While reading JED's post on Freud, I found myself thinking back to Western Civ during sophomore year. Then, when I reached the second paragraph, Jonathan supplied the name which I had been troubling myself to remember. Le Bon
I agree that there's a flaw in Freud's attempt to say that the actions of a group can be taken as proof of an individual's nature, disregarding the effect of a crowd/mob mentality. However, what interested me was trying to apply Freud's theories of the id, ego, and superego to the situations of the Huns, Mongols, Crusades, or World War I. If he argues that these atrocities exemplify the violent, aggressive nature of humans, then they would be succumbing to their ids? Did the ego or superego even exist in these situations? Certainly, they're not things that have evolved, since he considers the recent world war along with more ancient history. Could the crowd/herd effect in fact act to empower the id? Could it weaken the ego? If in fact, suddenly everyone around you is raping/pillaging/plundering, doesn't this make it immediately more socially acceptable to do the same?
February 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll say what I said at JED's, namely:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your thinking on the rates of murder and other violent crime in our society? The fact that it isn't higher? Does this support Freud's contention? After all, these are individual acts. I can grant everything you have said, and Freud can still argue that his point remains valid. Its a new hypothesis, that is all: crowds are worse than individuals...