Summaries
5: Whitehouse & Lanman (2014) The ties that bind us: Ritual, Fusion and Identification......................0
Subject 4: Memory errors.......................................................................................................................2
7: Newman & Lindsay (2009) false memories: What the hell are they for?...........................................2
8: Sharman et al. (2008) false memories for end-of-life decisions.........................................................2
Subject 6: A Humanistic perspective on Neuroscience...........................................................................3
11: Duque et al. (2010) Neuroanthropology: a humanistic science for the study of the culture-brain
nexus......................................................................................................................................................3
12: Taylor (2010) William James and the humanistic implications of the neuroscience revolution: an
outrageous hypothesis...........................................................................................................................4
Subject 8: Classics: Psychoanalysis and person centred therapy............................................................5
14: Nye (1996) Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis................................................................................5
15: Nye (1996) Carl Rogers and Humanistic Psychology.........................................................................7
Subject 9: Classics in psychology: Freud, Rogers, Frankl.........................................................................9
16: Freud (1917) mourning and melancholia.........................................................................................9
17: Rogers (1957) the necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change..............9
18: Frankl (1) (1972) the feeling of meaninglessness: a challenge to psychotherapy.............................9
Subject 11: Group dynamics and aggression........................................................................................10
21: Salmivalli (2002) Bullying and the peer group: A review ~ Aggression and violent behaviour.......10
22: Hornsey (2008) Social Identity Theory and Self-categorisation Theory: A Historical Review..........11
Subject 13: Humanistic perspectives on evil.........................................................................................12
25: Bohart (2002). The feeling of realness: Evil and meaning making – the humanistic psychologist. .12
27: Frankl (2) (1966) Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon....................................................13
5: Whitehouse & Lanman (2014) The ties that bind us:
Ritual, Fusion and Identification.
Abstract: Most social scientist endorse some version of the claim that participating in collective
rituals promotes socials cohesion. But, this link was prevented by a lack of precision of the terms
ritual and cohesion. W&L say this link is investigable. They present a theory about the relation
between ritual and cohesion in two forms: group identification and identity fusion.
Intro: Sociologist invented theories that collective rituals serve to bind groups together. These
theories don’t include the mechanisms which bind rituals with social cohesion. W&L hope to find this
bond.
Ritual: Under the category of ritual are numerous cognitively and behaviourally universal patterns.
Only recently are scientist busy with the most central component of rituals: causal opacity -> hard to
see difference between cause and consequence. Ritual behaviour has no clear causal structure and
no end goals
Cohesion: There is done little research on the effect of rituals on cohesion. The term social cohesion
suggest that people get attached to each other and think as a group. But, the metaphor of social
cohesion is unclear. Durkheim (1995?) tried to separate two contrasting forms of social cohesion:
mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. The first occurs in small groups, were collective
conscience is the glue for the group. This is enhanced by collective rituals. The latter occurs in bigger
groups, divided into subgroups, united by mutual interdependence. This theory is updated many
times, but isn’t empirical testable and seems false if taken top literally. W&L state that these
problems with falsifiability can be fixed with two forms of cohesion: Identity fusion and group
identification. These two capture more the psychological duality as Durkheim intended to do.
Identity fusion arises when a social identity becomes an essential part of our personal self-concept.
, Fused individuals show great willingness to altruism. Self-sacrifice, even for strangers. This matched
Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity. Identity fusion contrast with group identification. Hereby feel the
individuals that they share characteristics with the group, which aren’t essential for their personal
identity. By group identification the personal self gets replaced by the social self.
Psychological kinship and fusion: W&L reckon that two psychological processes play a part in identity
fusion. 1) The construction of self-concepts through episodic memory. 20 kin detection through
phenotypic matching. They argue that episodic memories play a central role in the construction of
self-concepts and that the recognition of these concepts in one another triggers our kin recognition
system. This leads to the feeling of psychological kinship between members. W&L argue that the
reception of the shared social norms, which are acquired through instructions and stored in the
semantic memory, will result in intuition of shared membership and trust, but this does not result in
kinship. What this psychological kinship does encourages is the idea that someone shares his episodic
memories, which are essential for the autobiographical self-concept, with someone else. Some
episodic memories are more important for someone’s narrative. By sharing these important self-
defining memories, a string sense of kinship is created. Highly dysphoric experiences, such as rites of
terror enhance this feeling. Fused individuals are sooner prepared to self-sacrifice.
Coalitional psychology and identification: While fusion promotes altruism in small groups, seems
group identification a bonding mechanism for big groups. It’s the perception that someone belongs
to a group. The members activate their social identity, based on shared beliefs, values, and norms.
The individual relates to the group, not the others. The members are seen as anonymous members
with the same beliefs. This animosity is demonstrated in the minimal group paradigm. The underlying
psychological mechanisms have little to do with autobiographical self-concepts (fusion) but with the
coalition. A big group profits from cooperation. People have preferences for sameness. Same beliefs,
values, norms.
Ritual and cohesion: W&L suggest that collective rituals come two parts. One to serve/produce
fusion, the other identification. 1) The first is known as imagistic practices, which is a combination of
causally opaque conventional actions and high levels of dysphoric arousal. This leads to fusion and
these two work together to form psychological kinship and prepares men for risky activities (war). 2)
The other part is based on doctrinal practices, were frequently repeated causally opaque
conventional actions are combined with low levels of dysphoric behaviour, but heavily emphasizing
credibility-enhancing displays for beliefs, ideologies, values. By this group identification and trust is
produced.
1) Ritual, shared dysphoria, and fusion. Rites of terror have high levels of torture. Dysphoric rituals
fuses us to fellow participants as a part of a complex known as imagistic practices, because of the
salience and memorability of the imagery they evoke, leading us to feel a deep and enduring
sense of kinship with those who have shared the same experiences. The key is the combination
of causal opacity with autobiography-shaping effects of negative experiences. Pain is
remembered as self-defining memories.
2) Ritual, routinisation and identification. Weber’s routinisation: the process by which a newly
religious group becomes embedded institutionally, its beliefs and rituals standardised and
subject to the authority of hierarchy. The key to cognitive results lie in the effect on the memory
by participating in collective rituals, and making them your own. By repetition you remember.
They become part of one’s semantic memory. Routinisation is part of the doctrinal mode of
religiosity.
Ritual and the evolution of divergent modes of cohesion: Life changing emotional rituals forms group
fusion & extreme altruism. Routinisation produces identification, leading to trust and cooperation.
There is a strong inverse correlation between ritual frequency and dysphoria (how more often, how
less dysphoric) W&L think these two forms arises because of different needs.
Conclusion: Ritualised behaviour is in our psychology. Collective rituals produces group building
(kinship by fusion) or coalition by identification. Participating in collective dysphoric rituals is linked
to fusion and altruism. Dysphoric rituals are remembered as distinctive episodes in a persons’ life
experience. Experiencing it together results in fusion
1
