Three Universal Polarities of Evolution 11is to say, recognizing and pursuing positive sensations and
emotions, on the one hand, and recognizing and eschewing
negative sensations and emotions, on the other.
Although there are many philosophical and metapsycho-
logical issues associated with the nature of pain and pleasure
as constructs, it is neither our intent nor our task to inquire
into them here. That they recur as a polar dimension time and
again in diverse psychological domains (e.g., learned behav-
iors, unconscious processes, emotion, and motivation, as well
as their biological substrates) has been elaborated in another
publication (Millon, 1990). In this next section, I examine
their role as constructs for articulating attributes that may
usefully define personality.
Before we proceed, let us note that a balance must be
struck between the two extremes that comprise each polarity;
a measure of integration among the evolutionary polarities is
an index of normality. Normal personality functioning, how-
ever, does not require equidistance between polar extremes.
Balanced but unequal positions emerge as a function of
temperamental dispositions, which, in their turn, are modi-
fied by the wider ecosystems within which individuals de-
velop and function. In other words, there is no absolute or
singular form of normal personality. Various polar positions
and the personality attributes they subserve result in diverse
styles of normality,just as severe or marked imbalances be-
tween the polarities manifest themselves in diverse styles of
abnormality(Millon & Davis, 1996).
Moreover, given the diverse and changing ecological mi-
lieus that humans face in our complex modern environment,
there is reason to expect that most persons will develop mul-
tiple adaptive styles, sometimes more active, sometimes less
so, occasionally focused on self, occasionally on others, at
times oriented to pleasure, at times oriented to the avoidance
of pain. Despite the emergence of relatively enduring and
characteristic styles over time, a measure of adaptive flexibil-
ity typifies most individuals: Persons are able to shift from
one position on a bipolar continuum to another as the cir-
cumstances of life change.
Personality Implications
As noted, an interweaving and shifting balance between the
two extremes that comprise the pain-pleasure polarity typi-
fies normal personality functioning. Both of the following
personality attributes should be met in varying degrees as life
circumstances require. In essence, a synchronous and coordi-
nated personal style would have developed to answer the
question of whether the person should focus on experiencing
only the enhancement of life versus concentrating his or her
efforts on ensuring its preservation.
Avoiding Danger and Threat: The Life Preservation
Attribute. One might assume that an attribute based on the
avoidance of psychic or physical pain would be sufficiently
self-evident not to require specification. As is well known,
debates have arisen in the literature as to whether normal
personality functioning represents the absence of mental
disorder—that is, the reverse side of the mental illness or
abnormality coin. That there is an inverse relationship be-
tween health and disease cannot be questioned; the two are
intimately connected both conceptually and physically. On
the other hand, to define a healthy personality solely on the
basis of an absence of disorder does not suffice. As a single
attribute of behavior that signifies both the lack of (e.g., anx-
iety, depression) and an aversion to (e.g., threats to safety and
security) pain in its many and diverse forms does provide a
foundation upon which other, more positively composed at-
tributes may rest. Substantively, however, positive personal
functioning must comprise elements beyond mere nonnor-
mality or abnormality. And despite the complexities of per-
sonality, from a definitional point of view normal functioning
does preclude nonnormality.
Turning to the evolutionary aspect of pain avoidance, that
pertaining to a distancing from life-threatening circum-
stances, psychic and otherwise, we find an early historical
reference in the writings of Herbert Spencer, a supportive
contemporary of Darwin. In 1870 Spencer averred:Pains are the correlative of actions injurious to the organism,
while pleasures are the correlatives of actions conducive to its
welfare.
Those races of beings only can have survived in which, on the
average, agreeable or desired feelings went along with activities
conducive to the maintenance of life, while disagreeable and ha-
bitually avoided feelings went along with activities directly or
indirectly destructive of life.
Every animal habitually persists in each act which gives plea-
sure, so long as it does so, and desists from each act which gives
pain.... It is manifest that in proportion as this guidance ap-
proaches completeness, the life will be long; and that the life will
be short in proportion as it falls short of completeness.
We accept the inevitable corollary from the general doctrine
of Evolution, that pleasures are the incentives to life-supporting
acts and pains the deterrents from life-destroying acts. (pp. 279–
284)More recently, Freedman and Roe (1958) wrote:We... hypothesize that psychological warning and warding-
off mechanisms, if properly studied, might provide a kind of
psychological-evolutionary systematics. Exposure to pain, anxi-
ety, or danger is likely to be followed by efforts to avoid a