MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C62703.37FADB50" This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/office/webarchive.htm ------=_NextPart_01C62703.37FADB50 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Towardsasocialpsychologyofpersonality.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Towards a social psychology of personality

&n= bsp;

László = Garai — Ferenc Eros — Katalin Járó — Margit Köcski — Sándor Veres=

 

Towards a social psyc= hology of personality:
Development and current perspectives of a
school of social psychology in
Hungary= * <= span lang=3DEN-US>

Points of departure: Dilemmas of a Marxist psycholog= y

The scientific program of the Depar= tment has its antecedents dating back to the 1960s. That period in Hungary was marked by a stabilization process of the socialist system combined with radical tendencies towards economic and social reforms.

Those rapid advances in society gav= e rise to many practical pro­blems which, however, presupposed the answers to theoretical questions as well: What had the social reality of the preceding= era been? What was the refor­med society to be like? Does the direction of prog= ­ress depend on free choice or on necessity independent of man?

Whe­ther of a pragmatic, empirical, theoretical or axiological cha­rac­ter, the que­stions were not raised separately nor were they addres­sed to any spe­cific area of intellectual l= ife: answers to the­se unspoken but challenging questions, whatever their source, were commonly — sometimes publicly — expected to be provided by the "humanities".

No su= ch body of integrated knowledge really existed. But within the in­dividual disciplines= , separately reawakening or even reviving in the 1960s, the necessity for an integration= of knowledge was felt in or­der to co­pe with the questions of that period. Moreover, the possibility for an in­te­gration of knowledge existed. As concerns the humanities it emer­ged in the course of events which Lukács ca= lled the renaissance of Marxism. Through this process, first of all, a wider cir= cle of readers in Hun­gary gai­ned ac­cess to those classic works (Marx, 1953 a= nd 1963) which provided a the­oretical-methodological groundwork to transcend = the antagonistic ap­proa­ches of Naturwissenschaft (sciences of nature) ver­sus Geisteswis­sen­schaft (scien­ces of the mind) which had provoked a sci­enti= fic cleava­ge. Marx sur­moun­ted the problem by taking production, in­stead of = natu­re or mind, as his starting point (Lukacs, 1973), production being just as much determi­ned by spatio-temporal dimensions as nature, and just as creative as mind.

Had i= t not been for such an integrative principle, the humani­ties could not have progresse= d, despite both the desire for integra­tion and the need to solve current practical pr= oblems. Rather, such attempts would ha­ve remained trapped within the traditional b= oundaries of "Na­tur­wis­sen­schaft" or "Geisteswissenschaft", an= d would have been const­rained for­ever to attempts to derive culture from human na= ture, or to tra­ce eve­ry­day behavioral patterns back to man's mind. This would = have per­pe­tuated the split between "explanatory" and "descripti= ve" human sciences.

Thus = in the I960s, when the need was more clearly felt in Hunga­rian society for the developme= nt "in Marxist terms" of various branches of the humanities, including psycho= logy, it became more and more appa­rent that this need was identicat with the one= that urged psychology to ma­ke its findings available for integration by other d= isciplines, while it­self de­ve­loping the capacity to integrate research results from = other disciplines.

The fact that there was a real need= for a Marxian psychology, i. e. for a psychology capable of integration with the other humanities, is best demonstrated by the fact that there were representatives of other fields who attempted to anticipate the development= of such a psychology as long as none had yet been elaborated (cf. e.g. Lukacs, 1963, vol. 2, Chapter 11).

However, the elaboration of a Marxi= st psychology could have of fered psychology much more than the mere possibili= ty of integration with the rest of the humanities. Psychology is in a unique position, for the "bisecting line" of the humanities cuts across psychology and divides it into a "scientific" (`Naturwissenschaft") and a "humanistic" ("Geisteswisse= nschaft") part, i.e. an "explanatory" and a "descriptive" psychol= ogy, the integration of which is in itself a longstanding problem. Now, Marx's anthropological approach, which surpasses the two antagonistic approaches b= y stressing the principle of production, is especially promising in view of curing psychology"s innate schizophrenia.

To achieve integration, however, it= will not suffice merely to add Marxian theses on the one hand, and psychological facts and interpretations on the other. In order to obtain a real degree of integration, the non-psychological, production-centered conceptual framework must be translated into terms appropriate for use in psychology. These new conceptual tools can then be used to interpret the available data and facts= as well as to orientate further research.

Such was precisely the research str= ategy of the Vygotsky school which had its renaissance in the 1960s. It exercised a direct influence on the early phase of the work at the Department of Personality Psychology. Vygotsky"s basic argument was that man in his activity utilizes as psychic tools signs that are psychic products of his previous activity. These signs constitute a special i.e. psychic category o= f "means of production" i.e. they are means which have been derived as a produc= t of production. Later, especially during the decade of the school's renaissance, Vygotsky's colleagues (Leontiev, Galperin, Luriya, Elkonin and others) exte= nded their investigations from the sector of human activity producing and using psychic signs to the whole of activity oriented to real objects and made the general proposition that the phylogenesis and the ontogenesis of psychism t= ake place in object-oriented activity (Leontiev,1969).

However, the theory that was built = around this general thésis contained a contradiction concerning the genesis of motivation. A motive was understood as an originally inner need objectified= in some outer object, while the term object-oriented activity referred to a life process directed towards such a motivating object. But where then does a mo= tive itself take its origin? It cannot be from activity itself since the latter, according to the theory, would already presuppose the existence of some mot= ive. Hence if it is correct to argue that activity is organized by an originally inner need objectified as a motive, then there must be aÌ least one psychic factor which cannot originate in object-oriented activity.

It is this theoretical contradictio= n which the hypothesis of the spe­cifically human fundamental need has been posited= to resolvc, adop­ting the Marxian strategy of drawing on a productioncentered concep­tual framework (Garai, 1962a, b, c; 1966a, b; 1%9b; Eros and Garai, 1974). According to this hypothesis, a need, on either the human or the sub= ­human level, does not have to become objectified as motive in order to be ab­le to organize an activity, since a need through the process of phy­logenesis dev= elops from the beginning as a need for object-oriented ac­tivity, evolving from t= hose purely inner biological tendencies already gi­ven at the level of cells and directed towards the functions of nutri­tion, reproduction, the regeneratio= n of injured living structurc and the isolation of intruding alien materials. Th= is means that a need manifests itself as drive, inhibition, reward or punishme= nt in various phases of such an object-oriented activity that has its structure determined according to the prevalent features of the given stage of phylogenesis (Garai, 1968, 1969b, pp. 119-134, and 160-168; Garai and Köcski,1975).

Thus, the human character of a fund= amental need is determined by the structure of activity specific to the human level= of phylogenesis. The activity characteristic of the human species is work activity. The hypothesis of the specifically human fundamental need suggests that man, as= a result of his phylogenetic development and an ontogenetic process of maturation, possesses a need for some kind of activity, composed on the mod= el of the structure of work activity, that is, consisting of the following pha= ses: (1) appropriation: turning products of others" past activities into me= ans for the individual"s future activity; (2) setting á new goal, which is an elaboration of tensions that appear between the already appropriated object= s; (3) attaining the goal by producing some new object not existing previously; (4) alienation: a process that presents the product of the individual as a means to be used by others in their future activities (Garai, 1969b, pp. 178-200).

This hypothesis in itself presented= a possibility of synthetizing various, sometimes contradictory psychological theories of motivation. For example, Lewin states that when a person has ma= de a decision, the resulting intention will become a quasi-need for him and will maintain an inner tension until the decision has been carried out, regardle= ss of whether it is kept in the focus of con

sciousnes= s or not. Freud, on the other hand, speaks of "forgetting" certain intentio= ns, i.e. purposefully expunging them from consciousness. Now, the hypothesis of= the speeifically human fundamental need explains that intentional actions have their speciaI ways of fitting into man's activity structure, and the fact o= f whether this adaptation happens to take place in a goal-futfilling phase, or, on the contrary, in an alienating phase will determine whether the intention works according to Lewin's or to Freud's scheme. The hypothesis characterizes cer= tain (mental) tactics, which were in part discovered empirically by social-psychological investigationsof cognitive dissonance and in part by clinical psychoanalytical study of defense mechanisms, as fictitious manife= stations of the specifically human need.

However, at this point of the devel= opment of the theory it became clear that such a level of abstraction overlooked a very important aspect of motivation.

In our approach, the existence of a specifically human need was ta­ken for granted as an anthropological fact, = one which motivates every nor­mal individual to perform the successive phases of activity discussed abo­ve, with no more variation than permitted by the giv= en stage of on­to­genesis (Garai,1969b, pp.134-142). However, it is often found that the­re is a considerable variation in the way in which certain social expec­ta­tions, concerning one phase or another, are met by different indiv= i­duals. Some may feel that the activity which conforms to expectations is incited by their own inner motivation, whereas others regard the same activity as the result of some external pressure. There are some whose inner attitude corresponds to external expectations, yet the attitude does not become a mo= tive of b_ehaviour; finally, some do not at all, either in thought or in action,= fulfill the given expectations.

Variation is even greater when the activities in question are not regulated by any explicit or implicit social expectations. Some people make scientific discoveries or produce technical inventions, others create works of art or lead a life that elevates them to acts of great moral value. They may attract followers who develop the disco= very into a scientific school, the invention into an industrial enterprise, the = work of art into culture, and the individual moraI deed into a mass movement. So= me will still be found who retain their passive attitude towards historical processes until a social expectation becomes clearly formulated.=

How is this variation to be explain= ed? lt could seem natural to re­sort to a typological analysis to answer this ques= tion addressed to perso­na­lity psychology. However, the approach which was adop= ted for the re­search program of the Department of Personality Psychology was e= ssen­tial­ly different. The methodological principle which led to rejecting the ty­polog= ical approach was found in Lewin (1935, pp. 41-90), who main­tains that the mode= rn, Galilean mode of thinking requires psychology to re­frain from sorting the objects studied into different classes in which they would fall under diffe= rent laws. The typological approach in psy­cho­lo­gy is a rem­nant of this abneg= ated “Aristotelian” way of thinking, which, in order to cover phenomena that are beyond the reach of the ge­ne­ral psy­chological laws, designs other, independent laws instead of ho­mo­ge­ni­zing “with respect to the validity = of law” the world psychology investigates.

An important point to add to Lewin's concept of homogenization was elaborated within the framework of the specifically human need hy­pothesis: individual motives and social determin= ants were not opposed to each other as biological needs to be described by natur= al laws, and cultural norms to be described by laws of the mind. One pole, the need of the individual, was represented as directed towards an activity mod= eled after the structure of work, while the other pole, the social determinant, = was shown as a tension in the historical process of production (Garai, 1969b, p= p. 81-111).

Work = and production are two aspects, one individual and one so­cial, of the same process. The s= ame homogenization principle was also ap­plied to the above-mentioned problem of variation, an= d resulted in the in­ter­pre­tation that the different responses of different individu= als to the ten­sions arising in the historical process of production depended on t= he po­sitions occupied in the total social structure of the relations of production.=

The specifically human need hypothe= sis made just such a state­ment of this interconnection. The task of a Marxist psychology to ren­der the production-centered conceptual framework adaptabl= e was not car­ried further by means of this approach than to where the funda­men­= tal theoretical work of the Vygotsky school extended. Its work was in fact limi= ted to the aspect of production as work activity and left the pro­blems of prod= uction as a relation of property unexplored. While ex­poun­ding the specifically h= uman need hypothesis, the related contiadiction of the theory can only be mentio= ned (cf. Garai b,1969).

Since = the question here concerned the mediation between social determinants and individual motives, a Marxist and therefore production-centered psychologic= al investigation of human motivation could not be carried further unless the verbally stated intereonnection was also made conceptually adaptable for ps= ychological purposes.

Lines of orientation of research

The fi= rst period of work was by necessity characterized by a broad range of extensive inquir= y. This also followed from the deliberate way of organizing the team so as to include representatives of dif ferent areas of psychology, namely theoretic= al psychology (Garai, 1969a), developmentaly psychology (Járó, 1973, 1975a, b,= c, d; Járó et al.,1975), social psychology (Garai,1969b), psychology of art (ErBs,1972,1973), and neuro-psychology (Keleti,1970; Köcski, 1969a, 1969b, = 1971, 1972, 1974). The advantage of this composition was that the members of the = team could combine their diverse stocks of knowledge in the study of the complex problematic of personality.

The or= ientation of the team started with seminars on readings of the literature in personal= ity psychology in the strict sense. The typolo­gi­cal approach being excluded f= rom the team"s range of interest for rea­sons presented above, attention was concentrated on dynamic theo­ries of personality. The major part of Lewin"s field theory and the follo­wing two of Freud"s propositio= ns were integrated into the team"s prin­ci­ples of approach: (1) All the psychic and somatic manifestations of the indi­vi­dual should be taken as s= ymbols and decoded with reference to the po­sitions occupied in a system of relationships (which in Freud is the Oedi­pal triangle; see Garai and Köcski,1978, Köcski and Garai,1978); (2) De­velopment is not something that merely happens to the indivi­dual, but a process to which the personality allocates much of its motivatio­nal energies either in an attempt to promot= e or to hinder that pro­cess in order to break up ot preserve the actual relatio= nship structures.

The ne= xt phase in elaborating fundamentals was dominated by efforts to select a certain body = of material from social psychology that could be integrated into personality psychology= . As a consequence òf Garai's study visit to France in 1971 and his parti= cipation
in the general meeting and conference of the European Association of Ex­pe­= rimental Social Psychology in 1972, the Department hecame acquain­ted with the theor= etical and methodological critique which Wes­tern Eu­ro­pean social psychologists = were applying to the American tra­dition of the discipline, as well as to their = own pre-1968 work. This cri­tique had a de­cisive influence on the views of the Departme= nt (cf. Ga­rai, 1972c), due to a large extent to the eontrast with the back­ground = against which it was perceived, namely that of a general lack of cri­tique characte= ristic of so­cial psychology in Hungary at that time. It was especially at the fir= st Hun­garian Social Psychological Conference in 1972 that this cotltrast was quite clear= ly noticed by the Department, thus setting the tone of mem­bers" contributions to= the conference whe­re their "harsh" opinions inevi­tably roused gener= al objection and resulted in their complete isolation.

Besides surveying different branche= s of psychology, the Department examined other approaches whicjZ could be integr= ated into a theory of personality psychology. Though this study was meant to con= centrate the multifarious research orientations, it in fact extended the field of inquiry to areas outside psychology.

Work w= as directed first to embrace the approach of philosophical anth­ropology and o= ther philosophical domains that had implications for the study of personality. An important point to add to the views of the De­partment was found in Sève's conception (1969) suggesting that the ac­ti­vity of personali= ty depends on extrinsic motivation that can only be un­der­stood by virtue of those spatial and mainly temporal structures that are determined by the existing relationships of production. (For a cri­ti­cal ana­lysis of Sève's book, see Erœs,1972). Studying Marx's Grund­ris­se and e= x­pounding its psychological implications resulted in the cons­t­ruc­tion of a pro­duc= tion-centered psychology of personality which was ini­tially ela­bo­ra­ted in economic-philosophical categories only. An exa­mi­na­tion of Kant's thought= s in the Critique ofpractica! reason led to an in­ves­tigation of the 1o­gical patterns that organize the cognitions ratio­na­li­zing a person's de­ci­sio= ns. This work eventually led to awareness of the categorization paradox (Garai, 1976b).

In th= e search for theoretical synthesis, the Department examined the possibilities offere= d by mathematical systems theory. Attention was focused on the structure that characterizes the systems studied by this theory as opposed to that of cybernetic systems. These mathematical systems turned out to have special f= ormal
mechanisms which, unlike cybernetic feedback and information, provide for d= evelopment and not for equilibrium in systems (Garai, 1971, 1973a). The­se mathematica= l systems turned out to have special formal me­cha­nisms which, unlike cyberneúc feed= back and information, provide for de­ve­lopment and not for equilibrium in syste= ms (Garai, 1971, 1973a). In their search for synthesis, the Department members also tu= r­ned to phi­lo­so­phy of seience and examined the way in which other scien­ces, = es­pe­ci­al­ly physics and biology, had found the means to encou­ra­ge processes of in­te­= gration during periods of crisis. Further, concrete in­vestigations we­re ma­de to = find out to what extent the different psy­cho­logical theories, which are the mo= st concerned with personality can be fitted together in­to one logical system. This work= in particular and, in general the enti­re ac­tivity of the Department, was favourably inf= lu­en­ced by a Marxist group of French psychologists (Pécheux, Plon, Poitou and other= s) whose cri­tique of social psychology is based on Lacan's version of psychoanalysi= s.

These "meta-scientific" s= tudies also had a direct bearing on one important area of the problematic which the Department was going to explore. It was postulated that in the objective pr= ocess of the development of productive forces there emerge certain tasks which ar= e in the spirit of the time with no one in particular being responsible for havi= ng formulated them; and these tasks, mediated by the specifically human fundamental need, have a motivating impact on persons occupying certain positions in the social structure. The hypothesis was put forward, together with an attempt to demonstrate it, in a paper analyzing János Bólyai"s discovery of non-Euclidean geometry (Garai,1970). This paper, presented at = the 13th International Congress on the History of Science, argued for the hypothesis= by analyzing a remarkable fact: the two thousand year old geometrical problem = had been solved at the beginning of the l9th century simultaneously but indepen= dently by the Hungarian mathematician J. Bólyai and the Russian mathematician Lobatchevski.

Experimental designs

Experimental work, started in 1971,= was based on the theoreticalrñethodological team work presented above. At thát time the underlying assumptions of the production-centered psychology = of personality were as follows:

1) Develo= pment of personality takes place in the course of a process during which the person retains or changes his place in a social structure. Retaining or changing p= lace does not happen gradually but passes through conflicts arising from time to time, obliging the person to make clear-cut decisions for either conservati= on or change.

2) Develo= pment of personality is an integral part of the process of historical progress where= the social structure mentioned in paragraph (1) is either preserved or subjecte= d to change. The conservation or change of the social structure is not gradual: = it occurs in social crises in which clear-cut decisions are made for the conservation or revolutionary change of the structure.

3) Preser= vation or change of the individual"s place within the social structure is not a = mere result of external social intervention to move or maintain the individual. A person is motivated to change or retain his place by the specifically human fundamental need which is essentially a need for development. But this development itself is mediated by the series of acts of retaining or changi= ng place within the social structure.

4) Conser= vation or change of the structure of society is not an outcome of what certain groups= of individuals happen to want: it occurs by historical necessity, independent = of any person"s will. It is a necessity of economic nature which depends = on the production of the means of production. In certain historical periods it= is served by the conservation of the structure of the relations of production = whereas in other periods by a radical change in those relations.<= /p>

5) The pr= ocess of development of personality and that of social progress are interconnected. = When the individual decides whether he is to.preserve or to change his place in = the social structure, this is at the same time a contribution to deciding wheth= er the social structure should change or remain the same. Also, when historica= l events give rise to either stability or changes in the social structure, the posit= ions that may be taken in it will stabilize or change accordingly. 6) The decisi= on which in a given period a person makes concerning the question, arising in = an historical context, of preserving or changing the social structure, is determined by that person"s position in the social structure in questi= on i.e. his class position.

The basic assumption for the experi= ments was that the selfdevelopment of the personality through erises and decision= s can begrasped by analyzing behavior in conflict situations of decision.

Analysis was centred on two aspects= of decision-making beha­vior: (1) What is it that the decision evokes or inhibits the memory o= f from among whatever has been stored and arranged into structures in me­mo­ry thr= oughout life? (2) What kind of a permanent mark does the de­cision produce, which m= ay then prove decisive for the rest of the person's life?

As regards the first of these quest= ions, experiments were conducted by Garai (1969a) with undergraduate students in = Moscow. A replication of the experiment witha control group of Budapest un= dergraduates, using Hungarian versions of the experimental devices, produced evidence to support the original results, showing that in situations of decision, life history memories (personal memory) can act as determinants even without the person becoming aware of them. Moreover, only those memories become conscio= us that play a part in organizing the social relationships of the person throu= gh the decision.

In another experiment, high school = pupils were given a passage of surrealist prose, that is the kind of literature in which the sentences are not connected to one another to form a story or a l= ogical train of thought but seem to follow loosely, "making no sense", b= ut still somehow holding together. The different groups were asked to retell t= he passage after havmg made various evaluative decisions concerning the téxt. These experiments reinforced the presupposition that recalling hidden structures of a text was markedly affected by the kind of value dimension — beautiful/ugly, tragic/idyllic, comic/elegiac or sublime/base — along which= the decision was made.

For the second aspect of decision-m= aking behavior, mentioned abo­ve, the presupposition was that the specifically human fundam= ental need becomes a motive by virtue of a decision alone. That is, choice is not= de­termined by previously existing preferences and aversions but, on the contrary, the = direction of the choice determin=3D ed by the funda­men­tal need will shape the prefe= rences and aversions which then consistent­ly determine further activities. Since = such a hypothesis finds ample sup­port in the rich fund of empirical evidence ga= thered through experi­ments in the theory of cognitive dissonance, the Department = did not look for renewed experimental proof of the existence of such an inverse re­= lationship. Instead, the attempt was made to specify whether the re­la­tionship itself = could be considered as a specifically human cha­rac­te­ris­tic and to what extent= it was justified to suppose that the relationship was present throughout phylogene= sis but at the human level appeared with

essential= ly different qualitative features.

In order to settle this question, t= he members of the Department designed an experiment. It was expected that by observing the behavior of animals in a maze with one single crossing point, they could see if the first (random) choice at the crossing determined later preferences of direction or not. However, after the preparatory experiments= to check various conditions of reinforcement, the work had to be suspended due= to lack of suitable equipment.

After a relatively long time an experimental methodology using a modification of the game "Monopoly&qu= ot; was finally set forth as a tool of an essentially production-centered psychological approach to the problem of decision. The game itself was unkn= own to the subjects, high school pupils, and the only modification was the insertion in the instructions, comprising the smallest possible number of f= ormal rules, of one saying that among the four subjects playing at one time the leader "plays as he likes while the rest should all play accordingly a= nd consistently". The instructions identified the leader according to a criterion dependent on the progress of the game, and it characterized a pla= yer for a period of several steps. (The designation "leader" was not used). The steps in the first part of the game involve certain decisions simulating economic activities purchasing sites, building houses, etc. In t= he experiment, according to the instructions, the "leader" had the privilege of deciding what he was going to buy and on what terms. His power was limited = only by the instruction to be "consistent", while the rest of the players" power depended on how they interpreted the deliberately vague instruction to play "according to what the leader does". All subj= ects had to give reasons for each of their decisions.

The experiment was designed to mode= l the rationalization of decisions and to use the model in exploring to what exte= nt it depends on the position of who decides, and on the actual phase of the g= ame, whether the rationalization concerns this position and phase only or is cla= imed to cover all positions and the whole of the game. After testing in 1973, the method was ready for application.

Crisis and social categorization

By 1973, the Department of Personal= ity Psychology had completed the process of formulating its theoretical assumpt= ions and methodological ideas. Paradoxically, this resulted in a state of crisis= .

Garai's visit to France in 1973 had a catalytic effect in recognizing the crisis itself. The visit had been planned to be a follow-up of the one two years earlier. At that time, = in 1971, the associates of the Laboratory of Social Psyehology of the Ecole Pr= atique des Hautes Etudes had taken much interest in the theoretical assumptions of= the Hungarian team, and a suggestion had been made to test them in comparative studies to be undertaken by the two scientifc institutions embedded in different social structures. ln 1973, however, when the experimental methodology based on "Monopoly" was proposed as a researeh tool, = the associates of the Freneh Laboratory qualified the idea as a "typical manoeuvre of bourgeois ideology" and this was by no means only the opi= nion of Marxists.

The objection proved justifiable on= the basis of the argument that follows. The totality-oriented assumptions of the theory are related to the question of whether a kind of social structure sh= ould survive or not, whereas the experimental method, by the very requirement of repeatability of the experiment, implies an a priori decision in favour of = the survival of this structure (cf. Adorno et al, 1976) and it represents this pre-experimental, extra-scientific, ideological procedure as if it had beco= me scientifcally verified by the experiment-.

The Department had to face a dilemm= a: (1) Either one could go on with the further elaboration of a production-centere= d psychology which originally had been developed in order to answer the questions raised= by the social praxis of the sixties. Such a psychological. theory, however, ca= nnot apply the traditional procedures of scientific verification but is, instead, obliged to find the justification of its approach in the social praxis of t= he seventies; (2) Or, one could return to purely psychological theories, geare= d to traditional procedures of verification.

During his stay in France, Garai was asked to prepare a contribution to a special issue of a UNESCO journal on the crises in psychology and psychiatry. In this article (Garai, 1973b), he attempted to delimit the areas of competence of pure psychology = and psychotechnics (a field detached from political practice and _ideological theory). It was fóund that, while psychology and psychotechnics are capable of dealing with= the develópment of the
various abilities and even with developing them, these disciplines are not competent in questions of needs.

In the light of this conelusion, the Department was faced by the alternative of either carrying on with the prod= uction-centered study of needs, thus giving up all expectations of psychological verifica-t= ion, or having recourse to purely psychological procedures, thus abandoning any illusion of apprehending the phenomena of needs and motivation.<= /span>

In order to understand this grave s= ituation better, it should be mentioned that the very reason for setting up the Department at the Insti= tute of Psychology had béen a desire to investigate the needs of personality, th= at is, human motivation.

In the first part of the crisis pér= iod, the activities at the Department bifurcated. One group investigated the possibilities of nonexperimental methods (questionnaires, sociometry) of pu= re and applied psychology. Another group examined ways of coneeptualizing in p= ure psychology in order to see which of the phenomena tackled in the period pri= or to the crisis (conflict, decision, cationalization, personal memory, etc.) could be deseribed by these means.

This period of work was characteriz= ed by mutual hostility and repeated exehange of derogatory opinions. Indeed, what happened at that time was that the points of identity and of difference in opinion which had always existed among the members of the Department became sharpened by the crisis and, losing all nuances were elaborated into downri= ght, categorical identities or categorical differences. When, in seareh of new possibilities of conceptualization, the members eventually considered the u= ses to which the concept of social categorization might be put, this concept tu= rned out to be suitable first, in a purely psychological non-production-centered approach for deseribing other crisis situations analogous to that within the Department. Following this discovery, "social categorization" bec= ame the central term of conceptualization.

Naturally, the concept underwent so= me modification of meaning in comparison to the way it has been used, following Tajfel, in the social psychological literature (cf. Garai, 1976). The most important difference was that the Department"s works also contained re= ference to the type of social categorization which does not presuppose the conscious activity of the self since, on the contrary, it is even a precondition for = the development of the consciously act-
ing self (Köcski,1976). Consequently, social categorization is also recogni= ­za­ble at the sub-human level, mainly in the way certain individuals of a spe­cies occupy a part of the living space as their owñ territory and keep ot= hers of the same species away. It is considered to be a higher-or­der ma­ni­fest= ation of social categorization when, within the category thus estab­li­shed, a structure develops in the assemblage in which a gi­ven position, e.g. that = of flock leader, is steadily occupied by one individual to the exclusion of all others.

In both cases categorization is med= iated by some kind of signali­za­tion. Along with a category forming within the population, or a nar­row ca­te­gory within the broader one, there appears a= set of signals (mo­tor, vo­cal, pos­tural, secretory, vaso-motor, pigmentary or still others) which sig­ni­fies that the individual belongs to the category= in question (cf. Köcski and Garai,1975).

Complementing the methods of develo= pmental psychology (Já­ró,1975a), in which she had displayed such great expertise, = Járó (1973), with the assistance of Veres, elaborated complex methods, combining various social psychological techniques, for use in field investigations related to the development of social abilities on thc one hand, and to the social factors of psychic development on the other. These methods seemed suitable for an initial approachnot production-centred, but purely psychological to the type of phenomena that had been in the foreground of t= he Department"s interest in the earlier period.

It was in an atmosphere of prolonge= d crisis that the preparations for the European Conference on Social Psychology in 1= 974 at Visegrád were made.z Prior to the Conference, the Department had discuss= ed Garai"s and Erös" papers. As a contribution to the themc "The social psychology of social change" which he had proposed placing on t= he agenda, Garai made an attempt to present thc production-centered theory und= er the tital "Is Social changc motivated?" (Garai, 1974). The subject chosen by Erós was a characteristic expression of the fundamental problem of thc Department, an interior problem, but one which all humanistic studies starting in the sixties and continuing in the seventieshad to face: what are critical qúestions about society destined to become, once they are integrat= ed in social research based on thc methodological groundwork of "abstract empiricism" and "middle range theory". (See Erös, 1974, who illustrates this point in an analysis of The authoritarian personality).

The paradigm of the relations of property=

According to one of the assumptions= of the production-centered theory of personality (see above), social formations ma= ke progress through crises, in the course of which person·ality also develops.=

At the lowest ebb of its crisis, the Department of Personality Psychology might have realized (which it did not, however, since this kind of realization is apt to take place only retrospectively) that it had made some progress in a purely psychological conceptualization social categorization and categorizational signification = and in elaborating a purely psychological method, combining developmental and social psychological methods.

The crisis had not come to an end, = however, as became explicit during the periodic thematic discussions held in the Department: none of the members wished to give up motivation research, nor = to put up with the professional-ideological illusions which a purely psychological research on motivations would have imposed upon them.

The production-centered theory of personality considered the motivated development of personality in its rela= tion to crisis and revolutionary transformations of social totality. At the same timc, the Department involved in a crisis of its own microsocial formation, undertook its transformation in a way which resulted in development. While running the field investigations which had been launched at that time (see below), the Department members were also confronted by microsocial forms in which as a rule they found that, if their accumulating crisis failed to eru= pt, development of the personality might stagnate or that an evolving but prolo= nged crisis might lead to self-destruction and ultimately to suicide, while the resolution of the crisis could bring about the development of the personali= ty. It was thus with reference to microsocial forms that a hypothesis was set f= orth suggesting that the realization of these possibilities did not depend on wh= at typological characteristics mediate as "inner conditions" the external effect of the "social environment" in a given person. The earlier conception was that the mediating positiòn was that "he= ld by the person in the global social structure of the relations of production", in particular, with respect to belonging to the class of = the propertied or the propertyless. It was vital for the prospects of a productioncentered study of personality that microsocial forms and the pro-=
cesses that take place within them should be deseribable by the paradigm of relations of property.

The model, whose possible applicati= on to microsocial relation­ships is being examined, shows the following relations= hip, revealed by Marx's production-centered philosophy of history historical mat= eria­lism: possession of certain means of production ensures certain posi­tions in the global social structure, positions permitting ruling this struc­ture by pol= itical and ideological means; the aim of such a rule is es­sen­tially to maintain = the very structure in which precisely the posses­sion of the means of productio= n is what reinforces the dominant posi­tion. This is a paradoxical formation, wh= ose principle of organization is de­termined by those who occupy dominant posit= ions and who in turn are determined to occupy dominant positions by the principl= e of organi­za­tion itself. An investigation into the question of whether such p= ara­do­xical formations are to be found in microsocial relationshisp as well leads at fi= rst to the result that there are only paradoxical formations sin­ce this princi= ple of organization proves in a first analysis to be that which serves to perfo= rm social categorizations which, then, is characte­ri­zed by the categorization paradox (Garai, 1976b; 1977a; Erœs and Ga­rai, 1978). This is so becau= se the subject who performs the categoriza­tion belongs to the object he categorizes, and at the same time is only detached from it as a result of t= his categorization (as "we" or "I").

After closer investigation, it turn= ed out that within all forma­tions (groups, roles) which in social psychology have trad= itionally been regar­ded as possessing their given principles of organization, indepe= ndently of the persons composing them, a dominant position exists which in fact de­= ter­mines the principles of organization. Thus, for exam­p­le; the principle of organ= ization of a role relationship like that between doc­tor and pa­tient is determined= from the position of the doctor: it is al­ways here that is decided what the cri= teria are for being doctor or patient (Garai, 1975).

The perspectives of the motivated development of the personality are mediated by the position a person occupi= es in the structure analyzed by the paradigm of property relations during the given historical phase (consolidated, pre-crisis, in crisis, or consolidati= ng after crisis) of the microsoeial formation (Járó, 1975a; Járó and Veres, 1976a and 1976b).

The possibilities offered by å paradigmatic approach to the relations of property resolved the dilemma of = a "production-centered,

approach" vs. "concrete research" and also the = crisis that stemmed from it.

Thus came to an end the period in t= he work of the Department of Per­sonality Psychology during which its prineipal task had been to pro­mo­te the assimilation of the non (or ñot mainly) psychological set of pro­duction-centered concepts into psychology. This ef= fort had specifi­cal­ly concerned the problem areas not tackled by the Vygotsky school. .

2 Researeh in progress

1. Empirical and case studi= es

Within the framework of the Departm= ent, Járó, Keleti, Köcski and Veres have mainly been engaged in empirieal case investigations. They have made it possible to serutinize systematically, and trace back to actual psychological phenomena, the abstract statements of the produetion-centered psychology of personality by making use, on the one han= d, of the new features and conceptual tools of the theory (such as social categorization, the paradigm of property relations, self-qualifying paradox= es) and, on the other, by applying the methodological results and the experience gained in earlier empirical researeh, mostly in sehools (Járó and Veres, 1976a). As a matter of fact, the goal set for empirical researeh had been, = even previously, more comprehensive than simply planning and elaborating suitable technical-methodological devices. In order that the theory concentrating on= the laws of development could ultimately apply to any person and under the circumstances of any social formation, empirical researeh set as a goal to delineate the area of validity and to specify the need for supplementary conceptualization with respect to the phenomena outside that area.

The investigations made by this gro= up are connected by a set of hypotheses concerning the conerete social and ìndividual criteria of the development of personality. Each of them focuses on different aspects and periods of development and reflects upon t= he generally formulated question: What are the conditions and events that perm= it us to state that a person develops?

The members of the group made a cre= ative attempt to answer the question by a joint application of the principles of production-centered psychology so that they could refer to conerete individ= uals chosen as subjects. The starting point for their analysis was that accor­di= ng to the hypothesis of the specifically human fundamental need, the mo­tivati= on for development the need for setting a goal is held to be va­lid for every individual under certain social conditions, this motivation being a supraindividual and extrapsychic factor. It was also postulated that the conditions of the force of the motivation can be described with the help of= the property relations paradigm. Within the various social formations, one of t= hese objective conditions is the position from which the goal of the common acti= vity can be determined, and the other is the nature of the historical period, wh= ich determines whether the goal is set from the dominant position (stabilizatio= n) or whether there is a chance to determine the goals for the forces of the n= ew order, formerly in a position of dependence (revolution).=

The theoretical conclusion reached = at this point by the empirical research group was that personality development is n= ot a general human process one of anthropological validity but is attained exclu= sively by those holding the positions which, at the time of the investigation, bear the historically mature tendencies of development. From this it follows that the objective factors making the development of the personality possible ca= n be shown by analyzing the historical movement of the social formation providing the · framework of development, and the positions held within it.

The social categorization hypothesi= s is concerned with the sub­jec­tive conditions of the development of personalit= y. This hypothesis is not only an attempt to answer the philosophical question= of how it is possible for man to experience as his own subjective free will wh= at in fact is objectively, i.e. economically, necessary. At the same time it offers a theoretical possibility to investigate psychologically how a perso= n in his concrete historicalsocial situation makes his decision concerning the alternatives of development emerging before him.

The hypothesis also provides the ba= sis for a description of the semiotic devices and processes through which the person carries out his decision with reference to himself and to his environment. Decisions with respect to categorization may either stabilize the social sy= stem or provoke a crisis within it according to the concrete historical situation and the position occupied in the system of relationships.=

The above ideas have been developed= by Járó, thus summarizing the principles of a production-centered psychology i= n a unified
model of development (Járó, 1975a). The central concept of the model is the episode of self-definition, which can either take in the historical moment = in which the alternative of development appears or the structure of the social system of relationships (the dominant, mediating, dependent; and marginal positions). The episode of self definition is a historically and postionally structured situation of ehoice which will serve as a frame of reference for interpreting decisions about categorization (Járó and Veres, 1976a).

The production-centered model of ontogenesis necessarily had to face the criteria and range also of phenomen= a of "nondevelopment" while describing the periods of development and = systems of relationships in the social forms serving as frames for ontogenesis dependence relations in stable periods and of the inner mechanism of personality (rationalization) (Járó, 1975a; Járó and Veres, 1976b).

The various empirical case studies = under way in the Department per­mit analysis of different aspects of social categoriz= ation among the social formations actually canalizing development, thus bringing = different sta­ges of ontogenesis under investigation. The following themes are addres= sed:

1) Emerge= nce of categorial signalization in the early phase of ontogene­sis, in the course = of the differentiation of "I" and "others" (Köcski, 1976, 1977; Garai and Köcski, 1976, I978; Köcski and Garai,1978).

2) Positi= onal differences in the categorization of high-school pupils occupying various positions in the system of relationships within the class (Járó and Veres, 1975; Veres, Járó and Erós, 1975a; Járó and Veres,1976a,1976b; Veres,1976a)= .

3) Catego= rizational mediation of the change of social stratum in young workers coming to town f= rom the country. Possibilities for intluencing the categorization by cultural m= eans (Veres, 1975, 1976,1977a,1977b).

4) Defici= ent social and generational categorization as a cause of suicide in the period of grow= ing up (Keleti,1976a,1976b).

Work on these themes has, of course, attained different levels of conceptualization and of exploration of facts. Currently, all the investigations conducted by members of this group are ca= se studies or structurally oriented field research since earlier attempts at experiments failed and were abandoned.

Empirical work within the production-centered-psychological approach, whether carried out by recording observations in life
situations as in a diary, or by interviews, questionnaires or unfinished stories, is always so designed as to isolate the episodes of self-definition from the natural flow of complex events, and to allow positional and semiot= ic analyses by comparing the signs used by the persons with the objective structure of the situation.

Recent field studies have used a production-centered psychological approach, not only as a device of cogniti= on but of social praxis as well: our studies in a high sehool and in a workers" hostel introduced the method of social psychological and pers= onality-psychological "catalysis" aiming at establishing the groups" self-reflecti= on.

2. Theoretical-rnethodological rese= areh

Part of the work in the Department = is done by independent methods of theory construction and methodologicat eritique o= f theories, w-hich is a type of tool that has also appeared in other sciences (physics, biology) at a given stage of their development.

The aim of this work is to develop a personality psychology independent of general psychology· (cf. Garai, 1968; 1969b, pp. 142-164; 1970). The task falls into two phases: (1) integrating = the individual psychological (from psychoanalysis, developmental psychology, persoñality dynamics) with the social psychologieal stock of facts a= nd interpretive materials that refer to personality; (2)establishing a synthes= is of this independent personality psychology and general psychology. In both phases Lewin"s principle of homogenization (see above) is instrumental= . Work in the first of these phases is more advanced. The validity of some social psychological theories was tested and a synthesis of the theory of cognitive dissonance and that of social categorization has been arrived at (Garai, 19= 77a: 1977c; 1977d; Erös and Garai, 1978). As a result of the examination of the social psychological theory of conflicts and of the ideological critique directed against it (see the Deutseh/Plon debate in the Euròpean Jou= rnal o J Socia! Psychology (1974), the conelusion was that one of the two partie= s opposéd in a conflict will determine the structural frames within which the conflict can be "acted out", but the other party maydepending on the historical state of the macroor the micro-social formation extend the confl= ict from the level connected with its object (object-level) to the level of the structural framework that determines it (mzeta-level), positing his owvn principles of organiza-
tion in opposition to the principle of organization fixed in the existing structure. Through the extension of the conflict to two levels, the formati= on enters a crisis for which only a radical solution is possible (Garai and Erœs,1976; Garai,1977).

In a paper belonging to the second = phase of this work, Garai (1978) showed that all attempts to understand the whole of meñtal activity in terms of brain funetioning alone lead by necessit= y to leaving aside those phenomena which have their origin in social or personal= ity factors (such as, for example, the meaning of environmental "stimuli&q= uot;). At the same time, he pointed out that taking these phenomena into considera= tion leads to a sort of dualism. As a solution for this dilemma Garai suggested = that the territorial mechanisms of supraindividual organization, rather than bra= in functioning, be regarded as the prime meehanism of these phenomena.

These theoretical activities were s= upported by a methodological critique of various social psychological and individual= psychological theories. It primarily consisted in criticizing the conceptions of society = and of personality implied by the different theories, within the framework of t= he history of ideas and of the critique of ideologies. The first systematic attempt in this direction was made by Erðs in his previously mentioned paper presented at the Visegrád conference (ErBs, 1974). In his later studi= es (1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1977a, 1977b; see also Garai and Erös, 1976; Erós and Garai, 1978) he further developed this type of analysis, also making use of= the complex historical material that he had collected during his stay in the Un= ited States (1976).

One cr= ucial theme of the historicat and ideological-critical studies was the rise of American social psychology and the process in its devélopment by which it ceased to be a "social prophesy" commilted to reforms, and became= a sort of "social technology" a technique of mass manipulation (see Erós,1977b; Erós and Garai, 1978).

Anothe= r central question was related to critical social theory, born in the Europe of the thirties and oriented towards an empirical social psychology, as seen especially in the case of the FreudoMarxists (Reich, Fromm) and the theoris= ts of the Frankfurt Sehool (Adorno, Horkheimer). Two aspects of critical theory are to be noted here. First, because they are good examples of the consiste= nt critique of the ideological preconceptions of psyehology as well as
of the social sciences in general (see Adorno et al, I976, especially Adorn= o"s writings), and second, because they demonstrate that the ideas of critical theory are themselves not free from certain lapses into ideological functio= ns. This double aspect is best revealed in Adorno"s and his associates&quo= t; work, The Authoriturianpersonality, which is in some respects critical theorists" greatest achievement in social psychology. Nonetheless, the implicit contradictions of this work have furnished possibilities for its "positivist reinterpretation" and in this way for its adaptation = to the main trends of American social psychology. (On the set of coñtradictions in this work and the process of reinterpretation, see Erœs,1977b).

Some preliminary results of researc= h in progress in the Department of Personality Psychology were presented in 1977= at the session commemorating the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Institute of Psychology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (see ErBs,1978; Garai and Köcski,1978; Járó and Veres,1978).

Notes

1. The term, the humanities is traditionally used in Hungary (as well as in other Central European countries) to denote the historical and social sciences as opposed to the exact sciences.=

2. Of the members of the Department= , Garai took part in the work of the International Organizing Committee of the Conference, and Ergs participated in the preparatory work.


In 1970 there was organized in the Institute for Psychology of the Hun­garian = Academy of Sciences a team-work[1= ] with the scientific project of elaborating a psy­chological meta-theory that would be equally close to natural a= nd to historical sciences.

The scientific program of the Depar= tment has its antecedents dating back to the 1960s. That period in Hungary was marked by a stabilization process of what we called then the socialist system combined with radical tendencies towards economic and social reforms= .

-----------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------- =

No su= ch body of integrated knowledge really existed. But within the in­dividual disciplines= , separately reawakening or even reviving in the 1960s, the necessity for an integration= of knowledge was felt in order to cope with the questions of that period. Moreover, the possibility for an integration of know­ledge existed. As conc= erns the humanities it emerged in the course of events which Lukacs called the renaissance of Marxism. Through this process, first of all, a wider circle = of readers in Hungary gained access to those clas­sic works (Marx, 1953 and 19= 63) which provided a theoretical-methodological groundwork to transcend the antagonistic approaches of Naturwissenschaft (sciences of nature) versus Geisteswissensehaft (sciences of the mind) which had provoked a scientific cleavage. Marx surmounted the problem by taking production, instead of = nature or mind, as his starting point (Lukacs, 1973), production being ju= st as much determined by spatiotemporal dimensions as nature, and just as creativ= e as mind.

Had it not been for such an integra= tive principle, the humanities could not have progressed, despite both the desir= e for integration and the need to solve current practical problems. Rather, such attempts would have remained trapped within the traditional boundaries of Naturwis­senschaft or Geisteswissenschaft, and would have been constrained forever to attempts to derive cultu= re from human nature, or to trace = eve­ryday behavioral patterns back to man's mind. This would have perpetuated the split between explanatory and deseriptive human sciences. <= /o:p>

-----------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------- =

Such was precisely the research str= ategy of the Vygotsky school which had its renaissance in the 1960s. It exercised a direct influence on the early phase of the work at the Department of Personality Psy­cho­logy. Vygotsky's basic argument was that man in his activity utilizes as psychic tools signs that are psychic products of his previous activity. These signs constitute a special (namely, psychic) categ= ory of means of production derived as a product of production. Later, especially during the decade of the schools renaissance, Vygotsky's colleagues (Leonti= ev, Galperin, Luria, Elkonin and others) extended their investigations from the sector of human activity producing and using psychic signs to the whole of activity oriented to real objects and made the general proposition that the phylogenesis and the ontogenesis of psychism take place in object-oriented activity (Leontiev, 1969).

However, the theory that was built = around this general thesis contained a contradiction concerning the genesis of motivation. A motive was understood as an originally inner need objectified in some outer object, while the object-oriented activity was conce= ived as a life pcocess directed towards such a motivating object. But where = then does a motive itself take its origin? It cannot be from activity itself sin= ce the latter, according to the theory, would already presuppose the existence= of some motive. Hence if it is correct to argue that activity is organized by = an originally inner need  objectified = as a motive, then there must be at least one psychic factor which cannot origina= te in object-oriented activity.

It is this theoretical contradictio= n which a hypothesis of the specifical­ly h= uman fundamental need has been posited to resolve within a produc­tion-cente= red conceptual framework (Garai, 1962a, b, c; 1966a, b; 1969b; Eros and Garai, 1974). According to this hypothesis, a need is not an inner bi­o­logical tendency that would need to get objectified for getting efficency in ori­en= ting activity. Purely inner biological tendencies of nutrition, reproduc­tion, regeneration of injured living tissue and excretion of extraneous materials are already given at the level of Protozoa. These inner tendencies are not needs but represent a kind of proto-needs that develops from the very beginning of the phylogenesis as a need for an object-oriented activity. It manifests itself as drive, inhibition, reward or punishment in various phas= es of such an object-oriented activity that has its structure determined accor= ding to the prevalent features of the given stage of phylogenesis (Garai, 1968, 1969b, pp. 119-134, and 160-168; Garai and Kocski, 1975).=

Thus, the specifically human character of a fundamental need is determine= d by the structure of activity specific to the human level of phylogenesis. The activity characteristic of the human species is work activity. The hypothes= is of the specifically human fundamental need suggests that man, as a result of his phylogenetic development and of an ontogenetic process of maturation, possesses a need for some kind of activity, composed on the model of the structure of work activity, that is, consisting of the following phases:

(1) appropriation: turning products of others past activities into means for the individuals future activity;

(2) setting new goal, which is an elaboration of tensions that appear between t= he already appropriated objects;

(3) attaining the goal by producing some new object not existing previously;

(4) alienation: a process that presents the product of the individual as a mean= s to be used by others in their future activities (Garai, 1969b, pp. 178-200).

This hyp= othesis in itself presented a possibility of synthetizing va­rious, sometimes contradi= ctory psychological theories of motivation. For exam­ple, Lewin states that when a person has made a decision, the resulting in­tention will become a quasi-ne= ed for him and will maintain an inner ten­sion until the decision has been car= ried out, regardless of whether it is kept in the focus of con=

 



= * The research group dealt with in this article was created in = 1970 at the Insti­tu­te of Psychology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as the Department of Per­sonality Psychology. Its= staff in I978 includes László Garai, Ph. D., Senior Re­search Associate, Head of the Department; Dr Ferenc Erös, Research Associate; Ka­ta­lin Járó, Re= search Associate, Team Leader; Judit Keleti, Rescarch Associate; Margit Köcski. Research Associate; Sándor Veres, Research Associate; Orsolya Flandorffer, Laboratory Assistant.

[1= ] The research group officially got the status of the Institute= 's Department of Per­sonality Psychology. Its staff in I978 includes László Ga= rai, Ph. D., Senior Re­search As­sociate,= Head of the Department; Dr Ferenc Erös, Research Associate; Ka­ta­lin Járó, Re­sea= rch Associate, Team Leader;= Judit Keleti, Rescarch Associate; Margit Köcsk= i, Re­search Associate; Sándor Veres, Research Associate; Orsolya Flandorffer, Laboratory Assistant.

------=_NextPart_01C62703.37FADB50 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Towardsasocialpsychologyofpersonality_header.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250"


              Garai et al<= /i>: Towards a social psychology of personality

Garai et al: Towards a social psychology of personality      

 

------=_NextPart_01C62703.37FADB50 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Towardsasocialpsychologyofpersonality_filelist.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" ------=_NextPart_01C62703.37FADB50--