In the simplest anthropological sense, groups have existed within the hominin line for over six million years. Fred Alfred describes them as a fundamental and empirical truth of human nature (p. xx), and their effects both large and small can be clearly traced throughout history. Their purpose, utility, and development, however, remain variable to a multitude of influences. Despite these ambiguities, once a script and a leader emerge, groups tend to interact and develop within reasonable predictability. Interestingly, their strength and longevity, while focused by a leader, depend greatly on an individual’s desire to be a part of the group (p. xx). Thus ultimately, a group’s success depends entirely on a leader or ideology ‘s ability to prey on an individual’s deeply set psychological needs and fears. A successful group will manifest feelings of self-love, security, and control, while suppressing and projecting feeling of self-hate, insecurity, and chaos outward.
Particularly in times of crisis, when the need for physical safety is an immediate threat, the simplicity and security of a group is intensely alluring. The certainty of a common identity relieves the individual of personal responsibilities and fears, temporarily suppressing…show more content… Groups have always been a powerful instrument for human’s to navigate the changing waters of the world and combat the confusion of what is largely an intangible reality. Consider a Pollock painting verses Seurat. One uses his tools to create a clear and decisive image, not unlike the idealized shared consciousness formed within a group. While the other evokes a more dynamic and ambiguous display of movement and life which is more akin to the overlapping, and contending sub-realities constructed by individuals. Unsurprisingly, the offer for stability, acceptance, and direction hold an attractive appeal in a universe that is quite literally always