Introduction

The contrast between Individual Psychology and Social or Group[1] Psychology might seem to be full of significance at first glance.

• But it loses a much of its sharpness when examined more closely.

Individual Psychology:

• is concerned with the individual man
• explores the paths by which he seeks to find satisfaction for his instincts

but only rarely and under certain exceptional conditions is Individual Psychology in a position to disregard the relations of this individual to others.

In the individual’s mental life someone else is invariably involved, as a model, as an object, as a helper, as an opponent, and so from the very first Individual Psychology is at the same time Social Psychology as well—in this extended but entirely justifiable sense of the words.

The relations of an individual to his parents and to his brothers and sisters, to the object of his love, and to his physician—in fact all the relations which have hitherto been the chief subject of psycho-analytic research—may claim to be considered as social phenomena;

In this respect, they may be contrasted with certain other ’narcissistic’ processes in which the satisfaction of the instincts is partially or totally withdrawn from the influence of other people.

The contrast between social and narcissistic—Bleuler would perhaps call them ‘autistic’—mental acts therefore falls wholly within the domain of Individual Psychology, and is not well calculated to differentiate it from a Social or Group Psychology.

The individual in the relations which have already been mentioned—to his parents and to his brothers and sisters, to the person he is in love with, to his friend, and to his physician—comes under the influence of only a single person, or of a very small number of persons, each one of whom has become enormously important to him.

In Social or Group Psychology, these relations are left on one side. They are isolated as the subject of inquiry the influencing of an individual by a large number of people simultaneously, people with whom he is connected by something, though otherwise they may in many respects be strangers to him.

Group Psychology is therefore concerned with the individual man as a member of:

• a race
• a nation
• a caste
• a profession
• an institution

• a crowd of people who have been organised into a group at some particular time for some definite purpose.

When once natural continuity has been severed in this way, it is easy to regard the phenomena that appear under these special conditions as being expressions of a special instinct that is not further reducible, the social instinct (‘herd instinct’, ‘group mind’), which does not come to light in any other situations.

But we may perhaps venture to object that it seems difficult to attribute to the factor of number a significance so great as to make it capable by itself or arousing in our mental life a new instinct that is otherwise not brought into play. Our expectation is therefore directed towards two other possibilities: that the social instinct may not be a primitive one and insusceptible of dissection, and that it may be possible to discover the beginnings of its development in a narrower circle, such as that of the family.

Group Psychology is only in its infancy. But it embraces an immense number of separate issues and offers to investigators countless problems which have hitherto not even been properly distinguished from one another.

The mere classification of the different forms of group formation and the description of the mental phenomena produced by them require a great expenditure of observation and exposition, and have already given rise to a copious literature.

Anyone who compares the narrow dimensions of this little book with the extent of Group Psychology will at once be able to guess that only a few points chosen from the whole material are to be dealt with here. And they will in fact only be a few questions with which the depth-psychology of psycho-analysis is specially concerned.