antonio Damasio regarding his upbringing illustrates the antagonism between rationality and emotion in the humanist conception of the human being, in which rationality is superior to emotion. In humanism the human being has been defined by his 'supreme, utterly rational intelligence' (Seaman 2007, p. 246), which makes him fundamentally different from animals and machines (Badmington 2000, p. 3). This idea of the human is set to the

background of explaining our existence through the supernatural explanation of the church in the Middle Ages. With humanism rationality has given man a central position in the world as superior being that manipulates that world 'in accord with his own wishes' (Seaman 2007, p. 246). This superior position of rationality and the central position of the human being in the world originates from Descartes proposition 'I think, therefore I am' that divides the human subject into body and mind and that suggests that the mind's capacity to reason is what makes us human and what demarcates the non-human. In addition to this Descartes thought of the emotions as physical distractions that need to be mastered and regulated through reason, the active part of the soul (Descartes 1650, p. 40-41).

Later thinkers such as Marx, Freud and Foucault, however, did not think about the human subject as a fully rational being that manipulates his environment, but as a being whose thinking is a product of social and historical context and unconscious desires (Badmington 2000, p. 5). With their theories Marx, Freud and Foucault have changed the perspective of human being from a view that man's thinking mind determines the outside world, to a view that the outside world determines man's thinking mind. This has rendered the notion of rationality, as that which gives man its superior central position in the world, in need of revision.

Posthumanism and science fiction

In posthumanism Descartes' notion of rationality is being revised by an integration of body and mind into a holistic unity and thereby leaving behind the superior position of the rational mind over the body. Because in posthumanism the mind and the body are not fundamentally different, the rational mind loses its superior position over the body. Also, where 'humanists

(10)

10 saw themselves as distinct beings, in an antagonistic relationship with their surroundings[,] posthumans (...) regard their being as embodied in an extended technological world' (Pepperell 2003, p. 187). This means that because in posthumanism the mind and body are regarded as continuous with the outside world, the idea of human being as fundamentally different from nature and technology is left behind entirely. It is precisely the continuity of the mind, the body and the (technological) environment which renders the rational mind as

demarcation of the human untenable. In this manner posthumanism replaces the autonomy of the humanist subject with the uncertainty of the posthuman fragmented identity.

Popular cultural expressions of the posthuman subject reflect on this uncertainty of identity and explore the idea of what it is that makes humans human. Posthumanist Myra Seaman says that the remake of television series Battlestar Galactica (SciFi-Channel, 2004-2009) shows that emotion is the most salient feature of humanity by exploring the changes that the non-human Cylons experience while becoming human (Seaman 2007, p. 261). These changes mean becoming physically and emotionally vulnerable, becoming susceptible to viruses and engaging in love relationships, which makes the Cylons experience life

affectively, and thus as humans (Seaman 2007, p. 261). In Dark City (Alex Proyas, 1998) it is not the body of protagonist Murdoch, but the memory of all aspects of individual identity that is altered over and over again by an alien species. As Seaman shows, although Murdoch loses his individual identity and gains the aliens' superpowers through a failed experiment, he does not become soulless - or emotionless - like the aliens. Dark City seems to say that regardless of the lack of authenticity of memory or superhuman powers, the constant essence of human being is emotion (Seaman 2007, p. 262). So, in contrast to the humanist traditional views of the human that has labelled rationality the defining human characteristic, the portrayal of posthuman subjects usually assign emotion as the essence of human being and the differentiating factor between the human and the non-human (Seaman 2007, p. 249).

Besides emotion demarcating the human, as shown in Battlestar Galactica and Dark

City, science fiction narratives often present emotions as 'a crucial part of humanity,

conventionally portrayed as superior to the cold reason of machines' (Koistinen 2011, p. 258). From the perspective of feminist and gender research, Aino-Kaisa Koistinen shows how in the remake of Battlestar Galactica and V (ABC, 2009-2011) humanity is defined against the non-human emotion-lacking other. Emotional encounters are contrasted with 'the cold reason of machines' by representing non-human races as unemotional and highly rational beings (Koistinen 2011, p. 258). Non-human emotion-lacking races, like Battlestar Galactica's Cylons and V's Visitors, can attain humanness through attaining emotions by adopting a

(11)

11 human skin and performing these emotions through their skin by engaging in love

relationships, reproduction and motherhood (Koistinen 2011). Likewise, the act of torture dehumanizes them, because of the lack of compassion that is in the act of torture (Koistinen 2011, p. 257). Where their non-humanness is determined through being highly and purely rational or engaging in torture activities and thus lacking emotions, their humanness is performed through the emotional experience of parenthood.

By contrasting human emotion with non-human rationality, science fiction draws on the dualistic concept of rationality and emotion where it concerns human identity, only

appointing emotion as the human defining element instead of rationality. The focus of popular science fiction, like Battlestar Galactica and Dark City, and posthuman theories on the

question of (post)human identity has left the relationship between rationality and emotion in the process of individual decision-making underexposed, whereas their rejection of humanist notions of rationality and emotion does raise a question about a new understanding of the relation between rationality and emotion that would be more in line with the holistic view that posthuman theory suggests. By looking at decision-making in science fiction television, the interplay of emotions and rationality can be carefully examined. Television series Fringe couples the rationality of science with the consequences of human emotions in decision-making, which provides all sorts of situations that appeal to rationality and the emotions. These situations show the interrelationship between the two in different proportions in different situations. Therefore, Fringe provides an allegorical model for understanding an integrated relationship between rationality and emotion and learning in which situations they relate to each other in what way. This integrated relationship would be compatible with the holistic view of posthuman theory contrary to the dualistic approach inherited from

humanism. How Fringe presents this new relationship between rationality and emotion that is compatible with posthuman theory, will become clear through what factors Fringe presents as determining the interplay of emotions and rationality in decision-making.

Cognitive theories on emotion and rationality

Before going into the specifics of Fringe as a case study it is important to provide a cognitivist understanding of the relationship of rationality and emotion. Even though in posthumanism the focus remains on revising the relation between mind, body and world, in the fields of psychology and neuroscience new insights were gained, since the 1980's, into the workings of the emotions and their relation to rational thinking, which shine a new light on

(12)

12 the rationality/emotion dualism. This was possible because the capacity of human rationality had been criticised through the concept of bounded rationality. The term was coined by psychologist and economist Herbert Simon in Models of Man (1957) and was an attempt to provide a realistic representation of human decision-making behaviour as a replacement of the dualistic approach that deems human behaviour as either rational or irrational (Hanoch 2001, p. 2). Bounded rationality is the idea that 'rationality is constrained (...) since we possess limited computational ability and selective memory and perception' (Hanoch 2001, p. 2). The concept of bounded rationality rejects the idea that human behaviour is completely rational and that people are capable of approaching every situation with the tools of rationality. This opens up space for an understanding of an extra-rational tool that guides human decision-making.

After research into the workings of the emotions in the 1980's, in psychology a new understanding of intelligence emerged that moved away from the 'utterly rational' (Seaman 2007, p. 246) conception of intelligence and that was more in line with bounded rationality. Drawing on the conventional view of intelligence as 'hyper-rational' (Goleman 1996, p. 69), Psychologist Daniel Goleman points out that 'academic intelligence' is no guarantee for success and does not prepare people for the unpredictable and confusing situations in life (Goleman 1996, p. 62). So, other factors must be at play in successful decision-making. Goleman claims that a person's ability to handle emotions is of major importance for making successful decisions (Goleman 1996, p. 63). Psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer coined the term emotional intelligence to describe this general ability to understand and control one's own and others' emotions to enhance rational thought (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 189). This ability relies on the appraisal, expression and regulation of the emotions in the self and in others, and the utilization of the emotions in flexible planning, creative thinking, redirected attention and motivation (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 190). The concept of

emotional intelligence has addressed the importance of emotional awareness and control

alongside, and for the benefit of, the ability to make rational decisions. This has provided a new understanding of intelligence that includes its intersection with emotion and the importance of understanding emotions in the decision-making process.

Not only in psychology the perspective on the relation between emotion and rationality has changed, but also in neuroscience the dualistic approach of intelligence has been contested. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has directly criticized Descartes' split of the mind from the brain and the body in his book Descartes' Error (1994). Damasio has

(13)

13 that the mind is embodied and that bodily based emotions play a large role in the process of rational decision making. Damasio says that 'body states' produce emotions (Damasio 1994, p. 173). The experiences of body states and the emotions they produce are jointly stored in our brain as literal 'gut feelings', which Damasio has called somatic markers (Damasio 1994, p. 173). Every time we make a decision these somatic markers filter out the negative course of events by way of predicting the future along the lines of past emotional experiences of the body. This way emotions guide our reasoning in a way that we make better decisions than in the case that we would base our decisions solely on reason. The Somatic Marker Hypothesis equates emotion and reason instead of favouring the one, reason, over the other, emotion. Moreover, Damasio's theory describes a fully integrated relationship between emotion and rationality.

The ability to imagine future situations and consequences is very important in the

Somatic Marker Hypothesis. Damasio's data about his patients who have suffered damage to

the part of the brain that is responsible for the experience of feelings has shown that these patients not only have become emotionally flat, but also have lost their ability to make

successful decisions (Hanoch 2002, p. 14). This incapability for decision-making is caused by insensitivity to future consequences (Hanoch 2002, p. 14). Therefore, imagination can be considered to be a decision-making tool that depends on emotions. So, if one wants to find out in what way a person bases his decisions on emotions, imagination is the place to look.

Someone can imagine the future consequences of a decision and how he or she feels about the imagined consequence and base one's decision on that imagination.

Quality TV and Fringe

These theories that concern the relation between emotion and rationality through the concepts of bounded rationality, emotional intelligence and imagination can be made concrete by the fiction of qualitative television series. In the 1990's a new aesthetic approach to television was taken on by American 'quality television', which was boosted by cable networks like HBO, that distinguished itself from 'regular television' by producing series with high production values, stylistic integrity and complex narrative structures with content worthy of critical attention (Cardwell 2007, p. 24-26). Series like Twin Peaks (ABC, 1990-1991), The Sopranos (HBO, 1999-2007) and The West Wing (NBC, 1999-2006) 'had literary and cinematic

ambitions (...), complex and sophisticated serialized narratives and inter-series 'mythologies'' (Thompson 2007, p. xix). Nowadays, the 'quality TV aesthetic' is a formula that has become

(14)

14 the rule rather than the exception in American television. Popular series such as Lost (ABC, 2004-2010), The Wire (HBO, 2002-2008) and Fringe as well, have become new narrative forms that equal or even surpass cinema in its ability to construct a form of storytelling that resembles real life in that it has a beginning, a middle and an end, but takes the time of several years to delay resolutions, expand imaginary worlds and elaborate the middles (Pearson 2007, p. 247). Therefore, a quality TV series like Fringe provides deep characters in a range of situations that tell its story in a far more nuanced manner than films that deal with the same subject matter of emotion and rationality like Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) or

Equilibrium (Kurt Wimmer, 2002).

Fringe revolves around three main characters who work together to solve cases of

'fringe phenomena'. Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) is an FBI agent of the Fringe Division, who is assigned to a series of strange cases that seem to be related to the former research of scientist Walter Bishop (John Noble). Walter Bishop had worked in the field of fringe

science, an area of science that involved experimental research on subjects like mind control, teleportation, astral projection, invisibility, genetic mutation and reanimation. In the present day someone is experimenting with Walter's research, only the whole world is a lab. Strange events are happening all over the world that cannot be explained by mainstream scientific theories. Therefore Olivia turns to Walter for help, who has been institutionalized for seventeen years and has become mentally unstable. In order to get Walter out of the psychiatric hospital Olivia tracks down his son, Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson), who is

estranged from his father and will, somewhat unwillingly, function as his guardian. Being just as brilliant as his father with an IQ of 190 Peter functions as an interpreter of Walter's

scientific explanations and helps to execute them. This way Walter and Peter help Olivia to unravel the mystery behind the events, but the Fringe team also learns about Walter's past of unethical research methods. While discovering a parallel universe, an organization that wants to destruct the world through technology and the invasion of the world by evolved humans from the future called The Observers, the Fringe team also discovers that Walter has stolen Peter from another universe when Peter was a child, which has been the catalyst for most of the destruction that the Fringe team encounters. This has troubled the relationship between Walter and Peter, but their collaboration on Fringe cases leads to the developing and restoring of their relationship as father and son. As they grow closer throughout the series and gain mutual understanding, Walter's mental health becomes better as he finds forgiveness. Walter eventually redeems himself as a father by sacrificing himself to save humanity and Peter in

(15)

15 The 'fringe phenomena' that Fringe presents belong more to speculative fiction than science fiction, but what qualifies Fringe as a science fiction series, says physicist Kevin Grazier, is that it always gives a physical basis that defers to the scientific and the rational (Grazier 2011, p. 1). Also, according to writer and filmmaker David Dylan Thomas, what sets

Fringe apart from a series like The X-Files (FOX, 1993-2002) is that it shifts the fear for the

paranormal to the fear for the technological (Thomas 2011, p. 8), but, says Thomas, Fringe does not lay the blame on the technology itself, but on the emotional frailty of humans, of which the consequences are amplified by technology (Thomas 2011, p. 15). So, while Fringe maintains a scientific and rational method of explaining the world, it emphasizes that human emotion is the driving force that determines how far and in what way that rationality and technology will take us.

Astronomer and science fiction novelist Mike Brotherton takes it another step further by saying that Fringe not only emphasizes emotion as a motivational force, but moreover as extra part of the scientific explanation of the world. By making human relationships interfere with each other and interact across universes, Brotherton says, Fringe intertwines science with human desire, 'lending an emotional component to the equation' (Brotherton 2011, p. 91). This way Fringe positions itself in a scientific and rational setting with an influential role of emotions within that setting. It is not yet clear however how emotions and rationality specifically relate to each other in such an equation and what other variables determine the outcome of the equation when deliberating a decision. This is of crucial importance for understanding Fringe, because the whole series is based on the decision of Walter to steal Peter from the other universe and it revises the judgment of that decision throughout the series through both rational and emotional deliberation of choices.

To understand what role Fringe assigns to emotion and to rationality and how they both work together to make intelligent choices, there has to be taken a closer look at the individual situations that Fringe provides in which a choice has to be made which appeals to rationality and emotions in a certain way. The analysis of Fringe concerns the representation of the relation between emotion and rationality as presented by the characters of Fringe. Therefore, the spectator's 'affective processing of the cinematic image' (Laine 2006) will be left out of account1.

To determine which situations in Fringe are to be analyzed there will be taken account

1

Tarja Laine discusses how the aesthetics of the cinematic image generates emotion in the spectator as embodied affect. This direct affective experience of the image generates meaning in the spectator that constitutes the perception of the image (Laine 2006).

(16)

16 of three concepts through which science fiction television deals with emotions particularly. Earlier in this introduction those concepts have already been mentioned as parenthood, as the love encounter that determines humanness, torture, as the painful encounter that

dehumanizes, and the other, as the one who is not human and lacks emotion. Therefore,

parenthood, torture and the other will function as qualifiers for analyzing the relation

between rationality and emotion in Fringe. So, these three concepts determine what situations are chosen to be analyzed in the light of the discussed cognitive theories.

Every chapter focuses on one of the three main concepts from the theoretical

framework of cognitive theories on the relation between rationality and emotion. Chapter one focuses on bounded rationality and how the concept is reflected in Fringe through the

representation of perfect rationality in relation to the other and how emotions compensate insufficient rationality through bodily experiences, which will be connected to Damasio's

Somatic Marker Hypothesis. Chapter two focuses on emotional intelligence. This chapter

follows Walter's and an Observer's steps towards rationalizing their emotions in relation to their fatherhood. At last, chapter three handles the concept of imagination that follows from Damasio's theory about emotions and their importance for imagining the consequences of a decision. This chapter explores how in Fringe imagination is used as a tool to base a decision on the emotions someone has towards a future consequence, after which the conclusion connects the three separately handled concepts of bounded rationality, emotional intelligence and imagination into a new understanding of the relation between emotion and rationality that is more in line with the holistic view that posthuman theory suggests.

(17)

17

1. B

OUNDED RATIONALITY

:

A LIMITED CONCEPT OF RATIONALITY

1.1 The ideal of perfect rationality

In 1957 Hebert Simon introduced the idea that human rationality is not as perfect as we may have perceived it. In fact, we have limited computational ability and selective memory and perception (Hanoch 2002, p. 2). Simon called this limited form of rationality bounded

rationality. Implicit in this concept of bounded rationality is the ideal of an unlimited, perfect rationality in which 'all necessary information, including the probability of future

consequences of an event or decision, [and sufficient time] is accessible to the person faced with the need to make a decision' (Scherer 2011, p. 333). Unfortunately, this is an ideal and not how in reality people are confronted with decisions. As Yaniv Hanoch says: 'we are living in an unpredictable world, with limited knowledge of that world and with limited processing capabilities' (Hanoch 2002, p. 5).All these restraining factors make that our rationality is

bounded and that we miss pieces of the puzzle to form a perfect picture of how a decision can

be best made.

The ideal of perfect rationality is represented in science fiction film and television by the highly intelligent non-human "other" (Charland 1998, p. 67). According to Aino-Kaisa Koistinen, this 'othering creates a place for "us" and for those who are "not us"' (Koistinen, p. 251). To represent "the other" is to exemplify what is "not us". "Us" is therefore defined through what it is not. The Star Trek (1966-1969) character Mr. Spock is a classic example of the highly intelligent non-human "other". According to Louis Charland, Mr. Spock represents an important ideal of mental competence, which includes the guidance of logic alone and complete freedom from the disruptive influences of emotion (Charland 1998, p. 67). This way Mr. Spock, but also Battlestar Galactica's Cylons and V's Visitors are personifications of the ideal of perfect rationality. These characters are not only "others" because of their high level of intelligence, but also because they have no emotions. It is usually because of their lack of emotions that they are able to make cold rational decisions, not distracted by human emotions.

Perfect rationality then, as represented in science fiction television, is a Cartesian ideal that

(18)

18 1.1.1 The Observer as the personification of perfect rationality

In Fringe the non-human unemotional "other", and with that the ideal of perfect rationality, is represented by The Observers. The Observers are not aliens or artificial beings, but

posthumans from the future; they are what the human race will become after altering itself with technology. In 'The Arrival' (FOX, 30-09-2008) the Observer is introduced as a new mysterious character. This first scene featuring the Observer contains all the information to construct a first meaning of what he represents and all his other appearances build on the meaning of that first scene.

The Observer sits in a New York diner and looks out of the window. The Observer's features and clothing contribute to a businesslike and clean-cut appearance. He wears a suit and tie, he has no hair and no eyebrows and he is very pale. His pale bald head together with his expressionless face make him look strange, especially in contrast to the friendly smiling waitress that asks him if she can get him some coffee after she has got his attention. The Observer sums up his specific order without even greeting the waitress or answering her question. He orders a 'roast beef sandwich on a roll - meat raw as possible -, room

temperature water - no ice -' and eleven jalapenos on the side. The specificity of his order suggests that the Observer has thought his meal through a bit too much and suggests a precise calculation of the best temperature, size and cooking time.

He shifts his attention back on the outside by panning only his head to the side. He writes in his notebook without taking his eyes off the view (image 2). His body language is minimal and when he moves one part of his body the rest remains perfectly still. The Observer is very much in control of his body. When the waitress comes up to him with his order and asks if his writings are Korean or something, he answers with a brief 'no'. This makes the unfamiliar language and therefore the Observer even more unfamiliar. The

waitress' joke about her being afraid of missing something at Asian Studies is replied with an awkward silence and stare from the Observer. Despite the waitress' attempts of social

interaction, he is not interested in socializing with her and does not seem to really understand the joke either. His social behaviour can be described as unsympathetic and almost autistic. When he gets his meal, the Observer flavours it with the entire content of a jar of black

pepper, an equal amount of Tabasco and the eleven jalapenos. The way the Observer engorges the sandwich in just a few seconds suggests that he is not even slightly affected by the

(19)

19

Image 2. 'The Arrival'. Fringe. The Observer takes notes (00:00:55).

(20)

20 In a point-of-view shot two excavators and some construction workers are shown outside, which is followed by two zoom-ins on the construction workers and one of the excavators. The Observer is clearly watching the construction closely. In the next shot he checks the time on a pocket watch as if he is expecting something. Then he looks through a device that looks like binoculars (image 3). Through another point-of-view shot the binoculars appear anything but usual, showing all sorts of numbers, measurements and scanning people in view. The Observer's actions show that he is constantly measuring. He measures the time and he extracts all sorts of information with the binoculars and writes his results down. A shot of his

notebook shows an unfamiliar language that is written from right to left, instead of from left to right, as common in Western languages. The unfamiliarity of the language suggests that "we" are not able to comprehend "them", The Observers, because they communicate on a different level.

When The Observer has finished his meal, he checks the time again and writes more mystery down. Then everything starts to shake. The Observer however finishes the writing easily. While people all around him flee the diner as something big explodes on the

construction site, he calmly finishes his glass of room temperature water in a single gulp. Nothing seems to disconcert him. As a huge crane is about to collapse and a construction worker yells everybody to move, the Observer finds the time to carefully lay down the money to pay for his meal. The crane lands on the building but leaves the diner untouched. The Observer puts on his sunglasses and fedora to walk outside towards the place where the explosion happened. In a low angle shot the Observer stands on the edge of a crater and says into what looks like a mobile phone: "It has arrived".

When looking at Scherer's description of perfect rationality one more time - 'all necessary information, including the probability of future consequences of an event or decision is accessible to the person faced with the need to make a decision' (Scherer 2011, p. 333) - it seems that the representation of the Observer in the described scene fits this kind of rationality. The precise calculation of his meal, his empirical mode of gaining knowledge through observation and measurement and his clean-cut appearance show that the Observer is a rational being that collects all necessary information to calculate what best to do. He does this in a way that humans are normally not able to, which indicates a high level of intelligence and calculative capabilities. His calm demeanour during the explosion and the collapse of the crane moreover shows that the Observer knows exactly when what is going to happen. So, he must be able to predict very precisely the probability of future consequences further to the information that he collects. Just like Mr. Spock, the Observer is 'the perfect cognizer'

(21)

21 (Charland 1998, p. 67). This also means that he is not distracted by the waitress who tries to chat with him. This insensitivity to social contact emphasizes the Observer's unaffectedness by anything that happens around him, although while the indifference about the explosion just indicates his prior knowledge or even precognition, the indifference towards the waitress demonstrates his incapability for emotions. The youthful waitress' kind smiles are contrasted with the Observer's cold stares. His incomprehension of the joke shows that he is clearly unable to communicate on an emotional level, whether he wants to or not.

Like Mr. Spock, the Cylons and the Visitors, the Observer is highly intelligent in a purely rational sense. Just like these non-human science fiction characters, the Observer is able to rationalize about what is going on at the construction site and predict further events because he is not affected by the waitress or the fleeing people. The Observer is not distracted by emotions and is therefore able to maintain a perfect rationality. His introduction shows that the Observer is a stranger and that he is not from anywhere that "we" know of. He is an "other" that is defined through what "we" are not. He is capable of precognition, while "we" do not have the computational ability to quickly calculate what is going to happen; he is not social, while "we" define ourselves as social beings; he is hairless and pigmentless, while "we" personalize our hair dress and come in various skin colours; his body is incapable of affection, while "we" react immediately through physical reactions that include emotions. The representation of the Observer as "other" reveals what "we" value most about the human identity: emotion, social contact and diversity.

1.1.2 Rationality without emotion

While the lack of emotions appears beneficial for perfect rationality, Fringe's last season shows that the Observers' future world has become uninhabitable, because their evolved bodies are not adapted anymore to the environment. This suggests that the Observers' blind spot for emotions implicates a blind spot for physicality, because of their Cartesian superiority of the mind and rationality. The Observers' sole focus on the mind and rationality has made them forget about their bodies and physical needs, which is already hinted on in the previous section by the Observer's lack of embodiment, and thus they become self-destructive. But even before the Observers are given a narrative background in Fringe it already shows to be problematic for the Observer to not understand emotions while living among humans who do have emotions.

(22)

22 In 'A Short Story About Love' (FOX, 23-03-2012) the Observer from the diner shows up at the house of protagonist Peter. Peter should have been erased from time, because a change in past events would have erased him since he died as a child. Nevertheless he still exists, only nobody remembers Peter and he wants to go back to the timeline where he does still exist. By retrieving a beacon device, Peter comes into contact with the Observer. When the beacon starts glowing in Peter's living room the Observer appears in a beam of light in the hallway. He tells Peter that the beacon saved him from captivity and ban from the universe. In a conversation between the two the Observer tells Peter how he thinks his existence can be explained:

There is no scientific explanation, but I have a theory based on a uniquely human principle. I believe you could not be fully erased because the people who care about you would not let you go, and you would not let them go. I believe you call it love. ( 'A Short Story About Love'. Fringe.)

The highly intelligent Observer, who does not know emotion and the feeling of love, realizes that there are things he cannot understand. If he follows his perfect rationality he will not find the answer, because there is no scientific explanation. In order to find out why his plan did not work, namely erasing protagonist Peter from the timeline, he has to acknowledge the strength of something that his generation has eliminated as a weakness: the emotion of love. He cannot fully grasp the idea of love, but he understands that it must be important since it has the power to let things happen against all logic. The ideal of perfect rationality, as not human because it is represented through the non-human "other", represents the human as emotional by

representing the non-human as non-emotional. Therefore emotion becomes a 'uniquely human principle', as the Observer tells Peter. To be rational here does not mean to be unemotional. Humans are emotional. Therefore, to understand humans is to understand emotions. Just like Olivia and Walter's love for Peter has functioned as a beacon for Peter's existence, the literal beacon that has saved the Observer from captivity has also saved the Observer from a ban of knowledge of love and emotion in general. As the Observer stands in the beam of light, he is literally and figuratively enlightened from beneath, which suggests an enlightenment not of the mind but of the body in all its affective and emotional completeness (image 4). The

Observer shows that without considering emotions he would not have been able to understand despite his unprecedented level of rationality and that emotional enlightenment comes from finding an emotional beacon in the love of others.

(23)

23

rationality that assumes that a person is provided with all the information necessary to make a

decision, that the probability of future consequences is known to them and that emotions cannot get in the way of achieving one's goal. This perfect rationality makes him highly intelligent in rational terms, but it does so by dehumanizing him. His lack of emotions and sense of embodiment make the Observer strange and unfamiliar. He is "other" than "us" humans, who cannot calculate and predict like he does; he is "other" than "us" humans, who are bounded in our rationality. But he is even more "other" than "us" humans, because "we" do feel emotions and he does not. This "othering" is strengthened through his features, but also through his use of alien technology and language. The Observer is a post-human "other". So the ideal of perfect rationality, as personified by the Observer, is posthuman and comes after what is defined by 'human'. "We" humans are not perfectly rational, but limited in our cognitive capabilities. The posthuman is not limited and goes beyond what is human. Even if

perfect rationality could be real, Fringe shows that the concept of perfect rationality in which

emotion plays no part is not an ideal. Perfect rationality without emotions would be bounded just the same as bounded rationality. In order to add emotion to the equation of a posthuman intelligence that exceeds perfect rationality other people are crucial to form an emotional beacon.

(24)

24

1.2 Bounded rationality, emotion and memory

The concept of bounded rationality presumes that human rationality is bounded and the representation of perfect rationality in Fringe suggests that rationality without emotion is not perfect intelligence. Yaniv Hanoch wonders how it is that humans function as well as they do, 'despite their limited cognitive ability' (Hanoch 2002, p. 3) and says that emotion might be the explanation. Where rationality proves insufficient in decision-making, emotion functions as an extra-rational tool by prioritizing between options, focusing on certain variables and initiating and terminating the evaluation process (Hanoch 2002, p. 7). The prioritizing function of emotion reduces the load on short and long term memory and thus compensates for the limitations of human (working) memory (Hanoch 2002, p. 7).

Fringe's protagonist scientist Walter Bishop suffers from memory loss due to the

removal of part of his hippocampus, the part of the brain that is responsible for long term memory. This makes his rationality bounded, especially because he is confronted with murders and victims that are linked to his own research from the past. Memory and remembering are therefore crucial for him in solving cases together with the FBI. The fact that Walter is a scientist with an extremely high IQ, whose working method is through the logical steps of reason, emphasizes the restriction of his memory loss. Yet, despite his failing memory, Walter is able to explain every strange case of Fringe-phenomena without direct access to his memories. By looking at how Walter is able to do that it will become clear in what way emotions can function as an extra source of knowledge when rationality does not suffice.

1.2.1 Walter's memory loss and food obsessions

In the second episode of Fringe, 'The Same Old Story' (FOX, 16-09-2008), Walter is referred to by FBI agent Broyles as 'a successor to Albert Einstein' with unique knowledge that can help the FBI solve a number of mysterious cases. This indicates that Walter is an

extraordinary intelligent man. This is articulated by his role of the scientist throughout the series. Where Olivia is the FBI investigator, Walter is the scientist that has to come up with all the scientific answers.

Besides being a scientist, Walter has been represented from the beginning of the five season series as a mad man as well. In response to Broyles' reference to Einstein, Massive Dynamic leader Nina Sharp immediately points out that Walter has been institutionalized in a mental hospital for seventeen years, from which he has been released by Olivia and Peter in

(25)

25 the first episode 'Pilot' (FOX, 09-09-2008). Walter's mental instability is represented through character traits such as bringing up his favourite foods at inappropriate moments, calling his assistant anything but her own name, peeing his pants, having anxieties, emotional outbursts, getting lost without supervision and being reliant on Peter to take care of him. This adds up to socially inapt behaviour and emotional instability besides his extraordinary intelligence.

Walter's emotional instability will be further discussed in the second chapter on

emotional intelligence, but what is important regarding the concept of bounded rationality is

the way in which Walter uses the coupling of the memory of certain foods to the memory of scientific information to overcome his bounded memory.

Walter's obsessions with food include blue cotton candy, red liquorice and strawberry milkshakes. There is never an inappropriate moment for Walter to eat or to bring up the subject of food, for example during an autopsy or while on a crime scene. It is not uncommon for him either to jump from explaining how a skin mutation could have caused a victim's orifices to close over to expressing his craving for coffee cake with cinnamon sugar. In 'In Which We Meet Mr. Jones' (FOX, 11-11-2008) Walter's inappropriate requests for mints or gum are repeated in a way that establishes a connection between his cravings and his need to remember, while the concept of torture is represented through a victim who has a monster-like jaw with teeth clammed around his heart. When agent Broyles expresses to Walter that the victim is a friend of his and that he pins his hopes on Walter, Walter responds with asking for some mints. Walter's response seems to indicate bad social skills. Having brought the body into his laboratory in the basement of Harvard University Walter says two things occurred to him while figuring out how the "thing" could have been created. The first is that they are dealing with a single celled parasite; the second thing is that he still would really like some gum or mints. Although there does not seem to be a direct link between his interpreting of the parasite and his appetite for breath refreshment, the fact that the thought of a particular food and that of the memory of crucial information occur simultaneously suggests an

associative link. In other words, by thinking of mints Walter gains access to his knowledge about parasites. The memory loss forces Walter to get in touch with the senses of his body prior to accessing his rational mind. When Olivia talks to the wife of the victim, she promises her that Walter is 'uniquely qualified' to save her husband, which emphasizes the pressure that is on Walter despite his 'unique' socially awkward personality that is mainly caused by his intensified bounded rationality. While operating on the victim, Walter is heavily chewing gum that Peter has given him. Then Walter explains to Olivia how he has found a pattern in the DNA sample of the parasite that somebody must have put in there. When Olivia asks why

(26)

26 someone would do that, Walter answers that they do not know and blows a bubble with his gum. He says that it might be a code, which leads Olivia to know where to look for the creator of the parasite. Each time Walter needs to do something important that relies on his abilities as a scientist or knowledge that is crucial to explaining and solving a Fringe case, the gum is made present through Walter asking for it, chewing it or blowing a bubble from it in Olivia's face. Walter may not be aware of the link between the gum and his epiphanies. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the gum to Walter's remembering how to approach his task implies a causal relationship.

1.2.2 The Somatic Marker Hypothesis

The way in which Walter experiences new ways of thinking after eating or merely thinking about a certain kind of food, or listening to a specific piece of music can be explained through Antonio Damasio's Somatic Marker Hypothesis. With his theory Damasio explicitly criticizes Descartes' split of mind and body and the dualistic approach of rationality and emotion. He describes the body state, which is 'defined by varied patterns of ongoing activity in all of [the body's] components' (Damasio 1994, p. 87). Damasio says that the memory of a body state is stored in the brain together with the emotions it produced (Damasio 1994, p. 173). This stored link between emotion and body state is what Damasio calls a somatic marker. The somatic

marker functions as a shortcut to quickly evaluate a decision based on previously experienced

body states. As pointed out in the following citation, body states and the emotions they produce are linked to something else that was going on outside the body at the same moment in time.

Because the sense of that body [state] is juxtaposed in time to the perception or recollection of something else that is not part of the body - a face, a melody, an aroma - feelings end up being qualifiers to that something else. (...) [T]he qualifying body state is accompanied and rounded up by a corresponding thinking mode. (Damasio 1994, p. xv)

So when Walter is faced with the problem of the parasite around the heart of the victim but cannot remember his knowledge about it, it can be assumed that he uses the thought and taste of mints to evoke the same body experience (or body state) he had when he was doing

research on parasites. The memories about his research are linked to the taste of mints,

(27)

27 state. By recreating the body state that he was in at a time that he did know the information that he needs, Walter uses his senses to access his memories. Then, as Damasio explains, with the stored emotion comes a corresponding thinking mode. When the remembered emotion is positive, the corresponding thinking mode will be 'fast moving and idea rich' (Damasio 1994, p. xv), but when the memory is negative, thinking will be 'slow and repetitive'. Not only will Walter remember information that is stored in his memory together with memories of music or food, but he will also be prepared for solving complex problems with creative and fast thought if those memories of music and food were positive. In this manner, Walter chooses his favourite foods - whether it is gum, root beer or strawberry milkshake - to repetitively evoke a positive memory of a body state that is linked to the scientific information that he needs.

Furthermore, Damasio has theorized how emotions play a crucial role in the process of decision-making. Despite a defect in their emotional capabilities, Damasio's neurological patients were perfectly capable of theoretical reasoning and their 'attention, perception,

memory, language [and] intelligence' (Damasio 1994, p. 11) were still intact, just like Walter's language and high IQ. Yet, Damasio's patients showed a disability for practical making, which suggests a link between emotion and making. Practical decision-making here means the ability to make decisions in the context of real life (Charland 1998, p. 72), which draws on the concept of bounded rationality because it entails situations in which the best decision cannot be calculated. It is far more complex than theoretical decision-making because in real life things are unpredictable, unranked and unidentified (Charland 1998, p. 73).

In 'Grey Matters' (FOX, 10-12-2009) Walter has been abducted by a man called Newton, who tortures and almost kills Walter, and Olivia is explicitly faced with a practical decision concerning Walter's life. When Olivia and Peter get to the house where Walter is being held captive, Newton flees the house. Olivia runs after him and is about to arrest him when Newton tells Olivia that Walter will die in four minutes if he does not get an antidote of three injections in a specific order that only Newton knows. The choice is whether to arrest Newton and letting Walter die, or to let Newton escape and save Walter's life. Olivia needs to make this decision in a very limited amount of time, with no idea if Newton will tell her the order over the phone once he has escaped. When she has only less than two minutes left she decides to let Newton go and save Walter's life.

Afterwards Olivia talks to her superior Broyles and apologizes for making an

(28)

28 instead of reprimanding her Broyles praises her decision as being rational in the sense that Walter is of irreplaceable value to the Fringe Division and that there will be another chance to catch Newton. So, when Olivia had to make a choice between Walter and Newton in an unexpected, unpredictable situation in a limited amount of time, her emotions functioned as a direct shortcut, which made her choose Walter. This was not necessarily an irrational

decision, but as Broyles explains, a practical decision that was the best option available under the circumstances.

Where the concept of bounded rationality and Damasio's Somatic Marker Hypothesis show how emotions compensate for rationality's insufficiencies when making intelligent decisions, the next chapter focuses on the emotions and how handling emotions the right way will lead to intelligent behaviour that does not just consider the ability to reason.

(29)

29

2. E

MOTIONAL

I

NTELLIGENCE

:

THE META

-

ABILITY TO RATIONALIZE

ABOUT EMOTIONS

2.1 Emotional incompetence

The real danger, Fringe seems to say, is when you combine human endeavour at its finest with human frailty at its basest. (...) And the show's loudest warning about mixing profound emotional wounds with profound intellectual curiosity is Walter Bishop himself. (Thomas 2011, p. 15)

What David Dylan Thomas is saying with this quote is that Fringe is not so much a science fiction series that warns about the consequences of technology, but more a series that warns about what could happen with the help of technology when human emotions get the best of us.

Although Walter Bishop is a genius and the only person who can help the FBI to understand the science behind a series of strange murders, he is also portrayed as mentally unstable. As Thomas says, Walter Bishop is Fringe's loudest warning of mixing ingenuity with uncontrolled emotions. Daniel Goleman points out that how academically smart someone might be that does not mean that he or she will find success or happiness in his or her professional or private life (Goleman 1996, p. 62). To reject a monolithic view of intelligence that can be measured by IQ, psychologist Howard Gardner has introduced six more intelligences2 besides two standard types of intelligences - mathematical-logical and verbal-linguistic intelligence (Goleman 1996, p. 65) - from which psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer have worked out the concept of emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer 1990). According to Salovey and Mayer, emotional intelligence is a type of intelligence that considers the ability to deal with emotions, which does not correlate with the traditional concept of intelligence that is associated with rationality (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 187). This explains how a person with a high IQ but no emotional intelligence can end up making a decision that would not be considered intelligent at all, in the sense that it brings a person success or happiness (Goleman 1996, p. 62). Such a decision forms the fundamental story arc

2

Besides the standard types of mathematical-logical and verbal-linguistic intelligence, Gardner articulated musical-rhythmic intelligence concerning sensitivity to rhythm and tone, visual-spatial intelligence concerning spatial reasoning, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence concerning motor skills, interpersonal intelligence concerning social skills, intrapersonal intelligence concerning self-reflection and naturalistic intelligence concerning sensitivity to the natural environment (Gardner 1993).

(30)

30 that Fringe builds its series on with Walter Bishop as its 'loudest warning'. Although the basis for Walter's character is the traditional type of rational intelligence that is conventionally characterized by rationality without emotions (Goleman 1996, p. 69), he may be considered to be emotionally incompetent because he does not know how to handle his emotions. He differs from the emotion lacking Observers in the sense that Walter does have emotions but he is not able to fully understand them and thus does not know how to handle them.

2.1.1 Walter's incompetence to deal with grief

In 'Peter' (FOX, 01-04-2010) the concept of parenthood is strongly represented in

combination with emotion, because it shows a hypothetical situation in which a father loses a child and who then has to assess the balance between rationality and emotion in making a decision that could relieve him of his grief. This situation is not only Fringe's foundation to build up an inter-seasonal story arc, but it is also a situation that highlights the strongest negative emotion that a person can feel within a scientifically and technologically advanced setting that amplifies the consequences of that emotion.

Through a flashback of Peter's death in 1985 the episode shows that Peter was very ill when he was a child and that Walter was consumed with finding a cure for his son.

Nevertheless, Peter died before Walter could save him. Absorbed with grief Walter is at his laboratory drinking alcohol and watching his alternate self through a window into another universe. When he witnesses how the other Walter in the other universe is on the verge of developing a cure to save the life of Peter in the other universe, Walter becomes lucid again and suddenly stands up from his stool, which falls to the ground. It fills Walter with joy when he sees the compounds react. If the other Walter can cure the other Peter, then somewhere Peter will grow up. Knowing that relieves Walter of his pain. However, the other Walter is distracted by a man who has entered the lab and misses the compound's reaction. Walter cannot believe that the other Walter missed it and the other Peter is going to die too. This brings Walter back to sadness and anger and he throws the bottle of alcohol at the window, which cracks.

The next day Walter apparently has been working all night in his laboratory on the cure for Peter. When he explains to his assistant Carla that the other Walter has found a cure and that he can still save Peter himself, Carla replies that Peter is dead. Walter is blank for a moment and then says that he is of course talking about the other Peter in the other universe

(31)

31 and gives a factual description of what happened the other night. Carla's remark and Walter's reaction emphasize that Walter still has not really dealt with his son's dead. Walter is trying to avoid his grief through a rational escape of chemistry and finding a cure to save the other Peter.

After Carla's hesitant reaction to Walter's explanation Walter says: 'Without this Peter will die'. And more to himself with a voice crack: 'He'll die all over again', after which he clears his throat and directly moves on to tell Carla that he must go to the other universe to give the other Peter the cure. When Walter gets emotional he is turned away from Carla and visually separated from her by a lab stand (image 5), which indicates his inability to express his emotions to Carla other than the statement of the fact that Peter will die if he does not get the cure. Walter's inability to express his emotions to Carla together with his previous blank reaction to her statement of Peter's death shows a repressed emotion that is crucial for understanding the emotional motivation for his rational plan to escape that emotion. Walter already lost his son, which is the worst thing a person could go through. The thing that makes him emotional in this scene is his perception of the other Peter's death as Peter dying twice. For Walter it is not only about saving Peter, but also about him not surviving Peter dying twice himself.

Walter's attempts of finding rational solutions to avoid his emotions by going to his laboratory to discover a cure by observing the other Walter inventing it, giving a factual overview to Carla of what happened and reinventing the cure in his lab, illustrate that Walter might be very intelligent in a scientific and rational sense, but that he is not able to handle his emotions. This shows that Walter's ability to think rationally and his ability to handle his emotions are not intercorrelated, just like Salovey and Mayer's concept of emotional

intelligence does not correlate with rational intelligence. So while maintaining rational intelligence, as Goleman points out, the repression of emotion leads to emotional incompetence that implies a lack of emotional intelligence.

(32)

32 2.1.2 Grief as a strong prioritizing emotion

Walter explains to Carla how he will create a wormhole to travel to the other universe with the cure and save Peter there. Carla is shocked and tells Walter that he cannot cross universes because it will rupture the fundamental constants of nature. Walter rejects her warning by saying it is just a theory and thus the results are unknown. Carla insists that there has to be a line that they cannot cross. Walter and Carla's opposing positions are established through an over the shoulder shot/reverse-shot pattern. Carla is pointing out to Walter that how bad the situation might be, he cannot ignore ethics. Ethics draw on a tension field between emotion and rationality, in which ethical thinking is both based on critical thinking and an emotional response to the world around us (Kaebnick 2008, p. 36). In this case Walter is not able to critically think about disrupting nature or to feel an emotional response towards it. Walter's rejection of Carla's ethical argument is made clear through his reproach of Carla for her being religious, which is made obvious by the cross on her necklace (image 6 + 7). Again, religion draws on a concept of emotion and rationality that are in constant tension with each other. '[Emotion] has been viewed as (...) a legitimate foundation for interpretations of religion that wish to leave room for (...) the inexplicable' (Corrigan 2004, p. 6). This is in opposition to the dualistic humanist conception in which rationality is superiorly instrumental to explaining and mastering the world, which is represented in this scene by Walter. By the juxtaposition of ethics and religion the emotional component of the balance between rationality and emotion is emphasized, because both concepts include emotion into their reflection on the world, while Walter is excluding emotion from his deliberation of his decision to cross universes. This is not to say that Walter is not led by his emotions, because his grief is still a strong motivational force to achieve his goal. Nevertheless, the emotions that are part of ethical deliberation are eliminated by Walter to make the decision that will free him (to some extent) of his emotion of grief.

In response to Walter's rejection of an ethical assessment of the situation Carla quotes Oppenheimer: 'I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'. She adds that 'knowledge cannot be pursued without morality'. This refers to the development of the atomic bomb by

Oppenheimer and his later regrets about it destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic bomb is until this day the best example of how science can develop into

something with huge destructive consequences and why it needs to be pursued with morality. The same goes for Walter. In order to make the right choice, to not become the destructive, Walter has to include an emotional reflection on his choice along with his rational

(33)

33 consideration.

Nevertheless, Walter goes through with his plan and is forced to take the other Peter back to the original universe since the bottle with the cure broke while travelling through the wormhole. While Peter recovers in Walter's lab, Elizabeth comes by and her emotional reaction to Peter makes Walter realize that neither Elizabeth nor he are able to let Peter go. They keep Peter as their own, leaving their alternates in the other universe robbed of their son.

According to Hanoch, emotions form a prioritizing system that determines which of the multiple goals a person has to attend to first (Hanoch 2002, p. 8). Hanoch gives the example: when you are late for work and your goal is to get to work as quickly as possible, but you see an accident happen on your way to work, your goal of getting on time for work shifts to a lower priority and helping the victims of the car accident becomes more important (Hanoch 2002, p. 11-12). The hierarchy of goals that is thus established by emotion is determined by the survival value of the goals (Hanoch 2002, p. 8). In Walter's case the same thing happens. Carla's warnings are of no importance in comparison to the size of Walter's feelings about saving Peter. That way saving Peter becomes priority number one, even if that means that they will all die anyway when the world indeed falls to pieces because saving the world was of less importance than saving Peter. Saving the world by not crossing universes has been shifted to a lower priority goal because Walter considered the destructive

consequences as just a theory. That means just the same to Walter as that crossing universes has unknown results, which shows Walter's inability to oversee the impact of his decision.

Also, Carla's warnings about the consequences of creating a wormhole are about the future. Saving Peter is about the present. Because Walter's grief is overshadowing his ability to think about the future and how he feels about the consequences, he only sees the

consequences that are before him in the present or the near future. The ability to reflect on the future as an imaginative projection of knowledge and feelings is halted by the first priority goal that concerns the present and has the highest survival value.

Nina's remark in 'Pilot' about Walter's institutionalization in response to Broyles indicates the relevance of mental health and emotional stability along with rational

intelligence for overall competence, even if you were the next Einstein. This is demonstrated in Fringe through Walter's inability to emotionally reflect on the future consequences of his decision, because avoiding emotion becomes of prioritizing value for his survival. So, when emotion is avoided it becomes a strong prioritizing mechanism that harms appropriate decision-making.

(34)

34

Image 7. 'Peter'. Fringe. Walter reprimands Carla for being religious (00:23:56).

Image 6. 'Peter'. Fringe. Carla warns Walter about the destructive consequences of creating a wormhole (00:23:23).

Image 5. 'Peter'. Fringe. Walter realizes that the other Peter will die as well if he does not get the medicine (00:22:09).

(35)

35

2.2 Controlling internal emotions

The concept of emotional intelligence challenges a long held belief in Western thought that all emotions are so disorganized and disruptive that they interrupt mental activity (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 185). Emotional intelligence hypothesizes that emotion can contribute to mental activity and that being emotionally intelligent results in an overall intelligent and healthy person (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 201). It requires 'the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions' (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 189). The mental processes that are involved in this ability are 'appraising and expressing emotions in the self and others (...), regulating emotions in the self and others (...) and using emotions in adaptive ways' (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 190-191).

Walter Bishop starts off as a character that is not able to reflect on his feelings of grief and does therefore act by it by destructing the world. The rest of Fringe focuses on how Walter seeks redemption for his action through acquiring emotional intelligence. It is in '6:02 AM EST' (FOX, 22-04-2011) that Walter is faced with a similar decision as in 'Peter', which concerns letting Peter go to save the rest of the world or saving Peter and thereby destructing the world. By focusing on a decision that refers to an earlier decision that demonstrated

emotional incompetence, the contrast between the mental processes guiding both decisions

will be uncovered. That contrast demonstrates how emotional incompetence transforms into

emotional intelligence.

2.2.1 Appraisal and expression of emotions

In the other universe the other Walter has constructed a machine that is responsible for the original universe to start breaking down. There are drawings of the machine, which include one of Peter in it. It seems to be made for Peter and is responding to him as well. While Peter has not touched the machine, it has been activated from the other universe somehow and causes vortexes to appear, breaking down the Fringe universe. If the Fringe team cannot find a way to shut down the machine, their world will disappear.

In the lab the Fringe team discusses the options on what to do. Walter says that anything they might do could have devastating consequences. When Peter and Walter are left alone, Peter says they both know that Peter might be able to turn the machine off by entering it. In response Walter walks away into his office and pours himself a drink from a hip flask.

(36)

36 This is the same reaction as Walter had when Peter first died. He went away from his wife to drink in his lab. Walter is again afraid to lose Peter and his turning to alcohol suggests him wanting to escape the inevitability of losing Peter. When Peter continues that the drawings indicate that Peter is the key, Walter responds by saying that they do not know the meaning of the drawings, just like his reaction to Carla that crossing universes will rupture the

fundamental constants of nature is just a theory. While Walter knows better, he is betting on the small chance that their interpretation of the drawings is not right and that Peter will not have to risk his life by going into the machine. Peter insists however that it is his task to stop the machine, to which Walter answers with a sad face that he could die. That is Walter's worst fear and his last and real reason why Peter should not do it. Hereby Walter appraises and expresses what he really feels, instead of escaping in alcohol or giving the excuse of

misinterpreting the drawings. According to Salovey and Mayer, this appraisal and expression of emotion is the first mental process towards achieving emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer 1990, p. 190). Walter continues to reflect on his emotions in the same manner when Peter says if they do nothing everyone is going to die. Walter is almost crying, shoves one drink to Peter and regrips himself. He says he remembers something one of the Observers said to him about how he had to sacrifice Peter to fix the problems he had created by crossing universes. By expressing that he knows he has to sacrifice Peter in order to do the right thing, Walter is appraising and expressing his feelings about Peter and not wanting to lose him, even though he rationally indeed knows he has to.

When Peter is preparing to go into the machine, special agent Broyles asks Walter how he thinks about Peter stepping into it. Walter starts to explain how the machine is like an electrical circuit and that Peter thinks he can make the machine a closed circuit, which will cause the machine to shut down. Walter's rational and factual explanation of the situation is not an answer to Broyles' question. Broyles asks if, as a father, Walter thinks it is a good idea. This throws Walter off his guard. He says that because of his inability to let Peter go in 1985 their universe is now breaking down and that therefore his opinion as a father does not matter. But it matters to Broyles. Then Walter expresses his uncertainty about what will happen and that he does not want Peter to suffer. Instead of turning away from Broyles like Walter did with Carla when repressing his emotions, Walter now faces Broyles in full expression of his emotions (image 8). Again Walter is able to appraise his emotions and express them to Broyles. Through his rational explanation of the workings of the machine and Peter's task Walter shows that he is able to accept Peter's decision and let him go, despite of his emotions, but not ignoring his emotions either. While Walter repressed his emotions when Peter died, he

On the Fringe of Intelligence. Emotion and Rationality in Television Series Fringe.