1 慈悲：定义与进化根源

1 Compassion: Definitions and Evolutionary Roots In these first decades of the twenty-­first century, compassion and self-­compassion are increasingly being researched and applied as an active, empirically supported process variable in psychotherapy. This might not seem surprising, given that compassion has been at the center of contemplative practices for emotional healing for at least 2,600 years. Shakyamuni, or Gautama Buddha, taught that cultivating compassion could transform the mind, and his philosophical descen- dants have built upon his observations and insights ever since. Furthermore, most of the world’s major religions have specific prayers and imagery practices that involve the experience of compassion as a source of emotional comfort or redemption. In terms of psychotherapy, for some sixty years, starting with the work of Carl Rogers (1965), it has been proposed that empathy is central to psychotherapy. Since Rogers’s work, different therapies have explored the value of warmth and empathy in the psychotherapeutic relationship (Gilbert & Leahy, 2007; Greenberg & Paivio, 1997). However, compassion, as a process in itself, has only recently come to be seen as a core focus of psychotherapeutic work. As cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has increased its emphasis on applied mindfulness and acceptance-­based approaches, it makes sense that mental training designed to intentionally foster a compassionate mind would become a growing trend in contextual behavior therapies like ACT and FAP. Contextual behavior therapies inherently address the interconnectedness between an organism and its context in a way that resonates with Buddhist psychology and the science of compassion. Additionally, this emphasis on compassion within behavioral therapies is a part of a trend toward greater integration of compassion-­ focused methods and Buddhist influences within psychotherapy across many theoretical approaches (Germer, Seigel, & Fulton, 2005). An effective approach to therapy that is grounded in compassion would target cultivation of compas- sion as a key process for enhancing emotion regulation, increasing psychological flexibility, and furthering well-­being. Compassion-­focused therapy provides us with a rapidly growing, evidence-­based mode of psychotherapy that pursues these aims and is highly compatible with contextual behavioral approaches. Definitions of Compassion The word “compassion” is derived from Middle English via Anglo-­French from the Late Latin com-­pati, which means “to suffer with or sympathize.” In current conceptualizations, compassion is rarely presented as a single emotion or cogni- tive process. Definitions of compassion usually suggest that compassion is made up of several processes that involve the following characteristics: • Mindful attention to and awareness of suffering • An understanding and felt sense of suffering and its causes • Motivation to remain open to suffering with the intention or wish to alleviate it In addition, conceptualizations of compassion often address the intercon- nectedness of human beings. While clinical psychology has yet to embrace a single definition of compassion, many writers, clinicians, and researchers have contributed to an ongoing scientific discussion regarding what is meant by “compassion.” Indeed, several specific definitions of compassion are commonly used in psychotherapy and research and are worth consideration in establishing a model that ACT practitioners can deploy in their clinical work. McKay and Fanning (2000) define compassion as a multicomponent process that includes acceptance, understanding, and forgiveness—a definition that emerges from their work on self-­esteem and self-­criticism. They propose that compassion can be an essential component of an integrative cognitive behavioral treatment for self-­criticism. Notably, each of the current applied psychological definitions of compassion either includes a component addressing self-­ criticism or has emerged from working with clients who struggle with high levels of self-­criticism and shame-­based difficulties (Neff, 2003b; Gilbert & Irons, 2005). Definitions Within Self-­Compassion Approaches Kristin Neff’s definition of self-­compassion (2003a, 2003b) is derived from social psychology and Buddhist traditions and has likely become the most prev- alent model of self-­compassion in clinical psychology at present. This is largely due to the widespread use of Neff’s Self-­Compassion Scale (2003a) as the instru- ment of choice in the psychological study of compassion. Derived from Buddhist psychology, Neff’s model involves three essential experiential constructs: mind- fulness, self-­kindness, and a sense of common humanity. Mindfulness involves focused and flexible awareness, acceptance, and a clear view of the nature of suffering (Nhat Hanh, 1998; K. G. Wilson & DuFrene, 2009). Self-­kindness involves regarding oneself with warmth and care, rather than criticism and harsh judgments. Finally, common humanity involves recognition that all human beings face suffering and pain as they move through life. Furthermore, a sense of common humanity also allows for insight into the connection between one’s own experience and the experience of the whole of humanity. Higher levels of reported self-­compassion have been found to be correlated with lower levels of depression and anxiety (Neff, 2003a; Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007), and these relationships persist even after controlling for the effects of self-­criticism. The research of Neff and her col- leagues has also demonstrated positive correlations among self-­compassion and a range of positive psychological dimensions (Neff, Rude, et al., 2007), including life satisfaction, feelings of social connectedness (Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007), and personal initiative and positive affect (Neff, Rude, et al., 2007). Definitions Within ACT In ACT-­consistent terms, Dahl, Plumb, Stewart, and Lundgren (2009) have outlined how compassion relates to psychological flexibility—­the unified model of adaptive human functioning underlying ACT. Psychological flexibility has been defined as “contacting the present moment as a conscious human being, fully and without needless defense—­as it is and not as what it says it is—­and persisting with or changing a behavior in the service of chosen values” (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2012, pp. 96–­97). According to the model of Dahl and her colleagues, compassion involves the ability to willingly experience difficult emotions; to mindfully observe our self-­evaluative, distressing, and shaming thoughts without allowing them to dominate our actions or states of mind; to engage more fully in life pursuits with self-­kindness and self-­validation; and to flexibly shift our perspective toward a broader, transcendent sense of self (Hayes, 2008b). Hayes and colleagues (2012) specifically link compassion and self-­acceptance to perspective-­taking processes. According to the ACT model, the human ability to be conscious of our own pain involves awareness of the pain of others. Similarly, when we develop the ability to be less dominated by categorical, judgmental self-­evaluations, we may more readily let go of condemnations and judgments of others. From this per- spective, as we cultivate compassion, we are developing core elements of psy- chological flexibility, and as we become more flexible, we have the opportunity to grow in compassion. Definitions Within Compassion-­Focused Therapy Paul Gilbert (2005) has drawn upon developmental psychology, affective neuroscience, Buddhist practical philosophy, and evolutionary theory to develop a comprehensive form of experiential behavior therapy known as compassion-­ focused therapy, or CFT. Gilbert (2007) describes compassion as a multifaceted process that has evolved from the caregiver mentality found in human parental care and child rearing. As such, compassion includes a number of emotional, cognitive, and motivational elements involved in the ability to create opportu- nities for growth and change with warmth and care (Gilbert, 2007). Gilbert (2009a) defines the essence of compassion as “a basic kindness, with deep awareness of the suffering of oneself and of other living things, coupled with the wish and effort to relieve it” (p. 13). This definition involves two central dimensions of compassion. The first is known as the psychology of engagement and involves sensitivity to and awareness of the presence of suffering and its causes. The second dimension is known as the psychology of alleviation and con- stitutes both the motivation and the commitment to take actual steps to allevi- ate the suffering we encounter (Gilbert & Choden, 2013). When we view these two dimensions of compassion in terms of our work as clinicians, we can connect with a felt sense of compassion in action. Imagine you have your first session or two with a young man who suffers from severe social anxiety. He is a bright and caring student and spends some of his free time volunteering as a tutor for students at the state university. His descriptions of his experience suggest that years of bullying by schoolmates and being emo- tionally abused by his father have fueled a hostile inner voice that savagely shames and criticizes him. When he thinks about meeting with friends at a party or concert, he expects that they will reject and judge him. Even just speak- ing about social meetups fills him with dread and despair. As you spend time with this client, listening with an open heart, looking into his eyes, and seeing the pain and shame he has experienced, you might be increasingly sensitive to his suffering. You may feel emotionally moved upon hearing about the abuse he suffered, experiencing a resonant sadness or anger when in his presence. And as you come into contact with the client and understand more of his story, you might feel motivated to help him deal with his anxiety and distress. You might feel a sense of professional and personal commitment to help him feel grounded in the moment and step forward into a life that has greater meaning and opportunity for joy. Although taking those steps might mean the client comes into contact with great anxiety, your compassionate motivation wouldn’t be soft or weak. You probably wouldn’t feel compelled to help him to avoid social situations or curl up and hide. Both of the psychologies of compassion would be awakened within you. You would feel an awareness of and engagement with the suffering you encountered in this therapeutic relationship, and you would feel a commitment and motiva- tion to do something to help alleviate that suffering. Your compassionate mind would be active, and it might serve you well as an ally in the work of helping the client make important changes in his life. In time, the client may also learn to activate his own capacity for self-­compassion, intentionally directing warmth and support toward himself and creating a range of new possibilities for mean- ingful action in the process. While the clinical utility of Gilbert’s CFT definition and theoretical model of compassion is readily apparent, it is important to recognize that CFT has developed its conceptualization of compassion from a foundation in basic science rather than clinical observation. The CFT model of the two psycholo- gies of compassion—engagement and alleviation—­links the processes that contribute to experiences of compassion and emotion with highly evolved neu- rophysiological systems, especially those associated with social behavior (Gilbert, 2007). The Two Psychologies of Compassion and ACT The emerging common ground across psychological science is that compas- sion is a complex and multimodal organization of human behaviors with clear antecedents in human evolution and emotional processes rooted in inheritable response patterns that develop even prior to birth. However, compassion also involves verbal learning and specific developmental experiences that occur in a social context. Understandably, the emphasis within ACT and contextual CBT upon the prediction and influence of human behavior with precision, depth, and scope is highly relevant to broadening our understanding of compassion. The contextual behavioral science (CBS) approach that underpins ACT invites us to examine the precise dynamics of both the verbal learning involved in human compassion and the emotional, biological, and inherited response pat- terns that contribute to our awareness of suffering and our efforts to address the pain we encounter in the world. In some instances, compassion can be viewed as involving a skill set that can be cultivated through mental training and serve as a significant part of the emotional healing process (Davidson, 2003; Gilbert, 2009b; Lutz, Brefczynski-­Lewis, Johnstone, & Davidson, 2008). Importantly, compassion involves the activation of the emotions that arise in connected, intimate, and close relationships. We refer to these emotions, which involve empathy, warmth, and care, as affiliative emotions. Activation of networks of affiliative emotions can promote focused, flexible attention and a broadening of the range of possible actions in the presence of stimuli that typically narrow behavioral repertoires. Indeed, research has increasingly established that com- passion can facilitate lasting change in the way we experience and respond to suffering (Gumley, Braehler, Laithwaite, MacBeth, & Gilbert, 2010; Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011). In accord with Gilbert’s model of compassion described above (2010), here we will briefly conceptualize compassion and its two dimensions in terms of acceptance and commitment processes, and in accord with functional contex- tual assumptions. The psychology of engagement: This dimension involves the ability to notice, turn toward, pay attention to, and engage with suffering. Engagement with compassion involves several aspects, all of which facilitate awareness of and sensitivity to suffering. These processes relate to experiential acceptance rather than experiential avoidance: turning toward the things that are difficult to bear with a motivation to engage with the suffering we encounter. In terms of the ACT model of psychological flexibility, processes that emphasize acceptance, willingness, and awareness are clearly related to the CFT psychology of engagement. The psychology of alleviation: This dimension involves developing and main- taining the wisdom, skill, and behavioral capacity to take effective and person- ally meaningful action in the presence of suffering. Such action may involve direct steps to alleviate suffering and its causes, yet it may also involve develop- ing the commitment to remain in the presence of difficult emotions with com- passionate acceptance. The ACT processes of owning one’s values and making a commitment to embodying those values are related to the psychology of alleviation. Speaking to the healing quality of the experience of compassion, Christopher Germer states that “compassion is a quality of mind that can transform the experience of pain, even making it worthwhile. When we open to pain in a compassionate way, there is a feeling of freedom—­ of nonresistance, noncontraction—­and a deep sense of connection to others—­of expanding beyond ourselves” (Germer, 2012, p. 93). When flexible perspective taking affords us an opportunity to turn compassion inward, phenomenological quali- ties of mindful awareness, loving-­kindness, and a broader sense of an intercon- nected self may become more apparent (Neff, 2011). This is territory that will likely be quite familiar to the experienced ACT practitioner, and that merits further expansion and exploration within the CBS rubric. As we approach a functional understanding of compassion, there is a strik- ing continuity between compassion and other concepts derived from contem- plative practice that can contribute to well-­being. Mindfulness, acceptance, and compassion are often described as interrelated processes. For example, several writers have established that training in mindfulness involves a willingness to contact the present moment just as it is and effects an emergent form of self-­ kindness and self-­validation (Kabat-­Zinn, 2009). Other writers have highlighted the ways in which mindfulness and compassion are complementary core pro- cesses in psychological health that remain distinct, describing mindfulness and compassion as two wings of a bird—­a classic Buddhist metaphor (Germer, 2012). While these processes can be construed as interconnected or discrete to varying degrees, mindfulness training has been used as a preparatory practice for the cultivation of compassion and a healthy psychological perspective throughout thousands of years of contemplative practice (Tirch, 2010; Wallace, 2009). And although mindfulness and other healthy qualities of mind may be involved in the experience of compassion, we suggest that compassion is a dis- tinct process, with a distinct evolutionary trajectory, quality, and functional application. Clinical Example: Using Compassion in Working with a Client with a History of Trauma The following is the first in a series of clinical vignettes that will illustrate how compassion can be used as an active process in psychotherapy. As we proceed, we will clarify and explain the details of how to work with these processes through specific techniques and exercises. While all identifying information has been changed, these vignettes are all drawn from actual sessions. When a therapist’s emotional response is indicated, this is meant to describe the thera- pist’s genuine, experiential connection with the affect experienced in the room. Importantly, bringing a compassionate focus to psychotherapy extends beyond mere validation of emotions to empathic bridging and affective connection and expression. Compassion in psychotherapy may often first be evident in the emo- tional tone and intention present in the relationship between client and therapist. This first example illustrates the activation of compassion in the therapeutic alliance during an ACT session. Ella is a thirty-­five-­year-­old woman meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder who is back in therapy specifically to deal with her history of sexual trauma. She and her brother were sexually abused by an uncle when they were between the ages of six and ten. She feels so much shame around what happened then that she never disclosed it in her previous therapeutic work. After six months of intense relationship-­centered ACT work, she asked her therapist to address it, and they have spent the past three sessions doing trauma work. Therapist: You’re just so brave to have finally chosen to open up about this. Client: ( Looks down.) I don’t think I’m brave. I’ve hidden it all these years and I feel so ashamed. Therapist: In my eyes, you are even braver to share it when you feel so much shame. You know, I don’t see what happened to you as anything to be ashamed of. I see it as something horrible. The thought of this little girl that you were being abused makes me so sad and angry. (The therapist is visibly emotionally engaged with the client.) Client: (Looks down and stays silent.) Therapist: What’s going on right now? Client: If you only knew how worthless I am, you’d hate me too. Therapist: I understand how a part of you might feel that here and now. You’ve been carrying this for a long time. Can you see how sad I feel for that little girl and how sad I am that you had to go through that? Client: I know you mean well and it’s your job not to judge, but I am so ashamed of what I did. Therapist: Ella, you did nothing. It was done to you. Client: (Starts weeping.) It’s worse than you think. Whenever she approaches talking about the trauma, Ella is overcome by overwhelming feelings of shame. She liked her uncle and can even remem- ber having felt pleasure during some of the abuse. Worse still, she recalls an instance of bringing her brother to her uncle, whereupon he was abused, and then telling her brother not to tell anyone. To this day she has never spoken to her brother about the abuse, and her sense of shame and self-­ hatred has only grown over the years. In a case such as Ella’s, we believe that actively fostering a compassionate perspective on herself and the past actions of that abused, lost, and confused child is a key to recovery. Therapist: When you’re ready to share more, I’ll be here. What I do know now is that being sexually abused as a child is one of the most confusing and shaming experiences possible. And being abused by someone we trust or love can make it so much worse. How can we ever know who to trust? We can even come to believe we were somehow responsible for or complicit in the abuse. Client: ( Weeps softly.) I feel ashamed that I sometimes liked it—­some of it. (Weeps more strongly.) Oh my god, I’m never going to dare to look at you again. Therapist: I’m here for you. It’s so incredibly painful and so incredibly coura- geous for you to share this. I don’t know if you can believe this, but it makes me respect you more that you at last have the courage to break out of the isolation the abuse forced you into and are sharing this with me. I want to honor your courage as much as I want to respect your boundaries. (Becomes teary.) Client: (Weeps softly.) Thank you. Therapist: If you feel up to it, would you be prepared to look into my eyes and tell me what you see? Client: I don’t know if I can. Therapist: It’s okay if you don’t. Take your time. Client: (Raises her head and looks into the therapist’s teary eyes.) Therapist: What do you see? Client: I see sadness. Therapist: Do you see judgment? Client: (Pauses.) No. I see that you are there for me. Therapist: I am. My mind also goes back to that little girl. Is it okay if I speak to her? Client: (Hesitates.) Yes. Therapist: I’m so sad that you are going through this. It must be so frightening and confusing. You must feel so alone. I want you to know that you didn’t choose what you have been put through, and that this is so very much not your fault. Client: (Weeps.) I am so ashamed. I’ve been bad. Therapist: You’re in an impossible situation and you need someone to protect you. Client: (Cries softly.) Yes. Thank you. Therapist: I’m here for you. (Pauses.) And if you could go speak to that little girl, what would you tell her? Client: I ’ve hated you so much all these years. (Weeps.) But I know it wasn’t your fault. You just needed someone to protect you, and no one was there. Therapist: I want you to know that I can see your incredible pain and shame, and that I hope you and that little girl will, together, find your way through it. I think that what you both need is not more judgment or being shamed, but some kindness and compassion. Evolution, Cognition, and Behavior: What Is Characteristically Human? To place the experience of compassion in the context of human evolution, an individual’s learning history, and the context of the present moment, we begin with an exploration of how compassion has evolved and how it relates to what is fundamentally human in us all. If we observe the simplest of living organisms, perhaps a single-­celled life-­form like an amoeba, we can notice it move away from a potentially harmful stimulus, like cold, heat, or touch. And we can also notice it move toward a source of food. Of course, an amoeba isn’t thinking or making decisions in the way we might, but it still inherently responds to poten- tial threats and potential life-­sustaining conditions by either moving toward or away from them, discriminating between aversive and appetitive stimuli. As life-­forms evolve and become more complex, they are able to respond to what they encounter in their environment in increasingly sophisticated ways, yet that basic discrimination between moving toward life-­sustaining (appetitive) stimuli and away from potential danger (aversive stimuli) remains present as the root variable controlling all behaviors. For example, consider a pet dog. We know that this dog can learn to respond to changes in its environment by increasing certain behaviors or decreasing other behaviors. The dog can learn to run toward the kitchen when it hears the sound of its food bowl being filled, a type of behavior that is under appetitive control. And the dog can learn to run away from the living room when it hears the angry voice of its owner, a type of behavior that is under aversive control. We humans also behave under either aversive or appetitive control, but since we have uniquely human capacities for symbolic thinking and complex emotional responding, discriminating between what is harmful or helpful to us can become infinitely complicated. From a CBS perspective, the term “behavior” is used to represent anything and everything that a human being may do (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991; Törneke, 2010). From daydreaming to running, from digesting to feeling sad, from seeing to loving, from thinking to perceiving, the entire range of human actions and experience is seen as constituting behavior. This is in accord with B. F. Skinner’s perspective (1974) and is particularly germane to a scientific approach because it helps us consider the whole of our experience, whether public (through our five senses) or private (through the mind’s eye or inner sensations), as not being different in essence. In terms of psychological science, this is useful because the basic rules of how to predict and influence behaviors have been well studied in experimental psychology, and many of these rules apply to both mental and physical behaviors (Hayes, Barnes-­Holmes, & Roche, 2001). It also helps with overcoming the philosophical conundrums inherent in dualistic positions regarding how one type of thing (mental stuff) could exert a controlling influ- ence over something different in essence (physical matter). Evolved Fusion Research has repeatedly demonstrated that humans have a tendency to respond to symbolic, mental events as though they were literal events in the external world (Dymond, Schlund, Roche, & Whelan, 2013; Ruiz, 2010), a phenomenon referred to as fusion in ACT (Hayes et al., 1999). When called to mind, unpleasant things can put us under aversive control, whereas pleasant things can result in appetitive control. For example, consider a man who has lived with generalized anxiety disorder for decades and persistently worries about his finances. He’s likely to often worry about how he might become des- titute, lose whatever savings he may have, and perhaps even become homeless. When his mind generates a range of worries and imaginary scenarios, these mental events are likely to influence his actions. He might be very averse to risk when making financial decisions and therefore miss important opportunities. Furthermore, he might be reluctant to assert himself in the workplace and live in fear of upsetting his supervisor or coworkers. Day after day, he is responding to his worries as if they were real, and his life becomes smaller and smaller as his range of activities becomes increasingly constricted. So, with the evolutionary emergence of complex human cognition some two million years ago, human behavior began to come under the influence of our thoughts and emotions, as well as our outer environment, which can be both useful and problematic. It can be useful in that it allows us to conjure up models of the world in our mind’s eye and then test them out in the real world, leading to a technological explo- sion that’s radically improved our survival prospects. But it can also have some problematic side effects. Through fusion, our behavior can become so dominated by the influence of mental events that we are sometimes more controlled by inner representations than actual factors in the outside world (Strosahl, Hayes, Wilson, & Gifford, 2004). For example, if a woman’s mental representation of a party involves a group of judgmental guests who are going to mock her under their breath and shun her, she may experience anxiety. Furthermore, she may attempt to avoid the party and experience physical symptoms of anxious arousal through the sympathetic nervous system, and her mind may generate debilitating thoughts such as You can’t handle parties and You’re such a social reject. These may come to such prominence that, if she takes them literally, even if she attends the party and all of the guests are friendly, she still may experience fear, self-­criticism, and an attentional bias toward the negative due to the influence of mental events on her biology and behavior (Barlow, 2002; Greene et al., 2008). When we are under the aversive control of mental events, we tend to try to mentally suppress or avoid such events. It makes sense that we may naturally want to run away from feelings, images, and ideas that are unpleasant because in the outside world, running away from dangerous things is usually a good strategy. The problem here is that the more we try to push away an unwanted thought or feeling, the more it tends to show up, and the more it may come to dominate our experience and control our behavior. How many of us have lain awake at night trying to avoid thinking about a problem at work or school the next day? Experimental and clinical research has repeatedly verified that suppressing thoughts or emotions has the paradoxical result that they show up with greater frequency, and that attempts at experiential avoidance are what drive a lot of psychological suffering (Ruiz, 2010; Wenzlaff & Wegner, 2000). Under the dominance of distressing mental events and subsequent embodied emotional responses, we become hooked into aversively controlled attempts at avoidance and control, which can keep us trapped in an endless cycle of suffer- ing and a sense of being profoundly stuck. Fusion involves mental events exerting an influence over our behavior—­not just verbal behaviors, but also physiological responses, including emotional responses at a level that is not expressed or experienced in recognizably verbal terms. As mentioned, much of what we experience as humans, including many of our behaviors, is shared with other animals. In evolutionary terms, these response patterns are older than humanity. For example, territorial behaviors, sexual behaviors, affiliative responses, and emotions such as fear or disgust all have evolutionary precursors in prehuman animals. Similarly, elements of emo- tional experiencing are situated in bodily responses that are not dependent upon cognition. While a single definition of emotion is elusive, emotions can be conceived of as evolutionary emergent psychophysiological phenomena that guide an organism in adaptation to environmental demands (Levenson, 1994); provide ingrained ways of preserving an organism’s welfare (Panksepp, 1994); and have a heritable, universal nature that allows our present responses to be guided by our ancestral past (Ekman, 1992, 1994; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Considerable evidence from a wide range of animals, especially primates, supports the view that rudimentary forms of caring behavior, altruism, and other types of kind- ness are widespread (de Waal, 2009). And, undoubtedly, ancestral humans who practiced compassion, group protectiveness, sharing of food, and care for the young or sick were more likely to survive than those who were more indifferent to one another’s welfare (D. S. Wilson, 2007). Evolution, Cooperation, and Compassion Contextual science theorists, notably Steven C. Hayes, are currently explor- ing an evolutionary context for understanding human verbal behavior and are situating their understanding of language and cognition in evolutionary terms (Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson, Hayes, Biglan, & Embry, 2012). Hayes and Long (2013) recently recalled B. F. Skinner’s proposition that “all behavior is due to genes, some more or less directly, the rest through the role of genes in producing structures which are modified during the lifetime of the individual” (Skinner, 1974, p. 704). Hayes’s integration of CBS and evolutionary science stresses cooperation as our chief evolutionary advantage, and the evolutionary antecedent of both human cognition and compassion (Hayes & Long, 2013). While some of our behaviors are shared with our evolutionary ancestors, at least three domains—cognition, culture, and cooperation—are particularly important in understanding human behavior (Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson et al., 2012). As discussed, in basic terms cognition involves symbolic thought—­a representation of the world around us that can guide our actions (Hayes & Long, 2013; Von Eckardt, 1995). In evolutionary terms, culture stands for our capacity to communicate and transfer a body of learning across genera- tions and among people. In this way, the acquired cognitions and response pat- terns that have been hard earned through our evolutionary history are not dependent upon the survival of a single generation of the species or a single group. Our collective learning can be transmitted into the future of our spe- cies—­a transmission that has a huge impact on social contexts and on how genotypic potentials are phylogenetically and individually expressed (Hayes & Long, 2013). Regarding the third element of human behavior that is characteristic of our species, cooperation, this represents our ability to work with one another to achieve specific aims. Humans cooperate at a level of complexity and consis- tency unknown in other animals, and as such we possess an evolutionary advan- tage through our ability to communicate and work with one another. Evolutionary theorists are beginning to hypothesize that cooperative behavior may have led to the differentiation of our species from other primates through the efficiency of between-­group selection (Hayes & Long, 2013; Nowak & Highfield, 2011). More effective groups of early humans, working together and communicating in eusocial ways, were perhaps more likely to thrive than groups of other primates, where individual selection may have led to less efficient collective adaptation. In order to understand this better, imagine a group of early nonhuman primates competing for resources with the earliest humans. Our ancient ancestors would have had the advantage of being able to cooperate and communicate with one another in more precise and subtle ways than other primates, allowing them to use and share knowledge of tools, work together to accomplish aims, point out potential sources of danger, and look after one another when an individual was wounded or healing. Under the influence of the principles of adaptation, varia- tion, and selection between groups, such a group might develop superior ways of flexibly interacting with the environment, promoting the survival and flourish- ing of the collective. The significant benefits of cooperation would logically contribute to the selection and elaboration of the human capacity for verbal communication and emergent symbolic or representational thinking. Some animals do exhibit a capacity to respond to the perceived intentions of others, including apes and even crows (Call & Tomasello, 1999; Clayton et al., 2007), and these species may pool their behavioral resources for survival to some extent. However, it appears that humans alone respond to and use non- verbal gestures, facial expressions, and utterances in sophisticated cooperative ways that facilitate the transmission of emotional information (Call & Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello, Call, & Gluckman, 1997). In fact, human beings may be the only truly eusocial and cooperative vertebrates on our planet (Foster & Ratnieks, 2005; Hayes & Long, 2013). The advantage of cooperation has probably played a role in the selection for and evolutionary emergence of human language. In turn, the development of human language likely contributed to the development of a verbal community that could selectively reinforce the development of human cognition (Hayes & Long, 2013; Hayes et al., 2012). As far as we know, humans alone can express themselves as speakers and listeners and experience themselves in a specific point in space and time, with a particular identity. In this way, the embodied evolutionary intelligence of genetically inherent motivations and emotions has interacted with the human capacity for symbolic representation to create the range of human behaviors, which are highly dependent upon social contexts, verbal learning, and the elaboration of internal networks of cognition. From this basis, humans experience themselves as selves and the human behavior of construing a separate self-­identity emerges. As we will explore throughout in this book, the human ability to construe a self in relation to another, capacity for perspective taking, and evolved tendency to experience soothing and stillness in the presence of affiliative emotional experiences are some of the seeds of our compassionate mind. And all of these qualities flow from our unique human experience of being within the coopera- tive, social context—­the sense of “I-­you,” and the more important sense of “we.” Interestingly, verbal processes also depend on a stable social context. That context, a function of cooperation in the verbal community, provides the basis from which a perspective of self, of the “I-­here-­now-­ness” of being, gradually emerges as children learn to frame and relate their experience in relation and in contrast to “you-­there-­then” (Hayes, 1984). In this way, our deepest sense of self and emerging spiritual experiences arise as a function of verbal behavior and are mediated by a verbal community (Hayes, 1984). Thus, our sense of our own individual perspective involves the ability to imagine viewing the world through another’s perspective, which further strengthens compassionate behavior, this time mediated verbally. We believe this evolutionary contextual understanding of compassion can help make a great deal of sense of the connections between well-­being, compas- sion, and psychological flexibility. As noted, Gilbert (2009a) emphasizes that compassion is an evolved human capacity that emerges from human behavioral systems involving attachment and affiliation, an argument supported by empiri- cal research. Seeking proximity and soothing from caregivers in order to obtain a secure base for operation in the world is a mammalian behavior that predates human abilities for verbal responding and deriving a sense of self in relation to another, and predates the meta-­awareness and observational capacity that arises in mindfulness training. The evolutionary advantage that we have in our capac- ity for cognition and verbal behavior is what has resulted in our particularly human quality of self-­awareness, our ability to be aware of our awareness (i.e., mindfulness), and our ability to base our behavior on abstract thought and imagination, including our capacity to be sensitive to and moved by the suffer- ing we witness. According to D. S. Wilson and colleagues (2012), this human capacity for symbolic thought affords us with an “inheritance system” that potentially has a combinatorial diversity similar to that of recombinant DNA. In this way, both our genetic and psycholinguistic evolution have led us to be soothed by the experience of self-­compassion, and have allowed that experience of soothing and the ensuing courage to afford us with greater psychological flexibility and a secure base for functioning in the world. Wang (2005) hypothesizes that human compassion emerges from an evolu- tionarily determined “species-­ preservative” neurophysiological system. This system is hypothesized as evolving in a relatively recent evolutionary time frame compared to the older “self-­preservative” system. This “species-­preservative” system is “based on an inclusive sense of self and promotes awareness of our interconnectedness to others” (Wang, 2005, p. 75). Relative to some other animals, human infants and children may seem defenseless, as they require a great deal of care and protection early in life. As a result, particular brain struc- tures and other elements of the nervous and endocrine systems have evolved to promote nurturing behaviors of protecting and caring for others. Basic examples of this evolutionary progression can be observed by contrasting the parenting behaviors of reptiles and amphibians, for example, to those of mammalian species. The former lack even the most basic nurturing behaviors toward their young, while mammalian species observably display a wide range of caretaking behaviors. Moving higher on the evolutionary ladder, Wang’s review of the relevant literature suggests that the human prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, and ventral vagal complex are involved in the activation of this “species-­preservative” system (Wang, 2005). These structures all play a role in the development of healthy attachment bonds and self-­compassion. The development of both indi- vidually adaptive and group adaptive behavioral systems for dealing with threats can be viewed as an example of multilevel selection theory (D. S. Wilson, 2008); it reflects how our evolutionary history informs our verbal relational network in ways that connect us to one another, and also informs our place as an emergent species in the flow of life. Such an evolutionary perspective is intrinsically con- textual in nature and reflects a potential area for multidisciplinary theoretical integration in the developing science of self-­compassion.