Jennifer Church is Professor Emerita at Vassar College. She is the author of Possibilities of Perception (OUP, 2013), Why It’s Okay to Be of Two Minds (Routledge, 2020), and numerous articles on consciousness, the emotions, irrationality, and imagination.
A post by Jennifer Church
Here are three cases where I could perceive something but I decide it is best left to the imagination:
I am talking to my sister via zoom, and request that we not use video.
I wonder what a friend would think of an idea I have; I would rather imagine her response than ask for it.
I walk by a room I used to teach in, recall how it looked, and choose not to revisit it.
What explains these preferences? Several different considerations are at play, several of which reflect something important about the difference between perceiving and imagining.
For the purposes of this post, I restrict myself to cases where the imagining is accurate. I am not thinking of cases where I imagine my sister to be smiling when she is actually frowning, where I imagine my friend being supportive when actually she would disapprove, or where I imagine a classroom to be bigger and brighter than it really is.
Selective attention
One reason for preferring imagining to perceiving stems from the fact that we have more control over our imagining and thus more control over which aspects of a situation we attend to. In imagination we can focus on a sister’s familiar smile, unaware of the blemishes that might capture our attention on the screen. Similarly, imagining rather than hearing a remark can help us attend to the meaning of a friend’s response rather than the tone of voice in which it is delivered. And in the case of a familiar classroom, we can recall its beautifully spaced windows without being distracted by the ugly color of its walls. Being more selective does not mean being less accurate; it does mean that the contents of our experience are more responsive to our aims and desires. Perceptions are also affected by our desires and aims, of course – leading us to notice some things and not others, but perceptions are not as much under our control so not as capable as adjusting to our priorities.
Attending to things in a way that is more responsive to our priorities can improve our chances of satisfying those priorities – our desire to sympathize with a sister, for example, to consider a friend’s view without becoming defensive, or to enjoy an important memory. Letting our priorities govern our attention can also blind us to important details, of course, and can prevent us from revising our priorities. (Siegel, 2017) The features highlighted in perception are not always more important than the features highlighted in imagination, but they are more directly responsive to the facts.
Comprehensiveness
A second reason for preferring imagining over perceiving is that imagination can present a more comprehensive view of the thing under consideration. This may sound like the opposite of being more selective but it is not; our imaginations can dispense with some of the information that would be imparted through perception (a blemish, a tone of voice, a color) while also contributing information that would not be given through that perception (past expressions, comments, or vantage points). When I imagine my sister’s smile while talking to her by phone, the image I have is enriched by memories of past smiles, seen from multiple angles, prompted by various occasions. When I imagine rather than hear a friend’s criticism I must draw on my past experience of her, giving me fuller appreciation of the outlook that informs her response. While I must perceive a room in certain light conditions and from a particular point of view, I can imagine it from multiple points of view across varied light conditions, giving me a fuller sense of its character.
To some extent, we engage in this supplementary imagining even as we perceive. Kantian views such as my own maintain that imagining of alternative perspectives and alternative times is essential to perception itself. (Church, 2013) Essential or not, and intended or not, it is clear that perception is often accompanied by much imagining. We remember a younger face, a past comment, or another perspective even as we perceive a face, hear a comment, or view the room from a particular angle. The immediacy and vividness of what is directly presented tends to overshadow imagination’s contributions, however, so there is bound to be some competition between the two. To the extent, then, that we want to activate a more comprehensive set of information, there is an advantage to imagining rather than perceiving.
Emotional impact
A third reason for preferring imagining something to perceiving it concerns the emotional impact of imagining versus perceiving. On the one hand, merely imagining something can soften its emotional impact. Imagining a sneer can be less upsetting than seeing it, imagining a critical remark can be easier than hearing it, and imagining a favorite room rather than revisiting it can lessen the nostalgia. The reduction in emotional impact can come from a reduction in sensual impact (the image being less forceful than the reality), and it can come from the added doubt that imagination allows: Is she really sneering? Is that really what she would say? Was the room really that spacious?
On the other hand, imagining can intensify the emotional impact of what is imagined by bringing it ‘inside’, ‘taking it to heart.’ (Church, 2002) Imagining another’s displeasure can be more affecting than witnessing it because it is displeasure that one now carries within. Similarly, imagining a critical remark can be more distressing than actually hearing it because the words can’t be kept ‘outside’ of oneself. Also, because of the greater uncertainty that comes with imagining, we are more likely to linger – or, indeed, to obsess – over what is imagined; we are denied the closure that perception can provide. Unable to ascertain the expression on a face by looking, we are more likely to continue wondering, which tends to prolong our emotional response.
In some cases, then, imagining rather than perceiving can lessen the emotional impact while, in other cases, it can increase the emotional impact. Which, if either, is preferable will depend on the person and the circumstances. For most of us, however, there will be circumstances in which imagining is preferable to perceiving because of the way it modifies our emotional response.
Personal investment
Finally, and related to the above, intentional imagining demands more personal engagement than the more passive processes of perception. Imagining a face or a comment or a building requires a kind of investment that keeps one from being a mere observer. I am a contributor to the images I conjure up, I am involved as a creator. Artists often rely on this fact, deliberately leaving details to the imagination to cause their audience to be more involved in a story, a poem, a piece of music, a painting. “The missingness of poetry slows readers down, making them search for what can’t be found. The encounter is almost inherently frustrating, as though one could not possibly pay enough attention.” (Gabbert, 2022) A similar phenomenon occurs when we are left to imagine objects and events that actually could be perceived: we come to feel that we are a part of what we experience, that we have a more personal investment in what happens. When I imagine the face on the other end of a phone call, for example, I find that my imagining is a part of what makes the communication work, and I feel more responsible for doing my part well. Seeing the face on a screen, in contrast, allows me to relax a bit more; I am allowed to simply watch.
Being more invested in the things we experience can be either good or bad. Greater personal involvement tends to create a stronger sense of responsibility, but it is possible to feel overly invested in the things we experience. We do have a role in creating the world we experience, and activating our imaginations can accentuate that role; but the world is not ours for the making, and it is perceptions, not imaginings, that remind us of that fact.
REFERENCES
Church, Jennifer. 2013. Possibilities of Perception. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Church, Jennifer. 2002. “Taking It to Heart: What Choice Do We Have?” Monist 85.3: 205-221.
Gabbert, Elisa. 2022. “The shape of the void: Toward a definition of poetry”, New York Times Book Review, April 17, 2022: 9.
Siegel, Susanna. 2017. “Selective Effects” in The Rationality of Perception. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.