Article Summaries Part 2

Hive Psychology -- 1

Hive Psychology, Happiness, and Public Policy

Jonathan Haidt, J. Patrick Seder, & Selin Kesebir

University of Virginia October 8, 2007

In Press, The Journal of Legal Studies,

As part of a conference on happiness and the law, Eric Posner and Cass Sunstein, editors

Abstract:

We consider three hypotheses about relatedness and well-being including the hive hypothesis, which says people need to lose themselves occasionally by becoming part of an emergent social organism in order to reach the highest levels of human flourishing. We discuss recent evolutionary thinking about multi-level selection, which offers a distal reason why the hive hypothesis might be true. We next consider psychological phenomena such as the joy of synchronized movement and the ecstatic joy of self loss, which might be proximal mechanisms underlying the extraordinary pleasures people get from hive-type activities. We suggest that if the hive hypothesis turns out to be true it might have important implications for public policy, suggesting new ways to increase social capital and encouraging a new focus on happy groups as being more than collections of happy individuals.

Hive Psychology -- 2

Hive Psychology, Happiness, and Public Policy

Question: What’s the difference between society and the sun? Answer: If you really want to, you can stare directly at the sun. But to see society, you have to use special glasses.

Social scientists generally use one of two kinds: glasses that reveal atoms (individuals), and glasses that reveal networks (groups of connected individuals). Psychologists and economists seem most comfortable looking at individuals. We model people as agents who have beliefs and desires, and who act to maximize the satisfaction of their desires given their beliefs. We revel in demonstrations that people sometimes do not maximize, and we advance our sciences by bringing in unconscious desires, discounting curves, and errors in the reasoning processes by which people make inferences from their beliefs.

When we put on the atomizing glasses, a research agenda and a humanitarian project appear before us: we must fully understand the workings of the human mind in order to engineer environments (through legislation, education, and other policy levers) that will maximize the happiness of individuals, and that will protect people from the occasional traps of a free society in which people sometimes choose badly. We ask questions such as: how should we compensate people to maximize their satisfaction after a loss, knowing as we do that people adapt quickly to most losses? And how can we encourage people to make choices that will benefit themselves most in the long run, knowing as we do that people tend to overweigh present utility, and to take no action when faced with too many choices or a lack of social consensus?

Many sociologists and anthropologists, however, use the “network” glasses, which help them see groups as organic entities. Groups are composed of individuals, but you can’t study those individuals in isolation. You look at the emergent properties of the group, you see the links between individuals, you trace out how a culture is rooted in events of the past and how it is shaped by its economic, environmental, and inter-group context. When looking through these glasses the complexity of society and the interdependence of its parts are so apparent that many viewers develop contempt for the reductionism often practiced by psychologists and economists. When looking through these glasses, social engineering often seems foolish. Societies are chaotic systems. Parameters can be changed, but direct efforts to intervene, particularly by changing individuals through therapy or education, seem naïve.

Of course, both pairs of glasses are essential for the social sciences. However, empirical research on happiness and well-being to date has been conducted overwhelmingly by psychologists, now joined by some economists, who rely upon the atomizing glasses. In this essay we will put on the group-vision glasses and try to report on a few phenomena that might be relevant to discussions of law, public policy, and happiness. In particular we will make the case that human beings evolved by a process of

Hive Psychology -- 3

multi-level selection, including group-level selection, and that it is useful to see people as being (in a metaphorical sense) hive creatures like bees. Human lives don’t make sense without some discussion of human hives. If we want to increase human happiness, we must examine humanity’s communal, tribal, moral, and religious needs, as well as its needs for pleasure, resources, self-esteem, prestige, friendship, and love.

Three Hypotheses About Relatedness You don’t need special glasses to know that relatedness is important for human

well-being. The Beatles told us that “all you need is love,” and while their advice taken literally would lead to asphyxiation long before starvation, many surveys of individual well-being confirm that social support, in the form of friendships and marriage, is one of the biggest environmental contributors to well-being (Myers, 2000). We shall call this claim the dyadic hypothesis, which states that people need relationships to flourish. We call it “dyadic” because it focuses on dyads: one individual tied to another individual. It does not claim that people need groups to flourish, only that they need friends, lovers, and other individuals who are responsive to their needs. We consider this to be among the best supported hypotheses in the scientific study of well-being, and we’ll say no more about it. (See Baumeister and Leary, 1995, for a review).

A stronger and more controversial hypothesis is the moral community hypothesis, which states that people need to be bound into a community that shares norms and values in order to flourish. This hypothesis was stated forcefully by Emile Durkheim, whose pioneering study of suicide concluded that the suicide rate in European countries “varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part” (Durkheim, 1951/1897, p. 208). Factors that increased social integration (having a large family, being Catholic or Jewish rather than Protestant, being in a nation at war) decreased suicide rates; factors that increased self-sufficiency (e.g., wealth and education) were associated with higher rates of suicide. Durkheim believed that marriage protected against suicide not because of the dyadic conjugal bond, but because it creates a domestic society.

Durkheim gave us the concept of anomie, or normlessness, the condition of a society in which there is no clear and agreed upon set of rules for behavior, and people are freed--or forced--to follow their own desires. Complete freedom to pursue one’s preferences may seem self-evidently good to many economists, but for Durkheim it was a recipe for misery and social decay. Durkheim thought that when people are left to their own devices they can never satisfy their limitless acquisitiveness. Only by being a member of a group that imposes limits and set standards for good behavior can people achieve their desires and find satisfaction.

Durkheim’s early findings about suicide rates appear to hold true today (see Eckersley & Dear, 2002), and a modern Durkheimian can easily explain why well-being has remained flat and depression rates have risen as Western nations have doubled or

Hive Psychology -- 4

tripled their wealth per capita in recent decades (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Twenge, 2000). The moral community hypothesis also helps explain why regular participation in religious worship is a strong predictor of well-being, and also of charitable giving (Brooks, 2006; Diener & Clifton, 2002; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Myers, 2000). Religion (in general) makes people depend less upon themselves and more upon God and each other. It makes them less atomic and more networked or hivish. We believe that the moral community hypothesis is probably true, although it requires more caveats than does the dyadic hypothesis. For example: when groups become too binding, suicide rates go up, driven in part by the shame of those who don't live up to the group's standards. Durkheim called this kind of suicide “altruistic suicide.” Furthermore, there are probably individual differences in personality, which Durkheim did not consider, that moderate the benefits people derive from being bound tightly into a group. People who score high on the trait of openness to experience, for example, are likely to chafe more at restraint, and to enjoy the anomie, variety, and creativity of life in big cities (McCrae, 1996).

An even stronger relatedness hypothesis is the hive hypothesis, which says that the self can be an obstacle to happiness, so people need to lose their selves occasionally by becoming part of an emergent social organism in order to reach the highest levels of human flourishing. This hypothesis is essentially the moral community hypothesis with the additional claim that the most effective moral communities (from a well-being perspective) are those that offer occasional experiences in which self-consciousness is greatly reduced and one feels merged with or part of something greater than the self. We acknowledge that this hypothesis is speculative. There is research on the “curse of the self” (Leary, 2004), but we know of no research that directly compares groups that vary on the degree of self-loss they afford. We are inspired, however, by two recent books that review the historical and anthropological evidence on dance, drill, and the joys of synchronized movement and conclude that the hive hypothesis is true (Ehrenreich, 2006; McNeill, 1995). In the rest of this essay we will suggest that the hive hypothesis is plausible enough to merit serious scientific scrutiny. We further suggest that if it is true it has important implications for legal and policy interventions aimed at increasing happiness.

Multi-Level Selection and Happiness Economists care about preference satisfaction, but where do these preferences

come from? Evolutionary psychology offers what is arguably the most powerful and comprehensive explanation: we want things that helped our ancestors succeed in leaving surviving offspring in the environments in which the human mind was shaped by natural selection (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992). Our love of sweet and fatty foods, even when we know that we now eat too much of them; the desire for prestige and our concern for the opinions of others, even when we wish not to care; the desperate passion to

Hive Psychology -- 5

protect our own children and the rapidly declining concern we show for more distantly related children; all of these human preferences flow readily from an analysis of the preferences that led early hunter-gatherers to succeed as individuals. David Buss (2000) has even offered a catalog of evolutionarily-informed methods for increasing human happiness in the modern environments we now inhabit. But nearly all analyses from evolutionary psychology, like those from economics, focus on individuals and their preferences. Might there be group-level preferences too? Might individuals be happiest when their groups are doing things that led, over long eons of evolution, to group success?

Evolution works at multiple levels simultaneously. Genes jockey with other genes during meiosis to get on to the very few trains (eggs and sperm) that will make it into the next generation. Individuals compete with other individuals for the resources and mates that will enable them to leave more and better-provisioned offspring. And groups compete with other groups for land, hunting rights, or larger shares of the pie generated by cooperation in large scale societies. Darwin believed that morality evolved in part by natural selection working at the group level:

A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. (Darwin 1998/1871, p.166)

For the next hundred years, many writers on evolution followed Darwin’s lead

and assumed that cooperative traits in humans and other animals evolved for the good of the group, or even the good of the species. But in 1966 George Williams demolished such arguments by analyzing many cases of adaptations that had been claimed to be adaptations at the group level, such as restraints on fertility or consumption when food supplies are limited. He argued that in all cases these behaviors can be better explained by the natural selection of alternative alleles (gene variants) as individuals competed with other individuals. Donning the atomizing glasses, he concluded that a fleet herd of deer is really just a herd of fleet dear; nothing is gained by talking about groups because the fitness of a group is just the “summation of the adaptations of its members” (Williams, 1966, p.17). The free rider problem appeared to be insoluble: any gene that created self- sacrificing altruists would be replaced in the population by genes that created individuals who benefited from the acts of altruists without incurring costs to themselves. In 1976 Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene brought Williams' ideas to the masses, including the masses of young researchers being trained in biology and the human sciences, and group selection was declared not only dead but an outright heresy for the next generation.

Hive Psychology -- 6

But Williams had been looking in the wrong places. He examined behaviors in dozens of species, none of which are particularly adept at solving the free rider problem. Solutions to free riding are indeed rare in nature, but when they happen, the results can be profound. In fact, they care called “major evolutionary transitions” (Maynard Smith & Szathmary, 1997), and there is good reason to believe that one or more such transitions occurred for humans, who are extremely good at solving free rider problems. Several such transitions are now widely accepted: replicating molecules joined together to form chromosomes, prokaryotes merged together to form eukaryotic cells, single-cell eukaryotes stayed together after division to form multi-cellular organisms, and some multi-cellular organisms stayed together after birth to form hives, colonies, and societies (Maynard Smith & Szathmary, 1997). In each of these cases, cooperation by entities at one level led to enormous gains for the emergent group, largely through division of labor. These gains are so vast that the super-organisms produced by group- level selection tend to spread rapidly, transforming ecosystems by taking the richest environmental niches and relegating closely related species that failed to cohere to the margins (as the close relatives of bees, ants, and humans can attest). Group-level analyses are no longer heretical; in a sense, all life forms are now understood to be groups, or even groups of groups.1 (For state-of-the-art reviews see Wilson, Van Vugt, & O’Gorman, in press; Wilson & Wilson, in press). The first trick to understanding major transitions is find the mechanisms that suppressed free riding at the lower level and allowed individual units to cohere into a super-organism. For bees and ants, the mechanisms involve the suppression of breeding by individuals and the concentration of breeding in a queen. For humans, those mechanisms are generally thought to involve cultural and biological adaptations such as religion and religiously inclined minds (Wilson, 2004), or practices of shaming, gossip, and other low-cost control techniques that co-evolved with minds prone to shame and reputational concerns (Richerson & Boyd, 2005). McNeill (1995) and Ehrenreich (2006) both suggest that one specific cooperation-enhancing biological mechanism that has been exploited by most cultures, often as part of religious practice, is synchronous movement. The second trick to understanding major transitions is to recognize that they are never complete. The advantages of free-riding by lower-level units are always present (e.g., intragenomic conflict, worker bees that lay their own eggs, and warriors who hold back and let others take the risks), and so groups at each level (genomes, individuals, hives) exist in a continual state of tension, and can survive only as long as they have mechanisms that continually suppress selfishness by lower-level units. In this paper we follow those who suggest that social and religious practices that increase “hiving” are such mechanisms (Wilson, 2004), and that these practices may produce a variety of social

1 Some biologists claim that group selection is still controversial (e.g., Dawkins, 2006), but these authors are for the most part still relying on Williams’s analysis from 1966 and have not addressed newer theories in which cultural and genetic traits co-evolve. See Borello, 2005, for a review of the history of the debate.

Hive Psychology -- 7

benefits. We suggest that putting on the group-vision glasses can allow social scientists to see the interlocking biological, psychological, and cultural innovations that allow large human groups to stay together and act in a coordinated fashion.

In the next section we discuss a few of these interlocking innovations, particularly rhythm, synchronous movement, and festivals. We suggest that these group-level innovations have been largely dismissed or overlooked by psychologists, economists, and social planners who rely upon the atomizing glasses. We suggest that the hive psychology hypothesis is probably true in some form, and that some of the most intense and long- lasting forms of human happiness come about when people do the sorts of things and experience the sorts of feelings that helped their ancestors' groups be successful.

Movement and Joy One of the first things you see through the group-vision glasses is the

extraordinary lengths many groups go to in order to create and maintain their cohesiveness. Ecstatic group rituals, for example, were a regular and nearly universal practice among traditional and tribal societies at the time of European contact (Ehrenreich, 2006; McNeill, 1995). These celebrations were usually held to mark particular life transitions (i.e., births, deaths, weddings, successes), or historical or astronomical events that were practically or symbolically relevant to the group. In their traditional forms they typically involved feasts, special costumes, masks, drumming, chanting, and dancing to the point of exhaustion. A common feature of these rituals was that some or all members of the group transcended ordinary consciousness, often achieving a trance state. A related goal was for all members of the group to merge with the group. “As the dancer loses himself in the dance,” wrote the anthropologist Radcliffe- Brown (1922, p.251-252), “… he reaches a state of elation in which he feels himself filled with an energy beyond his ordinary state…at the same time finding himself in complete and ecstatic harmony with all of the fellow members of his community.”

Durkheim (1965/1915) coined the term collective effervescence to describe ecstatic group ritual and its effects. He considered the intense passion and joy generated by these periodic rituals to be essential to the long-term maintenance of a cohesive group. The anthropologist Victor Turner (1995/1969) proposed the latin word communitas to describe the inspiration and revitalization experienced by those who participate in ecstatic group rituals. Turner believed that all societies went through an eternal oscillation between structure, in which the hierarchical relationships among roles and positions is affirmed, and communitas, in which structure is temporarily abolished and the relationships among people are affirmed. Whether we look at African initiation rights, Medieval European carnivals, or Halloween celebrations in San Francisco, we find many common elements, including costuming, dancing, the mocking of authority, and the gleeful switching of roles (e.g., dressing as though one were of another sex, caste, or class). Boundaries are dissolved, equality rules, and people celebrate with those of all

Hive Psychology -- 8

ranks and social positions. Turner believed that these temporally limited periods of anti- structure are not just "safety valves" for the oppressed to vent resentment; rather, they bond and humanize all members of the group, making the structures they later return to more humane and stable. Turner thought there was a necessary dialectic between structure and communitas: "the immediacy of communitas gives way to the mediacy of structure, while...men are released from structure into communitas only to return to structure revitalized by their experiences of communitas. What is certain is that no society can function adequately without this dialectic" (p. 129). It should be noted, however, that because communitas is both subversive and regenerative, people in positions of power sometimes feel threatened by it and resist it. Turner saw the hippie movement of his own time, and the violent reaction against it, in this light.

Although a variety of different "techniques of ecstasy" (Eliade, 1964) appear across cultures, McNeill (1995) and Ehrenreich (2006) maintain that rhythmic drumming and moving together in time are the most widespread and perhaps powerful methods used in pursuit of communitas. Both authors speculate that these cultural innovations played a role in human evolution. These techniques have been around long enough (millennia, and perhaps tens of millennia), and they have such powerful effects on individuals, that it would be hard to imagine that there were no adaptive consequences, no reduction in the Darwinian success of individuals who were unwilling or unable to participate. The human love of rhythm, dance, parades, cheerleading, yoga classes, and other kinds of moving-together-in-time may be like our love of sweets, prestige, and our own children: they are pleasures for us now (in part) because ancient people who had a heritable tendency to enjoy synchronized movement were more likely to participate in such activities, reap the benefits of closer social ties, and leave more surviving offspring than those who did not.

The recent discovery of mirror neurons, which are much more extensive in human brains than in those of other primates, may be relevant here. Mirror neurons are an unusual class of neurons that fire either when a person performs an action or when the person sees another person performing the action (Iacoboni, Woods, Brass, Bekkering, Mazziotta, & Rizzolati, 1999). In other words, when the person next to us moves in a particular way, motor systems in our brains begin reacting as though we were moving that way, making it easier for us to match the motor patterns of others. The phrase "monkey see, monkey do" is a mischaracterization of monkeys, who do not imitate, but it is apt for humans (Tomasello, Kruger, & Rater, 1993). The great expansion of mirror neurons in human brains probably predates cultural practices of synchronization, so this expansion may be seen as a "pre-adaptation" (Mayr, 1960)--a feature that arose under one selection pressure (such as improved learning through imitation), but was then available as a substrate for newer traits (such as group synchronous movement) that were shaped by a different selection pressure.

Hive Psychology -- 9

If synchronous collective activities provide such potent and pleasurable ways to foster group connections and commitments, and if such activities were practiced in nearly every culture, why do we make so little use of them in the modern West? Ehrenreich (2006) shows that early European explorers and travelers generally reacted with disgust and horror to the wild abandon of ecstatic group rituals, which they often misperceived as sexual or orgiastic in nature. These rituals were seen to be pointless, animalistic, and antithetical to the Western ideal of autonomous, rational selves that had emerged in Europe during the early modern period. McNeill (1995) and Ehrenreich (2006) also review research showing that early and medieval Christian worship included collective dancing within churches, but such dancing and other forms of exuberance were gradually pushed out of churches and into public squares beginning in the 13th century as the church became more hierarchical and dogmatic. These celebrations mutated into profane festivals and carnivals. As cities and festivals grew in subsequent centuries, public festivities became more characterized by drunkenness and criminal activity, making it ever easier for church and secular authorities to justify limiting them or shutting them down. The Reformation (especially Calvinism, which outlawed dancing and many other sources of pleasure) and the industrial revolution both encouraged virtues and social structures that were antithetical to such ecstatic practices and collective, egalitarian celebrations.

In spite of attempts to devalue or outlaw such experiences, however, vestiges of these ancient practices remain. Carnival celebrations in Catholic countries are direct descendants of these practices. Some African-American forms of worship may be direct descendants too, a kind of pipeline bringing ancient African practices into modern Christianity, particularly charismatic forms such as Pentecostalism (Ehrenreich, 2006). Other practices are new inventions, suggesting that people, even Westerners, will find ways to satisfy their need for communitas. Ehrenreich argues that audiences at musical and sporting events are now more physically active and synchronized than they were 50 years ago when police enforced "no dancing" rules at concert halls. The scene inside and outside of many sport and musical events now often has a variety of carnivalesque elements, including face painting and body decoration. And "ravers" in the 1990s created their own version of ecstatic communal ritual when they found a drug (not coincidentally nicknamed "ecstasy") that increases feelings of love, even toward strangers, and combined it with new forms of music that were beat-heavy and repetitive, to which they danced to exhaustion. "There is no question, " writes sociologist Tim Olavson, "that they [Durkheim and Turner] would not be surprised to witness the rave phenomenon were they alive today; nor would they wonder, as so many politicians, anxious parents, and even social scientists currently do, why the rave experience so strongly attracts contemporary youth" (Olavson, 2004, p. 96). The motivation to seek periodic experiences of intense joy and connection through synchronous movement with others may be a fundamental human need that modern Western societies fail to acknowledge and satisfy.

Hive Psychology -- 10

Hives and Emergent Organisms

The idea of society as an organism is a recurring theme in the history of social thought. Herbert Spencer (1896/1975) popularized the term "super-organism" to refer to human societies. Drawing a direct analogy between societies and biological organisms, he wrote about the sustaining, distributing, and regulating systems of a society. Like Spencer, many of the early psychologists including Wundt (1911), Le Bon (1896/1920), McDougall (1920), and Freud (1922) thought of groups as something more than just collections of individuals. With regard to the emergence of group behavior Le Bon wrote:

The psychological crowd is a provisional being formed of heterogeneous elements, which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by their reunion a new being which displays characteristics very different from those possessed by each of the cells singly (p.30).

These early psychologists were interested in the psychology of people in groups, which they envisioned as something emergent, something that came into being only when individuals were in the right spatial and psychological configuration. Yet, “group psychology did not fare well within psychology in the coming decades, partly due to overstatements of the case by some proponents that bordered on the metaphysical. In 1924 Floyd Allport wrote:

There is no psychology of groups which is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals. Social psychology must not be placed in contradistinction to the psychology of the individual; it is a part of the psychology of the individual, whose behavior it studies in relation to that sector of his environment comprised by his fellows (p. 4).

Much like the idea of group selection, the idea of a "group mind" was declared scientifically dead and placed off-limits. The scientific study of groups (without group minds) continued in psychology, but it never achieved the importance that the early psychologists had envisioned (see Forsyth, & Burnette, 2005, for a review).

This rejection of the group-vision glasses marked the beginning of the nearly exclusive focus on the individual that was to be the hallmark of social psychology for the rest of the 20th century. As recently as 1994 Don Campbell wrote: “Methodological individualism dominates our neighboring fields of economics, much of sociology, and all of psychology’s excursions into organizational theory. This is the dogma that all human social group processes are to be explained by laws of individual behavior. (Campbell, 1994, p. 23).” This unfortunate turn in the history of psychology leaves us now ill- equipped to understand and respond to many mass phenomena.

Hive Psychology -- 11

The commitment to individualism may be one reason why the joy and happiness that flows from merging with a group is understudied in psychology. As Ehrenreich (2006) points out, if homosexual love is "the love that dare not speak its name," group love is the love that has no name at all, except for obscure terms such as communitas. Yet many of us have felt it at some point in our lives, perhaps while playing a team sport, singing in a choir, marching and chanting at a protest rally, or working closely with friends to achieve a noble goal. We lose ourselves, forget our petty concerns, and feel suffused with energy and purpose. Such memories often stand out as peak moments of happiness when people reflect on their lives, so even if such experiences are rare these peaks may be important for the study of well-being (Kahneman, 1999).

A further reason to study such experiences is that if they really do increase group cohesiveness, then they may increase well-being indirectly as well as directly. For example, strong social ties and mutual trust within a community, referred to as social capital (Coleman, 1988), has many salutary societal effects. Social capital contributes to economic growth, positive health outcomes, greater subjective well-being, and lower crime and mortality rates (Folland, 2007; Helliwell, 2003; Putnam, 2000). Similarly, people often derive satisfaction from their collective identities. Researchers have consistently found that being part of a group with which one strongly identifies is associated with higher well-being. A positive relationship has been found between group identification and indicators of mental well-being for people who are deaf (Bat-Chava, 1994), people who attend group therapy (Marmarosh & Corazzini, 1997), religious people (Diener & Clifton, 2002), ethnic minority members (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey; Goodstein & Ponterotto, 1997; Munford, 1994) and members of stigmatized groups (Crocker & Major, 1989). Participation on sports teams as a leisure activity and identification with a sports team have also been found to predict well-being (Wann, 2006). These findings strongly suggest that people derive satisfaction from the sense of being a part of something larger than themselves. As for whether these groups are more effective at increasing well-being when they are as cohesive as hives, we cannot yet say. But there are good reasons to think that the periodic loss of self, in the company of others with whom one shares an identity, would be beneficial.

The Benefits of Transcending the Self Ehrenreich (2006) traces the Western loss of openness to collective joy to the

profound changes in selfhood that began to occur in early modern Europe. It was during this period that people came to believe "...that the essence of the Western mind, and particularly the Western male, upper-class mind, was its ability to resist the contagious rhythm of the drums; to wall itself up in a fortress of ego and rationality against the seductive wildness of the world" (p. 9). (See the related contrast between independent and interdependent construals of the self, which is the foundation of modern cultural psychology; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This adaptation was highly functional in the

Hive Psychology -- 12

new capitalist economy, but it came with certain costs. One of the largest may have been an increased tendency for people to experience depression and anxiety. Clinical depression is not a modern invention; clear cases can be found in letters, poems, and other texts from the ancient world. But the prevalence of depression may have increased in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries; many commentators from that era, but not earlier ones, described the epidemics of "melancholy" sweeping the continent (Ehrenreich, 2006, ch. 7). Now that we have better records, we can say with more confidence that rates of depression in Western nations rose during the 20th century (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Twenge, 2000), even as those nations grew vastly richer. Wealth is weakly correlated with happiness (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002), but isolation and separation, which are characteristic of modern ways of living, are strongly correlated with depression (see the dyadic relatedness hypothesis; Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

The social psychologist Mark Leary (2004) supports Ehrenreich's analysis in his book The Curse of the Self. Leary maintains that our goal-focused, judgmental, worry- prone, internally-chattering self is a modern creation that does much to sabotage our well- being, and to render us blind to our greater potentials. Indeed, he proposes that one of the most important things we can do to improve our well-being is to learn techniques for quieting the self. "Had the human self been installed with a mute button or off switch," Leary writes, "the self would not be the curse to happiness that it often is" (2004; p. 46).

People attempt to “switch off” the self in a variety of ways, which may be placed on a continuum from short-term distractions to those that have sustained and sometimes life-changing effects. On the short-term end of the spectrum we find some techniques that are generally beneficial, such as transportation into narrative worlds via TV, books, movies, or video games (e.g., Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004). But we also find activities that entice people into making myopic tradeoffs: a brief period of escape from the self is paid for, with interest, later on. For example, millions of people abuse alcohol, drugs, and food (e.g., binge eating) as methods of escape from the self (Baumeister, 1991). The guilt and anxiety they feel afterwards only increases their motivation to escape the self, often through the same means.

At the other end of the continuum are behaviors and experiences that can potentially bring about sustained transcendence or modification of the self. Included here are skills of mental and bodily control such as meditation and yoga. Also included here are the fruits of some educational practices, such as those that many Christian denominations aim for in which children and young adults are taught to be more like Jesus and less like their materialistic, self-absorbed, secular peers. As explained in the opening line of the Christian best-seller The Purpose Driven Life, "It's not all about you" (Warren, 2002). Given that highly religious people are happier than secular people (Myers, 2000), it is worth asking if the benefit of religion derives not just from participation in religious communities but from the successful alteration of the self. And

Hive Psychology -- 13

finally, many people experience a "quantum change" (Miller and C' de Baca, 2001) after a "peak experience" (Maslow, 1964/1994) or a moment of intense awe (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Whether induced by rhythmic movement, hallucinogenic drugs, or in many cases by no known trigger, many people have experienced a profound psychological state involving lack of concern about the self, transcendence of dichotomies, and overwhelming positivity (including feelings that the world is good and desirable). These experiences have much in common with the religious conversion experiences described by William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience. James reviewed hundreds of first-hand accounts from Christian and Islamic sources and identified what he called the "state of assurance," characterized by overwhelmingly positive feelings including "the loss of all the worry, the sense that all is ultimately well with one, the peace, the harmony, the willingness to be, even though the outer conditions should remain the same" (James 1902/1912, p. 248). Such turning points, epiphanies, and conversions are often reported to enrich lives for many years afterwards. The long duration of the benefits of these experiences, in comparison to the rapid adaptation that people usually make to pleasures and successes (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999) should make such phenomena of great interest to social scientists interested in well-being.

Policy Implications We have argued (along with all other evolutionists) that human minds were

shaped by natural selection to enjoy doing things that increased our ancestors' Darwinian fitness. We have further argued (along with some but not all other evolutionists) that natural selection works at multiple levels, including the group level (for groups that can solve the free rider problem), and that it shaped human minds to enjoy doing things that increased the success of our ancestors' groups. Selfishness, greed, and competition within groups can never be eliminated, but groups vary in the degree to which they succeed in suppressing selfishness and creating esprit de corps (the "corps" here being the hive, the body-social). Under some circumstances human groups can be quite successful in suppressing selfishness and eliciting a willingness to sacrifice, and even to die, for the good of the group. If group selection played a role in shaping our minds and pleasures, then it should have led to a shift in the nature of cooperation and conflict: as with bees and ants, group selection reduces conflict within groups but it generally increases conflict across groups. And as technological innovations enabled human groups to better kill their opponents and oppress their own ranks, the dark side of this trade-off has gotten ever darker. We acknowledge that hive psychology can be dangerous. Indeed, the image of Fascist spectacles at Nuremberg and Rome, with acres of uniformed men moving in lock- step, still haunt us. Many social scientists now have a visceral disgust at any hive-like social formation, and will likely recoil from our suggestion that anything good can come from exploring these ancient capacities of the human mind.

Hive Psychology -- 14

We see two crucial distinctions, however, between traditional "hiving" and the horrors of fascism. First, we must distinguish between small and large hives. If hiving comes naturally to us then it is hiving or bonding with dozens or hundreds of other people, not with tens of thousands. The cost/benefit ratio of having many small hives within one's nation is probably very positive, leading to increased trust, cooperation, love, and interdependence at a local level.2 When nations or ethnic groups become hives, however, the calculus is radically different and the potential for violence, internal repression, and even genocide become so great that no set of benefits could outweigh the risks. If fostering thousands of local hives was a likely precursor to national hivishness then we would not advocate playing with fire. We suspect, however, that just the opposite may be true. An anomic nation in which individuals are hungry for connection and meaning seems ripe for takeover by a nationalistic demagogue, whereas a nation composed of strong communities with high social capital in which people are tightly bound into many cross-cutting groups may be less likely to succumb to such seduction. A second distinction that must be drawn is between festivals and spectacles. Fascist rallies and parades were designed to awe passive onlookers and reinforce hierarchy and subservience. They fostered unity around the godlike figure of the leader. They had little in common with the techniques of ecstasy used by most traditional societies to bond members as equals, and they certainly did not dissolve structure in communitas, as Turner had described. It may be that massive social superorganisms forged through spectacle to serve the will of a leader are generally dangerous, whereas smaller social organisms that emerge spontaneously from the actions of people who want to love and trust each other are generally safe. We note a third distinction: a hive is not the same as a mob. Groups that form spontaneously in response to a perceived moral outrage are often dangerous, as individuals become more willing to commit violent actions that they would be unlikely to commit on their own. The psychology of a mob seems to draw on well-studied mechanisms of “deindividuation” which release people from the moral constraints or ordinary life and make violent and selfish behavior more likely (Diener, 1979). Hives of the sort we have been discussing clearly involve a kind of deindividuation as well, but when deindividuation is in the service of communion and celebration, rather than collective social action, the predominant emotion seems to be love, not anger. We therefore take the view that hivishness is a basic aspect of human nature which can be used for good or for evil. When hives are small, egalitarian, and communally oriented they are likely to be harmless to others and beneficial to the participants. When hives are large, hierarchical, or united by the goal of taking what the

2 It should be acknowledged that some small hivish groups, particularly those composed of adolescent males, can be quite destructive, particularly if they compete for territory as happens with urban street gangs. But when groups are more mixed by age and sex, and when people participate in multiple cross- cutting non-nested groups so that they have multiple identities, the dangers of small hives may be minimal compared to their benefits. See Berreby, 2005 for an exploration of these tradeoffs.

Hive Psychology -- 15

members believe to be morally corrective action, they are likely to pose a grave danger to others. What, then are the implications for public policy? We offer four. 1) Invest in Research on Hive Psychology We have claimed that a basic aspect of human nature has gone largely unstudied because of the the social-scientific commitment to methodological individualism. We see signs that this commitment is waning and that recent work on networks (e.g., Barbasi, 2002), emergence (e.g., Johnson, 2001) and group selection (e.g., Wilson, Van Vugt, and O’Gorman, in press) have made it easier for social scientists to don the group-vision goggles and re-examine human social nature. Before any concrete policies can be recommended, it will be crucial to test the basic premises of hive psychology and document the effects of “hiving” on well-being, social coordination, and social capital. It would not be hard to conduct lab-based experiments on the effects of synchronized vs. unsynchronized movement in small groups. Do such movements lead to more effective team performance, and to greater enjoyment of work or play? It might also be possible to study natural variation in the success of real groups that attempt to create hives, e.g., sports teams, military units, and other organizations. And it might be possible to re-examine existing datasets on social capital and community well-being to look for cross-sectional or longitudinal relationships with the prevalence of hive-like groups (e.g., charismatic churches, sports teams). Funding agencies could be encouraged to support such research. 2) Encourage Local Festivals and Dances If empirical research confirms that hiving provides benefits to individuals and/or to groups, or if other scholars concur in our review of the literature available today, then it may be worthwhile to conduct some low-cost experiments in towns that are interested in improving their social capital. Might an increase in the availability of music, dance, and street festivals increase happiness and trust while decreasing alienation and crime? Any legal or policy changes would have to meet the definition of “libertarian paternalism” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003). Options can be made available and defaults can be set, but people must be able to opt-out easily from new policies, and a high rate of opting out should be taken as a rejection of a policy. But with that said, it may be possible for urban planners, local governments, and even schools to make it easier for beneficial festivities to arise. Through tax policies and zoning regulations, localities can increase the number of venues for live music, and can take other steps to help local musicians. By building an outdoor amphitheater and putting on a free weekly concert featuring the most popular local bands, a town can encourage its citizens to dance together (as happens on Friday evenings in our town of Charlottesville, Virginia). By making it easy for local groups to close off city streets, and by offering other inducements, towns can increase the frequency of residential block parties featuring music and dancing.

Hive Psychology -- 16

Thinking small and trying to catalyze the efforts of local entrepreneurs might pay off handsomely in terms of social capital and well-being. Thinking big and exerting central control may backfire. For example, large city-wide and city-sponsored events may easily spiral out of control, leading to violence and increasing distrust. Large civic projects such as museums, opera houses, and monuments may encourage spectacle rather than festival: participants are passive, save for a bit of clapping and walking, and they attend to the object or performer; they do not come away feeling closer to each other. Synchronous movement may also be effective in corporations and other business settings. In some Japanese companies (and even some small rural towns) there are morning or mid-day exercises in which all members participate. Members of Japanese Police and Fire departments similarly exercise, moving together in sync every morning. Organizational researchers have argued that the main function of these exercises is team building and evoking a group orientation (Tayeb, 2005). Japanese workers in turn have stronger loyalty to their companies and stronger morale (need cite, xx). To our knowledge no causal relations between synchronous movement and employee morale has yet been proven, but we predict that experimental studies would show such an effect, particularly if the activities are led by employees and if managers participated in them as equals. 3) Think About Happy Groups, Not Just Happy Individuals Sometimes aiming directly at a goal can cause you to miss it. Some have argued that direct attempts to increase one's own happiness fall into this category (Schooler, Ariely, & Loewenstein, 2003). An instructive example can be found in a surprising place: poultry science. Muir (1996) showed that to maximize egg production in a large multi- hen cage, it wasn't a good idea to selectively breed the hens that laid the most eggs. Those egg-champions were also the most aggressive birds, so when a number of such chickens shared a cage they spent their time fighting and cage-wide fertility dropped substantially. The better way of maximizing individual productivity, it turned out, was to selectively breed the cages that collectively produced the most eggs. This is in fact a form of artificial group selection. Predictably, it leads to the spread of genes that suppress aggression and competition within groups. Recent wisdom from organizational science suggests that the same processes may also apply to human groups. Robert Sutton (2007) argues that the best organizations are those that strictly enforce the "no asshole rule," which says that if star performers make others feel belittled and demoralized, they should either change their ways or be fired. As with those cages of chickens, rewarding individual performance at the expense of a civilized work environment can be counterproductive. More generally, given the complex interdependencies that characterize each human group, a focus on individual level variables may lead to unexpected and unwelcome consequences at the group level. Starting at the group level instead may be the wiser strategy.

Hive Psychology -- 17

This strategy may be particularly useful for increasing well-being. Many of the goods that are known to contribute to well-being, such as wealth and high status, are positional goods: relative position matters more than absolute levels, so that competitors are trapped in a zero-sum game (Frank, 1999). Increasing the average per capita income in a nation, over time, seems to have no effect on the subjective well-being of its citizens (Diener & Seligman, 2004). But participation in hives is not like this. One person's ability to enjoy the ecstatic loss of self is, if anything, increased by the success of those around her. And the trust and cooperation engendered by such practices is a public good. As Robert Putnam (2007) points out, he and his wife get to enjoy the fruits of living in a town with high social capital even though they never participate in the social clubs and civic events that that build that capital. 4) Re-Examine Diversity There are good moral reasons for celebrating diversity in order to encourage inclusiveness. But there are good empirical reasons for supposing that emphasizing differences, rather than commonalities, can be harmful (Haidt, Rosenberg & Hom, 2003). Social psychological research on "minimal groups" shows that people can easily be divided and turned against each other when socially meaningless differences (such as being an overestimator vs. underestimator of dots on a page) are made salient (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). When socially meaningful differences such as race, religion, and language are emphasized, division and distrust seem inevitable. A recent study by Putnam (2007) confirms that residential diversity does indeed decrease trust and social ties among members of different groups, known as bridging capital. Surprisingly, however, Putnam found that diversity reduced social capital within groups as well, known as bonding capital. Putnam summarizes his findings as follows: "Diversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation. In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle" (p. 149). Turtling is the exact opposite of hiving. We therefore believe that the unquestioning celebration of diversity should give way to more careful scrutiny and to a full cost-benefit analysis. It may be that diverse democracies such as the United States (and, increasingly, all Western nations), can best accommodate immigration and racial diversity by emphasizing similarities and shared citizenship, as Putnam (2007) suggests. We add a more speculative suggestion: the “turtling” effects of diversity may be muted if people from diverse backgrounds can take advantage of the ancient and universal bonding mechanisms we have discussed in this paper.

Conclusion When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks he is reputed to have replied: “Because that’s where the money is.” Social scientists seem to have taken Sutton’s (mythical) comment a bit too literally. When studying happiness and well-being, we value money as much as Sutton did. We invest a great deal of effort in quantifying

Hive Psychology -- 18

relationships between well-being and gains or losses of money (and other things). But if we were to step back and identify the sources of people’s greatest joys, we’d re-balance our research portfolios. We’d invest much more in the study of collective pleasures, group-love, and experiences of ecstatic self-loss, because that’s where the joy is.

Hive Psychology -- 19

References Allport, F. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Barbasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and

What It Means. New York: Penguin. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The Adapted mind:

Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford. Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and self-esteem of deaf adults. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 494–502. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self. New York: Basic Books. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Berreby, D. (2005). Us and them: Understanding your tribal mind. New York: Little, Brown.

Borello, M. E. (2005). The rise, fall and resurrection of group selection. Endeavor, 29, 43-47.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.

Brooks, A. C. (2006). Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15-23. Campbell, D. T. (1994). How individual and face-to-face group selection undermine firm

selection in organizational evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 23-38). New York: Oxford.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 26, 608-630.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Darwin, C. (1998). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published in 1871)

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. London: Oxford University Press. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.

Hive Psychology -- 20

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A literature review and guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57, 119-169.

Diener, E., & Clifton, D. (2002). Life satisfaction and religiosity in broad probability samples. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 206–209.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyong money: Toward an economy of well- being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-31.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide (J. A. Spalding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1897)

Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life (J. W. Swain, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1915)

Eckersley, R., & Dear, K. (2002). Cultural correlates of youth suicide. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 1891-1904.

Ehrenreich, B. (2006). Dancing in the streets. New York: Metropolitan. Eliade, M. (1964). Shamanism: Archaic techniques of ecstasy (W.R. Trask, Trans.). New

York: Pantheon Books. Folland, S. (2007). Does "community social capital" contribute to population health?

Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2342-2354. Forsyth, D. R., & Burnette, J. (2005). The history of group research. In S. Wheelan (Ed.),

The handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New

York: Free Press. Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener

& N. Schwartz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302-329). New York: Russell Sage.

Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. London, Vienna: The International Psychoanalytical Press.

Goodstein, R. & Ponterotto, J. G. (1997). Racial and ethnic identity: Their relationship and their contribution to self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 275-292.

Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14, 311- 327.

Helliwell, J. F. ( 2003). How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20, 331– 360.

Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of imitation. Science, 286, 2526-2528.

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner.

Hive Psychology -- 21

Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3-25). New York: Russell Sage.

Keltner, D., Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe: A moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 297-314.

Leary, M. R. (2004). The curse of the self. New York: Oxford University Press. Le Bon, G. (1920). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: Benn. (Original

work published in 1896) Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,

emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Marmarosh, C. L., & Corazzini, J. G. (1997). Putting the group in your pocket: Using

collective identity to enhance personal and collective self-esteem. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 65–74.

Maslow, A. H. (1994). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin. (Original work published in 1964)

Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmary, E. (1997). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mayr, E. (1960). The emergence of evolutionary novelties. In S. Tax (Ed.), Evolution after Darwin: Vol. 1. The evolution of life (pp. 349-380). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323-337.

McDougall, W. (1920). Group mind: A sketch of the principles of collective psychology, with some attempt to apply them to the interpretation of national life and character. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

McNeill, W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time: Dance and drill in human history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miller, W. R., & C'de Baca, J. (2001). Quantum Change. New York: Guilford. Muir, W.M. (1996). Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Selection

program and direct responses. Poultry Science, 75, 447-458. Munford, M. B. (1994). Relationship of gender, self-esteem, social class, and racial

identity to depression in blacks. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 157–174. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American

Psychologist, 55, 56-67. Olavson, T. (2004). 'Connectedness' and the rave experience: Rave as new religious

movement? In G. John (Ed.), Rave Culture and Religion (pp. 85-106). New York: Routledge.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hive Psychology -- 22

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1964. The Andaman Islanders. Glencoe: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1922)

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schooler, J.W., Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). The pursuit and monitoring of happiness can be self-defeating. In J. Carrillo and I. Brocas (Eds), Psychology and Economics (41-70) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, H. (1975). Principles of Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Original work published in 1896)

Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn't. New York: Warner Business Books.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-77.

Tayeb, M. H. (2005). International human resource management; A multinational company perspective. Oxford University Press.

Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Rater, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495-511.

Turner, V. (1995). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. (Original work published in 1969)

Twenge, J.M. ( 2000). The age of anxiety? The birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1007–1021.

Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 10, 272-296.

Warren, R. (2002). The purpose driven life: What on earth am I here for? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin's cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, D. S., Van Vugt, M., & O’Gorman, R. (in press). Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (in press). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology.

Wundt, W. (1911). Völkerpsychologie—Sprache, Mythus und Sitte (Erster Band: Die Sprache). Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.