What do you think?
Rate this book
Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego
"Psicología de las masas" reúne tres trabajos escritos por Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) bajo la profunda impresión causada por la bárbara contienda que había asolado Europa entre 1914 y 1919. El ensayo que da título al volumen estudia al individuo como miembro de agregados sociales. «Más allá del principio del placer» da entrada por primera vez en la teoría psicoanalítica al instinto de muerte, pareja dialéctica del instinto de vida. Por último, «El porvenir de una ilusión» es una reflexión acerca de las posibilidades de una cultura no represiva.
144 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published December 12, 2011
230 people are currently reading
3312 people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,369 books8,424 followersDr. Sigismund Freud (later changed to Sigmund) was a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, who created an entirely new approach to the understanding of the human personality. He is regarded as one of the most influential—and controversial—minds of the 20th century.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
January 28, 2022
YouTube kitap kanalımda insanların neden Wattpad kitapları okuduklarını anlattım: https://youtu.be/mDnTL7oeTLA
İlkel bir şekilde sürekli linç arayışında olan Karantina kitabı fanları, TikTok'ta gece gündüz takip ettiği insan şehrine geldiğinde deliren küçük çocuklar ya da Enes Batur'un oyun bağımlısı Minecraft kitlesinin neden öyle davrandığını merak ediyor musunuz? O zaman bu kitabı kesinlikle okumalısınız!
Bugüne kadar istisnasız olarak her yerde kitlelerle karşılaştım. Gerek bundan yıllar önce Facebook'taki gruplarda Allah'ını seven 999 bin kişi aranırken gerekse de tuttuğu futbol takımına yıldız bir futbolcunun gelmesi için karşı tarafın Instagram gönderisini arkadaşlarıyla birlikte spamlayanları görürken aslında hep bir kitle bombardımanına maruz kalıyordum. Neydi bu kitle? Hangi psikolojiyle ve neye göre yapıyordu bu davranışlarını?
Madem Karantina kitabı dedik, onun üzerinden oluşturayım örneğimi de... Biliyorsunuz, ben Beyza Alkoç'un Karantina serisini eleştirdikten sonra YouTube'da ağzım gözüm linç olmuş ve Karantina kitabının fanları Ku Klux Klan'ın kendi ayinlerinde kullandığı işkence aleti gibi beni de sosyal medyanın demir haçına germişti. :(
Bu tür olaylar yaşadıktan sonra bu olayların derinine inmek istedim ve bu kitlenin mesela neden Beyza Alkoç'u önderleştirdiğini, kadın haklarına o kadar aykırı yön içermesine rağmen genç kız çocuklarının bu kitapları ve yazarını neden putlaştırdığını, neden bir eleştiri getirildiğinde kitlesel olarak savunma durumuna geçtiklerini ve önderleriyle aralarındaki bu sıkı bağı oluşturan şeyleri merak ettim. Nihayet bazı sonuçlara ulaştım...
Bu çocuklar henüz kendi kişisel çıkarlarının bile farkında değil. Kendilerine önder olarak belirledikleri Beyza Alkoç için kendi kişisel çıkarlarından ödün vermeye o kadar dünden razılar ki, kitabın içinde neler yazdığını bile umursamadan bir süre sonra tamamen kendi kitlelerinin yönlendirdiği tabelalar üzerinden ilerliyorlar. Freud bunu ilkelliğe bağlıyor.
Freud'a göre Karantina kitabının fanlarının davranışları Yontma Taş Çağı'nda iletişim kurmaya çalışan ve bir türlü başaramayan insanların iletişim biçimlerine ya da futbol takımı taraftarlarının kitlesel bir şekilde hareket edişi ve putlaştırıcı tezahüratları da ilk insanların kitlesel bir şekilde yabani domuz avına çıkışına benziyor.
İnsanlar kendi irade güçleri ortadan kaybolsun istiyor. Tüm duygu ve düşünceleri bir önderin hakimiyeti altına girsin istiyor. Artık kendisi olmaktan çıkıp bir otomat haline dönüşmek istiyor. Kitlesi yokken sakin ve kendi halinde takılan birey, kitlesi olduğunda tam bir barbar haline dönüşüyor. Gözü Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Kafka, Camus, Yaşar Kemal'leri değil; saçma sapan Wattpad kitapları yazarlarından başka kimseyi görmeyecek kadar bir perdeyle kapanıyor... Bir prestij perdesi!
Bu insanlar sosyal bir statü kazanmak, arkadaşlık gruplarında kabul görmek, prestij sahibi bir insanın kuyruğu olup kendi benliğinden ödün vermek için o kadar hazırlar ki, kendi benliklerinin eleştiri mekanizmalarının ne kadar değerli olduğunu bile artık fark edemeyecek kadar uyutulmuşlar. Kendi varoluşlarıyla değil kitlesel varoluşlarıyla var olmak, onların yalıtılmışlık duygusunu ellerinden aldığı için yalıtık olmanın cesaretini değil birileriyle grup olmanın ezikliğini tatmak istiyorlar.
Ben bu kitlelerin hepsinden bağımsızım, tekim, yegane varlığımla karşınızdayım. Belki de böyle yaparak Harari'nin de dediği gibi, bir bahçesi olan hapishaneden çıkıp daha geniş bahçesi olan bir başka hapishaneye geçiş yapıyorum. Ama olsun! Zaten bilincimiz bizim en büyük hapishanemiz değil mi? Düşünce gardiyanlarımızla duygu tutsaklarımız başkaldırmadığı sürece ne anlamı kalırdı bu hayatta yaşamanın?
Kitle oluşturmaya o kadar yatkın insanlarsınız ki, grup haline gelerek kendinize belirli totemler belirlemek, hiç sorgulamadan sürekli birilerinin emirleri altında hayatınız boyunca çalışmak ve sonra ölüp gitmek, kendi benliğini unutup etken olmak yerine edilgen olmak size çok kolay geliyor. Çünkü öyledir zaten: Kitle olmak kolay, birey olmak ise oldukça zordur.
Birilerinin size yaptığı çobanlığı kabul ettiğiniz sürece bir sürünün içinde bulunmaktan kurtulamayacaksınız. Profilinde kendi tuttuğu siyasi partinin dayattıklarından başka hiçbir düşünce üretememiş fanatikler ya da kendi futbol takımının ideallerini diğer bütün hayati ideallerden daha üstün gören holiganlar gibi her zaman bir kitle manipülasyonu altında kalacaksınız. Ne zaman ki bireysel varoluşunuzu keşfedeceksiniz, işte o zaman kurtuluşa erişeceksiniz...
İlkel olmak istemiyorsanız, kişisel yalıtılmışlığınızla mutluysanız, birilerine itaat etmek yerine kendi benliğinizin besinlerini vermek istiyorsanız bu kitabı mutlaka okuyun. Ama sadece bu kitabı değil, Erich Fromm, Erving Goffman, Alfred Adler gibi isimlerden de kitaplar okuyun. Bakış açınızın zamanla değiştiğini siz de göreceksiniz...
İlkel bir şekilde sürekli linç arayışında olan Karantina kitabı fanları, TikTok'ta gece gündüz takip ettiği insan şehrine geldiğinde deliren küçük çocuklar ya da Enes Batur'un oyun bağımlısı Minecraft kitlesinin neden öyle davrandığını merak ediyor musunuz? O zaman bu kitabı kesinlikle okumalısınız!
Bugüne kadar istisnasız olarak her yerde kitlelerle karşılaştım. Gerek bundan yıllar önce Facebook'taki gruplarda Allah'ını seven 999 bin kişi aranırken gerekse de tuttuğu futbol takımına yıldız bir futbolcunun gelmesi için karşı tarafın Instagram gönderisini arkadaşlarıyla birlikte spamlayanları görürken aslında hep bir kitle bombardımanına maruz kalıyordum. Neydi bu kitle? Hangi psikolojiyle ve neye göre yapıyordu bu davranışlarını?
Madem Karantina kitabı dedik, onun üzerinden oluşturayım örneğimi de... Biliyorsunuz, ben Beyza Alkoç'un Karantina serisini eleştirdikten sonra YouTube'da ağzım gözüm linç olmuş ve Karantina kitabının fanları Ku Klux Klan'ın kendi ayinlerinde kullandığı işkence aleti gibi beni de sosyal medyanın demir haçına germişti. :(
Bu tür olaylar yaşadıktan sonra bu olayların derinine inmek istedim ve bu kitlenin mesela neden Beyza Alkoç'u önderleştirdiğini, kadın haklarına o kadar aykırı yön içermesine rağmen genç kız çocuklarının bu kitapları ve yazarını neden putlaştırdığını, neden bir eleştiri getirildiğinde kitlesel olarak savunma durumuna geçtiklerini ve önderleriyle aralarındaki bu sıkı bağı oluşturan şeyleri merak ettim. Nihayet bazı sonuçlara ulaştım...
Bu çocuklar henüz kendi kişisel çıkarlarının bile farkında değil. Kendilerine önder olarak belirledikleri Beyza Alkoç için kendi kişisel çıkarlarından ödün vermeye o kadar dünden razılar ki, kitabın içinde neler yazdığını bile umursamadan bir süre sonra tamamen kendi kitlelerinin yönlendirdiği tabelalar üzerinden ilerliyorlar. Freud bunu ilkelliğe bağlıyor.
Freud'a göre Karantina kitabının fanlarının davranışları Yontma Taş Çağı'nda iletişim kurmaya çalışan ve bir türlü başaramayan insanların iletişim biçimlerine ya da futbol takımı taraftarlarının kitlesel bir şekilde hareket edişi ve putlaştırıcı tezahüratları da ilk insanların kitlesel bir şekilde yabani domuz avına çıkışına benziyor.
İnsanlar kendi irade güçleri ortadan kaybolsun istiyor. Tüm duygu ve düşünceleri bir önderin hakimiyeti altına girsin istiyor. Artık kendisi olmaktan çıkıp bir otomat haline dönüşmek istiyor. Kitlesi yokken sakin ve kendi halinde takılan birey, kitlesi olduğunda tam bir barbar haline dönüşüyor. Gözü Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Kafka, Camus, Yaşar Kemal'leri değil; saçma sapan Wattpad kitapları yazarlarından başka kimseyi görmeyecek kadar bir perdeyle kapanıyor... Bir prestij perdesi!
Bu insanlar sosyal bir statü kazanmak, arkadaşlık gruplarında kabul görmek, prestij sahibi bir insanın kuyruğu olup kendi benliğinden ödün vermek için o kadar hazırlar ki, kendi benliklerinin eleştiri mekanizmalarının ne kadar değerli olduğunu bile artık fark edemeyecek kadar uyutulmuşlar. Kendi varoluşlarıyla değil kitlesel varoluşlarıyla var olmak, onların yalıtılmışlık duygusunu ellerinden aldığı için yalıtık olmanın cesaretini değil birileriyle grup olmanın ezikliğini tatmak istiyorlar.
Ben bu kitlelerin hepsinden bağımsızım, tekim, yegane varlığımla karşınızdayım. Belki de böyle yaparak Harari'nin de dediği gibi, bir bahçesi olan hapishaneden çıkıp daha geniş bahçesi olan bir başka hapishaneye geçiş yapıyorum. Ama olsun! Zaten bilincimiz bizim en büyük hapishanemiz değil mi? Düşünce gardiyanlarımızla duygu tutsaklarımız başkaldırmadığı sürece ne anlamı kalırdı bu hayatta yaşamanın?
Kitle oluşturmaya o kadar yatkın insanlarsınız ki, grup haline gelerek kendinize belirli totemler belirlemek, hiç sorgulamadan sürekli birilerinin emirleri altında hayatınız boyunca çalışmak ve sonra ölüp gitmek, kendi benliğini unutup etken olmak yerine edilgen olmak size çok kolay geliyor. Çünkü öyledir zaten: Kitle olmak kolay, birey olmak ise oldukça zordur.
Birilerinin size yaptığı çobanlığı kabul ettiğiniz sürece bir sürünün içinde bulunmaktan kurtulamayacaksınız. Profilinde kendi tuttuğu siyasi partinin dayattıklarından başka hiçbir düşünce üretememiş fanatikler ya da kendi futbol takımının ideallerini diğer bütün hayati ideallerden daha üstün gören holiganlar gibi her zaman bir kitle manipülasyonu altında kalacaksınız. Ne zaman ki bireysel varoluşunuzu keşfedeceksiniz, işte o zaman kurtuluşa erişeceksiniz...
İlkel olmak istemiyorsanız, kişisel yalıtılmışlığınızla mutluysanız, birilerine itaat etmek yerine kendi benliğinizin besinlerini vermek istiyorsanız bu kitabı mutlaka okuyun. Ama sadece bu kitabı değil, Erich Fromm, Erving Goffman, Alfred Adler gibi isimlerden de kitaplar okuyun. Bakış açınızın zamanla değiştiğini siz de göreceksiniz...
March 18, 2018
Over the last few years, I have pondered the dynamics of group psychology. We see events on TV and the Internet, yet sometimes the underlying evil which appears to be present is difficult to assign to the individuals participating. In other words, the group actions may be unthinkable to an individual; nevertheless, the event happened when they all participated as a group. Curious about the possibilities, I ventured into Freud’s “Group Psychology.”
This is a short book, but I would not classify it as a quick read. Sometimes it is the translation, other times it is the subject, but a little perseverance makes it all readable and understandable. Some of it seems to be common sense knowledge that appears to be already known by the reader, but sound reasoning is also present and the resultant knowledge gained on the psychology of crowds can be enlightening as well as unnerving. Interesting reading for the curious. Four stars.
This is a short book, but I would not classify it as a quick read. Sometimes it is the translation, other times it is the subject, but a little perseverance makes it all readable and understandable. Some of it seems to be common sense knowledge that appears to be already known by the reader, but sound reasoning is also present and the resultant knowledge gained on the psychology of crowds can be enlightening as well as unnerving. Interesting reading for the curious. Four stars.
April 5, 2017
Существует себе человек, отдельно от всех и как кажется ему не в ком не нуждающийся. Но приходит момент,когда ему кажется, что монолог длится слишком долго и ему нужна поддержка. Находя своих единомышленников, как ему кажется разделяющих его мнение приводит к тому , что мнение едино, а после это уже совсем не его мнение , а мнение стада, в котором есть свой руководитель. Трудоспособность увеличивается, а умственные способности понижаются. Мысли которые не соответствуют массе, приходится оставить и мыслить как другие, со временем уверяя себя в том, что эти мысли исходили от самого себя. Каждый человек по своему уникален, но и в тоже время мы все так похожи.
Книга написана доступным языком, только с середины немного потеряла саму суть, что и послужило тому, что я утратила свой восторг , так как занесло немного не в то русло.
There is a person, separately from everyone and as it seems to him not needed anyone else . But a moment comes when it seems to him that the monologue lasts too long and needs support. Finding their like-minded people, it seems to him, sharing his opinion leads to the fact that the opinion is one, and after that it is not his opinion at all, but the opinion of the herd in which there is a leader. Work capacity increases, and mental abilities go down. Thoughts that do not correspond to the mass, you have to leave and think like others, over time assuring yourself that these thoughts came from yourself. Each person is unique in its own way, but at the same time we are all so similar.
The book is written in an accessible language, only from the middle a little lost the very essence, which was the reason that I lost my delight, because it went a little in the wrong direction.
Read
November 2, 2025Usually there’s a point in Freud’s essays where he’ll fiat some flatly incorrect premise, and then rush past in hopes you won’t notice. Here it comes in identifying a ‘leader’ as an essential pre-condition of the ‘group/herd’, which brings us back to his father-as-first-sacrifice thesis which he articulates in Moses and Monotheism, but sidesteps the most fascinating aspect of group psychology; namely, that it often operates without any such patriarch, but as a faceless, blameless mass, giving vent to the sublimated desires of each individual. Whatever, there are still some fun brain teasers in here.
Is there a more frustrating writer than Sigmund Freud? A shrewd writer capable of the most extraordinary insights into the human condition who nonetheless wrote a great deal of errant nonsense. This is a mix of both, with the chapters on mass psychology fascinating and much of the digressions into religious thought absolutely incoherent (Moses was not an Egyptian, nor did Judaism spring from the long forgotten worship of the sun God Aten, as both historical scholarship and common sense would show.)
Is there a more frustrating writer than Sigmund Freud? A shrewd writer capable of the most extraordinary insights into the human condition who nonetheless wrote a great deal of errant nonsense. This is a mix of both, with the chapters on mass psychology fascinating and much of the digressions into religious thought absolutely incoherent (Moses was not an Egyptian, nor did Judaism spring from the long forgotten worship of the sun God Aten, as both historical scholarship and common sense would show.)
May 18, 2015
مقاله ای فوق العاده که نشر نی به اسم روان شناسی توده ای و تحلیل اگو منتشر کرده که همانطور که از اسمش بر می اید به بررسی رفتار افراد در گروه یا همون توده می پردازد.البته کتابی نیست که با اطلاعات کم روانشتاسی بشه با یک بار خوندن ازش سر در آورد ولی قطعا مفید به فایده هست.
April 18, 2020
Πάντα είναι ενδιαφέρον να βλεπεις πως ο φρουδ καταπιενεται με ένα θέμα, και το αιτιολογεί σύμφωνα με την γνωστή λιμπιντικη του θεώρηση. Παρ όλα αυτά, αν και στις πρώτες σελίδες ήμουν έτοιμος να τον ανακυριξω τελείως άστοχο, στην επισκόπηση η θεωρία του μου φάνηκε ελκυστική. Κατά τα λεγόμενα του ή μάζα είναι μια επανάληψη της αρχέγονης κοινωνίας όπου υπήρχε ένα πλήθος (οικογένεια) και ένας πατέρας (ηγέτης υποβολέας). Τα μέλη της ορδης μην μπορώντας να φτάσουν στην θέση τον πατέρα απωθησαν τον φθόνο τους, και μέσω της ταύτισης μεταξύ τους, υιοθέτησαν και μοίρασαν ισομερώς την αγάπη απέναντι στον ηγέτη- πράγμα που ίσως να δικαιολογεί και την γέννηση του σοσιαλισμού. Ένας αποστάτης ωστόσο, ο ποιητής, αντικαθιστωντας την ορδη με το πρόσωπο του ήρωα (που αντιπροσωπεύει την ορδη) κατάφερε να υπερκερασει τον πατέρα, και να τον διαμελισει. Η ενοχη τοποθέτησε τον ηγέτη στο βάθρο του Θεού - ιδεας (και έτσι λειτουργούν οι μάζες χωρίς ηγέτη), αλλά ταυτόχρονα ήταν αρκετά ισχυρή ούτως ώστε να αποτρέψει τα μέλη της μάζας από το να αποστατησουν και να ψάξουν τρόπο να ανεληχθουν στην εξουσία, προκειμένου να μην επαναληφθεί η ιστορία. Έτσι δημιουργήθηκε ο θεσμός της αδελφότητας και ενδεχομένως ο φόβος αιμομιξίας. Την θέση του πατέρα τώρα έχει αναλάβει η ιδέα που υποκινει τη μάζα, και ο υποβολέας συνήθως είναι αυτός που έχει εκτεθεί περισσότερο στο ταμπού του πατέρα, έχει περισσότερο "μάνα", όπως ο μύθος του Μωυσή που κατεβαίνουντας από το (Σίνα; αυτό είναι το βουνό;) το πρόσωπο του ήταν φωτισμένο λόγω της έκθεσης του στο βλέμμα του Θεού. Ο Μωυσής είναι ο μεσαζον που μπορεί να αντικρίσει τον Θεό, σε αντίθεση με τη μάζα, όμως ταυτόχρονα παραιτείται και από την ολοκληρωτική ενσωμάτωση του με το αξίωμα του ηγέτη, καθώς αν και ανώτερος, δεν είναι αρκετά ισχυρός για να τα βάλει με τη μάζα, σεβομενος την αρχέγονη συνθήκη αποφυγής της αιματοχυσίας που σύναψε η αδελφότητα της ομαδας με τα μέλη της.
Ο μεσαζον, ιερέας είναι η έννοια της σύνδεσης του ατόμου με την mandala, (συμμετρία ενότητα), και το Αρχέτυπο Του είναι η επικοινωνία του συνηδειτου με τον ασυνείδητο νου, πράγμα που χάθηκε και ο άνθρωπος απ την απαρχη της ιστορίας τους προσπαθεί να αναχαιτίσει. Ίσως το πάθος του ανθρώπου για την ένταξη του στην μάζα, να είναι η εξωτερική προβολή αυτου του ατομικού αγώνα που είναι μοναχικός και δυσμενής. Δεν είναι τυχαίο που εκδηλώσεις όπως τα σατουρναλια έδιναν τόση χαρά στον άνθρωπο που αποποιουταν την οκνηρη του καθημερινότητα μια στο τόσο. Όπως και σήμερα τα καρναβάλια, αρουν την αλλωτριωση του ατομου από την εργασία , και το εντασουν σε μια ξέφρενη μάζα που γιορτάζει μασκοφορεμενη, λες και με τη μάσκα θα κρύψει τον πραγματικό της εαυτό και θα έρθει κοντά στην ομοιομορφία της ορδης.
Αυτά lads...! Ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο!
Ο μεσαζον, ιερέας είναι η έννοια της σύνδεσης του ατόμου με την mandala, (συμμετρία ενότητα), και το Αρχέτυπο Του είναι η επικοινωνία του συνηδειτου με τον ασυνείδητο νου, πράγμα που χάθηκε και ο άνθρωπος απ την απαρχη της ιστορίας τους προσπαθεί να αναχαιτίσει. Ίσως το πάθος του ανθρώπου για την ένταξη του στην μάζα, να είναι η εξωτερική προβολή αυτου του ατομικού αγώνα που είναι μοναχικός και δυσμενής. Δεν είναι τυχαίο που εκδηλώσεις όπως τα σατουρναλια έδιναν τόση χαρά στον άνθρωπο που αποποιουταν την οκνηρη του καθημερινότητα μια στο τόσο. Όπως και σήμερα τα καρναβάλια, αρουν την αλλωτριωση του ατομου από την εργασία , και το εντασουν σε μια ξέφρενη μάζα που γιορτάζει μασκοφορεμενη, λες και με τη μάσκα θα κρύψει τον πραγματικό της εαυτό και θα έρθει κοντά στην ομοιομορφία της ορδης.
Αυτά lads...! Ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο!
August 1, 2009
During his long career Freud focused almost entirely on the psychology of the individual, but he did make this one foray into the psychology of the group (which, not unexpectedly, he promptly reduced to the psychology of the individual). He starts his investigation by reviewing the work of Gustave LeBon (The Psychology of Crowds), William McDougall (The Group Mind) and William Trotter (Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War), praising their (especially LeBon’s) keen observation of crowd behavior but finding their explanations wanting. Some of the characteristics of crowd behavior: dwindling of the conscious personality; focusing of thoughts and feelings in a common direction; predominance of feelings over thought; predominance of the unconscious over the conscious; and a tendency to act on impulse—to take immediate action. Pretty good description, said Freud, but the causes adduced, “hypnotism” or “psychological contagion” or “heightened suggestibility” or “the herd instinct,” explained absolutely nothing. To find out what is really going on, insisted Freud, we must enter the mind of an individual in the crowd—what is happening inside his psyche?
Freud slowly works his way to the answer, en route analyzing several states related to “herd intoxication,” including hypnosis and “being in love.” Here’s some background without which none of Freud’s theorizing will make sense.
*Libido. Freud calls the psyche’s energy the libido. What the sex-based libido attaches to (“cathects”), glows with life. Normally, in an autonomous adult, most libido is narcissistically invested in his own ego—self-love. However, within the overall psyche the ego has a hard-nosed companion—the superego (often thought of as “the conscience”—moral values introjected from the culture, usually by way of the parents). One vital component of the superego is the “ego ideal.” The ego ideal represents a sort of ideal self, one that meets the most demanding standards of the culture—standards that are, in fact, too demanding—impossibly so. In effect, the ego ideal is always beating on the ego to be and/or do better. So the psyche’s energy, its libido, is split internally between two elements: the ego and the ego ideal.
*Inhibited Aim. Enter the object. Since the libido’s source is the sexual instinct, it is always ready to attach itself to (“cathect”) objects. The first objects so cathected are the parents. The child wants to possess one of the parents sexually—invests some percentage of its libido in the desired parent. But the child soon learns that this is hazardous because it recognizes the other parent as a rival and fears retaliation. Therefore, the child “represses” the sexual desire (it becomes unconscious)—that is, “inhibits the libido’s aim” of achieving direct sexual satisfaction. Some percentage of the repressed libido is then “sublimated” into more acceptable (to the conscious mind) emotions like affection—in fact, according to Freud this is precisely the origin of affection, as well as of other non-sexual (i.e., sublimated) emotions such as brotherly love.
Now we have laid the groundwork for Freud’s analysis of “being in love,” hypnosis, and the psychology of crowds.
*“Being in Love.” When I am in love, I combine libido that has directly sexual aims with libido that is inhibited in its aims—in other words, I want to possess the woman (“object”) sexually, but also feel toward her tenderness, affection and other aim-inhibited emotions. Further, I tend to become irrational (indeed, sometimes ridiculous) and overvalue my love object because I transfer to her the libido that I normally reserve for my own ego (i.e., my self-love).
*Hypnosis. When I am hypnotized, my libido has no direct sexual aim, the aim is fully inhibited, but what happens is that I put the object (in this case the hypnotist) in place of my ego ideal—the image of the perfect me which I can never attain. Thus I cathect and place myself under the spell of this object that substitutes for the perfect me, while the realizable me, my real ego, is de-cathected, devalued and subordinated.
*The Group. When I am in a group, I treat its leader like the hypnotist, replacing my ego ideal with him, so that I am “somebody” only insofar as I am connected with him; in addition, through the psychological mechanism of “identification,” I invest some libido also in other members of the group, since they are so like me in their relationship to the leader (Freud also ties this members-of-the-group connection to the relationship between early man’s “primal father” and his intimidated but finally murderous sons—but we won’t go into that). And what of the leader himself? “[The leader’s:] ego had few libidinal ties; he loved no one but himself, or other people only insofar as they served his needs. To objects his ego gave way no more than was barely necessary…he may be of a masterful nature, absolutely narcissistic, self-confident and independent. We know that love puts a check on narcissism, and it would be possible to show how, by operating in this way, it became a factor of civilization.”
Are all of these Freudianisms plausible? Do they really explain anything? I would say, “sort of.” Within his scheme, they make sense. And one of Freud’s strengths—perhaps his greatest strength—was that he presented his scheme very well and very persuasively. But as far as group psychology is concerned, he more or less ignored the existential aspect—many seem to join groups not so much to escape the pressures of hyper-demanding superegos as to find some kind of meaning in their lives, of the sort that was once furnished by religions (a criticism of Freud’s theory long ago made by, among others, C.G. Jung). Today, perhaps more common than the hyper-demanding superego is the hypo-demanding superego—many folks seem to lack sufficient internal guidance and to possess ego ideals modeled on loose bozo celebrities.
Do I recommend this book? Only if you’ve read some basic Freud (such as General Introduction to Psychoanalysis), or a good independent description of Freudian theory (such as Calvin Hall’s Primer of Freudian Psychology).
Freud slowly works his way to the answer, en route analyzing several states related to “herd intoxication,” including hypnosis and “being in love.” Here’s some background without which none of Freud’s theorizing will make sense.
*Libido. Freud calls the psyche’s energy the libido. What the sex-based libido attaches to (“cathects”), glows with life. Normally, in an autonomous adult, most libido is narcissistically invested in his own ego—self-love. However, within the overall psyche the ego has a hard-nosed companion—the superego (often thought of as “the conscience”—moral values introjected from the culture, usually by way of the parents). One vital component of the superego is the “ego ideal.” The ego ideal represents a sort of ideal self, one that meets the most demanding standards of the culture—standards that are, in fact, too demanding—impossibly so. In effect, the ego ideal is always beating on the ego to be and/or do better. So the psyche’s energy, its libido, is split internally between two elements: the ego and the ego ideal.
*Inhibited Aim. Enter the object. Since the libido’s source is the sexual instinct, it is always ready to attach itself to (“cathect”) objects. The first objects so cathected are the parents. The child wants to possess one of the parents sexually—invests some percentage of its libido in the desired parent. But the child soon learns that this is hazardous because it recognizes the other parent as a rival and fears retaliation. Therefore, the child “represses” the sexual desire (it becomes unconscious)—that is, “inhibits the libido’s aim” of achieving direct sexual satisfaction. Some percentage of the repressed libido is then “sublimated” into more acceptable (to the conscious mind) emotions like affection—in fact, according to Freud this is precisely the origin of affection, as well as of other non-sexual (i.e., sublimated) emotions such as brotherly love.
Now we have laid the groundwork for Freud’s analysis of “being in love,” hypnosis, and the psychology of crowds.
*“Being in Love.” When I am in love, I combine libido that has directly sexual aims with libido that is inhibited in its aims—in other words, I want to possess the woman (“object”) sexually, but also feel toward her tenderness, affection and other aim-inhibited emotions. Further, I tend to become irrational (indeed, sometimes ridiculous) and overvalue my love object because I transfer to her the libido that I normally reserve for my own ego (i.e., my self-love).
*Hypnosis. When I am hypnotized, my libido has no direct sexual aim, the aim is fully inhibited, but what happens is that I put the object (in this case the hypnotist) in place of my ego ideal—the image of the perfect me which I can never attain. Thus I cathect and place myself under the spell of this object that substitutes for the perfect me, while the realizable me, my real ego, is de-cathected, devalued and subordinated.
*The Group. When I am in a group, I treat its leader like the hypnotist, replacing my ego ideal with him, so that I am “somebody” only insofar as I am connected with him; in addition, through the psychological mechanism of “identification,” I invest some libido also in other members of the group, since they are so like me in their relationship to the leader (Freud also ties this members-of-the-group connection to the relationship between early man’s “primal father” and his intimidated but finally murderous sons—but we won’t go into that). And what of the leader himself? “[The leader’s:] ego had few libidinal ties; he loved no one but himself, or other people only insofar as they served his needs. To objects his ego gave way no more than was barely necessary…he may be of a masterful nature, absolutely narcissistic, self-confident and independent. We know that love puts a check on narcissism, and it would be possible to show how, by operating in this way, it became a factor of civilization.”
Are all of these Freudianisms plausible? Do they really explain anything? I would say, “sort of.” Within his scheme, they make sense. And one of Freud’s strengths—perhaps his greatest strength—was that he presented his scheme very well and very persuasively. But as far as group psychology is concerned, he more or less ignored the existential aspect—many seem to join groups not so much to escape the pressures of hyper-demanding superegos as to find some kind of meaning in their lives, of the sort that was once furnished by religions (a criticism of Freud’s theory long ago made by, among others, C.G. Jung). Today, perhaps more common than the hyper-demanding superego is the hypo-demanding superego—many folks seem to lack sufficient internal guidance and to possess ego ideals modeled on loose bozo celebrities.
Do I recommend this book? Only if you’ve read some basic Freud (such as General Introduction to Psychoanalysis), or a good independent description of Freudian theory (such as Calvin Hall’s Primer of Freudian Psychology).
March 24, 2024
A satisfying reminder as to why I’m not a psych major
May 4, 2016
I tried getting into this book, I really did. I thought it was going to help me see the idiocy of crowds in a more enlightening way. All it did was confirm what I already knew. That people in crowds are a lot less rational. Of course there's a whole bunch of sexual stuff having to do with Oedipus and wanting to kill your father and have sex with your mother, weird, ancient greek myth type stuff, and all that, but why don't I just spare you the pain. Freud believed most if not every psychological problem stemmed from repressed sexuality. Uhh, okay Freud, that would be fine if Ernest Becker hadn't come out of your camp and proved much more eloquently in "The Denial of Death" that it is not repressed sexuality which gives rise to all of our psychological problems, but rather the denial of death, as the title of that book implies. Anyways, lovers of Freud are going to hate me for this review, but who cares they'll probably just chalk it up to me not being able to have sex with my mother.
March 27, 2017
A tratti oscuro, ma questo può derivare dalla mia non totale conoscenza dell'autore, per quanto ritenga che la trasparenza e la chiarezza, specie in un'opera dalla natura articolata e complessa com'è il caso della presente, siano fondamentali, anche a scapito di un po' di sintesi.
Ad ogni modo, ho sempre trovato le idee di Freud particolarmente accattivanti e il tema delle masse e della massificazione come uno dei più stimolanti: non potevo non entusiasmarmi di fronte ad un'analisi tanto acuta e anche, spesso, sorprendente, del perché della tendenza gregaria. La teoria della libido è usata in un modo che non ci si aspetterebbe, ma che colpisce per il suo fondo di verità. Viva la psicanalisi.
Ad ogni modo, ho sempre trovato le idee di Freud particolarmente accattivanti e il tema delle masse e della massificazione come uno dei più stimolanti: non potevo non entusiasmarmi di fronte ad un'analisi tanto acuta e anche, spesso, sorprendente, del perché della tendenza gregaria. La teoria della libido è usata in un modo che non ci si aspetterebbe, ma che colpisce per il suo fondo di verità. Viva la psicanalisi.
February 22, 2017
توده تابع اميال آنى است، دمدمى و تحريك پذير است. توده را اغلب منحصرا انگيزه هاى ناخودآگاه هدايت ميكند.
توده بى درنگ راه به افراط ميبرد.
توده بى درنگ راه به افراط ميبرد.
May 17, 2020
In this monograph, Freud describes psychological mechanisms at work within mass movements. A mass, according to Freud, is a "temporary entity, consisting of heterogeneous elements that have joined together for a moment." He refers heavily to the writings of sociologist and psychologist Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), summarizing his work at the beginning of the book in the chapter Le Bons Schilderung der Massenseele ("Le Bon's description of the group mind"). Like Le Bon, Freud says that as part of the mass, the individual acquires a sense of infinite power which allows him to act on impulses that he would otherwise have to curb as an isolated individual. These feelings of power and security allow the individual not only to act as part of the mass but also to feel safety in numbers. This is accompanied, however, by a loss of conscious personality and a tendency of the individual to be infected by any emotion within the mass, and to amplify the emotion, in turn, by "mutual induction". Overall, the mass is "impulsive, changeable, and irritable. It is controlled almost exclusively by the unconscious."
October 1, 2013
An excellent synthesis of the ideas that Freud had about social psychology. "MOses and Monotheism", "Totem and Taboo", "Civilization and Its Discontents" are all recapped and metabolized in this book. Plus, it's charmingly literary (with fantastic footnotes!*).
* Here's one, where Freud rewrites schopenhauer:
"A company of porcupines crowded themselves very close together one cold winter’s day so as to profit by one another’s warmth and so save themselves from being frozen to death. But soon they felt one another’s quills, which induced them to separate again. And now, when the need for warmth brought them nearer together again, the second evil arose once more. So that they were driven backwards and forwards from one trouble to the other, until they had discovered a mean distance at which they could most tolerably exist”
* Here's one, where Freud rewrites schopenhauer:
"A company of porcupines crowded themselves very close together one cold winter’s day so as to profit by one another’s warmth and so save themselves from being frozen to death. But soon they felt one another’s quills, which induced them to separate again. And now, when the need for warmth brought them nearer together again, the second evil arose once more. So that they were driven backwards and forwards from one trouble to the other, until they had discovered a mean distance at which they could most tolerably exist”
August 11, 2021
It's ok. Freud's thinking here runs along the same lines as Beyond The Pleasure Principle, published one year before. I just expected more from this singular text which explicates the social element of psychoanalysis, and all I got was that group psychology is totally internally describably and reducible to individual psychology (when the dialectical interplay between individual psychology and society becomes interesting, Freud falls back on identification and idealization, all firmly rooted in the individual, by contrast I think the "outside" negative element of repression in Civilization & Its Discontents vastly improved on the analysis here)
May 8, 2025
Freud I don't care if you're dead, you owe me braincells.
only giving this one star because he actually said things that made sense about artificial communities (military, religion.)
The rest was just Freud obsessing over 'libidinal bonds' and 'submission', Got me thinking if this was the origin of omegaverse fanfics. Like God forbid we are part of a group, why are we considered either in a trance or in love? Like maybe I just wanted free snacks?
Maybe this is all too deep for me to understand. Yeah, guess what? I don't care. I rather go outside and touch grass.
only giving this one star because he actually said things that made sense about artificial communities (military, religion.)
The rest was just Freud obsessing over 'libidinal bonds' and 'submission', Got me thinking if this was the origin of omegaverse fanfics. Like God forbid we are part of a group, why are we considered either in a trance or in love? Like maybe I just wanted free snacks?
Maybe this is all too deep for me to understand. Yeah, guess what? I don't care. I rather go outside and touch grass.
Read
January 25, 2025a really cool survey of like different themes in later freud, even if it is on the surface the work of a real Lover trying to deny the merits of Love. it's both on the totem and taboo - moses and monotheism continuum and the mourning and melancholia - narcissism - beyond the pleasure principle continuum. my favorite part was his usage of the word "gynaecocracy" at the end.
May 26, 2018
Psychology
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 11, 2020
Horrifying.
March 24, 2013
The Silly questions easily find its way to haunting my mind for days. And I used to manage this mental situation by asking almost everyone around me for a convincing answer which I don’t interested in as much I do to drifting my mind away from the question itself. The last week’s question was: if any project was losing all possible success characters but kept only one of them that obliged you to still call it “successful” , what would it be??. And away from crippling jokes, there was a clear consensus about the answer which was “ the continuance”. The only different part was, the example that each one gave to support his idea. So, while someone talked about the marriage, others explained the financial companies. And after she uttered furiously: “ this shit place we work for “, he was smoking merrily , saying: “I don’t mind if you consider me as an example”. But affected by news, my beloved colleague said desperately : “ of course the (Muslim Brotherhood), all this stupidity was there since 1928, could you imagine that?? How could any group successes to be futile along all these years??”. And because she bestowed me a new question, I think I owe her an answer too!!.
The writing style was formal and academic. That’s why you will find (Freud) has kept referring to the other psychological scientists’ sayings in a way that makes the script much like a thesis more than a book.
Firstly, In order to make a correct judgement upon the mentality of a group, you must take into consideration some facts which Freud explained plentifully & I tried to collect them in the following points:
- “Whoever be the individuals that compose the group, however their occupations, their character or their intelligence , the fact that they have been transformed into a group puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind will make them feel , think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would do in a state of isolation”.
- “The particular acquirements of individuals become obliterated in a group, and that in this way their distinctiveness vanishes. The racial unconscious emerges; what is heterogeneous is submerged in what homogeneous. So, the mental superstructure, the development of which in individual shows such dissimilarities, is removed. In this way, individuals in a group would come to show an average character”.
- “The individual in a group is no longer conscious of his act. As in a case of hypnotized subjects, at the same time that certain faculties are destroyed, others may bring to a high degree of exaltation. So he has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will”.
- He referred also to a concept that he called (Contagion phenomenon), which reminds me of this old video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnu9B...
- And the fact that said: “ a man forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian, a creature acting by instinct. So all the cruel, brutal and destructive instincts , which lie dormant in individual, are stirred up to find free gratification”.
- “While with isolated individual's personal interest is almost the only motive force, with groups it is very rarely prominent”.
-
And to find your way to control such mentality, bear in your mind the following points:
- “The feelings of a group are always very simple and very exaggerated. So that a group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty. It goes directly to extremes; if suspicion is expressed, it is instantly changed into an incontrovertible certainty; a trace of antipathy is turned into furious hatred”.
- It thinks and stimulated by images. So to produce an effect upon it; you must paint in most forcible colors, you must exaggerate, and repeat the same thing again and again.
- “It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness. What it demands of its heroes is strength or even violence. It wants to be ruled and oppressed and to fear its master”.
- “ It is possible to speak of an individual having his moral standards raised by a group. Whereas the intellectual capacity of a group is always far below that of an individual, its ethical conduct may rise as high above his as it may sink deep below it”.
- “ Groups have never thirsted after truth. They demand illusions, and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real. And have a tendency not to distinguish between the two”.
According to Freud’s study, the results could be summarized in these following characters:
- “The individual loses his power of criticism.
- He replaces the whole society with the group he belongs to, so in obedience to the new authority, he may put his former ‘conscience’ out of action and so surrender to the attraction of the increased pleasure that is certainly obtained from removal of inhibitions. “Therefore, it is not remarkable to see individual in a group doing or approving things which he would have avoided in the normal conditions of life.”
- McDougall sums up the psychological behavior in the following features : “ excessively emotional impulsive, violent, fickle, inconsistent, irresolute and extreme in action, displaying only the coarser emotions and less refined sentiments; Careless in deliberation, hasty in judgement, incapable of any but the simplest and imperfect forms of reasoning ; easily swayed & led, lacking in self- consciousness, devoid of self -respect and responsibility”
While reading the book, I kept thinking of the (Muslim Brotherhood) as a perfect example of these characters. While Freud’s examples were (the church and the army). He revealed clearly all the possible similarities between the previous theories and them. And may you would realize that it is easy to prove how much the individual forming part of a group differs from the isolated individual , but it is less easy to discover the causes of this difference.
But because Freud is deeply believed in the notion that “ The greater part of our daily actions are the result of hidden motives which escape our observation” . And because he always tends to interpret the actions of human beings through their (sexual desires), you would find he exhausted himself along complete three chapters, trying to convince you that the more the isolated man is sexually satisfied, the less he would be involved in such group and the less his tendency to be led by others & the vice versa. After he repeated in many different ways that the men with restrained sexual instincts are in continuous need for a role model to identify their masculinity through him, and after explaining it in both the church & the army, he may compel you to think that in order to end the awful circumstances in this country, we have to arrange for (sex parties)!!
Anyway, as this book failed to give a sufficient treatment for those psychologically diseased groups, at least it made me- psychologically as well- more understanding & compassionate to the mentality of their individuals.
The writing style was formal and academic. That’s why you will find (Freud) has kept referring to the other psychological scientists’ sayings in a way that makes the script much like a thesis more than a book.
Firstly, In order to make a correct judgement upon the mentality of a group, you must take into consideration some facts which Freud explained plentifully & I tried to collect them in the following points:
- “Whoever be the individuals that compose the group, however their occupations, their character or their intelligence , the fact that they have been transformed into a group puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind will make them feel , think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would do in a state of isolation”.
- “The particular acquirements of individuals become obliterated in a group, and that in this way their distinctiveness vanishes. The racial unconscious emerges; what is heterogeneous is submerged in what homogeneous. So, the mental superstructure, the development of which in individual shows such dissimilarities, is removed. In this way, individuals in a group would come to show an average character”.
- “The individual in a group is no longer conscious of his act. As in a case of hypnotized subjects, at the same time that certain faculties are destroyed, others may bring to a high degree of exaltation. So he has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will”.
- He referred also to a concept that he called (Contagion phenomenon), which reminds me of this old video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnu9B...
- And the fact that said: “ a man forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian, a creature acting by instinct. So all the cruel, brutal and destructive instincts , which lie dormant in individual, are stirred up to find free gratification”.
- “While with isolated individual's personal interest is almost the only motive force, with groups it is very rarely prominent”.
-
And to find your way to control such mentality, bear in your mind the following points:
- “The feelings of a group are always very simple and very exaggerated. So that a group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty. It goes directly to extremes; if suspicion is expressed, it is instantly changed into an incontrovertible certainty; a trace of antipathy is turned into furious hatred”.
- It thinks and stimulated by images. So to produce an effect upon it; you must paint in most forcible colors, you must exaggerate, and repeat the same thing again and again.
- “It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness. What it demands of its heroes is strength or even violence. It wants to be ruled and oppressed and to fear its master”.
- “ It is possible to speak of an individual having his moral standards raised by a group. Whereas the intellectual capacity of a group is always far below that of an individual, its ethical conduct may rise as high above his as it may sink deep below it”.
- “ Groups have never thirsted after truth. They demand illusions, and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real. And have a tendency not to distinguish between the two”.
According to Freud’s study, the results could be summarized in these following characters:
- “The individual loses his power of criticism.
- He replaces the whole society with the group he belongs to, so in obedience to the new authority, he may put his former ‘conscience’ out of action and so surrender to the attraction of the increased pleasure that is certainly obtained from removal of inhibitions. “Therefore, it is not remarkable to see individual in a group doing or approving things which he would have avoided in the normal conditions of life.”
- McDougall sums up the psychological behavior in the following features : “ excessively emotional impulsive, violent, fickle, inconsistent, irresolute and extreme in action, displaying only the coarser emotions and less refined sentiments; Careless in deliberation, hasty in judgement, incapable of any but the simplest and imperfect forms of reasoning ; easily swayed & led, lacking in self- consciousness, devoid of self -respect and responsibility”
While reading the book, I kept thinking of the (Muslim Brotherhood) as a perfect example of these characters. While Freud’s examples were (the church and the army). He revealed clearly all the possible similarities between the previous theories and them. And may you would realize that it is easy to prove how much the individual forming part of a group differs from the isolated individual , but it is less easy to discover the causes of this difference.
But because Freud is deeply believed in the notion that “ The greater part of our daily actions are the result of hidden motives which escape our observation” . And because he always tends to interpret the actions of human beings through their (sexual desires), you would find he exhausted himself along complete three chapters, trying to convince you that the more the isolated man is sexually satisfied, the less he would be involved in such group and the less his tendency to be led by others & the vice versa. After he repeated in many different ways that the men with restrained sexual instincts are in continuous need for a role model to identify their masculinity through him, and after explaining it in both the church & the army, he may compel you to think that in order to end the awful circumstances in this country, we have to arrange for (sex parties)!!
Anyway, as this book failed to give a sufficient treatment for those psychologically diseased groups, at least it made me- psychologically as well- more understanding & compassionate to the mentality of their individuals.
April 19, 2023
An fascinating and eye opening first chapter that actually breaks down what is group psychology and what are the differences between individual psychology and the differences between the group and the individual. Very interesting because this analysis of the group as a whole in all sorts of aspects makes it seem like the group is a character of its own with a own personality and rational to make decisions that apply right across the board to any sort of group at any particular time(A group will show an individuals true or instinctive mind like a barbarian. A group in naturally more conservative as opposed to progressive. There is no such thing as a radical decision by a group. Although an individuals intellect can far surpass that of the group's intellect, a group can far surpass the individuals morals or ethics for better or worse. Groups are easily influences and instinctively search for a leader to guide them that shares the same beliefs they do.) Although the book never traps about a specific example when these are applicable in history, I constantly kept thinking of the potential scenarios for the future which makes this book all the more exciting.
The book continued about the different types of groups like a short lived group that's also a disorganised group, a crowd, that is by nature far more characteristic to a beast or naughty toddler. Examples are mobs and revolutions.Then he explains the lasting groups which are organised and have more specific purpose. Examples are governments and businesses. He emphasizes how the group acts differently from the individuals of the group and gains momentum with its influence. Next he talks about how groups gain more individuals, which one of course is for self preservation but he focuses primarily on suggestion. And one of the primarily factors to suggestion is libido or in other words, love. I liked in this chapter how you got to see some of Freud's personality and controversy on how he insists on addressing terms or concepts as plainly and bluntly as possible without sugarcoating it.
Following chapter briefly goes into how organised groups fall apart. Main examples being the church and army. The army breaks down in panic when the leader fails and everyone thinks individually. The church is harder to break down and mainly involves the idea itself to be broken which often results in anger and violence lashing out. It becomes a little rushed next and I had to turn back several times just to know what he's talking about. The chapter was mainly about how all long term relationships have some form of love and hated in them and this applies for groups as well, like North Germans and South Germans etc. This flows into the next chapter about identification which is first seen between son wanting to become father or daughter with the mother. From what I understood that eventually becomes a relationship between of wanting to replace. That's sort of an "contagious" feeling as others can want to feel that exact feeling from others (gave the jealous school girls example). The book can become hard to follow for people who aren't very familiar with some is his terms or concepts to then relate them back to group psychology. I also wonder whether some of his views are outdated, like the ones about homosexuality in boys. I honestly don't know. Freud then compared arguments between groups being influenced by a leader and groups influences by the members themselves, like a heard. One thing that there me of a lot and interrupted the flow of the book were the constant references or reminders that the subject of this book is talked in further detail in ANOTHER one of his books.
Multiple other interesting topics are raised towards the end of the book like group psychology in early humans(the hoard vs the leader) and how that ties into suggestion and hypnosis. Then it somehow gets into the differences of mania and melancholia which makes you think: "wait, how the hell did I get to this point?" After stepping back to get a different perspective so many times, I really often felt lost on how this relates to the original subject.
The book continued about the different types of groups like a short lived group that's also a disorganised group, a crowd, that is by nature far more characteristic to a beast or naughty toddler. Examples are mobs and revolutions.Then he explains the lasting groups which are organised and have more specific purpose. Examples are governments and businesses. He emphasizes how the group acts differently from the individuals of the group and gains momentum with its influence. Next he talks about how groups gain more individuals, which one of course is for self preservation but he focuses primarily on suggestion. And one of the primarily factors to suggestion is libido or in other words, love. I liked in this chapter how you got to see some of Freud's personality and controversy on how he insists on addressing terms or concepts as plainly and bluntly as possible without sugarcoating it.
Following chapter briefly goes into how organised groups fall apart. Main examples being the church and army. The army breaks down in panic when the leader fails and everyone thinks individually. The church is harder to break down and mainly involves the idea itself to be broken which often results in anger and violence lashing out. It becomes a little rushed next and I had to turn back several times just to know what he's talking about. The chapter was mainly about how all long term relationships have some form of love and hated in them and this applies for groups as well, like North Germans and South Germans etc. This flows into the next chapter about identification which is first seen between son wanting to become father or daughter with the mother. From what I understood that eventually becomes a relationship between of wanting to replace. That's sort of an "contagious" feeling as others can want to feel that exact feeling from others (gave the jealous school girls example). The book can become hard to follow for people who aren't very familiar with some is his terms or concepts to then relate them back to group psychology. I also wonder whether some of his views are outdated, like the ones about homosexuality in boys. I honestly don't know. Freud then compared arguments between groups being influenced by a leader and groups influences by the members themselves, like a heard. One thing that there me of a lot and interrupted the flow of the book were the constant references or reminders that the subject of this book is talked in further detail in ANOTHER one of his books.
Multiple other interesting topics are raised towards the end of the book like group psychology in early humans(the hoard vs the leader) and how that ties into suggestion and hypnosis. Then it somehow gets into the differences of mania and melancholia which makes you think: "wait, how the hell did I get to this point?" After stepping back to get a different perspective so many times, I really often felt lost on how this relates to the original subject.
September 30, 2025
By the release of this short text in 1921, the world had already enjoyed—or suffered, depending on who you ask—Freud-the-psychoanalyst, Freud-the-neurophysiologist, Freud-the-anthropologist, Freud-the-biologist, Freud-the-philosopher, and even Freud-the-culture-critic… Whilst some of these variations flirt with intersubjectivity more than others, with Group Psychology Freud makes his first sustained attempt at (rather successfully!) applying the lessons of psychoanalysis to social problematics.
Maybe I only note this because I’m currently knee-deep into reading The Phenomenology of Spirit, but Group Psychology may well take the crown as Freud’s most Hegelian text (at least up until 1921). Indeed, his opening declaration that “from the very first Individual Psychology is at the same time Social Psychology” is practically a rephrasing of the pithy “the ‘I’ that is ‘We’ and the ‘We’ that is ‘I’” expression of Spirit.
Embarking from Gustave Le Bon’s pioneering—if not markedly conservative and, as Freud contests, somewhat derivative—work on group psychology, Freud takes us on a tour through the available literature with the tenor of a modest and inquisitive scientific objectivity - a welcome trademark of his style and procedure at this stage in his career.
This rather detailed review serves as more than a rote geneological survey, providing the axis of discourse around which Freud will gradually increase his orbit until the original concepts have acquired an entirely new meaning invested with the insights of psychoanalysis. Explanatory mechanisms such as “suggestion”, for instance, are revealed to be ultimately tautological and unsuited for the theoretical work they purport to do and incapable of plunging the depths of the strange psychological phenomena observed in group formations.
Reorienting the question around the role of the leader, taking a more discerning look at the mechanisms responsible for the group’s shared libidinal bond in the first place, Freud opens the way for exploring identification and the development of the ego ideal, which gradually reveals itself as the real key to the problem.
Taking the love relationship as a simplified analogue to the group-leader relationship, Freud is able to show how both involve the object of fascination/devotion supplanting the ego ideal, thereby neutralising the latter’s policing over the ego.
Scaling up, Freud calls upon his provocative “scientific myth” of the primal horde from Totem and Taboo, suggesting that the forced sublimation of the son’s sexual drive produces the group psychological relation with the father. With his characteristically fearless creative license, Freud later derives from this condition the genesis of (heroic) myth itself, supposing it to be the means through which the son emancipates himself from subjugation to the ego ideal of the father by creating his own.
Contra the haughty critiques of conformity in Le Bon’s analysis, Freud delineates a more ecumenical way of understanding the group, recognising its capacity for facilitating tolerance beyond differences (along the lines of St. Paul, referenced later in the text). Whilst this virtue can certainly be wielded in the pursuit of a diverse, liberatory politics, it is in the domain of reactionary (or even fascist) organisation that Group Psychology proves most revealing (see Sartre’s Anti Semite and Jew for a less determinately psychoanalytic application of these ideas upon the subjects of group prejudice and fascism).
Maybe I only note this because I’m currently knee-deep into reading The Phenomenology of Spirit, but Group Psychology may well take the crown as Freud’s most Hegelian text (at least up until 1921). Indeed, his opening declaration that “from the very first Individual Psychology is at the same time Social Psychology” is practically a rephrasing of the pithy “the ‘I’ that is ‘We’ and the ‘We’ that is ‘I’” expression of Spirit.
Embarking from Gustave Le Bon’s pioneering—if not markedly conservative and, as Freud contests, somewhat derivative—work on group psychology, Freud takes us on a tour through the available literature with the tenor of a modest and inquisitive scientific objectivity - a welcome trademark of his style and procedure at this stage in his career.
This rather detailed review serves as more than a rote geneological survey, providing the axis of discourse around which Freud will gradually increase his orbit until the original concepts have acquired an entirely new meaning invested with the insights of psychoanalysis. Explanatory mechanisms such as “suggestion”, for instance, are revealed to be ultimately tautological and unsuited for the theoretical work they purport to do and incapable of plunging the depths of the strange psychological phenomena observed in group formations.
Reorienting the question around the role of the leader, taking a more discerning look at the mechanisms responsible for the group’s shared libidinal bond in the first place, Freud opens the way for exploring identification and the development of the ego ideal, which gradually reveals itself as the real key to the problem.
Taking the love relationship as a simplified analogue to the group-leader relationship, Freud is able to show how both involve the object of fascination/devotion supplanting the ego ideal, thereby neutralising the latter’s policing over the ego.
Scaling up, Freud calls upon his provocative “scientific myth” of the primal horde from Totem and Taboo, suggesting that the forced sublimation of the son’s sexual drive produces the group psychological relation with the father. With his characteristically fearless creative license, Freud later derives from this condition the genesis of (heroic) myth itself, supposing it to be the means through which the son emancipates himself from subjugation to the ego ideal of the father by creating his own.
Contra the haughty critiques of conformity in Le Bon’s analysis, Freud delineates a more ecumenical way of understanding the group, recognising its capacity for facilitating tolerance beyond differences (along the lines of St. Paul, referenced later in the text). Whilst this virtue can certainly be wielded in the pursuit of a diverse, liberatory politics, it is in the domain of reactionary (or even fascist) organisation that Group Psychology proves most revealing (see Sartre’s Anti Semite and Jew for a less determinately psychoanalytic application of these ideas upon the subjects of group prejudice and fascism).
December 25, 2017
This was a rather brief treatise of Freud on the psychology of groups, particularly crowds in organized groups. He gave the two examples of what he termed artificial groups: the Church and the Army, and their need for subjugation of a leader. Even though the text was very short compared to his other books, he discussed insightful ideas on: Le Bon's Description of the Group Mind, Other Accounts of Collective Mental Life, Suggestion and Libido, Two Artificial Groups: the Church and the Army, Further Problems and Lines of Work, Identification, Being in Love and Hypnosis, the Herd Instinct, the Group and the Primal Horde, and a Differentiating Grade in the Ego. Anybody familiar with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky will find Freud's ideas resonating with them: especially when he discusses his hypothesis on the Primal Horde, and the irrationality of group-think. However some of his ideas are still very limited, and colored by his personal opinions. As a whole this text is recommended as introduction to his group psychoanalytic theory and for those who wish to understand in depth psychology, the behavior of groups and the psychology of suggestion. Here are some quotes that I liked from the treatise:
As regards intellectual work it remains a fact, indeed, that great decisions in the realm of thought and momentous discoveries and solutions of problems are only possible to an individual, working in solitude.
A religion, even if it calls itself a religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it.
The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. - Gustave Le Bon
August 21, 2013
Most if not everyone has at least a vague idea who Sigmund Freud is. He is a brilliant and sometimes over-analytic researcher of the human mind. His thoughts, theories, and ideas of the ego, superego, and the id are still cornerstones of modern psychology. This book (understandably) is mostly a collection of his ideas and that of various studies of the time. If you were looking forward to a fantasy-adventure or a hilarious page-turner you will be sadly disappointed. Though if you are going into a book by Freud with those expectations...there is probably something "off" about you. The reason i bring this up is because this book doesn't need dragon fighting or comedic jokes to be interesting and stimulating. Its deep and sophisticated theories of the human condition are entertaining by themselves.
Now then for the negatives and reasons for its 3-star rating. It can at times be a very tough read. The language is dry and complicated. Quite a bit i had to re-read certain parts to try to retain what i just read. Sometimes i would just chug through knowing i just wouldn't have a chance to fully grasp the concepts and principles. Though once again this is going to happen when you are reading something by Freud. It was created to be academic and textbook-like. One of my favorite quotes kind explains exactly why this book can be so hard to follow and understand. “If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.”-Ian Stewart.
However this shouldn't deter you from reading and learning more about what makes you..."you."
Now then for the negatives and reasons for its 3-star rating. It can at times be a very tough read. The language is dry and complicated. Quite a bit i had to re-read certain parts to try to retain what i just read. Sometimes i would just chug through knowing i just wouldn't have a chance to fully grasp the concepts and principles. Though once again this is going to happen when you are reading something by Freud. It was created to be academic and textbook-like. One of my favorite quotes kind explains exactly why this book can be so hard to follow and understand. “If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.”-Ian Stewart.
However this shouldn't deter you from reading and learning more about what makes you..."you."
December 10, 2015
الكتابات المتأخرة لفرويد هي الكتابات المفضلة ليّا. لأنها ما كانتش معنية بالتحليل النفسي قد ما كانت مهتمة بتحليل ظواهر اجتماعية من منظور علم النفس التحليلي ومصطلحاته. كتب زي موسى والتوحيد وقلق في الحضارة ومستقبل وهم وأفكار لأزمنة الحرب والموت وعلم نفس الجماهير والطوطم والتابوو (إللي لسّه هقراه)، كلها كتب معنية أساساً بإيه إللي ممكن تقوله أفكار علم النفس التحليلي، زي مبدأ اللذة والليبيدو وعقدة أوديب والتسامي وغيرها، إيه إللي ممكن الأفكار دي تقوله عن الحضارة ونشأة الدين والفن والموت.
ده إللي بيحصل في الكتاب ده. الكتاب بادئ باستعراض سريع لكتاب جوستاف لوبون إللي بيحمل نفس الاسم، وبعدها بيعرض فرويد نظريته الخاصة في تفسير سيكولوجية الجموع، النظرية إللي بيستخدم فيها أفكاره عن الليبيدو والتماهي في تفسير علاقة أفراد الجمهور ببعضها، وفي تفسير علاقة الجمهور بصورة الزعيم بتاعهم. استخدامه لمثالي الجيش والكنيسة بالذات كان ذكي جداً وعجبني للغاية.
في الآخر فرويد ما ينفعش يتشاف دلوقتي غير في إطار كونه فيلسوف، ولو إتقرا من الزاوية دي هيبقى عظيم وقرايته هتبقى مصدر لكم أفكار ممتعة جداً عن الظواهر إللي بيتناولها بالتحليل.
ده إللي بيحصل في الكتاب ده. الكتاب بادئ باستعراض سريع لكتاب جوستاف لوبون إللي بيحمل نفس الاسم، وبعدها بيعرض فرويد نظريته الخاصة في تفسير سيكولوجية الجموع، النظرية إللي بيستخدم فيها أفكاره عن الليبيدو والتماهي في تفسير علاقة أفراد الجمهور ببعضها، وفي تفسير علاقة الجمهور بصورة الزعيم بتاعهم. استخدامه لمثالي الجيش والكنيسة بالذات كان ذكي جداً وعجبني للغاية.
في الآخر فرويد ما ينفعش يتشاف دلوقتي غير في إطار كونه فيلسوف، ولو إتقرا من الزاوية دي هيبقى عظيم وقرايته هتبقى مصدر لكم أفكار ممتعة جداً عن الظواهر إللي بيتناولها بالتحليل.
December 19, 2021
2021: Reading this now, I am taken by how much Lacan is actually returning to Freud. I wanted to read this because I was interested in the libidinal energy that a group is reliant on its formation of which Freud reveals. I really appreciated this text, and I took several notes and will be using it in my writings in the near future.
2016 Review: I really enjoyed this read a lot. I was only suppose to read section 5 for a class, but I chose to indulge. I found a lot of commonality with Freud's thoughts, whether or not I've taken on his views or came to similar conclusions is beyond me now. I especially enjoy the conclusion, and discussing love, hypnosis and the primal horde! A must read, and a quick read.
2016 Review: I really enjoyed this read a lot. I was only suppose to read section 5 for a class, but I chose to indulge. I found a lot of commonality with Freud's thoughts, whether or not I've taken on his views or came to similar conclusions is beyond me now. I especially enjoy the conclusion, and discussing love, hypnosis and the primal horde! A must read, and a quick read.
December 16, 2017
While I enjoyed reading this book due to all the detailed explanations of how humans behave In groups , j would have preferred that Freud toned down a bit his usual “humans are driven by their sexual desires”. But generally speaking, this book is very helpful to understand how behavior changes when people merge together into an individual mentality free of any sort of prejudice among its members, Freud also cites various authors to give us different approaches to the masses (Gustave le bon, most noticeably) ... if you’re getting started into psychoanalysis you’ll really enjoy this book.
March 17, 2020
It was very interesting, Freud shows the mass of the psychology very well with all constituent parts such as ego, ideal ego, suggestion and libido, love and identification and also mob mentality. For sure a bit dense but any how highly recommended.
November 5, 2021
An interesting essay on group psychology, mob mentality and how decent individuals can be turned into violent (these days, more likely leftist) thugs with no moral inhibitions whatsoever. It derives a lot from Le Bon's work, which I would also be interested in reading one day.
November 15, 2024
came for the herd mentality analysis (in light of current events), stayed (baffled) for the orgy theorizing at the end lol
theory on love is entrenched with “Madonna-Whore complex” but no shocker there
theory on love is entrenched with “Madonna-Whore complex” but no shocker there
December 12, 2013
This book was assigned for Ann Ulanov's "Seminar on Freud and Jung" taught during the second semester of 1975/76 at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews