The Formation of Communities

The Formation of Communities

Eric Nehrlich
May 9, 1994
24.205 - The Good Life - Prof. Singer

Who am I? This is a question which has many possible answers for different people. A typical answer will start listing characteristics which I have, and characteristics which I do not. For example, I am male, an MIT student, an Asian-American, etc. However, these are just facts. A more complete answer would include activities and clubs which I belong to, and ideals I believe in. One aspect which both these answers share is that they list communities I am part of. In one case, they are very broad communities, such as being an MIT student, and in the other case, they are fairly specific, as in the case of which activities I am involved in. In fact, I find it difficult to imagine how I could define myself in any way than by listing which communities I am part of, and which communities I am not. Why do we choose to be part of the communities we belong to? In an attempt to answer these questions, I read Sigmund Freud's ``Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego'' and Irving Singer's ``A Reply to My Critics and Friendly Commentators,'' in addition to drawing upon my own experience.

Sigmund Freud takes a very negative view of group psychology in his book. His first chapter excerpts quotes from a diatribe by Le Bon, wherein he describes groups as causing a regression in the individuals composing it, such that their conscious personality is submerged in the will of the group, giving the group an impulsiveness, a lack of critical thinking, and all the other negative aspects of unconscious will. Freud concedes that such groups are, generally, those formed of mobs or crowds, forming on a spontaneous whim, and dissolving as quickly, as opposed to those groups which have a permanent structure, and remain, even when the individuals composing it change. Such `organized' groups are the ones which I would like to examine in greater detail.

Freud uses two examples of organized groups to develop his thinking about their psychology: the Catholic Church, and the army. In each of these `artificial' organizations, the key to their stability is the love involved; in particular, ``each individual is bound by libidinal ties on the one hand to the leader (Christ, the Commander-in-Chief) and on the other hand to the other members of the group.'' (p. 35) He then goes on to `prove' the existence of these libidinal ties by first noting ``that almost every intimate emotional relation between two people which lasts for some time - marriage, friendship, the relations between parents and children - contains a sediment of feelings of aversion and hostility, which only escapes perception as a result of repression.'' (p. 41-42) Freud explains this intolerance as a result of our narcissism which views any difference from itself as a criticism, and that this intolerance increases in close relationships where such differences will be more easily noticed. However, in the formation of a group, such intolerance vanishes within the confines of the group. Freud claims that the narcissistic intolerance can only be overridden by a stronger libidinal tie to other people. Hence, the lack of intolerance in such groups demonstrates to Freud the existence of libidinal ties among the members of the group.

Freud greatly emphasizes the role of the leader within these groups, although his definition of leader includes men, non-corporeal men (Christ), and shared ideas. In particular, he theorizes that one of the necessary common qualities to members of a group is that of an emotional identification with each other in their relations with the group leader. Freud also theorizes that the group leader is accepted to such an extent, that he plays the role of the ego ideal (or superego) for members of the group. As he puts it, ``A primary group...is a number of individuals who have put one and the same object in the place of their ego ideal and have consequently identified themselves with one another in their ego.'' (p. 61) In other words, the group leader has taken the place of their conscience. He is the one who tells them what they should do, and each member's actions and thoughts are reinforced by their feeling the need to conform with the other members.

Freud introduces Darwin's concept of the primal horde to explain this phenomena. The primal horde consists of a troop of equal companions, led by an individual of superior strength. Freud claims that all groups are merely revivals of the primal horde. The symptom of regressing to a primitive state of mind, such that members no longer individually take responsibility for their actions, and to not think about their actions, but to follow their whims, seems to support this claim. However, I believe this conception of the group as primal horde is too simplistic to encompass all the varied types of communities that exist. I do agree with Freud's conception of the group being held together with libidinal ties, and therefore, I examined the philosophy of love as held by Irving Singer to see how it applies in this case.

Singer's philosophy of love centers around two concepts, appraisal and bestowal which he has developed for many years, and whose most recent formulation appears in ``A Reply to My Critics and Friendly Commentators.'' Singer feels these two concepts are necessary conditions for love to occur. Appraisal is the self catering to its own needs, asking what is in this relationship for me? However, since appraisal is primarily to fulfill a need, ``many instances of the same type will function and satisfy equally well, and therefore there is little appraisive need to discriminate among them.'' (p. 11) Bestowal is the more complex of the two concepts, whereby an object or a person is given value by a lover, accepted in their entirety, both their flaws and their talents. Bestowal recognizes and values the ``uniqueness and autonomy [of an object] regardless of how it can be used.'' (p. 12) Bestowal values the loved in and of itself, without regard to the needs of the lover, which means that the lover cares for the loved, rather than caring about it. Hence, although appraisal is indiscriminatory, reducing the loved to a commodity suited to fill our needs, bestowal chooses one of the possibilities to be loved, and recognizes and cherishes its individuality.

Singer believes that these concepts are present in any relationship of love. For example, let us examine how the concepts of appraisal and bestowal appear in the case of loving an unattractive woman, such as Vannoy's baglady. There are two forms of appraisal, individual and objective. The individual appraisal measures the usefulness of the potential loved object in filling our specific needs, whereas the objective appraisal measures its usefulness to a wide variety of people or to society. Hence, in the case of the baglady, she would not rate highly on the scale of objective appraisal, since not many people would consider a baglady an attractive or welcome object of love. The individual appraisal would, obviously, vary from person to person, but since our individual appraisal is often strongly influenced by objective appraisal and societal standards, such an appraisal would most likely be negative as well. However, love can be bestowed on anyone, regardless of appraisal value. In general, one is more likely to bestow upon objects and people that one appraises highly, but this is not necessarily true. If one were magnanimous, one could bestow value upon somebody such as the baglady who is unattractive by appraisal standards, instead accepting them and loving them for who they are, rather than as a fulfillment of one's own needs.

Although appraisal and bestowal are not necessarily linked, such that we only bestow value on those we appraise highly, and vice versa, they do have a relation which is interesting to examine. I think that a typical cycle of appraisal and bestowal would proceed like this. Some person is rated highly by societal and objective appraisal standards, whether for being beautiful or intelligent or talented in other ways. This societal standard undeniably influences our individual appraisal of that person, since we are immersed in society, and effects such as peer pressure influence us strongly. Since we now have a high individual appraisal of this person, we seek to include that person in our lives for the sake of fulfilling our needs. However, in this process of assimilation, we begin to see the person as a unique human being in and of themselves, completely separate from our needs. This recognition is the beginning of bestowal, which causes us to value the person's needs as well as our own. Furthermore, once we start to bestow value upon this person, she becomes separated from the other individuals who have similar appraisals, and becomes her own person in the bestower's eyes. Once we bestow value upon the person, her value to us increases, and we need her more than we originally did; thus, our individual appraisal of her increases. Since we now value her more, we find her to be a worthy recipient of our value in the form of bestowal, increasing her value yet again, etc. This interplay of appraisal and bestowal explains the slippery slope of falling in love, which starts off slowly, with each person tentatively trying to determine whether the other is appraisively worth bestowing upon. However, as the process of love continues, the cycle of appraisal to bestowal increases the value of the other, feeding back on itself to produce more value, in such a way that it accelerates with time. This discussion and example demonstrates that the concepts of appraisal and bestowal, while perhaps not exhausting the components of love, provide a good framework for the discussion of love.

These concepts serve to form the backbone of what I believe to be a more complete conception of why we form groups and communities. Freud's conception of a group being held together with libidinal ties is one that seems valid to me, and one that I would like to explore more fully within the framework of Singer's appraisal and bestowal. I also plan to use the case study of my relation with my fraternity living group in order to explain certain aspects of this conception.

I believe that a group can be the object of loving in the same way that a person can, and that as such, it can be appraised, and bestowed upon. What do I mean when I say a group? What is the group? Freud would say the leader is the group in this sense. I love the leader, and my love for the other members is an identification with their love for him. I can accept this statement, with the stipulation that Freud makes that the leader does not necessarily have to be a corporeal being, and can be an ideal, for instance. An example of this would be a chess club, where the `leader' would be the ideal of well-played chess, and each member of the club values that ideal, and values the other members of the club due to their adherence to that ideal. In this case, the group is the people dedicated to the ideal of well-played chess.

Returning to the original question of why do we join the groups that we do, we can see that Singer's concepts of appraisal and bestowal fit in quite well with the idea of community. Freud seems to have a precursor of these ideas when he is attempting to prove that libidinal ties form the foundation of the group: ``The question will at once be raised whether community of interest in itself, without any addition of libido, must not necessarily lead to the toleration of other people and to considerateness for them. This objection may be met by the reply that nevertheless no lasting limitation of narcissism is effected in this way, since this tolerance does not persist longer than the immediate advantage gained from the other people's collaboration.'' (p. 43) In Singer's terminology, the tolerance persists initially due to the initial appraisal of the advantages to be gained from collaboration; however, the tolerance does not persist without such an appraisal unless libidinal ties in the form of bestowal have occurred. I think that this is the basis of our relationship to groups.

As an example, let me use my relation to my college fraternity living group. During the 4 days of Rush, I obviously was performing an appraisal of TEP versus other living groups and dormitories. The benefits it had to offer seemed quite nice (a low housebill, the freedom of living in your own house, etc.) and I pledged there, thinking it would be just a place to live. However, as time went on, I realized the residents of TEP had far more in common than just living in the same physical location. They had committed to the group of people, and to the ideal of `brotherhood,' although it was never stated in such stark terms. I felt very comfortable with this idea, and spent more and more time working for the house, and spending time with the people involved with it. In this way, I was bestowing value upon the house or the brotherhood, performing tasks for it that were sometimes strenuous and painful, such as the two terms I spent as Kitchen Steward, responsible for buying all the food necessary for the house. The reason for this bestowal was that I began to recognize that the brotherhood was a valuable thing in its own right, regardless of the actual people involved with it. As a result of this bestowal, I naturally appraised the house as more valuable, and worthy of greater bestowal, in the cycle described above.

One might ask what there is of the brotherhood other than the actual brothers composing it. What mystical ideal was I bestowing upon? The answer to these questions lies in some thoughts that I have been considering this year in relation to my house, whose development were the reason I chose this topic. This year's pledge class signalled a change in the brotherhood which I do not particularly fit with. In fact, I no longer really value many of the brothers in the house, instead seeing fit to isolate myself from them in a single. Yet, I found that whenever something needed doing for the house, I was often volunteering immediately. This dichotomy struck me as very strange. Why should I spend a great deal of time doing things for a brotherhood whose members I did not particularly care for? The other side of the question lies in the attitude of one freshman, who continually asserts ``I love you guys,'' meaning the brothers themselves, and means it, yet does not feel particularly committed to spending time doing things for the house. After doing the reading, I believe that this phenomenon can be explained by the analysis of the love for the group into the love for the other members, and the love for the leader, in this case, the house as a whole. In my case, my love for the other members is not particularly strong any more, but my love for the house as a whole is still quite powerful, due to the immense amount of value I have bestowed on it in the past. On the other hand, the freshman in question has a great deal of love for the actual brothers, but, not having bestowed value upon the house as I have, he does not have a similar love.

This dichotomy between the physical and immaterial house is an interesting one to consider, and is one that applies to all groups or communities which has an ideal or other non-corporeal being as their `leader.' The concept of the immaterial house explains the fact that alumni of houses, colleges, or clubs, still have a strong love and loyalty for them, long after all of their actual physical characteristics have changed. For example, alumni of MIT donate a great deal of money each year due to the value that they received when they were students. Yet they are donating to an entirely different institution than what existed at that point. However, the immaterial MIT, the concept of MIT, is what commands such loyalty, explaining why they contribute such money.

It appears that the physical and immaterial houses are separate objects in that they can be loved separately. However, they are related in the cycle of appraisal and bestowal, in that the appraisal of one can lead to bestowal on the other. In my case, after appraising the brothers and the house highly, I started to bestow value upon them. In the process of this bestowal I became aware of the immaterial house, and found it as being possibly even more worthy of bestowal than the physical house. My initial appraisal of the physical house led to a bestowal upon both it and the immaterial house. This transfer of bestowal can work the other way as well. After bestowing so much on the immaterial house, I find that I appraise the members of the physical house more highly, due to their membership. The freshman described above illustrates that such transfers of bestowals do not necessarily have to occur; in his case, he appraised the physical house highly, and then bestowed upon it directly.

We have come a long way from my original posing of the question why do we join the communities that we do. However, I think that Freud's conception of the libidinal ties holding a group together, and Singer's concepts of appraisal and bestowal in the philosophy of love, mesh nicely to explain such choices. The high appraisal of a group, both its members and its leader, leads to a bestowal upon the group, that signifies a true joining of that group. In cases where the group does not have a corporeal leader, the issues become more subtle, and the difference between loving the physical group of the members themselves, and the immaterial group bound to the ideal becomes significant, yet still susceptible to analysis by Freud's conception of the group, and Singer's appraisal and bestowal.