Explorations on the formation of cultural groups through psychoanalysis and ABM
Independent research explorations
In order to understand group formation in the case of Melilla, I drew from Karen Horney's approach to neurosis. She defines three main human compulsions that can be useful to frame group formation. Her approach is particularly relevant in the spatialization of group formation since these three compulsions are thought as vectors: moving towards others, away from others and against others. These human forces can be translated in a seek of value, freedom and power.
Conceptual approach - step 1: structures
In the figure of the spatialization of power, value, and freedom; we can observe the behaviour of these compulsions in personality (a), group functioning (b), and the spatial outcome (c).
These illustrations show the result of seeking power for the sake of power, value for the sake of value, and freedom for the sake of freedom. However, this simplified map can be more useful by observing the intersections between the core compulsions. These intertwined purposes can explain broader phenomena without loosing the conceptual and diagrammatic lens.
Similarly, when value is placed at the service of freedom, transgression occurs: the disruption of norms without necessarily altering power structures, but rather reinterpreting the value of diverse identities. Thus, when freedom serves value, it reflects the need to break social commitments to attain personal worth, a concept often seen in the myth of freedom of choice, the free market, or any social dynamic that instrumentalizes freedom in pursuit of personal validation.
Lastly, value in the service of power is evident in a capitalist system. It is well known that capitalism emerges strongly by harnessing a range of human compulsions and needs, thus linking the sense of worth with power. I conceptualize this as value in the service of power, whereby capital (the economic equivalent of power) enables the means to exercise influence over others. In a similar manner, power in the service of value produces a sense of "morality" or "propriety"—the exercise of power as the ability to dictate what must be done, with the aim of earning social validation.
In the interplay of various compulsions, we can identify pervasive patterns within different social structures. When freedom is subordinated to power, the social system encounters autonomous norm violation, manifesting as crime—the act of breaking norms for individual gain. Conversely, when power serves freedom, resistance movements emerge, striving against hegemonic power.
Likewise, the combination of these elements can be translated into the space we inhabit: freedom as analogous to vacuum, value as analogous to ornament, and power as analogous to property. These combinations manifest in various examples, depending on the social structure being examined. In the case of Melilla, several of these combinations are applicable, as illustrated in the following diagram.
Conceptual approach - step 2: power
Once the primary human motivations behind the formation of cultural groups—groups with a cohesive ideological system, shaped by social beliefs and value systems—are understood, we can proceed to examine how power operates within these structures through Galbraith's theory. He identifies three types of power tools present in all social groups: conditioned power, condign power, and compensatory power. These power tools will be charted using the code shown in the adjacent diagram to illustrate how each "Institution of Belonging" (a cultural group sharing core values) is constructed around one or more power figures.
Diagramming these "Institutions of Belonging" within Galbraith's theoretical framework allows us to pinpoint how conditioned power operates—namely, the ideology and set of values promoted by power figures that enable the homogenization of culture and group values. In the chart of institution types, we can observe how the various forms of power function. In this case, I am showing a diagram of its functioning within capitalist, patriarchal, and imperialist movements.
Similarly, the adjacent diagram illustrates how Galbraith’s power tools shape a value system with three distinct categories: Valuable, Non-valuable, and Rebel. In this context, these categories are referred to as "good boy," "bad boy," and "cool boy" due to their connection to disciplinary narratives. The "good boy" represents full adherence to the value system, with a compulsion for compliance and obedience to authority figures. Conversely, the "bad boy" embodies the inability to meet the power system’s expectations, forming a symbolic category of punishment for the rest of the group. This symbolic category represents condign power, or the threat of punishment, which deters the emergence of rebellion against authority—the role of the "cool boy." This latter category emerges from an intentional desire to defy power dictates, rather than from a failure to comply.
To examine the spatial configuration and boundaries of the cultures coexisting in the city of Melilla, I have charted the hierarchical pyramids of each "Institution of Belonging" operating on a large scale within the enclave. Each institution is tied to a particular value system, creating distinct hierarchies of value and power. These include various religions, nationalisms, political ideologies, imperialism, and their respective power figures (both human and symbolic), values and norms, scale, and intersections with other institutions of belonging.
Simulation approach - step 3: The model
The proposed framework for studying cultural boundaries serves as an alternative approach to Models of Social Influence. Two significant classical theorists addressing this topic are Émile Durkheim and, more contemporaneously, Robert Axelrod.
Durkheim posits that consensus in individuals' opinions and values is contingent upon a cohesive society that exposes its members to highly similar social influences. He further argues that as societies modernize, they may become less cohesive. This reduction in cohesion can occur due to factors such as economic differentiation and the division of labour, which lead to increasingly distinct social roles among individuals (Durkheim, 1893; Giddens, 1984).
In contrast, Axelrod seeks to understand the origins of cultural differentiation itself. He explores how diverse cultural norms and practices emerge and persist within societies (Axelrod, 1997).
Additionally, contemporary scholars have begun to investigate the conditions under which societies experience polarization, seeking to elucidate the factors that contribute to divisive cultural dynamics (Abramowitz & Saunders 2008; Gentzkow 2016).
The proposed framework allows for the incorporation of the emotional-compulsive element into social influence models, emphasizing the relevance of individual objectives that emerge within a macro-structural context.
The systematic framework employed to understand the formation and structuring of culture and ideological groups aims to create a model that supports and verifies these processes, ultimately to parameterize them. Numerous authors, with this same objective, have sought to explain the homogeneity and formation of cultural groups, each from a different perspective. In 1997, Axelrod questioned how it was possible that differences between groups did not fully dissipate despite their tendency to diminish through interactions. However, this approach sheds light in his questions while opening others regarding group formation.
This project is currently underway, with efforts focused on elaborating a model that encompasses the emotional and compulsive elements within social influence dynamics. The purpose of this outline has been to clarify the theoretical underpinnings guiding the model's development and to situate it within broader academic dialogues on cultural and ideological group formation. As the project advances, it aims to contribute to current approaches with a novel framework that integrates individual objectives within macro-structural analyses.