1

REVIEW ESSAY

ON FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS AND GROUP PSYCHOLOGY

Sigmund Freud (1921, 1991). ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego,’ Civilization, Society and Religion, translated by James Strachey, edited by Albert Dickson (London: Penguin Books), Vol. 12, Penguin Freud Library, pp. 91-178.

INTRODUCTION

What is group psychology? Why should Sigmund Freud engage with the theory of group psychology when psychoanalysts deal mainly with individual patients? What furthermore are the differences between ‘individual psychology’ and ‘group psychology?’ These are the important questions that Freud takes up in his study of ‘group psychology and the analysis of the ego.’ This text was first written in 1921and appeared in Freud’s Collected Works in German in 1940. It was translated in 1922 and was included in the Standard Edition in English in 1955. This is by no means the only Freudian text on social entities that will be of interest to social theorists.1 Freud spent considerable effort to situate individual psychology within, as the title of this volume from the Penguin Freud Library puts it, on ‘civilization, society and religion.’ The application of psychoanalysis in areas like anthropology, history, law, religion, sociology, and the human sciences are drawn from texts like those collected in this volume. What most of these areas lack is not only a theory of ‘agency,’ but also a theory of the human subject. It is Freud’s endeavour therefore to provide a theory of the subject for not only clinical work, but also for the human sciences as a whole. It should be possible then to incorporate this text on group psychology within the management curriculum given that theorists of organisational behaviour and human resources are faced 1 For a detailed study of the relationship between psychoanalysis and social theory, see Anthony Elliott (1992). Social Theory and Psychoanalysis in Transition: Self and Society from Freud to Kristeva (Oxford: Blackwell). See also Herbert Marcuse (1970). Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics, and Utopia, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro and Shierry M. Weber (London: The Penguin Press).

2

with the difficult task of relating ‘individual behaviour’ within the context of ‘group dynamics.’ It is not surprising then that Freud starts by differentiating between individual psychology and group psychology before analysing the role played by the ego in mediating between individuals and groups.

INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY & GROUP PSYCHOLOGY

The first point that Freud makes is that individual psychology should not be misunderstood as the behaviour of individuals in isolation. That is because the individual is always accompanied by others who take on the roles of a model, a helper, an opponent, and so on. This is not unlike the roles played by the different characters in narratives that help the protagonist attain his goals in a literary text. Each of these roles then represents a textual or narrative function. The inter-dependence between the individual and those around him makes it difficult to define individual psychology as the study of ‘isolated individuals.’ It is therefore important for Freud to ‘deconstruct’ the opposition between individual psychology and group psychology. When Freud does this, the reader begins to realize that some of the attributes of group psychology are internal to individual psychology (though that may not be apparent in the beginning). The analytic distinction then between individual psychology and group psychology is subject to the linguistic law of différance.2 Likewise, it is only possible to define group psychology by invoking the psychology of the individual by way of contrast. Freud therefore defines group psychology in this text as ‘concerned with the individual man as a member of a race, of a nation, of a caste, of a profession, of an institution, or as a component part of a crowd of people who have been organized into a group at some particular time for some definite purpose.’ For psychoanalysts like Charles Rycroft, the main differences in contention in this context are those between group psychology, group analysis, and group therapy. The emphasis on group therapy is missing in Freud’s text because this is a clinical innovation that is mainly associated with post-Freudian analysts and not with Freud himself (given that group therapy will have more than two patients in a clinical session whereas Freud only saw one patient at a time). Furthermore, an important aspect of groups is the role played by the leader; the sense of mutual identification amongst the members; the membership criteria that determine who is inside or

2 For a theoretical justification of such moves, see Jacques Derrida (1986). ‘Différance,’ Margins of Philosophy, translated by Alan Bass (Brighton: The Harvester Press), pp. 1-27.

3

outside a group; and the imaginary function of the enemy in keeping the group united.3

CROWDS AND ‘THE CONTAGION EFFECT’

Before articulating his theory of groups, however, Freud looks into primitive models like crowds and mobs to see if they have something to teach him about group dynamics. He does this by reviewing the work of Gustav Le Bon, W. McDougall, and W. Trotter. The three questions that Freud aims to address are the following: What is a group? How does it affect individuals? How does it change individuals? Freud begins with the analogy that individuals are like cells and the group is like a body. While the body may be composed of cells, it is a holistic entity that is not reducible to any particular cell. So, just as cells lose their individual identity in the body, so do individuals within a group. Group behaviour is mostly determined then by the unconscious of the collective, or the ‘group mind,’ rather than through the deliberate conscious action of specific individuals. This makes individuals shed their inhibitions and feel more powerful in a group. They begin to feel that they can accomplish things which they would not be able to on their own. Members of a group also begin to respond to the promptings of the collective mind without a conscious awareness that they are doing so. A crowd or a mob is however not the same as a well-organized group, but more akin to a spontaneous coming together of individuals united by a common cause, complaint, or grievance. These spontaneous groups are subject to the ‘contagion effect,’ as central bankers, like to point out. A good instance of such a contagion is rumours that lead to a ‘run on a bank’ or a financial institution. The task of the banking authorities in such cases is to ‘calm the panic’ and restore normality lest the contagion effect lead to a collapse of the banking system.4 During a contagion, affects and emotions flow freely from one suggestible individual to another as though those present were in a state of hypnosis. The members in a crowd will be less

3 See also Charles Rycroft (1968, 1995). ‘Group,’ A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (London: Penguin Books), p. 66.4 See, for instance, R. W. Hafer (2005). ‘Panic of 1907,’ The Federal Reserve System: An Encyclopaedia (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), pp. 293-295 and Gary B. Gorton (2012). ‘The Panic of 2007-08,’ Misunderstanding Financial Crises: Why We Don’t See Them Coming (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 182-199. A recent account of the attempt to ‘calm’ stakeholders during a ‘financial panic’ is Ben S. Bernanke (2013). The Federal Reserve and the Financial Crisis: Lectures by Ben S. Bernanke (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press).

4

responsive to reasoned arguments in favour of stability and become highly suggestible instead. The insights generated through the study of how crowds and mobs behave during periods of contagion can help us to build better groups from an organizational or institutional point of view (lest they also become vulnerable to the contagion effect in a moment of regression). That is why this Freudian text will be of interest to even professionals outside the community of psychoanalysts be they bankers, managers, or experts on organizational behaviour and human resources.

STRUCTURE OF GROUPS

The examples of groups that Freud invokes in his text are the Church and the army; he considers these to be ‘artificial groups.’ Groups are united either by an ideal or by a leader. Not all groups have leaders. Freud also distinguishes between those which have and those which do not have a leader. The libidinal ties between a leader and the followers in a group are a consequence of identification. The study of groups therefore gives Freud an opportunity to formulate a theory of identification. This theory of identification is then applied in the context of the Church and the army. Though a text like this might be of interest to a business school audience, it is important to remember that Freud did not say anything about corporate groups at all. The reader can however explore whether any of Freud’s insights will be useful to group formations other than those that he explicitly mentions. The main reason for uniting a group around an ideal or a leader is that it helps to reduce the number or intensity of differences between members. It also helps to lower the levels of ambivalence that characterise all human relationships. The presence of an ideal or a leader can increase the stability of a group since it will then focus on what the members have in common rather than focus on their internal disagreements. In the absence of a unifying ideal or effective leadership, there will be an increase in the centrifugal forces that the members of the group will be subject to. Such an increase in centrifugal forces will not only induce some measure of instability in the group but also drive the members apart. It is the mutual identification of members with each other and with the ideals or the leadership that will determine whether a group can exist with a high level of stability and pursue success in whatever realms it aspires to.

IDENTIFICATION IN GROUPS

5

The Freudian theory of identification is the best part of this text.5 Freud starts by explaining the function of identification within the Oedipus complex before exploring the libidinal ties that constitute the group dynamics for ‘artificial groups’ like the Church and the army. The main point that Freud makes is that identification has fundamental consequences for the ego of the subject; the ego is often transformed in the act of identification. Likewise, the members of a group are transformed by identifying with each other and with the ideals of the group. What the members of a group share, then in common, is an ‘ego-ideal.’ Since all the members cannot know each other in person, it is simply easier to identify with the ego-ideal; which, for all practical purposes, is the same as the ‘group ideal.’ In the Church, for instance, the group ideal is Christ and his teachings. In the army, it could be patriotism, or the need to defend against or destroy the enemy. The task of the ego then is to identify with the ego ideal; the failure to do so amongst members will lead to feelings of guilt. Socializing new members into the ways of the group is tantamount then to selling the group ideal. If the identification with the group ideal is intense, then the artificial group is cohesive; if the identification is weak, then, the group will become weak under stress and regress into primitive (i.e. ‘natural’ forms) like crowds, mobs, herds, and hordes. Freud uses the term ‘artificial groups’ in the positive sense. A artificial group is that which can resist the temptation to regress under stress to more ‘primitive, natural, and spontaneous’ forms that are subject to the ‘herd instinct and the contagion effect’ (that characterize the stock markets and the banking sector during financial crises) requiring intervention by stabilizers like Mark Carney.6

CONCLUSION

The Freudian theory of group formation then is articulated with an awareness of the constant sense of danger that ‘regression’ to an earlier organizational form poses to the success and durability of a group. Freud is also interested in the forms of libidinal ties that constitute the libidinal economy of the group. That is why the question of whether women are included in groups like the Church and the army is of interest to the problem of group formation. Freud also analyses whether sexual relations are permissible within groups and why celibacy is still important in the 5 See Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis (1973, 1988). ‘Identification,’ The Language of Psychoanalysis, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, introduction by Daniel Lagache (London: Karnac Books), pp. 205-208. See also Dylan Evans (1996, 1997). ‘Identification,’ An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge), pp. 80-82. 6 See Robert J. Shiller (2012). ‘Policy Makers in Charge of Stabilizing the Economy,’ Finance and the Good Society (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press), pp. 111-118.

6

Catholic Church. Freud also differentiates between heterosexual and homosexual ties within groups. The main takeaway is that groups should only permit those forms of sexual relations which will increase the cohesiveness of groups and discourage those that will endanger it. And, finally, the invocation of a group ideal is not merely to keep the group together. It also has consequences for the forms of behaviour that will be deemed acceptable in a group. So, for instance, Christ is not just a group ideal; all Christians are expected to be Christ-like in their conduct. When a group ideal fails to hold a group together, then, there is a danger that the group will dissolve or fade away. That is why a formal understanding of group dynamics that is informed by Freudian psychoanalysis will make it possible to diagnose and repair, when required, the structure of groups in order to make them function more effectively.

SHIVA KUMAR SRINIVASAN