Post 8. Entropy.
This is another post that is a part of a future post, that will be posted in a few minutes. This describes the psychological part of a basic idea that energy is created from dialectics that eventually achieve entropy, and become a part of the background again. I think further that more figures come out of the resulting entropy, much like anything that one gives close attention to, extruding it from the background.

***

According to David Bargal (2006), Kurt Lewin’s dynamic approach to understanding a motivational field can be described in terms of behavior,

behavior is conceived as emanating from a constant equilibrium, which is achieved as a consequence of the forces that impinge upon people and on situations. Thus, individual or group behavior is analyzed in the context of the forces which enhance efforts to achieve goals, while there are inhibiting conditions which prevent it. Thus, reality is characterized as an ongoing process of achieving equilibrium in a social unit, while the process is being disrupted by the ever-changing field of forces (pp. 375-376).

I am going to apply analogy in two very distinct ways; first there is the analogy which can be made common between Kurt Lewin’s dynamic understanding of motivational fields, and any dialectic which is reciprocally related within modern culture. An example of this would be the notion that nature and culture are separate, and that a motivational field forms between an individual’s intuitive skill set, temperament or psychophysiological development and a person’s adaptation toward a social identity and role consisting of socialized expectations. Another example would be the motivation which exists in terms of optimal distinctiveness theory, a field which exists between a person’s need for a salient sense of identity, and a person’s need to belong within a larger social context (Linville, 1998). The third example is much more relevant to social change it is a perceived field created by the dialectic between egocentric or individual achievement and identity, and selfless or self-transcendent behavior toward collective aspirations and social roles. Each of these three examples demonstrates a facet of a dynamic model; they are dialectics which can describe for researchers a motivational field which sets up the kind of dynamic relationship for a context Kurt Lewin might have used to describe behavior in terms of seeking equilibrium.

The second way to apply analogy in terms of a context for social change and motivation is through the creative process outlined by Joseph Zinker (1977). Analogies are often opportunities to understand the use of metaphor in an individual’s thinking, metaphor is a creative process which can offer insight into the thoughts and behaviors of an individual (Zinker, 1977). Through the use of analogy an individual’s metaphors can be interpreted in order to help define a person’s needs, and applied as a part of an intervention designed to address an individual’s needs and facilitate cognitive change (Zinker, 1977). Joseph Zinker (1977) refers to the use of analogy as a process of “making the familiar strange and the strange familiar.” (p. 54). What I would like to point out is that the application of analogy, does not require a therapist-client relationship, and that metaphors are constructed into modern culture today; metaphor in modern culture provides insight into the needs of a society, and group behaviors. Social identity can be characterized as depending on prototypes for ideal traits among group members, individuals may begin to self-categorize according to these prototypes and that can strongly characterize their behavior, by challenging individual certainties about themselves or other people (Tasdemir, 2011). These kinds of mainstream prototypes (termed stereotypes) are created within modern culture and provide individuals with very rapid classification data in terms of social groups and traits which indicate social group membership (Holtzman, 2000). Therefore, evidence of social change in my opinion is present within all media and cultural artifacts which a society produces. The insight which we can gain from media presentations, movies, music, written media, and visual art; demonstrates the needs of a society, and the natural context which cultivates the dialectics motivating society toward the definition and fulfillment of these collective needs. Needs can be characterized as both necessary to fulfill some deficiency, or proactively established to correct a social injustice. My definition of social change is group realization of and action toward meeting these needs, the achievement of contact between an identified social need and its solution, and the resolution of the process for a group and society that is demonstrated by its culture and its perception of values.

            I needed to make the first definition of analogy previously in order to describe the motivational basis for social change.  In terms of seeking equilibrium, in cross-cultural studies we can construct idealizations such as the ideal individualist culture or the ideal collectivist culture; expectations about what an ideal eastern culture is or what an ideal western culture is. I would say that in terms larger than an individual sense, entire societies can be classified as either egocentric or selfless, as characterized by the expectations of individual roles within those cultures. Further, egocentrism and selflessness sets up a dialectic or field, which naturally tends to establish a state of entropy. In The United States culture, society has become extremely individual and characterized by conflicting intergroup interests; the cultural prototypes in The United States media depict very strong individual heroes such as successful athletes or individuals with a particularly salient sense of individual moral character or strength. Often warriors are depicted within the culture of The United States, engaging in violence but also acts of valor or the heroic realization of agapean love (for all of society). From the state of modern culture in The United States I would then have to say that some of the stronger motivations within society are through identification with these heroes and their metaphors, and are moving in a direction toward a more accountable sense of presence within collective society. That is because if a society is extremely individual, then it follows that in order to establish equilibrium, dynamic action will be motivated toward a more pluralistic and collectively aware society. As it follows people are beginning to idealize collective traits such as in the work of Jorge Ferrer (2011) in terms of belief systems and spirituality. I am not presently exposed to enough eastern or collective culture, to give an example of a collective society moving toward more individualist values, but in my experience that is the American perception of what the Chinese economy is doing.

            The best way to facilitate social change is through application of social capital gained through shared experiences (Loeb, 2010). I do not overly criticize the media as it is one way in which many individuals can share the same experience, so long as they have the ability to be critical of it, and selective in terms of self-categorization. Also I think to ensure that social change happens, people need to be aware of the media in a way that enables them to choose the kinds of prototypes or stereotypes they are exposed to in a more cognizant way. I think the way we have always been able to measure social change is through culture, and that is the best way to observe the perceived ideal values and motivations of a society. As a point of discussion though, The United States maintains a kind of cultural hegemony (Holtzman, 2000). What would your beliefs about the motivations of American culture be, if American media was all that you had exposure to, excluding experience within the society?

References.

Bargal, D.. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action

     research: Towards the 60^th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘Action research and minority problems’

     (1946). Action Research, 4(4), 367-388.

Ferrer, J. (2011). Participatory spirituality and transpersonal theory: A ten-year retrospective.

     The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 43(1), 1-34.

Holtzman, L. (2000). Media messages: What film, television, and popular music teach us about

     race, class, gender and sexual orientation. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Linville, P. W. (1998). The heterogeneity of homogeneity. In J. Darley, J. Cooper (Eds.) ,

     Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 423-487). American

     Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10286-008

Loeb, P. R., (2010). Soul of a citizen: Living with conviction in challenging times. New York, NY:

     St. Martin’s Press.

Tasdemir, N. (2011). The relationships between motivations of intergroup differentiation as a

     function of different dimensions of social identity. Review of general psychology, 15(2),

     125-137.