Brennan first says that the transmission of affect is a theory of the group. "It is also a theory of the group based on what is produced by the group" (Brennan 51). Aristotle said that emotions can often flow much greater when used to appeal to a group, which is what I think Brennan is saying. She makes a more interesting point though when she writes "the emotions of two are not the same as the emotions of one plus one" (Brennan 51). Brennan is saying that with a group, emotions will be different when one person is appealing to two or more people rather then two groups coming to each other with different emotions.
The thing that I thought was weird was how she says "each of us will take onboard the effects of this new composite" (Brennan 51). So if my group is angry, and the opposing group is happy, the clash of the two groups will create some emotion in the middle?
Moving on to the next interesting point on pages 59-60. Brennan compares to Aristotle's views on group emotion yet again by saying "Critically, the crowd adds nothing new to what the individual would do if he were by himself. The individual behaves just as he would behave alone, only more so. He behaves more so because the sights and sounds facilitate an increased fervor int he responses of each" (Brennan 60). To me, this is defining peer pressure. We all have to feel some emotion on a certain level of intensity, but with a group feeling the same emotion, its level of intensity rises up. It seems like it can be compared to rumors going through the grapevine. The more people hear about it, the more real it becomes.
I think there might be situations in which an individual would act quite differently in a group than when alone. Peer pressure is an example in some cases, so are hysteria and efforts to conform to novel social situations.
ReplyDeleteI think you're touching on a factor here that should complicate our understanding of affective transfers. We generally assume that the affective transfers will have a multiplying effect (as the one in your last paragraph discusses, the intensity rises). This is the case if all of the people in the group have the same affective responses to the speech, communication, event etc. If it each makes one of them angry (lets pretend anger is quantifiable, so event X makes 5 people 3 anger points higher), it will make each individual, by virtue of experiencing the anger in a group, even angrier (say, they each reflect the anger around and actually increase by 4 anger points instead of three).
ReplyDeleteBut what you address in your first paragraph is of a different nature. The people either have an inherent disposition (some are more happier, some angrier) or a different response to the event (it makes some happy, some angry). In this case, the happy people would seem to reduce the anger of the angry people, just as the angry people would diminish the happiness of the happy group (assuming we're not too sealed off, and Brennan thinks we're not).
So the effect would be to lighten the overall emotions, instead of amplify them.
Surely, individuals act differently in groups than when they are alone. When multiple people in a group experience the same affect simultaneously, the intensity of that affect increases. As the affect intensifies, everyone’s intensifying affect influences the affective dispositions of everyone else. The result is that the affects spiral upwards towards irrationality, to the point where nobody really knows why they feel a certain way (they just feel it). Could this explain phenomenon like peer pressure, conformity, and groupthink?
ReplyDelete