What happens during individual identification (and separation/othering) process occurs as well at the level of group and society as well. Freud gives an account of the formation of the in-group identity in his famous Group Psychology. According to this, the in-group is constructed around a leader who is at the same distance from each member. This leader loves (in a libidinal love) each member equally, meaning that each subject has a similar relation to the ego-ideal of the leader – that is, a similar way of internalization of how the leader (the Other) sees us (Freud, 1921). The ‘we’ that arises is formed through identification of each member with the leader, a process called ‘unification’ around the leader.

In a parallel process, this “we” makes it possible for the group members to be bonded to each other, again in a libidinal kind of bond, as the equal members of the group. This means that the unification is formed through a libidinal bond between the members of the group who are unified around a particular conceptualization of a “we”. This ‘we’, the shared beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours etc. of a group comes to be something more than the sum of each individual and develops through common practices and a common living space – a type of bonding between members which involves an ideal-ego identification which ultimately works in conjunction with the ego-ideal identification with the leader. The unity between group members is established –again like the individual process – through a process of identification with an ideal-ego, and giving up certain ‘bad’ aspects of the self. Like the individual who surrenders the other by giving up his/her extreme greed, learning to wait [pleasure principle vs. reality principle], in short, sacrificing his/her excesses that arise from the drives themselves. In summary, the group becomes united at the expense of individual excesses and towards a common good that works for all of the members of the group.[1]

However, giving up certain individual excesses and gathering up together does not mean that ‘we’ merely suffer together. Like in the individual process of moving from the pleasure principle to the reality principle, the individual does not in fact give up the idea of pleasure totally but seeks for (appropriate) ways to compromise i.e. deferral, substitution etc. The group also finds its own ways of enjoyment. For instance, like in the case of the individual who secures a whole fantasy life out of what has to be given up, the group comes up with a fantasy of its own in order to attain a certain kind of satisfaction.

The 19^th century being the century of mass movements exemplifies rises of different forms of masses, united in the joy of common spirits; beautifully exemplified in the lyrics of the musical version of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables;

“When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums”

(Lyrics by Herbert Kretzmer and  Alain Boublil);

Here one should not overlook the joy of the mass that marshes, singing together, and the arising of the feeing of ‘we’, which is bigger and perceived as a lot more important than each and every individual in the crowd. In a group with a strong group identification, this common spirit might achieve a status where even human life is assumed as less important than the group itself – to kill or to be killed for the group might become legalized.[2]

There are reasons to see the significance of this notion and the importance of not confining it to a particular time and space in history but see it in its more general framework. Any form of group (which also structures its own subjects), be it a religious, cultural, ethnic, nationalist etc. becomes possible through the belief in a common spirit, an identification with certain ideas, a shared spirit, which is there in the group – in the symbolic (ego-ideal identification with the leader/Other) and imaginary (ideal-ego identification with members) identifications of each and every individual with the group itself and the members.

This common spirit has in itself a function, that of constructing a group unity and cohesion,  like in the case of the individual who strives for a unitary, un-fragmented image and welcomes the arrival of the ’I’ as the jubilant moment (the mirror stage). This process requires an othering in itself, a separation from something else, “[n]o one doubt that it was only the idea of this other god that enabled the people of Israel to survive all the blows of fate and kept them alive to our own days (Freud, 1939, p. 50-1). It makes a certain kind of identity become possible. Here it should be emphasized that we are still in the Imaginary realm of identification, and talking about a construction of a fantasy which enables the subjects emerge via this construction.

As has been hinted above, the group identification is established through a process of othering, in a way similar with the process of identification for the individual. That is, the group becomes possible at the expense that something is left out. Freud goes on in his explanations as to how group formation works and prevails with his concept of “‘the narcissism of minor differences’ by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier” (Freud, 1930, p.305). The formulation of an other, a group which does not, and cannot share what the in-group has and shares is conceptualized as a facilitator that makes the in-group cohesion stronger. That is, the ‘we’ becomes what it is as much as it can establish an otherness, a separation from something else, say, ‘them’. “In this respect” Freud goes on, “the Jewish people, scattered everywhere, have rendered most useful services to the civilizations of the countries that have been their hosts” (Freud, 1930, p. 305). As long as there is an other, ‘we’ can know in what way we are different from ‘them’, what makes us distinct from the others. The otherness of the group, their apparent characteristics are a lot easier to observe and distinguish than to try and define what the in-group characteristics are; for the very basic reason that it is a lot easier to try and describe what we are not as compared to try and describe what we are. In this way, the (constituted) other culture helps and pushes the ‘home culture’ to identify itself in more sharply distinguished terms.

So far, the process of othering in terms of making a certain form of identification and within-group unification possible has been discussed. Here it should be emphasized that the other that is constructed is ‘our own other’. This is to say that this particular other is ‘we’, who have created and got separated from in the process of becoming ‘us’. This other is what we have been and will be bonded in a bond, of a libidinal kind (a sexualized other), it also holds aggressive characteristics.

It is clearly not easy for men to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression. They do not feel comfortable without it. The advantage which a comparatively small cultural group offers of allowing this instinct an outlet in the form of hostility against intruders is not to be despised. It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness. [Freud, 1930, p. 305]

However, the other group construction is not confined to aggression. In a particular, functional way, the constituted other is formulated in a way as the depository of the aspects of the self that were unwanted, negated and projected in the process of the in-group identification becoming possible. The other group is there to embody those unwanted aspects, that of the aggression, that of the libidinal greed and physical need etc of the in-group. These, not being a mere coincidence, form the excesses that we later on will observe in the attributed characteristics of the other.

YASEMIN DINC

[1] Freud sees this as the basic step of the humanity towards a community life:

“Communal life becomes possible only when a majority comes together that is stronger than any individual and presents a united front against every individual. The power of the community then pits itself, in the name of ‘right’, against the power of the individual, which is condemned as ‘brute force’. The replacement of the power of the individual by that of the community is the decisive step towards civilization”. (Freud, 1930)

[2] The concept of in-group cohesion is echoed in the Lacanian theory as well, in the formulation of the concept of the Big Other. It is this Big Other that every individual within the group responds to and feels responsible for, which also gets reinforced through the common spirit that arises. Yet it is also crucial to understand that the concept of big Other is more than something that arises out of group identity and cohesion – it would be wrong to assume that it is there only because individuals agree together that it should be there. It is important to grasp that it is the enabling and co-ordinating principle that makes social activity and communication viable, it is the symbolic aspect of the group.

Freud, S., (1921). Group Psychology, in V 12, Civilization, Society and Religion. Tr & Ed. James Strachey. London: Penguin Books.

Freud, S., (1930) Civilization and its Discontents, in V 12, Civilization, Society and Religion. Tr & Ed. James Strachey. London: Penguin Books.

Freud, S., (1939). Moses and Monotheism, in V 13 The Origins of Religion, Tr & Ed. James Strachey. London: Penguin Books.