Social Psychology

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. - It is the branch of general psychology that studies predominantly two orders of phenomena: 1) the interferences and conflicts between social groups; 2) the behavior of the individual insofar as it is stimulated and conditioned by the behavior of other persons and of various social groups. The development and autonomous establishment of social psychology were not easy, because a clear differentiation from both sociology and psychology was necessary. With the founding of the German periodical Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (1860), M. Lazarus and H. Steinthal attempted a first systematization of philological, historical and psychological data outside the traditional sociological schema, and from that time social psychology would present itself for many years as a true and proper psychology of peoples (Wundt's Völkerpsychologie, 1900, is of capital importance).

A more precise approach to psychology occurred subsequently to the studies devoted to the dynamism of crowds. This orientation begins in Italy (G. Sergi, Psicosi epidemiche, 1889; S. Sighele, Folla delinquente, 1891) and continues in France with Le Bon (his Psychologie des foules is from 1895). Almost all the authors insist on emphasizing the negative character of the crowd (paroxysmal and criminal aspects) and oppose the value of the individual to the uniform leveling of the masses that undermines and degrades intelligence and moral feeling. Continuing in the natural process of differentiation, social psychology has sought to free itself from kindred disciplines. Thus there has been talk of collective psychology, which studies the manifestations of unstable and accidental groups or aggregates (of the crowd type), while the psychic manifestations of stable and organized groups would belong properly to social psychology. A distinction to be rejected, because it is impossible and useless to create new disciplines for every type of more or less organized structure. The same observation holds for the more recent designations, such as psycho-sociology or socio-psychology. Social psychology is an autonomous science and takes its natural place between psychology (v.) and sociology (v.): it forms a connecting link between the two disciplines.

Investigation must aim in three directions: a) analysis of the social conditions that influence the mental and affective life of the individual; b) analysis of the reactions that the individual manifests in the face of social phenomena; c) analysis of the final result of this process, which may culminate in adaptation or in opposition to the group.

Social psychology has been harmed by the claim of many authors more or less imbued with positivism to present overly vast and definitive schemata (for example: research on the existence of typical social instincts that would explain the reality of collective life). The major attempt was made by the Anglo-American psychologist W. Mac Dougall, by the American sociologist Ward and, with less precise formulas, earlier by the Frenchmen Tarde (imitation as the basis of social relations) and Fouillée (the idea-forces that periodically modify the structures of social groups). Psychoanalysis (v.) has placed this whole theme on new foundations: for Freud the bond that unites the members of a group or the components of a crowd is always the libido, the fundamental psychic energy. There would always be a typical identification of the members with the leader, but in collective phenomena the libido would prove to be - diverted from its normal sexual aims -. An uncertain and obscure thesis that cannot present itself as a fruitful working hypothesis. The same may be said of C. G. Jung's thesis on the collective unconscious, which would enclose the experience of all past generations and would relive in a particular way in collective manifestations. Psychoanalysis has sought to apply its basic concepts to social psychology (regression, identification, frustration, sublimation, repression, etc.). The Russian school, on the other hand, has emphasized the value of conditioned reflexes, which should explain the social behavior of the individual (from Pavlov to Drabovic and Ciakotin): a thesis undoubtedly valid in certain respects, but one that it is impossible to accept in its generalizations.

Social psychology began to establish itself when it chose the rigorous experimental plane and when it tackled concrete and well-delimited themes (see the themes of political propaganda or advertising with statistical surveys of public opinion, etc.). In the first place it was necessary to specify the various types of environment with which the individual actually comes into contact, and these are classified into cosmic, organic, social and psychological environment (Miotto). Subsequently it was necessary to demonstrate experimentally the influence that environmental conditions have on the psychic processes of the individual, and thus one passed from the theoretical views of the French sociologist Durkheim and the French psychopathologist Ch. Blondel to the concrete investigations of modern social psychology in the United States (Sherif, Moreno on sociometry, K. Lewin on the extension of social fields, etc.). As is to be expected, statistical-mathematical evaluation (that is, the quantitative criterion) is increasingly asserting itself, and in recent years the techniques of mental tests (mental tests) are also commonly used in the study of the social components of the human personality. It is obvious that modern social psychology has dropped the theme of the so-called collective soul as inconclusive. Instead of speculating on this illusory entity which, detached from the psyche of individuals, would hover over communities or nations, it is more appropriate to insist on the psychology of the individual who in particular circumstances accepts idea-affective orientations from other equally concrete individuals. One may conclude by saying that the old notions of collective soul or similar simply indicate the more or less lasting agreement between the intentions and actions of the individuals who compose a given social group. By accepting this criterion, it is possible to direct research onto the experimental plane and this is certainly the greatest conquest of modern social psychology.

In conclusion: social psychology studies the relations between the individual and the social group in the most elastic sense of the term (from the crowd to the strongly organized group) and the relations of harmony, tension or conflict among the various social groups. It is not a normative discipline, but it is certain that a better knowledge of social relations could contribute validly to the normalization of these relations both on the plane of restricted groups (from the family to the nation) and on the international plane.

Antonio Miotto