Societal Emotional Process is a large and complex phenomenon. This paper will address just one perspective on societal emotional process, the repeating interaction patterns of some large social groups, analogous to the interaction patterns Bowen described in the nuclear family.
Large Group Interaction Patterns
Reciprocal Societal Projection Process is the reciprocal projecting on each other of any two large groups which are opposed and about equal in power.
Social Categories Projection Process consists of projections between dominant social classes and a long list of groups defined by social categories. Lower social classes and groups defined by those social categories make for convenient targets. The less differentiated individuals of the dominant social groups believe and project that the groups with less power are inherently inferior in abilities and character. This paper will focus mostly on this second interaction pattern.
These are the social categories which provide easy targets for projection by the dominant classes.
Social Categories
Social Class
Race
Religion
Gender
Nonbinary sexual identification
Disabilities
Nationalities
Other Cultural Subgroups
Some medical conditions
Sociologists and public health researchers have repeatedly observed that in the social class structure the lowest classes are lacking in many critical social resources.
Lowest social classes are characterized by:
Less access to healthcare
Less access to good nutrition
Less educational opportunity
Less access to prestigious occupations
Inadequate police protection
Unequal legal treatment
Unsafe neighborhoods
Inadequate lodging
Less access to political power
Less access to financial credit
Less access to generational wealth
The process which drives some of this disparity is a lot like what we see in family projection process.
Two parents with more power than their focused-on child fuse together, believe themselves to be superior, and ally to project on to that child an inherent inferiority in abilities and character. This emotional process occurs with the most intensity and the least thinking in less differentiated families.
A similar process goes on in Social Categories Projection Process. The less differentiated individuals of the large groups with more social power believe that groups with less power are inherently inferior in abilities and character. This presumptive inferiority is given as the justification for depriving the less powerful class of social resources which would give them the opportunity to survive and thrive.
That’s the projection.
Within any one social category, the level of differentiation of the individual can vary dramatically.
This projection of inherent inferiority is practiced most intensely by the less differentiated individuals of the more powerful classes. The less differentiated of the less powerful classes buy into that projection and believe themselves to be unworthy and lacking in abilities and character. They buy into the more powerful class’s belief that their own station and lack of wealth is proof of the higher classes’ inherent superiority.
Every class and social category has a broad range of individual levels of differentiation. I have already described some of the behavior of the less differentiated members of the more powerful groups and of the less powerful groups.
The better differentiated individuals of all those groups operate on a more fact-based description of themselves and their fellow human beings. For example, the better differentiated folks of all groups recognize the luck involved in what they have and where they have ended up in society. They don’t attribute that to any inherent superiority or inherent inferiority in themselves. They see the luck involved in what they have and act accordingly.
Jim Edd,
There is much that I like about this post. Excellent thinking about what goes on in our society now, and likely all human societies. I reminds me of Sapolsky’s observations of other primates, 15% have less access to food and reproduction, are prone to illness, etc. I also like your analysis of the undifferentiated and the more differentiated in the groups. It’s a societal level extension of Bowen’s descriptions of people’s functioning in the 0 to 25, 25 to 50, 50 to 75 on the scale of differentiation. I wish it could be published in one of the popular online journals.to reach many people!
Laurie
Thanks, Laurie. Do you know where that15% observation from Sapolsky comes from?
Jim Edd,
There is so much to think about here that I would need to think about it one idea at a time. I wonder if you would see, as I do, that the most dangerous combination is low differentiation in members of most powerful groups. This is the road to societal regression. I recall a statement attributed to Ed Friedman: Wherever I go, I see the least mature group members running the show.
On the idea of the least mature members of the least powerful groups buying into belief in their own inferiority, I wonder how we can investigate this. I would attribute the deferential bow-and-scrape posture often assumed by low-ranking individuals as a defense against the threat of reprisal if they assert themselves. I wonder if being in this position over a lifetime would leave a person depleted of much sense of self. I think the Holocaust studies looked at the difference between those who gave up self under dehumanizing conditions and those who found ways to keep self alive. Thanks for this level of thinking, so much needed now.
I had never heard that quote from Friedman. Often true but far from always. Good question about being in the least mature least powerful position for a lifetime.
Hi Jim Edd,
I looked up the 15% to try to find it, but didn’t find it. I have read so many articles and books by Sapolsky, that I don’t know where to start. I wish I could remember because it’s a startling statement about primate life. I have remembered it for a long time. While I am writing to you, I want to say again what a fine article on societal process you have written. It will make a good article for the Family Systems journal. I would like to see it reach an even larger audience. As you mentioned your wife saying, it’s common sense! Thanks,
Laurie