The Psychology of Society (Barnes & Noble Digital Library)

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIETY

MORRIS GINSBERG

This 2011 edition published by Barnes & Noble, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

122 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10011

ISBN: 978-1-4114-6294-6

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. THE GENERAL NATURE OF INSTINCT

II. INSTINCT IN SOCIETY

III. THE RÔLE OF REASON AND WILL

IV. THE THEORY OF A SOCIAL OR GROUP MIND

V. THE CONCEPTION OF A GENERAL WILL

VI. RACIAL AND NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

VII. TRADITION

VIII. COMMUNITY, ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS

IX. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CROWD

X. THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC OPINION

XI. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATION AND DEMOCRACY

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

SPECULATIONS on social and political problems must from the nature of the case have a psychological basis, conscious or unconscious. Whether we are concerned with a description or analysis of the actual behaviour of human beings in the various spheres of activity, or with the problem of ideals or principles which man ought to follow, a knowledge of human potentialities, of the nature of his innate and acquired equipments, of the motive forces of life and conduct is evidently of the greatest importance. And we do in fact find that writers on Politics, Economics, Ethics and the like proceed on certain assumptions as to what are called the laws of human nature. Thus to take but a few instances, the political theory of Hobbes rests on the assumption that man is moved to action by fundamentally egoistic impulses and that the basis of obedience is fear, while such writers as Sir Henry Maine find that basis in habit and others again in rational consent. The Utilitarian School in politics and ethics was based on certain psychological assumptions, though they were not all consciously realized by the members of that school in an equal degree, viz. that human action is guided entirely by a conscious pursuit of ends, that the sole motive of action is the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain and that happiness is identical with a sum of pleasures. These or similar psychological assumptions also underlay the economics of the laissez-faire school. Again in popular thinking on social matters nothing is more common than a reference to what are supposed to be the laws of human nature. Human nature being what it is, it is often maintained, wars are inevitable. Others argue that while human nature remains the same, Socialism is utterly impracticable and open competition the only method of securing initiative and energy in industry. One of the most common dogmas in this connexion is the immutability of human nature, which is invariably urged against any new proposals. One would imagine that we were in fact possessed of a science of human character and conduct which would enable us to speak with any certainty of what is and what is not attainable by human endeavour, whereas the truth is that such a science is yet in its infancy and has hardly gone beyond the stage of rough empirical generalization.

Despite the obvious importance of a knowledge of the psychological factors operating in political and social affairs, the conscious application of psychological principles to social theory or rather the attempt to build up a social psychology is a recent growth. The movement may be said to begin in the latter half of the nineteenth century and is exceedingly complex. No attempt can be made here to disentangle the various elements that contributed to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the psychological point of view; but the following phases may be distinguished.

1. In the first place the philosophy of Hegel, and, in a different way, the work of Comte, led to the conception of humanity as a manifestation or expression of a spiritual principle, and in Hegel of the Volksgeist or Folk-Soul as an emanation or embodiment of the World-Spirit. This conception of a national mind or soul was not, however, worked out psychologically, but was essentially a metaphysical conception, though in Hegel's work there is to be found a good deal of psychological interest. The Hegelian movement is of importance because it fitted in with and largely inspired a romantic and mystical conception of the nation whose influence can be traced in various directions, in the sphere of literature and art, as well as in the interpretation of law and language, of myth and custom. Thus to take but one example, the so-called Historical School of Jurisprudence founded by Savigny was evidently influenced by Hegelian conceptions, for according to it law is not the product of conscious intellect and will, but is a natural growth or expression of the spirit of a people. This conception of the national soul, however, remained very vague and hazy, and cannot be said to have been fruitful of results in the field of historical jurisprudence.

Not unconnected with Hegel was the work of Lazarus and Steinthal, who are usually referred to as the founders of social psychology and who in 1860 established a periodical for the study of Folk Psychology and Philology, in which they laid down a very elaborate programme. Their conception of social psychology is interesting and does not seem in essentials to differ from that of Dr. McDougall. The duty of Folk Psychology, says Lazarus, is to discover the laws which come into operation wherever the many live and act as one. Its business is to give a scientific account of the whole life of a people as exemplified in their language, art, religion and conduct, above all, it is to deal with the changes that take place in the minds of peoples, their evolution and decay. The procedure was to be entirely empirical, i.e. based on an examination of the facts of direct observation and of those furnished by ethnology and other sciences of human life. Folk Psychology was to consist of two parts, one dealing with the general principles underlying the phenomena common to all groups or peoples and the other, called by them Psychological Ethnology, dealing with the psychological peculiarities of people and groupings. (With this may be compared the following statement of McDougall: Group Psychology consists properly of two parts, that which is concerned to discover the most general principles of group life and that which applies these principles to the study of particular kinds and examples of group life.—The Group Mind, p. 6.) It is difficult to estimate the importance of the work of Lazarus and Steinthal. Apart from rather forbidding discussions as to the nature of the social mind (in which they seem to labour under the difficulty of bringing together in one system two radically incompatible theories, viz. the psychology of Herbart and the metaphysics of Hegel), their actual contributions lie rather in the field of detailed philology than in social psychology proper. In any case it is difficult to ascribe to them any influence which can be directly traced.

Reference may be made also to the very important work of Wilhelm Wundt, who in Germany is regarded as the most eminent representative of Social Psychology. He conceives of the latter as concerned with the study of the mental products of communities such as language, mythological ideas and customs. Social psychology is thus according to him an integral part of general psychology, or rather a method of study designed to help us in an understanding of the more complex mental processes. His voluminous works on Völkerpsychologie are therefore devoted to a study of language, myth, custom, law and social organization from this point of view. In a later and briefer work he has also attempted to give a synthetic view of human development and of the phases through which it may be said to have passed.¹

2. The work so far discussed falls largely under the first part of Lazarus and Steinthal's programme. But there exists also a large literature on what may be called differential social psychology which deals with the mental characteristics peculiar to different races and peoples. This literature was largely inspired by the remarkable development of national self-consciousness during the nineteenth century. Thus e.g. the war of 1870 and the desire to determine the cause of the German victory led to the work of Pater Didon, Les Allemands (Paris, 1884). Again the frequent prophecy of the decay of the Latin peoples as compared with the Germanic largely inspired Fouillée's Psychologie du peuple français (Paris, 1898). To this group belong also the later work of Fouillée, Esquisse psychologique des peuples européens; Leroy-Beaulieu's L'Empire des Tsars et des Russes, 1889; Hugo Munsterberg's The Americans; Boutmy's Essai d'une psychologie politique du peuple anglais au XIXme siècle; Masaryk's Russia and Europe; and many others. Mention may also be made of the attempts at race psychology inspired by such writers as Gobineau and Chamberlain.

Many of the books belonging to this group are distinguished by considerable insight into the psychology of peoples, but it is doubtful whether they belong to the sphere of science proper. They abound in facile generalizations, based on general impressions and vague assumptions. They all suffer from the fact that as yet we have not a proper science of character and from the absence of any generally accepted methods of record and observation. Generalities such as that one people is given to abstract ideas while another is inductively inclined, or that one people is sceptical and critical while another is ready to accept any dogma, are worth very little. In particular much confusion has arisen from the use of collective terms and from the assumption that there exists a racial or national mind which persists as such and is responsible for what befalls a people; and the fault is—hasty generalization, to which the notion of a group mind too easily lends itself. Many of the statements made by different observers with regard to national characteristics contradict one another. Thus e.g. according to Chamberlain, the Jews are markedly strong-willed, while the Germans are noted for intellect; whilst Lapouge tells us that Homo Europeaus has but an average intellect while his will is strong! Again the explanations that are offered for national characteristics are often of a very doubtful character. This applies in particular to the direct influence of climatic conditions. Thus according to Leger, the influence of the Steppes in Russia is towards autocracy. Unfortunately, according to Laban the steppe produces in the Hungarian not only courage and frankness but also a peculiar love of freedom. So again Leroy-Beaulieu explains the dreamy character of the Russians by reference to the Russian plains; while Laban finds in the Hungarian plains the explanation of the realistic temper of the Hungarian. Instances could be multiplied to prove the precarious character of many of these books on differential folk psychology, judged from the scientific point of view. The whole subject is in need of careful analysis, and of a clearer statement of legitimate problems, and of a generally accepted method of record and observation.

3. The development of the theory of evolution and the growing importance attached to the genetic point of view, led to much valuable work in comparative psychology which has an important bearing upon the problems of social psychology. Thus e.g. the genetic method of Baldwin (Social and Ethical Interpretations) inquires into the psychological development of the human individual in the earlier stages of growth for light upon his social nature and also upon the social organization in which he bears a part (p. 2). To this phase belongs also the work of Royce and in some respects that of Dr. McDougall, and there can be no doubt that they have helped us to get a clearer idea of the true relation between the individual and society and of the processes involved in the attainment of the consciousness of self by the individual.

4. The development of comparative psychology and the increasing attention given to the study of behaviour as contrasted with introspection is partly responsible also for the emergence of a new school of social psychologists who are concerned to bring to light the instinctive, emotional and unconscious factors involved in social life. This school may be said to begin with Bagehot, who emphasized the importance of imitation in the social process. He was followed by Tarde, who worked out an imposing sociological system on this basis and who has been largely followed by the American sociologist Ross. The popular works of Le Bon exemplify the same tendency. The earlier work of Professor Graham Wallas (Human Nature in Politics, 1908) was also anti-intellectualist in character and was designed to bring out the importance of such processes as suggestion, imitation, habit, instinct and of unconscious factors generally, in social life. Dr. McDougall's Introduction to Social Psychology appeared about the same time as Professor Wallas's book. In this work, which has exercised a very great influence in many fields of sociological inquiry, he worked out a theory of the instincts as the prime movers of human life and has sketched the main principles which in his view determine all conduct. In his recent work (The Group-Mind, 1920) Dr. McDougall uses his former account of the root principles of conduct to explain the behaviour of groups as such, e.g. the loosely organized crowd, the highly organized army and the highest form of the group mind yet reached, the mind, viz., of a nation state. Throughout emphasis is laid upon the instincts and sentiments, whilst an idea alone as intellectual apprehension cannot exert any influence (p. 170). He does, however, also emphasize, though with doubtful consistency, the importance of the intellectual activities for progress (pp. 297–seq.).

5. The remarkable development of psycho-pathology associated with the names of Freud, Jung and others has also led to important contributions to social theory, tending largely in a similar direction to the work just referred to under our fourth head. The results of psycho-analysis have already been applied, often with remarkable success, to the interpretation of the great personalities of history, as e.g. in Freud's work on Leonardo da Vinci and in studies by American writers on Luther and Lincoln. It seems probable that psycho-analysis will throw light on many phases of social unrest and in particular on the mental history of the great exponents of Anarchism and extreme individualism (compare in this connexion a recent book by Aurel Kolnai, entitled Psychoanalyse and Soziologie). The Freudian concept of repression is extremely helpful in dealing with the problems connected with political revolutions, as well as with the problem of economic life and activity. In this latter connexion may be mentioned the work of Mr. Ordway Tead (Instincts in Industry) and a very interesting paper in which Professor William F. Osburn tries to show how economic motives are commonly disguised through the operation of such unconscious mechanisms as displacement, symbolism, projection, compensation and rationalization (American Economic Review, Supplement, March 1919). Freud himself has applied the results of psycho-analysis to an interpretation of totemism and of taboos, while others belonging to his school have made studies in the psychology of religion from the point of view of the new psychology. Jung and his followers seem to be following a procedure in some sense opposed to that of Freud. Whilst the latter seeks to apply results obtained in individual psychology to the elucidation of the problems of folk psychology, Jung and his school seek rather to use the material of folk-psychology for their interpretation of the facts of individual psychology. It is yet too early to estimate the value for social theory of all this work, but there can be no doubt that it has opened out many fascinating lines of inquiry and that it has already resulted in important contributions.²

6. The tendency of recent work is thus to emphasize the unconscious and instinctive factors of social life, and many writers have used the results of recent psychology as a basis for an attack against what is called the intellectualist or rationalistic interpretation of social problems. Such attacks are often based on misconceptions as to the nature of reason and will or upon too abstract a view of them. There have, however, not been wanting writers who have tried to show the place of reason and of rational purpose in social institutions and movements. Thus, e.g., Professor Graham Wallas in his Great Society argues that thought is itself a true natural disposition and "not merely a subordinate mechanism acting only