No laughing matter

StateLibQld_2_177635_Serious_faced_group_of_school_children_The support shown for the people killed in the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s office appeared wide spread throughout the news. Candle light vigils, crowds proclaiming “Je suis Charlie.” It would almost seem like a great show of solidarity. But of course if this satirical journal truly had such widespread support the attack would have never happened. Satire draws selected people and current events in an absurd perspective. People are more likely to pay attention to satirical lampooning than a serious discussion of flaws. The political humor makes people feel superior, as long as their group is not the ones being lampooned. But most people made to look absurd feel more wounded when they are mocked than when they are openly critiqued.

Charlie Hebdo had a particularly irreligious brand of mockery. They been sued jointly by Islamic organizations – the Grand Mosque, the Muslim World League, and the Union of French Islamic Organizations – but not as often as they had been sued by the Catholic Church. However, this journal tended to avoid anti-Semitism. Cartoons with anti-Jewish sentiment had appeared frequently in Nazi Germany while the holocaust was going on. So this subject was no longer a laughing matter.

Which brings us to the power that satire actually has. Satirical works, whether they are cartoons and articles, or full blown books and movies, deride some person, group or belief. The idea is to shame the target so that the object of the attack seems ridiculous or grotesque.  Satire has the power to cause disregard or even hatred for the target. There is no requirement for the satirical work to be true – in fact it almost never is – but it must only be funny to a large enough group. If satire wakes the public to a great wrong, offering a backhanded viewpoint that would right that wrong, such as in Daniel Defoe’s Modest Proposal, it has a strength that simply preaching against the problem does not have. But satire’s power to be destructive is just as potent. There is little way to combat the ideas expressed by satire, other than by government suppression, which seems unthinkable to those who so proudly cling to freedom of speech.

As I was watched CNN with their constant coverage after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, I heard a man interviewed in France compare it to the September 11 attack on World Trade Center in New York. I winced. He couldn’t possibly believe these two events were similar in scope. The masses of people who died in the twin towers did nothing to provoke the attack. I could have mocked him; making him look ignorant. But satire doesn’t work that way. It is an offensive game; you must strike first. Speak back in a serious manner and you are seen as humorless. Squash it with any sort of power and it is seen as an affront.  Once satire has been attacked it takes on an aura of respectability. The best thing to do is simply not to laugh.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Uneasy laughter


My son had looked eagerly towards the six grade field trip to the science museum. So it surprised me that on the afternoon of the field trip I received a call from the vice principal saying there was a problem. Evidently my son and his seat mate, annoyed by the student behind them who wouldn’t stop kicking their seat, tied the student’s shoe laces together.  They had tied them so tight that they couldn’t be untied and had to be cut. Now the vice principal was demanding that my son write a letter of apology.

So I asked to talk to him. “Now tell me exactly what happened?”

“I asked Chad to stop kicking the seat, but he wouldn’t.” My son explained.

“Then, how did you tie Chad’s laces together?” I asked a bit perplexed.

I could hear the vice principal warning my son not to mention names.

“Well, his shoe laces were untied, flopping around,” my son continued. “The bus stopped because of all the people…  near the museum. He stood up to look. So we reached under the seat and tied them together. But we couldn’t see what we were doing. We tied them in front of the bar, the one under the seat. When he tried to get out he kept pulling them against the bar, really hard. We could have untied the knot it if he hadn’t pulled so hard.”

If the vice principal had been listening closely, he could have heard me laughing on the other end of the phone. In my mind I could see the annoying  Chad kicking the back of their seat, or popping up and down in his own – a regular hyperactive nuisance so unaware of what he was doing that he didn’t notice the two boys in front of him surreptitiously tying his laces together. And when he did notice, his attempt to jerk the knot lose through brute force only made things worse. So I told my son not to mention my laughing, and just go ahead and write the apology. I would talk to him at the Boy Scout meeting after school.

My son had not mentioned which friend had helped him pulled off this caper. However it became evident half way through the Boy Scout meeting when another mother entered with the look of a slow boil and called out “John, I need to talk to you!” with an intimidating tone of rebuke that caused everyone to tremble. However, I had to bite my cheeks to keep from laughing again. My son and the other boy were “trustworthy scouts.” So much so that their leader gave them extra responsibilities. It crossed my mind that perhaps he had taught the typical lore of tying knots too well.

But there was another reason the John’s mother was so irritated at him.  John’s father had a scar all the way around his ankle. It was the result of a prank that occurred when he was much younger. Two boys had a strung a wire tightly across a trail, hoping to get their kicks laughing when some one tripped and fell down. However, it was strung so taut that when he ran into it, the force caused the wire to recoil and almost completely sever his ankle. His parents had rushed him to the hospital with his food barely attached to his leg. Fortunately there was a doctor skilled in this kind of surgery living in the town and through very meticulous surgery he was able to re-attach the foot in a manner so it would function normally, but the huge scar remained.

We all want to laugh; it feels good. My son and his friend didn’t cause any lasting damage to Chad in their practical joke that was an attempt to teach him a lesson. But our laughter often comes at the expense of others. Sometimes it results in permanent harm. It is not just laughing at others in their embarrassing moment. Often it involves extensive planning to cause the embarrassing moment. So what is really behind this uneasy kind of laughter?

Posted in Group psychology, Laughter and humor, Leadership | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The sexual side of laughter

Fotothek_df_roe-neg_0006547_Once I heard a bit of advice spoken by one adolescent boy to another. “Do you want to know if a girl likes you? Tell a really stupid joke, the stupider the better. If she laughs, she likes you.” It has been obvious for eons that laughter has a sexual side. I am not referring to sex as the subject of humor, but the differences in the way that the sexes perceive what is funny and how they respond with laughter.

Allan Reiss and colleagues of Stanford University studied the response of male and female brains when reading comics. To a large degree that used similar parts of the brain, those used of to make sense of semantics and juxtaposition of ideas in speech. However the part of brain that deals with executive processing where activated more in the womens’ brains than the men’s. Part of the mesolimbic reward center was  more active for women when they found a comic funny, which indicated that finding humor was both more pleasurable and unexpected for them.

Let’s return to our first example. If an adolescent boy told a really stupid joke, a typical female laughing in response would be an indication of approval. His male peers would be more likely to respond with a kind of laughter known as scoffing, to show him how stupid the joke really was. Boys, and even men, commonly use humor as a kind of competitive social humiliation. We tend to think nothing of the way they poke fun at other males, putting each other down. However, when adolescent girls laugh at other girls in a ridiculing manner, they are considered “mean girls,” the kind of cliquish queen bees who use cruel humor to maintain their superiority over others.

Women’s humor is expected to be socially supportive, whether they are laughing at a man’s not so funny joke, or with their female friends about a common situation. According to Don Nilsen, a linguistics professor at Arizona State University, a woman who employs the typically aggressive or competitive male sense of humor, finds that both men and other women are critical of her.

So what about men who laugh in the way  that society proscribes for women to laugh? In an appeasing manner that shows cohesiveness with the ideas of those around them? Yes, men laugh that way… in front of their bosses. So the sexual side of humor is not affected as much by the way genders perceive what is funny – the brain functions only have slight differences according to the Standford study – as it is by role society has assigned to humor for each of the genders.

Photo from Deutsche Fotothek
Allan Reiss, MD, the Howard C. Robbins Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research. Dean Mobbs, Nov. 7 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Willow Lawson, “Humor’s Sexual Side” Psychology Today, article 200508, published on September 1, 2005 – last reviewed on December 20, 2012



Posted in Gender differences, Group psychology, Laughter and humor | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Laughing at or laughing with?

Return_To_Innocence cIt was a preschool performance put on for parents and doting grandparents; rehearsed, but not enough, with the teachers scampering back and forth to locate students that were supposed to be one stage. During one of these interludes a group of 4-year-olds waited patiently for their teacher to reappear with the missing students. Except for one girl, she knew she was supposed to recite first.  So she walked directly up to the microphone, and giggled nervously.  A few people in the crowd laughed back softly, so she giggled a bit louder,  and the crowd responded in kind. This back and forth crescendo of laughter, between the chuckles from the young girl and loud guffaws from the amused crowd continued for a full two minutes before the teacher rushed on stage to  gently snatch away the microphone. However it is the only part of that preschool recital that I remember. Possibly, because that 4 year old girl was my daughter.

Years later, she still recalls that moment. My daughter told me how she started laughing because she was nervous, not knowing what to do without the teacher. (Many adults respond the same way when placed in unfamiliar social situations.) When the people laughed back, she thought they were pleased, so she kept up the dialog of giggles. “I thought they were laughing with me, not laughing at me. I didn’t know the difference.”

The difference, which is not that clear cut, has given birth to the various theories of laughter.  Thomas Hobbes described laughter as the response of one person trying to express superiority to another person. For him humor was always at someone else’s expense. It called attention to other’s faults and foibles in a way that glorified oneself. In an ironic twist the people who laughed the most, were the ones who felt the need to establish superiority because they obviously were inferior. Of course he was not the first to express this idea, named the superiority theory of laughter. Plato recorded a very similar idea.

Sigmund Freud, who theorized that life in civilized society required repression of man’s sexual and aggressive drives, had a different take on laughter. It was an acceptable and pleasurable release from energy bottled up by all this repression. He saw humor as a defense mechanism, it which a person could express what they repressed in a tolerated manner.

But neither of these theories really expresses what was occurring during that preschool performance, so I looked for other theories. In the eighteenth century Joseph Addison and David Hartley, reiterated a theory that had appeared in the past. Laughter is a response to incongruities.  Such is the humor found in a visual or verbal pun, two different meanings, which express both a resemblance and an opposition, create a tension that results in humor. Recognizing the unexpected reversal causes laughter.

Although the crowd at the preschool performance may have been laughing at my daughter, it was done in a kindly manner, not such as Hobbes theorized. And part of the laughter was generated by my daughter’s innocent belief that the crowd was laughing with her. Their response could hardly be considered a sociably acceptable way of expressing aggression. Perhaps there was an incongruity, although I find it hard to pinpoint. Maybe for a brief two minutes we all laughed because it felt good.

Photo by Syed Touhid Hassan,  cc-by-2.0

Posted in Laughter and humor | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The giggling girls have power

It's_so_funny_cropWhy can’t we be all like adolescent girls, and laugh more? The topic of the discussion thread caught my attention. Evidently girls between the ages of 11 and 18 all over the world laugh more than any other group. In the past, I have often been in classrooms where teenage girls were unable to suppress their laughter. Most of the time there was nothing particularly amusing to start the laughter. However, the very sound of an initial giggle seemed to generate the impulse for laughter to spread. It frequently turned into a high pitched and disruptive twitter, bringing the class to a halt. I suspected that was the reason the girls were giggling so much.

It turns out that I was not far from right. Girls don’t giggling all the time because they are having fun, but because they are building their first line of defense. Giggling is an attempt to gain allies in a conflict. They are waging war from a position of weakness as evidenced by their weapon of choice, laughter, but waging it nonetheless.

The gigglers sense that they have little authority over others. They may be a female in a male dominated society, a youth in culture where older people are acknowledged leaders, or less educated and experienced in a world espousing intellectual ability and technological savvy. Delicate chortling is a way of seducing those in power into helping and not attacking them.

The people for whom the giggling is performed are often well aware that it is done to appease them rather than for any humorous words they have said. Still they are flattered. John Morreal, a professor of religion at William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, noted that the “degree to which a woman laughed while talking to a man was indicative of her interest in dating him. How much the woman laughed also predicted the man’s desire to date her.”

The gigglers live within a hierarchical framework, a kind of caste system based on power in society. They have discovered that the placating nature of a chuckle usually works better than attempting a rational discussion, which places both parties in a position of equality. Laughter is their choice tool for manipulating others. They typically laugh to appease someone they view as having a superior position. However, if you observe a giggler talking to someone that they feel they are above (such as a younger sibling or child) and the laughter frequently disappears, and is sometimes replace by a demanding voice.

While researching the psychology of laughter, I found an interesting Radio Lab called “How Does Laughing Affect Us?” Vanderbilt University associate professor of psychology JoAnne Bachorowski concluded that men laugh more around their bosses and women laugh louder around men they don’t know because “the giggling girls have power.”  They use excessive laughter to shield themselves, by gaining the attention and protection of those who are stronger in society. If you want to know more you can listen to the program –

Photo by Emanuele Spies. CC by 2.0
Posted in Group psychology, Laughter and humor, Manipulation | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The unprincipled conformist

char1012_imageryEven as I have spent the past few weeks writing about people’s admiration for the person who deviates from the group norm for a good cause, I have been planning how to discuss the “foil” of the principled rebel – the unprincipled conformist. Conformity requires that a person at least appear to follow a set of rules. So how can a conformist be unprincipled? A required similarity within a group can mask controlling force that is actually harmful to the people within the group.

The nature of this harm can express itself in a number of ways. One of the most common is the exclusion of people for insignificant reasons. In order to create the strong camaraderie a common enemy needs to be found. There are two reasons groups do this; one is the age old reason that wars exist – to take something of value from another person. Exclusion allows the group to gain. The second reason is to shift what the group doesn’t want onto the shunned people; blame for any problems is shifted onto the scapegoats.

The difficulty with both of these actions is that in the end they destroy the group.  Whether the exclusion is used as an excuse to take away wealth or credit or influence from the other person, or simply a social snub, it results in physical pain. This pain tends to cause the excluded people to avoid interacting with those people, even if they would prefer to conform in order to fit in. [1] This results in the group seeking out a fresh scapegoat, and this process continues until an apparently cohesive group crumbles from the inside out.

The other “harm” caused by unprincipled conformity is the squelching of creativity. People placed in new situations tend to gather in groups based on superficial similarities. However, the enforcement of these similarities often lead people to become rigid in their behavior. It appears that a clique, which initially occurs to help people deal with the changing world around, actually prevents them from innovating and adapting to change. Authors Katherine Crowley and Kathi Elster who have studied the effect of this in business environments warn that “Very few cliques are populated by the highest performers…”[2]

[1] Eisenberger, N. I.  (2012)  Broken hearts and broken bones: A neural perspective on the similarities between social and physical pain.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 42-47,
[2] Crowley, K. and Eslter, K. (2007)Working with You is Killing Me: Freeing Yourself form Emotional Traps at Work


Posted in Creativity, Group psychology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Rebel with a cause

Lego_StarWars_Han_Solo_on_ice_planet_HothAs much as people may be willing to mimic the behavior and appearance of others in order to fit in, secretly they often envy  those who show intentional dissent. According to many researchers  people admire the person who has the guts to do what they do not – challenge group norms – as long as the person is not challenging their own norms.

“Indeed, people may speak up and dissent from important group norms not because they want to be difficult and destructive, but because they care for the group and its future.” [1]

The heroes of novels are often principled rebels, not lacking in loyalty but willing to speak up against those with power for the benefit of the group. In the world of fiction the group is eventually swayed by stirring words from this altruistic rebel. But in real life? If you want to craft a story with a  true uphill struggle  you should look at studies on how the minority voice of dissent is able to influence the majority. Group dynamics affect the challenge of being a real-life rebel with a cause.

In social reality groups tend to seek a consensus (i.e. get everybody to go along) if the opinions of the majority are not rooted in reality. In this case the uniformity in opinions serves the purpose of  validating ideas that really cannot be validated. If a group member questions the idea or backs someone who does they run the risk of being excluded. [2]

If rebels wish to sway others to follow their cause they must learn the importance of consistency (It is not necessarily the hobgoblin of small minds). Majorities start with the assumption that the minority is not correct but the persistence on the part of the minority creates a complexity. ‘How can they be so sure and yet so wrong’? [3] If the minority view is going to have any chance of gaining a following the supporters must remain consistent over time and behave consistently with one another. If this sticking to their guns is seen as attention seeking, or a rigid belief rather than consistency, it will fail to gather support.

Also the rebel with a cause does not have the luxury of both ‘winning friends’ and ‘influencing people.’ If the rebels remains adamant in their position they may influence others, but most people will not like them. Those that persist in their minority views, are often punished by the powers that be in a group. However, if the proponents of the minority view attempt to gain power through appeasing others in the group, they are seen as giving in, and lose any chance to influence others. [3]

The uniformity of the majority is often not as solid as it seems. People will appear to adopt the majority position but privately disagree with it.  On the other hand the dissenter must convert others to the minority position. People can be influenced privately, but this private change will eventually have to stand up under scrutiny.

But most importantly when a rebel speaks up they must do so before members of the group have a chance to follow through with the action that the rebel disagrees with. When a person complies with group demands before the rebel speaks up, they often view the rebel’s disagreement as a personal rejection. They tend to preemptively reject the rebel even if in agreement with the principle that caused the defiance in the first place.

Those in the group that have yet to show an opinion by acting in conformity with the majority are those most willing to admire the person who dissented for principled reasons. When the defiant persons voices an opinion that is not held by the majority, these people often feel liberated and believe that, by following the rebel they have done the right thing [3].

“Lego StarWars Han Solo on ice planet Hoth” by Klapi – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
[1] Monin, B.and and O’Connor, K. (2011) Reactions to Defiant Deviants-Deliverance or Defensiveness? In J. Jetten, and M.J. Hornsey,(eds) Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
[2] Levine, J.M. and Vernon L. Allen, V.L. (1968) Reactions to Attitudinal Deviancy, Report from the Per Group Pressures on Learning Project. Vernon L. Allen, Principal Investigator. Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, The University of Wisconsin
[3] Nemeth, C. J. & Jack A. Goncalo, J.A. (2011) Rogues and Heroes: Finding Value in Dissent.  In J. Jetten, and M.J. Hornsey,(eds) Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Posted in Group psychology, Story structure, Writer's resource | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Technological component

BinaryData50Over the past few weeks I’ve been looking a psychological with an eye to creating realistic characters. Frequently I’ve been hearing a lot about how the millennial generation is different from other generations.  I really have not found any creditable research describing exactly what the difference is. Writers on this topic seem to be making it up based on what they think is logical for people who have grown up with computers and the internet.

Of course I have my own logic based on working with millennial age students and my own children who were born in the 90’s. Recently I was reviewing research I used for a literacy program developed as a consultant in 2005. What struck me as ironic was that one of the major points of the research was that this program required “a technological component.” However, the research paper was vague concerning the kind of  actual kind of technology needed or the results it was suppose to achieve. I showed this attempt to be cutting edge without specific information to my millennial age daughter.

Her response “Technological component? It could be a digital clock,  or one of those reading toys with a tiny computer inside.” The millennial generation often look with a jaded eye on the idea that technology by itself is a solution to any problem. They have grown up with instant Internet access and still see a world full of problems. Instead they want to know what specific technology will be used because they feel the pressure to know how to use it.

Of course millennials use electronic technology more than the previous generation, because it is around in greater abundance. But they are no more likely to adopt new technology as they get older than the past generations. In fact I have seen many millennials disgruntled with new versions of electronic products and software programs (or apps as they are now called).  It’s not just a matter of older generation not learning technology, younger people are getting tired of constant change also. They simply are already accustom to a set of technology that was developed later.

So I find the differences in generations is more a matter of environment heightened by superficial appearances  that people adopt because they want to belong to a group.  As a child I watched TV more than my parents did, who listened to radio more than their parents did, who probably read penny novels more than their parents did. Attention spans, persistence and people skills really do not change with generations, rather it is the unwritten rules on what is acceptable that changes.

Despite the major technology emphasis in classes, companies think students coming from college are less prepared for the workplace than in the past – in the sixties any degree was good enough to show you could learn on the job – because change in industry always outstrips change in education. There is a good reason for this; education is supposed to provide problem solving skills which is a far more classic and non-specific skill. If you want to see where education is headed, you can look to the workplace. Computer assisted instruction and learning simulators have were employed in the workplace when Roddenberry was writing the Star Trek scripts (no he didn’t make up the computer based schools on his own). The corporate world threw itself into e-learning because of the reduced expense of not having trainers on the road, only to find that their employees simply were not learning as well from e-learning. The pendulum is swing back to learning face to face.

So maybe the millennial generation will look at their own children and ask “Why do you actually want to be with your friends to talk to them?”

Image by W.Rebel (Own work) CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons




Posted in Educational trends, Internet technology in learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What kind of deviant?

DSCN0668c1Authors are well aware that readers favor the rebel who follows a different drummer or stands defiant before the crowd. Social psychologists and sociologists have actually done  a good deal of research on groups’ reaction to this kind of person. The kind of person whom they describe as exhibiting deviant behavior.

Researchers have even categorized these deviants. The first group  are the passive deviants, who differ from the majority group due to forces not in their control. Whether they fail to follow the unwritten rules of society through ignorance, inability or a psychological compulsion. They are excluded socially. Sometimes it is simply the matter of an atypical intelligence, learned behaviors from another social class, or differences in appearance that causes society to exclude these people. In real life, many people tend to avoid passive deviants like the plague, almost as if they could catch whatever unavoidable factor causes these passive deviants to differ from the acceptable norm.

Of course, fiction is different than real life and these passive deviants form the ranks of the underdog heroes found in many stories. In real life the goal is often to help the passive deviant blend into the average population and be accepted by the group. In fiction this simple outcome is almost always unacceptable. Instead the underdog is expected to rise to lead their own group or overthrow and replace the leadership of the original rejecting group  – basically avenging themselves on the “in group.” Ironically in fiction the readers expects the passive deviant to exclude the others in the same manner as they were excluded by taking vengeance on members who found their differences objectionable. This actually gives a bit of insight into most people’s heavy dependence on being part of a group.

The second kind of deviants are intentional in their action. There are some that are considered harmless nuisances or eccentric. These defy convention for originalities’ sake or purposely flaunt group rules to promote themselves.  Others are considered criminals because of the harmful intent and result of their deviant actions.  However the lines between these types of deviations from society is not always clear. The intentional deviant that we cheer on in stories we read is the principled deviant, the person who speaks up against wrong doing, who rebels against the group when it treats others unfairly. However, as we look into this in more detail we find that in real life our relation to this principled kind of rebel is not related to their actual moral stance much as it is to our own behavior.

 Monin, B.and and O’Connor, K. (2011) Reactions to Defiant Deviants-Deliverance or Defensiveness? In J. Jetten, and M.J. Hornsey,(eds) Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.




Posted in Group psychology, Writer's resource | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When characters will not conform

Jeff 2007The social psychologist Solomon Asch  is famous for his experiments on  how peer pressure affects our perceptions in 1950s.  According to Asch approximately 76% of the people would answer  an obvious question incorrectly if all those answering before him (or her) selected the same incorrect answer. [1] In classrooms and groups today, I often see the same situation. When a number of people provide the a similar incorrect observation, only a few people tend to disagree.

But there is something else about conformity that Asch did not delve into. It is our cultural liking for rebels and mavericks (often those not in our immediate circle). This preference for the non-conformist seems to indicate that subjects of Asch’s experiments did not really change perception based on peer pressure. They buckled under knowing full well the right answers, but unwilling to face possible negative reactions from the group.[2] Social scientist seem interested in what causes  people to conform. Yet Hornsey & Jetten , psychologists from the University of Queensland, wonder why more social research focus on conformity than “our liking for rebels and mavericks who challenge group norms and do not appear to be afraid of standing out.”[3]

It seems the majority of people admire the person who has the guts to do what they do not – challenge group norms. That’s right. Conformist don’t seem to make an empathetic or interesting character in fiction or real life.  Apparently loyalty to a group at the price of individuality is the basis of fictional dystopia for most people.  Nemeth and Goncalo, psychologists from Berkeley and Cornell use the word “Orwellian” to describe a group with extreme emphasis on loyalty.  “These types of groups are more likely to be found in horror or science fiction movies than matching any kind of reality.”[4]

However, a problem arises with creating the non-conformist main character that most readers long to imitate. The author’s source of people to draw from for modeling these characters is often limited. If this character is based on authors’ own desire to dissent, they will simply repeatedly write the same “unique” character until this literary personality becomes predictable.  Authors are not immune to the tendency to exclude maverick acquaintances who do not conform to their “norms” (even if the norms are not those shared by Asch’s 76% who respond to peer pressure).

As much as any other group, those that record stories for the generations need to see the value of dissent in real life.  Sociologist Erikson saw deviants as part of a healthy society,  and curiously enough he quotes Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World) to support this view.

 Now tidiness is undeniably good – but a good of which it is easily possible to have too much and at too high a price… The good life can only be lived in a society in which tidiness is preached and practised, but not too fanatically, and where efficiency is always haloed, as it were, by a tolerated margin of mess– even nourishing this society.[5]

[1] Asch, S. E. (1952). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: NY Holt.
[2] Aronson, T. D.; Wilson, R. M.; Akert, E. (2010). Social Psychology (7 ed.). Pearson
[3] Jetten, J. and Hornsey, M.J. (2011) The Many Faces of Rebels. In J. Jetten, and M.J. Hornsey,(eds) Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
[4] Nemeth, C. J. & Jack A. Goncalo, J.A. (2011) Rogues and Heroes: Finding Value in Dissent.  In J. Jetten, and M.J. Hornsey,(eds) Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
[5] Erikson, K.T. (1966). Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.




Posted in Group psychology, Literature, Writer's resource | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment