Man is undoubtedly a social being. Nearly everything he does is in regard to another human being. Some have taken this observation so far as to say that it is a fundamental characteristic of human beings to fragment into competing groups, with tenderness, courage, and generosity towards their own group, and hate, malice, and animosity towards rival groups. Entire political philosophies have been built upon the foundation of “man as member”.
Certainly this tendency is found in all peoples across all times. From the factions of the ancient Greeks, fighting for the honor of their tribe, to the irrational animosity between fans of different sports teams, it’s not difficult to point out numerous examples of the instinct.
Yet to say this is a fundamental characteristic of humanity fails to apprehend the core of the tendency. Man, as we know, acts with reason. Is it irreducible that man derives pleasure from being part of a group?
No; there is a deeper desire at work there. Sociality is not the sole reason for joining groups. Think of the NRA or the ACLU, among whose members only the most active ever have social interactions in the context of their group. Their memberships are vast, but generally entail nothing more for the average member than paying dues and holding a card. Yet these groups command a visceral fidelity from their members not less than a more social club: attack the NRA and its member will feel personally affronted, just as if you had slandered his church or nationality.
There is much more to the in-group/out-group mindset than direct social bonds. The fundamental desire behind it is not human contact as such, but the desire to be known. It is the selfish (though entirely natural) desire to be appreciated and understood. Lacking deep relationships to satisfy this desire, people gravitate towards groups as a proxy for themselves: in lieu of understanding me as an individual, you may understand the group I belong to, and thus understand me to some degree.
As the unsatisfied desire becomes more and more vexing, the specific character of the group becomes less and less relevant. Rather than selecting a group by which he may approximately be known, he defines himself by the group he has selected (or that has been selected for him). This is why the competition between Republicans and Democrats is so fierce, despite mainline candidates rarely differing on anything substantiative. This is why culture divides itself along racial lines – why there is such a thing as “black culture”, despite the obvious fact that skin color has no necessary influence on stylistic choices. This is why nationalism ironically triumphs all the more in countries with the least to be proud of (Germany, for example, did not fall into nationalist fervor until their country was in ruin).
Group instinct has been responsible for a vast number of evils in human history. From the senseless violence of ancient wars, crusades, and plunders, to the horrors of genocide during Fascism’s brief reign earlier in the century, all the way to the disingenuous partisan treatment of intellectual discourse today, group identity is obviously an unsatisfactory and dangerous substitute for personal friendships and relationships. Totalitarian and statist governments entrench themselves by destroying the bonds of commerce and voluntarism, and replacing them with rigid group-identity roles. The individual loses his identity to the group – he is no longer an individual but a member.
This is the danger of collectivism. Not only do we become materially worse off from economic reasons, but the bonds of friendship and knowing cannot coexist with a collectivist social structure. They are the foundation of individualism, and wherever they exist, let tyrants and bureaucrats beware. Wherever they do not, let the people beware.
1
Doug Jinks says: Jun 08, 2010 at 16:14Because, as we all know, collectives eventually become the Borg. Seriously, though, good inspection of human psychology/sociology.
2
Ben Triplett says: Jun 13, 2010 at 1:25There are, in fact, goods of group interaction..the four gospels, for example, arose from the reality of community and not individuality. The myth of the individual also leads to some evils, such as gross materialism in private property ownership, resulting in denial of the needs of others.
I agree that Hegelian notions of a “national spirit” tend to allow nations a reason to act on baser instincts in the name of “nationalism”. Yet, this doesn’t mean such a thing doesn’t exist. I would like to see more complexity in defining this issue, as individual and group interact. Why must it be one or the other?
3
Ben Triplett says: Jun 13, 2010 at 1:26Oh, and my former comment on Marxism was just to see how you’d react :P.
4
thrica says: Jun 13, 2010 at 23:28I’m not saying group interaction is necessarily a bad thing – it’s absolutely necessary to live in the world – only that when one takes one’s identity from a group of people, it probably indicates unfulfilled personal needs. Whether or not that’s a good way to fulfill them depends on a lot of factors (most importantly what the group is), but more often than not it’s probably not a good thing.
Such a thing as appears to be a “national spirit”, independent of its constituents (though not in fact so) can only appear so far as the people are broken and servile to relinquish their identity to it.
Groups are inevitable, but the character of interaction among individuals in them is not. When we are secure in our identity; when we are the “most human”, as you might say, we define our groups, not the other way around.
Also, troll fail. :p
5
Ben Triplett says: Jun 14, 2010 at 15:57I certainly believe we are entitled to some distinction within a group, and this distinction has implications on the nature of the group. Yet, the group as an entity has inevitable implication on the individual as well, as exemplified in the Church. Granted, the Church can be acted upon as an entity (ex. the Reformation). Yet, the Church as an entity, controlled by God, acts upon the individuals according to God’s will in certain circles (ex. the Augustinian liturgy formed Luther). I agree with your point that to succumb to group identity simply because one ascribes to a group is sheepish…yet, to deny that group behavior has a life of its own…groups as entities…lacks imagination in my mind.
6
Ben Triplett says: Jun 14, 2010 at 17:44After reflection, I realize I have fallen into one of my own traps. I feel like we have had this discussion many times, and I rarely define terms or reasons on my own side. Aside from psychological studies which define a group in terms of a single entity with regards to mentality, I would refer you to current theological trends, which offer warning against post-Luther over-individualism. These arguments, from Barth to Yoder to MacIntyre to Hayes to Hauerwas (and I would specifically refer you to Hayes’ articles on Luther’s misinterpretation of faith in Jesus Christ rather than faith of Jesus Christ), argue, very generally, that Christians read their faith much too individualistically in the post-Reformation era, and the dangers therein. You can find a very tidy summary of these viewpoints in Paul Among the Postliberals by Douglas Harink. The arguments stem from reworked interpretations of scripture, as well as problematic theological and ethical stances in the post-Reformation.
I think I have (through education at Dook) been indirectly influenced by these viewpoints. I’ve been planning a blog on these notions, as I find these views a bit disconcerting in light of my own notion of the soul…but I do find the arguments to be valid on their own terms and in the multi-thousand-year-old theological dialogue. Thus, I have become typically cautious of over-individualized worldviews. I actually think you (and Luther) would find some value in these arguments…
7
thrica says: Jun 14, 2010 at 19:18I don’t deny that individuals act differently in groups, and that there’s a herd mentality – that much is obvious. However, that doesn’t make it ok to consider the group holistically. It’s an emergent property of the individuals in a group, not a property of the group itself – at no point does it stop being composed of the wills and identities of individuals (even if for many of them it’s a two-way, or one-way receptive influence).
Just as groups cannot be considered holistically, neither can they be acted upon holistically – only through the individuals that compose them. God did not work on “the Church” as such during the Reformation, for example; he worked through individuals as they came to accept (for whatever reason) the reformers’ doctrines. Much (most?) of that was in the context of the Church, but that doesn’t mean the Church was acting upon individuals. Individuals were acting upon other individuals in the context of the Church.
You say it lacks imagination to deny the holistic properties of the group; I say it’s imaginary. ;) (or at least illusory)
Maybe we’re secretly in agreement if saying “the group acts on the individual” is shorthand for “individuals act on each other in the context of a group”. But if you mean what you say as it stands, then you’ve given up what it means to be human.
Also, what psychological studies do you mean? I would think psychology’s entire foundation is fundamentally individualistic (as there is no such thing as a group brain). It could shed light on the emergence of a herd mentality and the loss of independence within the individual, but not an independent group will.
As for theological trends, is that along the same lines as N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul? The faith in/faith of distinction brings that to mind, though his particular distinction might have been different. I haven’t looked at that in a while, but I remember finding it a rather odious framework. Regardless, I’ll try to find some of what you’ve mentioned to see its merit.
And finally (one more definition request), how much is over-individualism? Is it based on the philosophy’s effects, or its intrinsic truth?
8
Ben Triplett says: Jun 14, 2010 at 22:50One at a time: “God did not work on “the Church” as such during the Reformation, for example; he worked through individuals as they came to accept (for whatever reason) the reformers’ doctrines.”
This, I see, as a lack of imagination. Reform was happening, in similar ways, across different groups of people at different moments, yet arousing similar confessions. Not only Luther, but von Kaysersberg, Staupitz, Pole, Melancthon…God was speaking to individuals as a group, and this group acted in a strikingly similar way despite boundaries of time, language, culture, etc…In other words, I don’t see this movement happening as a specific result of cause/effect between individuals, spreading as one individual catches wind of doctrine spread from other individuals. No, similar confessions were occurring simeltaneously…and I believe the same happens in the 20th century with reactions to modernism. In fact, these confessions happen in a similar way through different cultural means: art, theology, science, etc…not necessarily as a direct cause/effect from individual to individual. For example, Heisenberg didn’t discover Uncertainty in quantum particles due to Picasso’s decision to abstract. Yet, these two seemingly unrelated ideas share in a reaction to modernism that we are now categorizing. Something metaphysical seems to move cultures at the same time…not necessarily individuals. Or is it a coincidence that individuals seemingly react in very similar ways to cultural phenomenae?
Now…”Maybe we’re secretly in agreement if saying “the group acts on the individual” is shorthand for “individuals act on each other in the context of a group”. But if you mean what you say as it stands, then you’ve given up what it means to be human.”
Here stands my trouble with recent trends. Again, my notion of the soul maintains individuality to some extent (I am, after all, a Kierkegaardian at heart!). Thus, I cannot believe that some “national spirit” or metaphysical entity which moves a group somehow subsumes all individuality. Rather…I wonder if individuality rails against this entity to create a tension…this is something I’ve not put enough thought into. However, I think it too narrow minded to deny evidence that groups tend to function as their own entity.
9
Ben Triplett says: Jun 14, 2010 at 22:56I apologize…its too late for me to go backlogging through my psychology notes…so I’ll have to save that for tomorrow! Also, any discussion of Hays/post-liberalism!
10
thrica says: Jun 15, 2010 at 0:02“Or is it a coincidence that individuals seemingly react in very similar ways to cultural phenomenae?”
I wouldn’t say coincidence, but emergent/spontaneous phemonena like culture (and language) are extremely complex and pervasive, hence the appearance of something that might look like a metaphysical group spirit. People are people, and react to influences in generally similar ways – Newton and Leibniz were probably influenced by the same mathematicians when they concurrently invented calculus, for example. Likewise in the Reformation, the intellectual environment had been pushed far out of stability (obvious cognitive dissonance prevailing). The longer that went on, the more likely it became that someone would resolve it, the Protestant-esque manner being the most apparent, so multiple people ended up coming to the same conclusion. So, I don’t think synchronicity demonstrates separateness of the group spirit at all.
If individualism lacks imagination, it seems group spirit is an easy out for explaining peoples’ behavior in groups; as if we just don’t want to try.
Maybe before I go any further I should ask, what is the group spirit? When does it emerge, and how does it interact with people? What is its separate essence?