A Cognitively Induced Collective Psychopathology
Authors: Abdennur Alexander 
Published: August 2007

Conditions of rapid social disorganisation can overtax the intellectual capacity of the average citizen, resulting in communication disorganisation. During the 1975-76 civil war in Lebanon, the multiplicity of socio-political variables and the acceleration of the tempo of their interac tion overwhelmed the individual's capacity to arrive at a coherent and objective explanation of the war situation that could win the consensus of a small gathering of friends. The diversity of interpretations presented within the group tended to frustrate communication, and produced hostile polemics, with patterns resembling those found in compulsive-obsessional neuroses. The present paper analyses this cognitively induced state of psychopathology, as expressed in small groups observed by the author.

Social psychologists have long observed that group solidarity and cohesiveness increase markedly whenever a collection of individuals face a common external threat or stress. Schachter (1959) theorised that the greater the anticipated threat, the stronger is the desire to await its pain in the company of others in the same predicament. Adopting Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, Schachter postulated that the arousal of any strong emotion evokes a need for comparison. If emotions are assumed to be non-specific affective states, then per sons can only evaluate the quality, intensity and appropriateness of their emotions by compar ing their own reaction with those of others. Accordingly, novel and unpredictably threatening stimuli are expected to induce a greater tendency to affiliate, because an individual is more obliged to seek out other persons in order to define the emotional effect of unfamiliar stimuli. A large body of literature indicates that group cohesiveness tends to affect group interaction in the following three major ways: (a) it increases the group's capacity to retain members and enhances their participation in group activities; (b) it brings about conformity to group norms; (c) it reduces member's anxiety and heightens their self-esteem (Cartwright, 1968).

The first phase (1975-76) of the Lebanese civil war was largely fought in urban centres and directly involved non-combatant civilian population who tended to suffer a great number of casualties. Such exposure to danger no doubt tended to enhance cohesiveness among in teracting individuals, as evidenced by accounts of increase in visiting and mutual assistance among neighbours and relatives. Under such conditions, one would expect to find evidence of the effects of cohesiveness within friendly group encounters.

The author visited Lebanon during a pause following the above-mentioned period of in tense fighting, and was impressed by a certain pattern of group interaction that seemed to be contrary to that expected from cohesiveness theory. This group pattern was expressed within small gatherings of friends and relatives, and consisted of heated arguments, characterised by extreme diversity of political interpretations and by the use of generalised statements with affective overtones of anger and hostility. Every such gathering observed by the author ended in a quarrel, or with feelings of frustration and negativism; this and the intellectual processes expressed in the arguments were suggestive of collective psychopathology. The members were middle class, Christian Lebanese, living in the western, predominantly Moslem section of Beirut. They had remained in their homes during the fighting, did not formally belong to any political party, and were characterised by lack of homogeneity in their political leanings.

The need to share news and experiences, and the need to map a threatening environment no doubt were responsible for the increase in the frequency of these get-together meetings. Their problematical aspect was that they not only failed to achieve any level of conformity or consensus on interpretation of events, but also accentuated differences in views and attitudes and promoted individual antagonisms. This paper will attempt to show that this disruptive counter-cohesive force was a product of intellectual disorganisation (cognitive anomie) pro duced in the process of communication. The intellectual disorganisation was engendered through attempts at comprehending a highly complex and threatening situation that over whelmed the intellectual capacity of members to explain and to communicate their explanations.