social psychological
gracecanigbata
SocialPsychologySectionThreeSpring20221.docxSOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES
SECTION THREE
Tuesday, March 29th
I. The Mythology and Science of The Bystander Effect—one of the more famous concepts that emerged from social psychological research, the bystander effect, is based on a horrific incident that took place close to sixty years ago—the murder of Kitty Genovese. Ms. Genovese’s death, involving multiple stabbings, cries for help, and apparent reluctance on the part of witnesses to go to her aid, became a modern parable of urban life.
The core of the parable (or “the moral of the story”) maintained that our modern urban society had become so indifferent to the plight of individuals and so accustomed to violence that a lone woman’s desperate cry for help symbolized “mere noise” amid the nightly rancor of utter despair. Ms. Genovese became the tragic symbol of a heartless urban milieu.
As with all parables, elements of truth and scientific fact blend in with elements of fabulist storytelling and compelling exaggeration. Sociological social psychologists, most notably Bibb Latané and John Darley viewed the Kitty Genovese murder as a tragedy that could be re-created as an opportunity—and specifically, as a way of defining the core attributes of a sociological social psychological perspective.
Specifically, Latané and Darley put forth a hypotheses that posited an alternative, scientific explanation of reluctance to help another (such as Genovese). The reluctance to help, rather than a symbol of indifference, actually emerged within a copresent group, giving off (unintentionally) behavioral cues that discouraged others from taking action.
In effect, rather than casting a pessimistic eye on modern urban life or seeking some personality trait that caused a reluctance to act in an emergency, Latané and Darley put forth the proposition that the more people present during an emergency, the more they would create a social reluctance to help—independent of any broader environmental or more individualized factors.
The Case of Kitty Genovese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z59sJbg_if0
On March 13th, 1964, at approximately 3:15 a.m., Kitty Genovese, a manager of a bar-restaurant in the Queens borough of New York City was attacked by a knife wielding man in front of Genovese’s apartment complex, also in the Queens borough.
After being stabbed twice in the back by a lone male assailant (Winston Mosely), Genovese screamed, “Oh my God, he stabbed me! Help me!” While several of her neighbors heard the cry, only a few told reporters afterwards that they interpreted it as a cry for help.
One of Genovese’s neighbors, Robert Moser, shouted out an open window, “Let that girl alone!” Moser, however, according to reports, remained in his apartment. Mosely ran away and Genovese, alone and soon-to-be-mortally wounded, staggered to the rear entrance of the apartment complex.
A sequence of horrific acts occurred next: witnesses attest that Mosely returned, found Genovese at the locked doorway entrance in the back of the building, stabbed her repeatedly (as she screamed), raped her, and stole whatever cash she had in her purse. Genovese had knife wounds all over her body, including her hands, suggesting an attempt at self-defense.
According to reports of the incident, aside from Robert Moser shouting to “let that girl alone,” one man called the local police station in Queens (911 had yet to be implemented), but only stated that a woman was attacked and seemed to be “staggering around.” Another man (Karl Ross) called two friends, asking for advice. One of the friends who received Ross’ call in turn called a third friend, who then called the local police station.
At 4:15 a.m., an hour after the initial attack, Genovese was picked up by an ambulance. She died en route to the hospital.
The New York Times reported that Ms. Genovese was murdered “in the presence of 38 witnesses” who either only “observed” the stabbing or “remained inactive.” The report became an immediate sensation, raising a multitude of questions and inspiring a famous phrase, the bystander effect.
However, according to Kevin Cook (in Kitty Genovese: The Murder, the Bystanders, the Crime that Changed America) the initial New York Times reporting had several inconsistencies and factual errors. Nonetheless, as mentioned, the Case of Kitty Genovese became a parable for a Nation that doubted the intrinsic decency (and altruistic tendencies) of humans..
A. The Bystander Effect—represents a transformation of the self as an agent of change who feels for another or others, to a passive observer of action. When we feel for another, we assume responsibility for the welfare of another. We, in a sense, suspend the intensity of feeling for.
1. Diffusion of Responsibility—basically represents the opposite of the Omega Effect; it refers to the aforementioned proposition (made by Latané and Darley) that the more people who witness an event involving a person who needs help, the less likely anyone of the witnesses will intervene, or assist one in need.
In the context of the bystander effect, we and either wait for someone else to exhibit overt care for another’s interest or depend on another (or others) to take action.
[The Latané and Darley Experiment]
1. Historicity—refers to the personal experiences associated with helping; prior efforts to help (and the consequences that one confronts after providing help, aid, assistance, and comfort). Psychological behaviorists, who more or less maintain the famous Shakespearian notion that “ the past is prelude,” have run multiple experiments indicating that those who feel rewarded for engaging in helping behavior are for more likely to continue to help, as opposed to those feel unappreciated (or even experience hostility) when they tried to help.
1. Delayed Responsiveness—while containing behavioral elements associated with the above concepts, decisions to extend the time between stimulus (e.g., a call for help) and response (providing help) magnifies the distinction between self-interest and taking the role of the other. Calls for help can be, for a time, treated as non-events. Such treatment can allow a person to distance him/herself emotionally from one in need.
In effect, delayed responsiveness indicates a dynamic “internal conversation” one has as he/she/they weigh the perceived necessity of helping, the qualifications one has to offer help, and even the hypothetical consequences of helping.
1. Dissolution—refers to a dis-integration of a sense of a common history that fosters connections with others. In particular settings, as we create more individualistic patterns of living and lose our sense of common history, we tend to also experience feelings of increased detachment toward others.
1. Diversification—one of the more under-represented concepts in regard to the bystander effect—which confirms and contradicts this effect at the same time—is how different interactional patterns and distinct emergent roles emerge in emergencies.
More often than not, when a person is in visible need of help or assistance, bystanders assume variegated roles—some offer immediate assistance as first responders, some pick up on the cues of the one offering immediate assistance and serve as secondary or tertiary responders; some stay on the periphery of the helping space, taking on the role of hypothetical responders who can provide assistance (“just in case”); and some serve as broadcast responders who will offer opinions and suggestions, but remain apart from the helping scene.
Thursday, March 31st
B. Helping and Civil Inattention—coined by Erving Goffman and serving as a metaphor for our modern society, we hold to an ethos of atomism and mind our own business. Our normative orientation is to avoid the appearance of paying overt attention as we take in information. In a paradoxical way, civil inattention combines self-interest be noticed overtly.
1. Return to Boundary Maintenance—Mead regarded altruism and empathy as extending ourselves past our personal triangles (or our comfort zones). However, when we restrict ourselves to our comfortable triangles, we stay in our zones, which can be considered a positive attribute, but we also refrain from answering direct calls for help. In regard to a concept from last section, we refrain from “breeching boundaries” as we maintain boundary maintenance.
2. Studied Avoidance—we learn not to interrupt, which can sometimes be generalized to not intervene, even when intervention is necessary. While this act mostly applies to small group conversations (e.g., it’s impolite to tell grandpa that, “I’ve heard this old story before”) we can extend this avoidance to believe that one can engage in radical intervention, which can be deemed impolite.
C. Temporal Factors—as previously mentioned, one of the more powerful forces associated with our arbitrary reality has to do with how we have created commodified time—or, generally speaking, a socially constructed division between productive and leisurely activities as measured by the clock and calendar.
Specifically, social psychologists have found a correlation between decisions to engage in altruistic activity and time of day—or commitments made in accordance with days of the week. Interestingly, temporal factors both encourage and discourage altruistic behavior.
1. Second Place Time—sociologist Roy Oldenburg maintained that the bulk of our time is spent in three places; the first place, domestic space—includes familial habits and rituals occurring mostly at home, but extended to specific places where rituals are enacted (e.g., Church on Sundays).
The third place, leisurely space, includes activities and events away from familial obligations—single people, for instance, find third places (e.g., bars, coffee shops, and “where the action is”) as playful regions—married couples also find such regions (e.g., parties hosted by other married couples, “get-away trips”) as opportunities to “suspend parenthood” (contributing to child-care labor).
The second place, or laborious space, refers to regions involving “work-for-pay” and obligations that are independent from the actions, habits, and rituals of the first and third places. Typically, the second place is segregated from first and third places (e.g., in Offices, workplaces, treatment centers, to name of few).
Oldenburg asserted that while emergencies and calls for help occur in first and third places, second places involve obligations to help associated with paid work. At times, the obligations are inherent in the work (e.g., among hospital staff, and first responders). At other times, the obligations are more ambiguous—one (a potential helper) feels an ambiguity associated with an emergency, wondering if her/his/their job descriptions involve helping (e.g., a bus driver noticing a passenger in need of help; an office worker in a cubicle near a fellow worker experiencing difficulties).
Of particular interest to Oldenburg, in regard to providing help in second places, is the bureaucratization of help, which serves as an additional obligation to record and provide an official account of any help provided while “on the work clock.”
2. Settlement Time— Murray Melbin regarded activities during the day, especially the weekday, as linked to our productive civil society—which emphasizes commitment, responsibility, dependability, productivity, and, in effect, the capacity to display competence regarding clock time. As productive and civilized people, the clock is a god—making demands that override the needs of others. The assigned article, “From Jerusalem to Jericho” deals with the potential conflict associated with a desire to engage in altruistic acts and a desire to meet the demands of clock time in a steadfast way.
3. Altruism and Settlement Time—returning to Mead’s conceptions, and keeping in mind the settlement demands of the clock proposed by Melbin, humans can make decisions to choose altruism over the clock and engage in emergent altruism, or ignoring the demands of the clock while “going above and beyond” the conditions of altruism. Often, emergent altruism occurs in combination with third party participation (e.g., we will either call upon others to complete an altruistic act).
Importantly, settlement time does not preclude altruism or altruistic acts. When engaging in altruism during settlement time, one is more likely to rely on authorities or organizations (bringing in a third party). For instance, I am always losing my wallet; once I dropped it in one of the TCU parking lots. The person (anonymous) who found it, backtracked his/her steps and turned it in to the TCU lost and found desk (across from the BLUU), which happened to be open.
On another occasion, I dropped my wallet in another TCU parking lot and a person who found it in the afternoon took the wallet to the Lost and Found desk (across from The BLUU). She informed the person at the desk (who just so happened to be a student in my class at the time), that she was on the way toward the BLUU from the parking lot and regarded the act of dropping the wallet off as a matter of convenience.
4. Frontier Time—Melbin regarded our more leisurely society as most evident during the nighttime—away from the demands of the “work-a-day world.” Melbin regarded the night as a frontier, of sorts, with combinations of danger, excitement, thrills, terror, and, in general, unpredictability.
5. Altruism and Frontier Time—one of the more interesting correlates of frontier time, according to Melbin, is surplus altruism—or, disregarding altogether the relevance of clock time, providing aid or help on one’s own, and even offering additional help. Often such aid and help also disregards the third-party participation correlated with the Settlement.
While I was writing my Ph.D. dissertation (in the old school-typewriter days), I would carry the draft of the dissertation in an “accordion folder,” hanging onto it as if it were an extension of myself. Sometimes, I would insert other items in “the accordion,” such as letters with my name and address.
One night, I decided to see a movie by myself and ended up leaving the accordion folder underneath my theater seat. After seeing the film, I walked to a friend’s house to visit—and then the two of us walked to a restaurant to grab something to eat.
At the restaurant, we met two other friends and the four of us decided to go to a bar. Finally, at about midnight, I decided to walk home—once getting home, I realized, to my horror, that I no longer had the dissertation.
Amid my panic, I heard a knock on the door—a young man (about my age at the time) had the accordion folder. He sat in my seat to watch the movie I watched and noticed that the ushers missed the folder. He opened it and saw one of my letters with the address on it. After the movie, he went about a mile out of his way (we all walked back then) to drop off the folder and dissertation.
His act conforms to Melbin’s idea of altruism during frontier time—mainly that despite the dangers associated with the nighttime, these dangers are intertwined with enthusiastic efforts to help. However, such altruism can even involve further “deviations” from the clock (and out natural rhythms associated with the clock, as indicated in the “Wheelchair Experiment” below.
The Wheelchair Experiment
Melbin’s work received a great deal of attention among social psychologists and as one beginning a career as a Professor (of Social Psychology), I made use of this work.
In the first social psychology course I taught, as a graduate student at The University of Iowa (in Iowa City, IA), I had a student, Mike Murdoch, confined to a wheelchair as a paraplegic. He was born with a congenital disease that left him paralyzed since infancy; as sad as this story reads, Mike was one of the most beautiful people I ever met.
He loved to learn and he took advantage of the technology of his day to possess a state of the art wheelchair that allowed him to move as if he drove a golf cart. His chair was also equipped with a device that would type his spoken word onto a screen.
After discussing Melbin (which I did in a lot more detail back in the day, Mike wished to do his paper on altruism and the frontier-settlement time distinction.
His idea was relatively simple but ingenious. His wheelchair operated by a hand held device, allowing Mike to move forward, backward, and even in circles! He thought that if he held the device and moved in circles long enough, people who witnessed such circular movement would face a decision: to help or not to help.
He decided to perform the experiment at the bottom of a steep hill, just to the west of what Iowa called “the pentacrest” (equivalent to our “Commons”). The University Hotel sat at the bottom of this hill—and a telephone stood right in front of the hotel (sort of like the phones outside of airports that travelers use to call for airport transportation).
People used the phone to either call for a University Bus to transport them or to report an emergency. The Bus did run a regular circular route from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but another van (operated by various maintenance personnel) would also respond to emergencies.
Mike’s idea was to set up his wheelchair to go in circles at two different times—first, from 3:00-4:00 p.m. and then from 8:00-9:00 p.m. He asked another in the class to serve as a recorder of responses. This classmate noted the number of people who observed Mike going in circles and the ratio of helpers to observers.
Mike found three general patterns:
First, the ratio of helper to observer was high (more than 60% of the observers offered help) whether his circular movement in the wheelchair occurred in the afternoon (settlement time) or evening (frontier time).
Second, help during settlement time more likely involved using the nearby phone to report an emergency rather than any offer of direct physical help (e.g., helping to fix the wheelchair’s circular motion).
Third, help during frontier time more likely involved direct involvement —an offer to help fix the circular movement—and even, at times, offering to push the wheelchair up the hill. One time, a group of boys on their way to a bar at the top of the hill, pushed Mike up the hill and bought him a beer at the bar!
The moral of the story is that, at least when it comes to a person with an obvious disability, altruism is more real than myth—but a twist is that during the nighttime, which is more dangerous than the daytime, one will, as Melbin noted, tend to see more indications of surplus altruism.
Tuesday, April 5th
II. Romantic Relationships—In our contemporary world, the romantic relationship remains the social atom of our society—as it implies a long-term commitment and a hypothetical future of expansion—from a romantic dyad to a small tightly knit social group that we generally call a family.
As a social atom the romantic relationship further strongly implies a dyadic bias—or a cultural belief that the ideal relationship involves a pair (rather than a three person—triad—or more than three-person connection.
PREFACE TO ROMANCE
Personally, online teaching resembles an almost unimaginable scene in which actors exchange dialogue via typing. My lecture style is performance based—and while I’ve seen a lot better than me, I do get a “pedagogical high” when delivering a lecture to all of you—even when you’re otherwise engaged!
Anyway, I begin the third section with a topic all of us know (maybe too well!). As one who has experienced minimum success in the romantic arena, I feel as if I’m lecturing prospective MBA students on how to start a business after going bankrupt several times! But social psychologists do have a few things to say about romance—some of it commonsensical, some of it insightful and even counterintuitive.
I do believe in one pretty common idea—romantic love has addictive qualities. One winter, my first in Fort Worth, we got hit with a huge ice storm. I had just met my soon-to-be-and-eventually-to-be -wife and ex-wife and I had fallen head over heels in love. Despite the storm, being young (ish) and foolish, I decide to embark on a trip up North, eventually to Chicago, to see friends and family. I missed them. I headed out East on Interstate 30, but by the time I hit Little Rock, the storm had blended ice and snow to make any road, even a highway, treacherous.
As you know, Southwestern states lack money for dealing with snow and ice storms—we have about enough resources to afford a bag of sand and pay someone in a pickup truck to drive to the nearest bridge and dump the bag’s contents there. Despite the conditions, I had the unflinching optimism of a young(ish) driver and decided to “motor on!” I then realized that the highway had no travelers, except “motor head me.” Upon making this discovery, at 70 MPH, I felt the car spin out of my control, as if the steering wheel could not connect to the tires.
As I began spinning and heading toward a huge snow bank/hill, I tried to remember “The Rules of the Road.” What did it say again? Turn toward the spin? Turn away from the spin? The car headed closer to the hill and, with my hand on the door handle (actually, the door lever—remember, I’m an old timer!), I said, “**** ‘The Rules of the Road! I’m bailing!” Just then, in a deau ex machina-like turn of events, my car did a 180-degree spin and stopped at the side of the highway! I could not believe it! There I sat, somewhat stunned and enormously relieved at the same time. I saw a sign that read, “Little Rock—Net 5 Exits.” I then began shaking uncontrollably, thinking, “Oh great, my life is spared only to die of a massive seizure!” But I stopped shaking, took the first exit, and checked into a hotel.
I got something to eat and then just laid in bed. Of a sudden, I thought about ******, the woman with whom I had fallen in love. I had not told her my feelings, but my near-death experience (at least as I saw it) emboldened me. I called her (using the hotel phone—still in the landline era). She answered cautiously (back then one never knew the identity of the caller) and I said, “hey there!” (very clever, right?). “Oh Hi!” she exclaimed and my heart grew and nearly exploded. “Where are you?” she asked. “I’m in Little Rock, at a Motel 6.” She began to say something but I interrupted. “I need to tell you why I’m calling.”
“Okay.” Back to a cautious tone,
“I love you!”
What?”
“I love you!”
“I was just going to say that to you!”
“I beat you to it!”
Honestly, I cannot say what we talked about for the next hour (my phone bill at the hotel cost more than the room!), I’m pretty sure that I recounted the events that led to the call. At any rate, once we finished talking, I could feel the bed spin as if I had become transformed into Dorothy on her way to OZ.
I have taken just about every drug in my lifetime (of course, for sociological purposes!), but I never felt as high as I did that day, when the love of my life and I basically confessed our mutual love at the same time. I have never felt the power of that feeling although I have searched for, and felt some of, tat same power. I will never forget it; I cannot reproduce it, but I can symbolically reconstruct it as I just have—giving me, sort of, a residual high.
In the “game of love” we all search for such a feeling—and hope not only to feel it, but sustain it. Social psychologists begin with this search and this hope. Can we find someone to mutually experience romantic love? If we can find it, can we sustain, with the same person, the feeling it gives us?
1. One Common Narrative of the Romantic Relationship——the above story depicts a happy occasion in which two individuals, who had independent stories, begin to commit themselves to a story of interdependence—in which the acts of one will become entwined with the acts of the other.
One metaphor of this happy occasion is mutual mountain climbing—in which two people, tied together by the same rope, scale a mountain together. Each move by one has an impact on the other; every move by one or the other requires an adjustment by each other.
The above emphasizes how intimacy is viewed as a dyadic (two person) connection. The romantic dyad is the ideal small group in which intimacy develops (as each maintains focus on the other without the distraction of an additional person or people).
1. Synchronicity—although appropriated by artists and creators in popular culture, this term, coined by Carl Jung (in the 1920s) refers to a double tiered feeling, shared simultaneously, that defies rationality and appeals to a shared sense of play and utter joy.
A dyadic romantic couple proclaim a simultaneous mutual love for one another (as in the above story) experience synchronicity in regard to the feeling of love itself, and the magical feeling associated with the mutual utterance of such love. While seemingly non-rational, the feelings appear most genuine and authentic.
2. The Semantic Contradiction—at the core of a dyadic connection is the implied connection of the words themselves. Romantic implies spontaneity and welcome unpredictability, especially in regard to erotic desire. It emphasizes present centered, here-and-now involvement. Relationship implies a structured formation, consisting of predictable, habitual, and scripted sequences based on mutual experiences that create a collective memory—or a retrievable past that the two people immediately recognize as symbolic of their involvement.
3. Romantic Love as an Addiction—romantic love has a striking similarity to the impact of particular drugs—such as ecstasy, peyote, and other stimulants. For instance, Psychologist Arthur Aron states that, “The same reward area (in the brain, after particular drug consumption) is activated when people are experiencing the intense desire of romantic love.”
Biological Anthropologist Helen Fisher maintained that people who defined themselves as “madly in love” resembled, in part, those who had become addicted to powerful substances such as nicotine, alcohol, and heroin—and who, for one reason or another, had to quit cold turkey.
She then studied those who experienced a devastating rejection and found that when the rejected looked at pictures of their former lovers, “The parts of the brain that lit up were the same ones associated with cocaine and nicotine addiction, physical pain, distress, and attachment.”
4. The Moral Career of Intimacy—applies to two distinct processes—one having to do with the problem of duration and the other having to do with narrative.
Regarding the problem of duration, the romantic dyad suggests and presupposes a fragility—the enchantment of the romantic dyad is one exit away from devastation. The dyad is the most tenuous of connections—as the departure of any one signifies the immediate end of the group.
Regarding narrative, intimacy has a temporal dimension—the past (signifying meeting and falling in love), the present (signifying the creation of routines—and the presentation of selves as a functioning dyad), and the future (representing a commitment to the societal standard of survival—which often changes in importance).
One major social psychological feature of the moral career of intimacy is the shared past and how the shared past can be used by intimates, to dig deep into their own and to their partner’s emotional depths.
5. The Resonance-Dissonance Complex—the shared past, as a necessary condition for survival of a dyad, has the emotional and cognitive power that allows for efficiency, durability, and resilience, to name a few important dimensions. However, the very emotional and cognitive power that can draw us together comes from the same sources that can pull us apart.
As thrilling as the experience of a mutual expressions of love is, so is the devastation of experiencing a mutual confrontation stemming from severing emotional and cognitive ties (as the two who once shared love, fall out of love).
In this vein, the shared past, so vital to the enduring strength of an intimate relationship, can be a symbolic arsenal of weaponry that one, the other, or both, can use in the process of tearing each other down.
[Clip from a Marriage Story ]
Thursday, April 7th
1. The Maturation of Romantic Love—Erich Fromm (in The Art of Loving) regards romantic intimacy as a paradoxical process in which two people simultaneously grow, independently, as individual selves, but become a singular interdependent being. In this regard, the independent selves also become linked to a social identity—or, in colloquial terms, “an item.”
The maturation of love also validates one another’s personal worth. While romantic love is indeed risky (as we agree to “expose ourselves” in regard to vulnerability), it also is a way in which we can assess ourselves as having value—and in particular, having a capacity to experience and feel our most beneficial and cherished characteristic—to love and be loved in return.
1. Self-Lodging—falling in love, or being involved romantically, alters our looking glass selves in the sense that our imaginary being—“or selfie”—becomes linked to the imaginary being of another—“our selfie” becomes linked the “the selfie of another”—in this sense, each person is experiencing independence and interdependence simultaneously.
As we become intertwined (or lodged) in each other’s imagination, we, metaphorically become wax dripping from a candle that alters the shape of a candle. When we express, genuinely, and authentically, love for one another we have become, symbolically, the drippings on another’s soul (just as we have allowed the others to drip onto our souls).
2. Self-Relief—refers to easing pain and in particular, the pain associated with loneliness. Intimate relationships, (as suggested above) have a palliative effect (easing of pain via drugs), but also nourish one’s soul.
Relief associated with the love for another can also include being distracted so as to focus, intensely, on something else. The presence of a loved one can distract one from the mundane pain of everyday life. For instance, neuroscientist Sean Mackey) found that pain in his subjects decreased as they saw pictures of those for whom they felt a great deal of passion.
3. Serendipity—refers to the sociological process of happy accidents—which can also be seen as how we experience fate. Erich Fromm maintained that as we move from independence to interdependence, we create novelty in our lives and mix the non-eventful moments of our lives with the newly emergent and exciting prospects of a new life with someone else, even if such a new life is momentary.
Serendipity serves as a metaphor for an “anything is possible” orientation to romantic love as well as a “simple twist of fate,” in which at time one, we are in a state of temporary isolation and at time two, by happy circumstance (or serendipity), we are engaged with another—perhaps for the rest of our lives.
The notion of serendipity can clash with strategic copresence—as often, what one might define as a chance encounter is one planned by another, so as to manufacture serendipity.
1. Fear, Terror, and the Nature of Romantic Love—while romantic love is the stuff of poetic, literate, and impressionistic beauty, it also becomes mired in a progressive-regressive cycle that can be the source of pain, confusion, and misunderstanding—and even terror when things are going reasonably well.
Love, in its most glorious sense, may be blind, tender, and kind, but, in the real world of being together, it is also messy, artless, and gawky. Rarely do lovers move seamlessly from “attraction at first sight” to “uncontested love for the rest of our lives.”
1. Liminality—particular relations, such as Platonic friendship, fulfill valuable routines, rituals, functions, and are free from non-sexual encounters.
However, even the most Platonic of friendships can be enticed by the excitement and present-centered unpredictability of romance. The sensational present can create, from a societal perspective, profane lust (e.g., counter-Platonic attraction) that can symbolize a sexual act that contradicts an honored past of friendship.
Consummating profane lust among friends (who regard their friendship as sacred), can create an in between feeling of confusion—otherwise known as liminality. When friends “cross the friendship zone line” create an impasse between the dyad’s past and, eventually, their future.
[Clip from Always Be My Maybe ]
2. Love in the Specious Present—the specious present represents intense enchantment without societal approval of such attachment. This present consists of real emotion and authentic love from the perspective of the romantic dyad, but such emotion and love lack a societal shelf life—or a violation of societal standards).
The enchanting nature of romance ranges from adolescent crushes, forbidden love (e.g., adultery), and other types of togetherness that are not sanctioned withing particular cultures (e.g., a Romeo and Juliet scenario).
One key social psychological issue has to do with perspective—especially what W. I. Thomas famously called the definition of the situation. Such definition is especially pertinent in regard to the aforementioned forbidden love—in which people can truly be in love, but cannot fully consummate such love owing to the significant attachments (and the “social details”) in their lives.
[Clip from The Bridges of Madison County ]
Tuesday, April 12th
3. Principle of Least Interest—while we resonate to the idealism of romance and wish for a symmetrical bond (in which each person invests emotional attachments equally) romantic involvement is not necessarily “fair” or equitable (romantic love can be asymmetrical).
Willard Waller observed such asymmetry in which one person invests less emotional commitment to the endurance of a romantic relationship than another—creating an inverse correlation between emotional investment and relational power (the less one is emotionally invested, the more power he/she has in the relationship and vice-versa).
When an asymmetrical relationship endures—the person who invests less in the relationship begins to acquire more emotional capital—and power than the person investing more in the relationship. One key dilemma occurs when the person giving more, caring more, and investing more, becomes the romantic subordinate in relation to the romantic superordinate.
We might ask why one would pursue or even continue to be in a relationship in which he/she feels and gives more than the other. Once again, we can turn to the theory of cognitive dissonance—and the process of resolving dissonance (in this case, the awful feeling of giving more than one receives) by rationalizing and making excuses for the other; or by convincing ourselves about the reality of our own love.
4. Loving the Real Self or Loving the Performance—among the many characteristics of romantic love is playful-ness. We will “play act,” pretend, and even engage in ordinary mischief, in which we stimulate each other’s sensory being—or love in the universe of touch.
As we fall in love, we often experience two social psychological attractions to each other—involving love for another’s self—or the various characteristics and adaptations made by a person that separate this person from other people—we fall in love with an unimpressionable person—one who behaves in a way regardless of audience or context.
However, as much as we love a person on the basis of who this person is regardless of situation or context, we also are drawn to another’s performance—or the specific theatrical impressions one makes that generates excitement, intrigue, and charm. We may love a person for the true qualities of such a person, but the performance creates the necessary spark of romantic love.
While the self is that which endures—and reveals the more overtly serious identifications of who one is (regardless of circumstance or situations), the performance is restricted to age, sensuality, spirited conduct, and what Carl Couch called a charismatic transaction between the individuals.
However, as much as romantic love relies on the immense attraction of a performance it becomes an enduring relationship as we de-emphasize performance and concentrate on the obdurate reality of our real selves—in which we dare authenticity. Beyond attraction, attachment and the “lightness of being in love,” with performance, one of the most fundamental qualities that make relationships work and that can make being in a relationship meaningful is the depth of knowing what is true about the other.
When we commit to another—when we open ourselves to another, we know the ways in which the other prefers to perform—but we also develop a strong visceral sensation—or gut-feeling”—that we of know the depths of that other.
One of the most devastating realizations that we have is discovering that the one we love and love deeply is not the person he/she seems to be—discovering that we’ve been taken in by the other’s (the person we love) deceptive appearance. We discover that there actually is no distinction between a performance and a real self with whom to fall in love.
[Clip from Better Call Saul ]
In Better Call Saul, Kim Wexler and Jimmy McGill meet as mail carriers in a law office (owned, in part, by Jimmy’s brother, Charles). Whereas, Kim is an ambitious person (going to law school and planning to join the law firm once she graduates and passes the bar exam, Jimmy is a con-artist, very much unlike his distinguished brother Charles.
Jimmy also seems to have a good heart, which Kim intuits and over time, Jimmy and Kim fall for each other. Their romance is fun (in the playful stage), and even after Kim receives her law degree and obtains a position in the law firm, she and Jimmy continue to see each other.
Kim is intrigued by Jimmy’s various “schemes” and soon recognizes that lawyers, even though much better dressed, engage in their own schemes. Both Jimmy and Kim, for fun, will “play act” as they engage in acts of minor swindling and mischief (under assumed names)—but “at the end of the day,” express what Kim believes to be a true love for each other.
With Kim’s support, Jimmy obtains his law degree (through a third tier correspondence school) and she and Jimmy go into a law partnership. However, while Jimmy does some good as a lawyer for the under-represented elderly, making him all the more loveable to Kim, he also engages in various legal shenanigans, which get him disbarred.
Jimmy’s brother, Charles, who loves Jimmy as a brother, but considers him no more than an “ambulance chaser,” refuses to acknowledge Jimmy’s accomplishments as a lawyer.
Through many complicated circumstances, Charles becomes despondent and commits suicide, leaving Jimmy a small amount of money in his will and a goodbye letter (written from the heart).
After a year, Jimmy is eligible to appeal his disbarment—with Kim’s encouragement, he prepares for the appeal—and Kim encourages him to read the heartfelt suicide letter, written by Charles—as the committee all knew and greatly respected Charles. Kim feels that the letter will encourage the board to view Jimmy’s appeal as sincere.
Jimmy begins to read the letter, during the appeal—and then stops. What follows brings us to the real self/performance dichotomy.
1. When Relationships Work: The Elements and Structure of Romantic Relationships—people in mutually satisfactory and long-standing intimate relationships are able to move forward, from exciting unpredictability to structured coordination. People involved in relationships develop commonsensical patterns of coordination that create a dyadic mindset that becomes part of the fabric of the relationship.
1. Open Awareness Interactional Contexts—are characterized by frank talk and exploration into the deep psychology of the other. In such contexts, not every bit of information is shared—but couples agree upon what is relevant and significant that must be conveyed in order for trust to become solidified.
Three important commonsensical pieces of content typically attain relevance in romance. One, fiduciary concerns involve how much and where money and wealth shall be dispersed; two, accountable concerns involve each person’s specific location at a specific time—people in a romantic couple can say, at a moment’s notice, where their partners are when each partner is not present; three, affinitive concerns provide complete and well-defined definitions of relations outside of the romantic dyad—any specific person can be explained, honestly, as having no bearing on the romance.
Thursday, April 14th
In effect, while we may keep some secrets (involving particular inner thoughts and “white lies,” the relationship can only work when secrets related to the above concerns remain non-existent.
2. The Praxis of Love—romantic partners are free to create their own details and rituals, but they must serve a mutually agreeable purpose—for example, partners create an effective methodology of dividing labor, sharing responsibilities, and maintaining first place harmony—or stressing the importance of a mutually satisfying home life.
The praxis of love relates to the aforementioned open awareness contexts in that activities are not only divided by agreement, but time way from each other is viewed as non-problematic and necessary.
The praxis of love also correlates with the old phrase, “walking the walk,” as well as one “talks the talk.” Words of love, however poetic and beautiful, as well as wonderful (and expensive) gifts (with beautiful cards) are great; but taking the time to make sure needs are understood and met require ongoing emotional and cognitive labor that begins with authentic communication.
3. Adaptations to Copresence— as mentioned, copresence, or the process of maintaining mutual places at the same time involves indications or assumptions that such sharing will lead to future sharing, usually filled with talk and interactional encounters.
One problem associated with enduring relationships involves a contradictory proximal-distal dynamic in which the more copresence is maintained, the more distant couples can become. In effect, couples need to engage in spatial labor—which calls for various ways to enjoy each other’s company so that they do not experience the gravitational pull of separate togetherness.
One metaphor of the importance of adaptions to copresence is the seating arrangement chosen by a couple. As relationships extend in time, the distance (or empty space) between couples can expand. Familiarity does not necessarily breed contempt, but it can lead to a routinization of distance—which can be comfortable, but that can also re-enforce a lack of intimacy in a relationship.
4. Parallel Alignment—refers, literally and figuratively, to “shoulder-to-shoulder” orientations constructed by the romantic dyad.
Literally, parallel alignment occurs when a couple (or people in each other’s copresence, are physically “side-by-side” in any social gathering. Two strangers, for instance, sitting in the same row on an airplane, are aligned, at least physically, in a parallel fashion.
On a more symbolic level, and in regard to romantic couples, parallel alignment has a more symbolic meaning to being “side-by-side” (e.g., as heard in regard to the common question, “You are on my side, right?”) In this symbolic way, observations made (and taking in information together at the same time while occupying similar perspectives) allow partners to not only share such information, but to share standpoints as they receive information.
Carl Couch and Stanley Saxton demonstrated that when two people are literally aligned in a parallel fashion and receive the same information as two people who are aligned in a reciprocal fashion (e.g., “face-to-face”) the people aligned in a parallel way indicated (in post experimental surveys) that they liked each other (while receiving information) more than the people aligned in a reciprocal way (receiving the same information).
Generalizing to the romantic relationship and the reception of information, Couch and Saxton argue that a romantic couple is more likely to create a shared focus to which they can agree (and from which they can display positive feelings for another) when aligned in a parallel way—either literally or figuratively.
In regard to their generalization, imagine a couple who have demonstrated a robust history of “standing shoulder-to-shoulder” in regard to how well their children should be educated. When one of their children tells his/her parents (the couple) about educational plans, the couple takes in the information together (a shared focus) and offers a solid dyadic response—while doing so, their love and affection for each other is magnified.
This same couple, who receive the information separately, and then talk face-to-face about such information, may experience the same positive emotions—but the likelihood of doing so is somewhat decreased.
5. Shoring Up—as the relationship becomes more stable, a good relationship combines stability with security and occasional excitement…the key to this combination is the mutual feeling that each other has the backs of their partners. Each of the partners are confident that the other will provide social and moral support for any decision made—at the very least, each of the couples will create a public front of support (even when they might disagree with each other).
Shoring up most relates to Asch’s notion of social support—but it is social support combined with an intense shared history. The concept also implies that any disagreements (or differences of opinion in regard to how particular decisions are made), will occur in private—away from other parties (e.g., children) who might be affected by a parental decision.
[Clips from When a Man Loves a Woman ]
As an indication that our culture values such support among romantic dyads, once married, a spouse is legal entitled to NOT provide incriminating evidence against his/her partner.
6. Teamwork—on the surface, couples learn to establish a routine that creates seamless processes from situation-to-situation; for instance, at time one, the couple can share intimate moments and at time two, without any real sign of awkwardness, resort to individualistic activities, only to, at time three, seamlessly enter a public scene, moving from roles of intimate partners to different roles, such as parents.
Also, and in conjunction with shoring-up—couples create an (often unspoken) understanding of a distinction between their shared definition of privacy and a shared definition of publicity. While such understandings are often breeched—or disregarded (as in the case of gossip and “friend talk”), teamwork does imply a sacred trust that some activities will always remain “in the dyadic vault” as it were.
Shoring up and Teamwork often co-emerge (and just as often) are used interchangeably; while I see an analytical difference between the two—teamwork has become a common concept that includes shoring up.
Tuesday, April 19th
1. Uncoupling—Some Clues Involved in Untangling a Romantic Bond —as mentioned previously, one of the paradoxes of romantic relationships involves the (sometimes awkward) fitting together of excitement and unpredictability (romance) and structured routine (relationships).
Social Psychologist Diane Vaughn, who coined the term uncoupling, noted that as the excitement and unpredictability (charisma) associated with romance is not sustainable (routinization of charisma), and given that the dyad, in itself, is sociologically unstable, couples face issues that could jeopardize their strong, but vulnerable bonds.
As also mentioned, the dissolution of a relationship, even a legal dissolution (divorce) has become more socially acceptable and even expected. However, in contrast to the commonsensical saying, “What takes years to build can be destroyed in a moment,” romantic relationships—especially those that become enduring and patterned, do not simply end in any random moment.
The following are not chronological stages of uncoupling—they represent particular processes that occur in various sequences.
1. The Initiation of an End Game—as implied in the principle of least interest, for a variety of reasons, one person (the initiator) gradually becomes more disenchanted with the relationship than another person (the counter-actor). The initiator effectively begins the process of disentangling interdependence and creating a move toward independence—the dyad dissolves into two individuals.
The initiator proposes core and peripheral concerns that advocate for a transformation from interdependence-to-independence. The counter-actor may object, which can involve suspension of erosion (e.g., seeking counseling), but in the process of uncoupling, the suspension is delaying the aforementioned psychology of the inevitable.
2. Paradox of Secrecy—our society allows the romantic dyad to be a secret society—what goes on backstage, between couples, is considered sacred space. This societal acknowledgement of a secret society honors the romantic dyad as free to make their own worlds and create their own rules.
However, a societally condoned secret society does not shield a couple from an initiator seeking alternatives—and (getting to the paradox of secrecy), establish his/her own secretive patterns within an intimate secret society. The most common of such patterns, involves a furtive other—or a covert third person with whom the initiator has an affair.
The initiator willingly makes his/her life complex at this time by managing two dyads—the established dyadic relationship and the newly formed romance. Such complexity involves what gamblers and con artists call “tells”—or clues that one (the initiator) has changed significant details (e.g., appearance) about her/himself.
3. Fractured Sociation—refers to an expression of discontent—either serious reservations on the part of the initiator or merely evoking and commencing conflictual occasions (e.g., starting fights, however minor). The ongoing fractured sociation is more than merely being “at odds” over particular directions in which the relationship is heading. This type of sociation is more like a scattered than a targeted conflict—the initiator finds many things, even seemingly random things, as things over which to quarrel.
The fractured sociation is difficult, but particularly for the counter-actor, who has a distinct feeling of “walking of eggshells” at any moment.
4. Amassing Allies—we mentioned that as a dyadic relationship begins, each person in the dyad relies on a chorus of others—or a network of people who provide various assessments. In the uncoupling process, the initiator provides his/her chorus with vocabularies of motives for ending a relationship—which the chorus can validate.
The chorus that validates an initiator’s discontent will also provide implicit normalization of an alternative arrangement that sanctions the aforementioned secret that the initiator keeps from the counter-actor.
5. Processual Transitioning—the initiator will often display interest in new lifestyles, interests, routines, career options, as well as different locations. The initiator expresses desires for change—even in the most common of ways (e.g., suggesting moving to a new house or residence).
The initiator is preparing for a dramatic change in one’s life as an one independent of the dyad—while the counter-actor begins to feel, deeply, the fault-lines forming underneath the relationship.
6. Additional Awareness Interactional Contexts—as relationships dissolve and become more secretive, the romantic dyad begins to experience the end of an open awareness context, as the romantic dyad constructs different contexts of interaction characterized by withholding relevant and in-depth information.
One, a pretense awareness interactional context, reflects a theater of the unsaid—the romantic dyad, once characterized by indexical expressions, in which they communicate in secret codes, now keep to themselves—and in order to avoid wide open and potentially ugly content, keeps quiet or deflects problems with humor
A second interactional context that emerges as the relationship dissolves, a suspicion awareness context, begins to deal with, among other things, non-accountable time. this recognition makes for more …the various talks (or interludes) create the mutual feeling that one person (the partner) knows more about one’s self than any other person (and vice versa).
A final awareness context, a closed interactional context, signals the ending of a relationship—the romantic couples become viewed as adversaries who cannot know important details, less such details become used against each other in, for instance, courts of law.
7. Elasticity—returning to the notions of self-lodging, indexicality, and reconstructive destiny, a dyadic romantic couple, over time, has created symbolic glue in which the dyad continues to find ways to re-enjoin themselves. Even when the initiator expresses certainty that the relationship must end, self-doubts always emerge. In effect, rarely are breaks clean—and often, they take on a “step back, step up, step back rhythm.
Elasticity tends to create a yo-yo effect in which two people meet, depart, re-connect, depart, re-connect, and so forth. Elasticity makes a “clean break” very difficult as so many powerful symbolic attachments keep a romantic dyad “glued together” even when the relationship seems unsustainable.
III. The Social Psychology of Aggression—on the surface, the social psychological definition of aggression, “behavior that is intended to harm an individual who does not wished to be harmed” (Baron and Richardson 1994), is pretty straightforward. However, social psychologists also seek to differentiate behavior that causes harm, but that can also be justified (e.g., self-defense, defending one’s home from an invasion) from harmful behavior that appears gratuitous, mean spirited, and simply speaking, hateful (e.g., rape, genocide, invasion of a peaceful nation).
As social psychologists look and analyze any act that causes harm and dig deeper into contextual factors, even more distinctions, complications, and questions emerge. Consider, for example, the slap —or Will Smith’s attack of Chris Rock at the recent Academy Awards. On the surface, Smith’s act fits the social psychological definition of aggression—he caused unwanted harm.
However, more details make the scene a little murkier; Rock had made reference to Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, and specifically, Pinkett-Smith’s shaved head—which symbolized her struggle with alopecia, a disease that causes loss of hair. Although Rock made reference to Pinkett-Smith’s shaved head in the spirit of stand-up comedy (as an allusion to G.I. Jane II), Smith, took umbrage, approached the stage (from his seat), walked on the stage, slapped Rock, and returned to his seat.
Rock responded to Smith’s act by basically describing what had just happened. In turn, after Smith returned to his seat, he screamed at Rock, using words censored on American television, warning Rock not to mention his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, or to make fun of her ailment.
While an act of aggression, Smith’s slapping of Rock, social psychologically, seems more complicated than merely causing unwanted harm. The specific behavior (slapping) and words used (violent profanities) appear to represent aggression, but the key question, beyond the acts themselves, has to do with: how did the slap involve a particular anti-social orientation that defied what our culture views as proper comportment?
A. Aggression as False Comportment —one distinction social psychologists make in regard to behavior has to do with: comportment in earnest (behavior that defend one’s own or a loved one’s honor) or false comportment (behavior that merely hurts an innocent person—or a person who has not provoked, in any way, harmful behavior).
Being aggressive, from a social psychological view, causes or threatens the possibility of harm, but importantly, acting in a way that either causes harm or the fear of being harmed can be seen as defensible and rational—as a way of escaping harm that could emanate from a brutal and inhumane force
1. Untoward Force—generally, untoward force is defined as behavior without proper or reasonable cause—it is violent comportment (behavior) that occurs when other non -violent alternatives are available and socially reasonable.
2. Ethical Force (or reasonable protection)—occurs when few, if any, non-violent alternatives are available to one who resorts to violence. One of the more prominent examples of ethical force is self-defense; a person has no other rational choice but to commit a violent act in order to survive a particular situation or threat to one’s well-being.
Thursday, April 21st
B. Some Conditions of Untoward Force—untoward force can be compared to improper comportment that results in needless or indefensible (and unethical) harm. While attempting to clarify the definition of aggression, however, the identification of these conditions attempts to clarify aggression when it comes to deciding if inflicting harm represents false comportment.
1. Temporal Intentionality—intentionality seems commonsensical as it pertains to the motivation of the individual who acts in a way to hurt another. To what extent did the individual harm another on purpose? However, intentionality, as temporal, involves the issue of time: did the individual contemplate such harm for a period of time—or did the act occur more on the “spur of the moment?” When speaking of temporal intentionality, social psychologists begin with the equation that roughly appears as: inflicting harm on purpose + deliberating on such harm + acting after deliberation so as to actually cause harm.
2. Egregious Breaching—while we can separate aggressive acts as untoward because they are deliberate and involve time to plan, not all planned and intentional acts of aggression involve untoward force. For instance, in many sports (e.g., boxing, professional wrestling, kickboxing), opponents plan to inflict harm, but as a way to win according to culturally conventional “codes.”
However, even in these sports, in which aggression is appreciated as ethical and as a demonstration of skill, some can still act against agreed to constraints—or against the rules of “unnecessary aggression” in ways that will inflict harm—or inflict harm outside of conventional boundaries.
We use various terms to describe such breaching—such as “cheap shots,” “playing dirty,” “being bush,” “hitting below the belt,” or going outside the lines. When intentionality is combined with egregious breaching, social psychologists maintain that an act of aggression may have occurred, but some controversy can still remain.
Egregious breaching can also involve inflicting harm with extreme prejudice—involves the total absence of empathy. One way people act aggressively, in particular, is troubling in that the aggressor has no feelings for the person toward whom he/she acts aggressively.
3. The Fog of the Role—refers to one’s function to create unnecessary harm that, nonetheless, becomes shielded by the institution. A person can embrace a toxic role without facing structural or formal consequences. In this regard, the role becomes an implicit excuse for behavior that inflicts harm.
For instance, a soldier may intend to cause harm but does so in the name of one’s country—or in the name of defeating an enemy of the country. However, if this same soldier extends the use of aggression to harm civilians, children, the elderly, or others incapable of defending themselves—and not targeted as an “enemy,” the role of soldier morphs into role of untoward aggressor.
4. Deindividuation—the systematic and systemic discrediting of particular individuals’ personhood. This discrediting is combined with a conviction of superiority. Those who engage in discrediting justify their actions as warranted and necessary. The combined processes of discrediting and self-justification for discrediting encourages engagement in unnecessary and untoward harm.
5. Systemic Harm—differs from harm that individuals, acting on their own accord, inflict on other individuals outside of any social system. In particular, systemic harm is granted institutional support by powerful and institutional superordinates. In this regard, systemic harm often occurs within the law—and reflects how harmful acts can be supported by authorities.
6. Frustration-Aggression Hypotheses—holds that frustration will cause aggression. Specifically, the more one expects a particular outcome that either does not occur or that takes a long time occurring, the more likely one becomes aggressive.
The person experiencing frustration typically believes that she/he is entitled to an outcome—and therefore, feels strongly that her/his aggression is ethical force. However, this personal feeling is not necessarily shared by others.
For instance, consider the student who studies long and hard for a particular final exam; the student takes what appears to be an inordinately unfair exam—and feels as if she/he did not study at all (or did not attend any class). This person will feel frustrated and, will be more likely to act in aggressive way toward the teacher administering the test than one who takes a test that he/she regards as fair.
B. Aggression and Self Help—one’s antipathy toward another or others can also be outside the law but, nonetheless, linked to a cultural value of self-reliance. This value is associated with subterranean worlds and involves: a) David vs. Goliath theme; and b) the element of surprise. Beyond vigilantism, however, the law is defined as either irrelevant, non-reliable, or hostile to particular forms of self-reliance.
1. Wild Justice—occurs between two or more people living outside of the law; the legal mechanisms cannot apply when justice is meted out. In the outsider context, the representation of David avenges crimes in order to seek material compensation and to establish oneself as a Dangerous David (aka “Badass”).
2. Sentimental Justice—also occurs between two or more people outside of the law. The key component of sentimental justice, however, is avenging acts in the name of family. Sentimental justice, then, is paradoxical in that it violates legal procedures and processes as it validates sacred institutions and the goals of restorative justice.
3. Filling-In Justice—also occurs outside of the law, but when the law is perceived as inadequate, irrelevant, or unable to insure proper enforcement. One seeks to avenge a misdeed (as with wild and sentimental justice), but he/she must either abide by a particular insider code to do so— or navigate a tight-border between legal and non-legal methods to achieve objectives.
In Moonlight—the school authorities could not be of use to a bullied Chiron and he felt forced to avenge his humiliation and pain by taking down the bully Terrell.
Filling-In Justice often applies when the law or authorities (in the eyes of one seeking vengeance) cannot bring a particular person to justice—and the person seeking vengeance applies an “on-the-spot-do it yourself” methodology.
