Slater vs. Riesman
There is one final matter to settle. This is the difference that Slater reports in his perspective as opposed to that offered by David Riesman. I offer the following extended (and a bit confusing) quote from Slater (1970/1976, p. 36) regarding his differences with Riesman. I follow this quote with my own take on what Slater is saying:
“Riesman overlooks the fact that the individual is sacrificed either way, If he is never sacrificed to the group; the group will collapse and the individual with it. Part of the individual is, after all, committed.to the group. Part of him wants what “the group” wants, part does note No matter what is done some aspect of the individual will be sacrificed.
An individual, like a group, is a motley collection of ambivalent feelings, contradictory needs and values, and antithetical ideas. He is not, and cannot be, monolithic, arid the effort to pretend otherwise is not only delusional and ridiculous, but also acutely destructive, both to the individual and to society.
The reason a group needs the kind of creative deviant Riesman values is the same reason it needs to sacrifice her: the failure of the group members to recognize the diversity and ambivalence within themselves. Since they have rejected parts of themselves, they not only can’t tap these resources but also can’t tolerate their naked exposure by others. The deviant is an attempt to remedy this condition. She comes along and tries to provide what is ”lacking” in the group (that is, what is present but suppressed). Her role is like that of the mutant – most are sacrificed but a few survive to save the group from itself in times of change. Individualism is a kind of desperate plea to save all mutants, on the grounds that we don’t know what we are or what we need. As such it’s horribly expensive – a little like setting a million chimps to banging on a typewriter on the grounds that eventually one will produce a masterpiece.”
I introduce concepts from two fields – psychoanalysis and evolutionary biology–In helping to clarify and expand on Slater’s critique of Riesman. First, Slater is rightfully pointing out that there are powerful group dynamics that can influence (even determine) the thoughts and behaviors of those who are members of a group (or society). The “deviant” in a group is needed to bring in diversity as well as challenge established (and reinforced) assumptions. As Slater notes, the deviant is often sacrificed on the altar of established group norms – even if the group at some point challenges their existing assumptions and even changes the way they are operating.
In my final (fifth) essay in this series on interpersonal relationships, I introduce a description offered by Wilfred Bion (1995) regarding the way in which groups operate in order to manage and reduce the anxiety that is inevitably aroused when the group addresses challenging personal (and collective) issues associated with what Slater identifies as the “motley collection of ambivalent feelings, contradictory needs and values, and antithetical ideas” residing in each member and in the group as a whole. In our time of VUCA-Plus, these challenges are even more daunting. Bion suggests that we process and remove some of the “bite” of our collective anxiety through a process he calls “metabolism.” The identification and sacrifice of a deviant is one (often destructive) way in which to metabolize anxiety associated with this deviant’s perspectives. Slater is correct in questioning Riesman’s (and any other sociologists) failure to note this powerful collective dynamic. The crowd can be dangerous—as is the rampant individualism that Slater has criticized.
