Thank you Professor Castellani for agreeing to be interviewed
about your new Routledge book, The Defiance of Global Commitment. By
drawing on Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents (as well as the
latest advances in cognitive science, evolutionary biology, social
psychology and the complexity sciences) it certainly makes for an
innovative, highly original and challenging read. You certainly got me
thinking and digging deep into my social science memory and the hidden
corners of my bookshelves.
1. As human beings, we are not very good at saving ourselves
and the planet… give us a quick summary of your argument about why this
is the case.
Freud’s big point in Civilization and Its Discontents, which I
develop in regards to globalization, is that our best chance at even the
smallest degree of happiness in life comes from the advances of civil
society; but all such advances – particularly in terms of social justice
– require people to make sacrifices to get along; and people don’t like
doing that, as they think they are somehow giving up more than they are
getting (which they often are), and so they rebel against their global
social commitments; which, ironically enough, threatens the very chance
most people have at happiness. In other words, the success of global
civil society, it seems, is built on a social psychological conundrum: a
sort of psychic catch-22 if you will.
And, vis-à-vis globalization today (circa 2018), this Freudian
catch-22 appears to have crossed a negative tipping point, with many
segments of the world (albeit not everyone!) falling prey to one type of
unhealthy social psychology or another – and all of it helping to
adversely reinforce, worldwide, the escalating fears, conflicts,
resentments, inequalities, cruelties, and aggressions brought on by the
current phase of globalization.
The result, to go to your point, and which we see almost daily in the
news, is a rise in the number of people who are willing to raze their
respective communities to the ground in order to satisfy their contempt
for the global success and wellbeing of others. Or, alternatively, how
this contempt is emboldening people to actively resist their role in (or
the reality of) the global social problems we presently face. And,
what is particularly disturbing is that, while much of this contempt
comes from those feeling left behind by globalization (which is
understandable); it is equally embraced by those who have benefitted the
most – namely, those privileged few living in the most technologically
and economically advanced parts of the world. And it does not stop
there, as it seems this contempt for others and the planet (a sort of
culture of cruelty, if you will) is becoming a model for living for
many, leading to a worldwide backlash against the establishment of a
more just and equitable civil society. But, as with all such stories,
these negative social psychologies aren’t the only thing going.
2. Which takes me to my next question. Like Freud, many
sociologists are quite deterministic and fatalistic about the path
humanity is taking. While you challenge the optimism of writers like
Steven Pinker (i.e., The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment
Now), do you think a complexity theory analysis still leaves the global
fate in our own hands? – so lots of different possibilities?
As complexity science teaches us, in any complex system (such as our
global society) there is always the adjacent possible – that is, the
chance that the system is traveling in multiple and different
directions, and all at the same time!
And, in fact, that is what is happening today. Our globalized world
is a very complex place; with different groups the world-over (i.e.,
communities, countries, companies, etc) carving out all sorts of
different but simultaneous social psychological paths. In my book, for
example, I chart the trajectory of several of them – from
eco-primitivism and affluent resentment to patriarchal nostalgia and
ethnic nationalism to globalism and global civil service. And for each
of these social psychologies, it is important to note, I also explore
its counter-force: its opposing social psychology of globalization, if
you will. It is also for this reason that I developed, in the third
part of my book, a basic model of global power relations and resistance,
based on the work of Freud, Foucault and Sylvia Walby.
And, again to your point, using this model to organize my data, it
seems to me that, contrary to writers like Steven Pinker, the negative
social psychologies of the world are winning across many domains of
global socio-ecological life today, particularly given how well they are
“propped up” by the current strong-arms throughout the world – from the
global east and north to south and west.
But, the current “wins” for these negative psychologies doesn’t mean
things necessarily end there, as complex systems are not deterministic –
for example, significant countervailing changes often go unseen until
they reach a critical point, as in the #MeToo and BlackLivesMatter
movements, for example. Neither is it the case that these “negative
psychologies” are everywhere or across everything, as negotiated
progress is always simultaneously taking place around the world.
As such, the current global dominance of these “negative
psychologies” only means that the capacity for global civil society and
healthy resistance to move the world in the right direction is limited.
But, given the constant conflict on which our global system is
tenuously and chaotically balanced, these dominating conditions can tip
in a different direction – which is why I think, from a policy
perspective, we need to keep pushing hard for various types of “engaged
governance,” as in the case of global civil society. Still, I must
admit, at least on the ecological front, I am worried, as time is not on
our side.
3. You are inspired a lot by Freud, who is central to your
book and argument. Do you think he was actually a complexity theorist
without knowing it?
No, I don’t. Freud was very much part of the grand narrative
tradition of industrialized modernity, seeking to create a single model
that explained the full of human psychology. And that goal, more than
anything, blinded him to the complexities of human existence.
The same problem of embracing complexity seems true for a lot of
public policy today – which is why applied research centres and
networks, such as CECAN, are so important: they are advancing the field
to improve its capacity to evaluate and, in turn, develop public
policies that are more sensitive to initial conditions, path
dependencies, the nexus of things, and the multiple and different
trajectories along which the impact of a policy flows.
4. Relative to your point, do you see your work, then, as a
normative turn in complexity theory, to assist its move from the
sciences into the social sciences?
Yes I do. For me, Byrne and Callaghan’s, Complexity Theory and the
Social Sciences: The State of the Art, is the first real push to go
beyond a sales pitch for complexity – which was very important! – to
saying, “Okay, we’ve got all of this complexity science stuff, so what
are we to make of it? How does it actually help us get on with the job
of doing social science?”
Of course, you had others, particularly during the late 1900s,
seeking to establish a normative social complexity, such as Edgar Morin
and his distinction between restrictive and general complexity – as well
as, for example, the work of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann in
sociology, and Paul Cilliers in philosophy, and Peter Checkland in
managerial studies. But all of these approaches, despite their
brilliance, ignore three important issues that I have sought to bring
forth in my work:
First, there is the role of power relations and conflict in complex
systems. There is little in complexity science today, for example, that
addresses power, particularly its negative states, as in the case of
domination, exploitation, oppression, cruelty, aggression, etc – which
is why my work leans so heavily on Foucault. The same is true of
conflict: you do not see complexity scientists studying conflict in
complex networks, for example, as it is not part of the vocabulary of
physics and computer science. Which is why I turned to Immanuel
Wallerstein and, more important, to Sylvia Walby, who does an absolutely
brilliant job of integrating intersectionality theory and feminism with
complexity science and globalization studies.
Second, there is the role of social psychology in complex systems.
For example, other than Manuel Castells, there is little work on
identity and its links to complex systems, let alone the role of group
conflict or in-group/out-group behaviour. The only exception is
agent-based modeling, which does an excellent job with swarm behaviour,
predator-prey models, social segregation, economic competition,
contagions in networks, and so forth. But, still, a lot more could be
done to incorporate the work of symbolic interactionism, for example,
into complexity science models – all of which is why, in my work, I
sought to develop (and argued for) a social psychology of globalization
and, more specifically, a social psychology of policy research. More
specifically, I argued for a mental health model of globalization; which
takes me to my next point.
Third is the role of psychology in complex systems. Type in the
words “complexity” and “psychology” in Google, for example, and you will
get next to nothing. It is as if the two fields don’t know that,
presently, each the other exists. The only exception, today, is in
cognitive science and the embodied mind literature, given their strong
links to the work of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and the
fields of distributed artificial intelligence and cybernetics. And that
is particularly upsetting, given that many of the systems science
founders – such as Margaret Mead, Anatol Rapoport, Kurt Koffka, Murray
Bown and Gregory Bateson – made such important advances in a “systems”
approach to psychology, including the development of family systems
theory and gestalt psychology.
As such, in terms of establishing a normative social complexity, I
see my work as both an advance and a rapprochement, insomuch as I have
tried to link a complex systems view of the world with the inner psychic
life of humans, including their primitive paleomammalian emotions,
cognitive biases, irrationalities, anxieties, aggressions, embodied
minds, psychopathologies and personalities; as well as their social
psychologies and power relations and group-based conflicts.
5. As you just demonstrated, your work spans many
disciplines, but notably the domains of sociology and psychology. You
have a dialogue with social psychology that is philosophical and macro
social (in terms of the role of the individual). Is there a place,
then, for social psychology in policy?
Absolutely! We don’t discuss it much, but the social psychology and
mental health of a community is just as important as its economic and
political wellbeing. And, just like the psychology of an individual,
the mental health (and healthy awareness) of a community can become
dysfunctional, particularly in the face of widespread change – as we see
with globalization today – and in the face of the escalating conflicts,
fears, resentments and aggressions that often surround it, as I just
mentioned.
Equally Important, when the mental health of a community becomes
problematic, people fall prey to feel-good decisions and unhealthy
choices – as well as the political strongarms of the world – which seem,
on the face of it, self-preserving, but are often, in the long-run, not
good. We see this, for example, in the growing embraces of ethnic
nationalism, global capitalism, the fight against ecological
preservation, and the negative reactions against the civil rights of
women, ethnic minorities, refugees, and the LGBT communities.
The challenge, then, is to counteract this pathology by improving the
mental health (and healthy outlook) of communities – hence the role of
global civil society and public policy. And, it is important, to point
out, we already have good models for doing this work. They come from
the fields of community and public health, which have always been in the
business of developing (and evaluating) policies that seek to improve
the mental and physical wellbeing of communities. And, given such
transformative goals, these fields have always had to deal with
politics, power, and conflicts, as well as the emotional irrationalities
and cognitive biases and social psychologies of people. So, it has
been and can be (and also very much needs to be) done.
6. I grew up in an age of cognitive social psychology and was
inducted in applied social practice concepts like self-efficacy,
self-esteem, locus of control, learned hopelessness, etc… It did get
very frustrating trying to make these concepts relevant in therapeutic
practice. Is there any place left for such social psychology?
I was raised in the same era of thinking and, like you, found the
clinical utility of these concepts problematic. Still, I think that out
of these ideas the social sciences have evolved significantly.
For example, cognitive science and the sociology of emotions have
helped us make major strides in understanding the highly irrational and
biased ways that the human mind and social groups work.
And, in turn,
identity theory has proven very useful in demonstrating the significant
role that social support plays in self-efficacy and psychological
development – particularly as linked with LGBT and gender studies. The
same is true of intersectionality theory, which has demonstrated how the
mental health of individuals is significantly impacted by the larger
organizational, geo-spatial and societal arrangements in which they are
situated – as well as the corrosive impact that institutional racism and
economic discrimination have on self-esteem, locus of control, etc.
And, finally, there is the stress and coping literature and the social
psychology of healthy behaviours. So, yeah, I think there is still a
place for these ideas.
7. The philosophical conclusion of your research is that we
need to communicate a clear and simple concept of global collectivism
and commitment, ‘loving others as ourselves’. And that this needs to
become a totalising, dominant logic. Does this have implications for
how we teach and communicate social science, in that there is no point
in a hyperrational and empirical approach – if we have no normative
guide for our student’s journey?
Being so heavily influenced by Foucault, I am not sure I would say my
usage of the term “love” is a totalizing discourse or logic. Instead, I
think it points to the positive role that socialization, in all of its
various cultural and political forms, has on the psychology of people,
mainly through the inscription of morals and mores and values and
beliefs. And I think Freud’s point was similar: the psychological
absurdity of loving others, including our enemies, is his therapeutic
challenge to the catch-22 of our human existence – which I discussed
earlier, in regards to your first question. In other words, the only
real counter-point to the defiance of our social commitments, at least
at the psychological level, is to socialize people to better manage
themselves and to see the value in it.
For Foucault, the word “love” is translated into “care” and, in turn,
leads him to a meditation on how communities – historically speaking –
have variously thought it best to care for ourselves and others; as in
the great Delphic precept, “to take care of yourself; or to be
concerned, to take care of yourself.”
And, as Foucault demonstrates throughout his writings, through such
meditations society is constantly up against such key sociological
questions such as: How does love or care translate into justice? And,
what is being just? And, what is a just community or society? For
example, in the policy realm, these mediations lead to such questions
as: What is a just social policy? Or, what constitutes equity or parity
on the part of a government or some piece of legislation? And, should
governments and policy makers even be in the business of being just?
Which, in turn, leads to the examination of such core sociological
themes as domination and exploitation and inequality and so forth.
Related – and to the main point of your question – in our era, one
such way we think it “best” to examine issues of care and social justice
in social policy is through the lens of social science. That is our
normative approach; or at least the one in which I was trained. For
example, as colleagues, you and I both place emphasis on developing
data-driven policies and procedures, which seek to procure the best
possible results for the greatest good, etc; as well as identifying
evidence-based outcomes and effective methods and measures of utility.
And, as applied researchers, we put equal emphasis on being reasonably
objective or at least as true to the data as possible; as well as
teaching our students to be up front about their methodological
limitations and sharing results, etc. In similar fashion, as social
scientists I think we both place pride on being professional in our
work.
However, we also know as sociologists, policies (including the
normative social science upon which they are based) are often governed
by deeply irrational, dysfunctional and non-therapeutic purposes and
desires, and that relations of power are everywhere in policy; and that
bad things can (and often do) come from good intentions. We also know
how patriarchy and racism and cruelty and economic aggression and fear
and resentment, as well as emotional and psychological dysfunction,
infiltrate the discursive fabric of our policies and procedures.
Alternatively, pace Durkheim and cultural anthropology, we also know
that the socialization of our individual and cultural super-egos, along
with teaching morality and social norms, can work to counteract these
forces. So, I think that, as a normative guide, social science give us
the best tools for doing our work in a caring way. And so I would
continue to advocate for them…. Anyway, that gives a sense of it.
8. Your father was a big influence as a minister of religion, did you ever think about taking a similar path?
Not in terms of religion, as I have always been largely secular in my
views. But, in terms of social justice, absolutely! I think all of my
work – be it as a therapist, researcher or teacher – has had, as its
primary theme, the issue of social justice, which was what my father was
all about!
9. What is your next academic focus, any previews for your next book!
I am already working on a follow-up to my current book, as there are a
number of questions that my book raised that I want to address. First,
how is social justice becoming hostage to identity politics, such that
so many people struggle, today, to endorse the human rights of others
and, more widely, people in general? Second, and related, why are so
many people embracing a culture of cruelty today; and how does that link
to the social psychology of global fear, cultural resentment, nostalgic
political retreat and economic aggression? Third, while I discussed in
detail the need for a social psychology of politics and policy, I never
really outlined in detail what such an endeavor would look like. So, I
want to articulate what such a thing would entail, mainly by drawing on
the literature in public and community health and education, which have
given considerable time to addressing the social psychology of such
health issues as smoking, obesity, safety, and so on.
Much thanks to Professor Malcolm Williams for the opportunity to present.
