Transcript document
“Phantasmatic Generation:
Historical Trauma and the
Dynamics of Values and Social
Attitudes”
Alin Gavreliuc
Associate Professor, PhD
Department of Psychology
Faculty of Sociology and Psychology,
West University of Timisoara,
Romania
Bremen, IACCP Congress,
26-31/07/2008
The main objective of research
This presentation is a synthesis of researches focused on examination of
transgenerational patterns of values and attitudes in postcommunist Romania, organized in three consecutive stages:
in educational field (2002-2005, 180 subjects);
in private economical area (2006-2007, 180 subjects);
on three representative sub-samples, at the regional area, in “The Fifth Region
of Development” (Timis, Arad, Caras-Severin and Hunedoara counties) (2007-2008,
1481 subjects).
Criteria of selection:
Subjects from the social stratum that provides
a consistent rate of social passivity and conservatorism (educational area);
an increasing rate of social and economical commitments (generational groups consist of
subjects that are involved in private firms that center on production, from the Western part of
Romania;
Comparison of the results obtained in an “economic private sector” subjects
sample with “educational sector” subjects sample = on most dimensions we have
identified strong similarities.
Relevance for Cross-Cultural Psychology – specific generational profiles in terms of
different cultural patterns (grouped in a particular patterns of social attitudes and
values).
Register of social subjectivity ………………………………….
Personality as a psycho-social construct …………………
VALUES
ATTITUDES
(inferate variables)
……………………………………………………………………………
BEHAVIOURS
(the level of collecting data about the
personality of subjects)
Concurrent theoretical
frameworks
Flexibility of values
and (fundamental)
social attitudes
generated by
socio-historical
dynamics
Aronson, 1988
Perloff, 1993
McGuire, 1998
Stability of values
and (fundamental)
social attitudes,
despite of sociohistorical dynamics
la longue durée
(Braudel, 1958/1996)
transgenerational
remanent nature of
social representations
(Flament, 1995)
Concurrent hypotheses
Hypothesis of
attitudinal
changing (changing
of fundamental
social attitudes)
Hypothesis la
longue durée (the
persistence of
fundamental social
attitudes)
Dilemma
A specific socialization of subjects,
due to a particular generational
affiliation, associated with a distinct
integration of a historical rupture
experience…
…will generate or not a major
attitudinal change, reflected in an
ensemble of relational personality
traits?
Methodology: selecting the
psychological dimensions
Quantitative methodology:
Psychological traits articulated through the
assessment of (fundamental) social attitudes:
Independence-interdependence
Self-esteem
Internalism-externalism
Self-determination
+
Value orientations structure
Qualitative methodology:
Oral history interviews with the relevant persons
from generation of “decretei”.
Psychological tests applied
Attitudinal register:
Independence-Interdependece Scale (Singelis, 1994)
Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)
Locus of Control (Rotter, 1964)
Self-Determination Scale (Sheldon, Ryan, Reis, 1996)
Awareness of Self
Perceived Choice
Axiological register:
Schwartz Values Survey (Schwartz, 2005) -->
cultural level (value orientations)
Generational strata investigated
Sub-samples (2008)
G50: m(g50) = 55,27 years old [480 subjects]
G35: m(g35) = 39,92 years old [529 subjects]
G20: m(g20) = 25,34 years old [472 subjects]
G50, G35, G 20 at the level of 2002 year.
Total: 1481 subjects
Criteria for distribution of subjects: gender (½ M,
½ F), age (sub-scales +/- 2 years), residential
area (urban high, urban medium, urban low,
rural).
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Generational
portrait /
Psychological
dimensions
G50
G35
G20
d(INT-IND)
0,28
0,32
0,51
SE
30,18
28,16
31,15
LC
14,15
12,05
14,85
AS
12,15
10,63
8,18
PC
9,89
10,34
9,55
SD
22,04
20,97
17,70
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
d(INT-IND)
ANOVA
Independent
variable
Comparison
between
averages
Value of the
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Value of the
limit of
significance
Generational
stratum
F(2, 1478) =
2,46
p=0,04
G50-G20
-0.23
p=0,038
G35-G20
-0.19
p=0,045
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
Independent
variable
Generational
stratum
SE
ANOVA
Comparison
between
averages
Value of the
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Value of the
limit of
significance
NS
-
-
-
-
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
Independent
variable
Generational
stratum
LC
Comparison
between
averages
F(2, 1478)=
2,12
ANOVA
Value of the
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Value of the
limit of
significance
p=0,05
G35-G20
-2,8
p=0,049
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
AS
ANOVA
Independent
variable
Comparison
between
averages
Values of
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Values of
limit of
significance
Generational
stratum
F(2, 1478)=
2,45
p=0,038
G50-G20
3,97
p=0,04
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
Independent
variable
Generational
stratum
PC
ANOVA
Comparison
between
averages
Value of the
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Value of the
limit of
significance
NS
-
-
-
-
Intergenerational portraits –
attitudinal register of analysis
Dependent
variable
SD
ANOVA
Independent
variable
Comparison
between
averages
Value of the
limit of
significance
Subcategories of
independent variables
with significant
differences between
them
Differences
between
averages
(I-J)
Value of the
limit of
significance
Generational
stratum
F(2, 1478)=
3,56
p=0,002
G50-G20
4,34
p<0.001
G35-G20
3.27
p=0,002
Values portraits - Seven Cultural
Value Orientations (Schwartz, 19992007)
Conservatism The person is viewed as embedded in a collectivity, finding meaning in life largely
through social relationships and identifying with the group. A cultural emphasis on maintenance of the
status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solidarity group or
the traditional order. (social order, respect for tradition, family security, wisdom).
Intellectual Autonomy The person is an autonomous, bounded entity and finds meaning in his / her
own uniqueness, seeking to express own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings) and is
encouraged to do so. Intellectual Autonomy has a cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals
independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions (curiosity, broadmindedness,
creativity).
Affective Autonomy The person is an autonomous, bounded entity and finds meaning in his / her own
uniqueness, seeking to express own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings) and is encouraged
to do so. Affective Autonomy promote and protect the individual's independent pursuit of own
affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life).
Hierarchy A hierarchical, differential allocation of fixed roles and of resources is the legitimate,
desirable way to regulate interdependencies. People are socialized to comply with the obligations and
rules and sanctioned if they do not. A cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of
power, roles and resources (social power, authority, humility, wealth).
Egalitarianism Individuals are portrayed as moral equals, who share basic interests and who are
socialized to transcend selfish interests, cooperate voluntarily with others, and show concern for
everyone's welfare (equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, honesty). People are socialized to
as autonomous rather than interdependent because autonomous persons have no natural commitment
to others (equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, honesty).
Mastery Groups and individuals should master, control, and change the social and natural environment
through assertive action in order to further personal or group interests. A cultural emphasis on getting
ahead through active self-assertion (ambition, success, daring, competence).
Harmony The world is accepted as it is. Groups and individuals should fit harmoniously into the natural
and social world, avoiding change and self-assertion to modify them. (unity with nature, protecting the
environment, world of beauty).
Intergenerational axiological portraits
(Schwartz, 1999, 2005)
Superordinate
axiological
categories
Conservatism
Hierarchy
Harmony
Egalitarianism
Intellectual
Autonomy
Affective
Autonomy
Mastery
*p<0.01; **p<0.05.
G50
G35
G20
4,06 --------------**
2,12 --------------*
4,19
4,62 -------------*
4,78 ------------- **
4,68 --------------- *
2,97
4,17
4,23
4,12
4,21
2,29
4,08
4,46
4,43
3,56
3,21 --------------- *
3,81
3,96
3,77
3,82
0
31
30
29
1987
1988
1989
1990
28
27
26
1984
1985
1986
25
24
23
1981
1982
1983
22
21
20
1978
1979
1980
19
18
17
1975
1976
1977
16
15
1973
1974
14
13
12
1970
1971
1972
11
10
9
1967
1968
1969
8
7
6
1964
1965
1966
5
4
3
1961
1962
1963
2
1960
1
Demographical policies in the communist
Romania
Din cine este alcătuită “generaţia
Source: Anuarul Statistic al Rom âniei, 1990
35”?
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
Conclusions
Hypothesis la longue durée has been confirmed.
Social strata are characterized through the following
trangenerational patterns:
Interdependence (0,28-0,51 / 0*);
High self esteem (28,16-31,51 / 20*)
Externalism (12,05-14,85 / 11,5*)
Low Self-awareness (8,18-12,15 / 12,5*)
Low Perceived choice (9,55-10,34 / 12,5*)
Low Self-determination (17,70-22,04 / 22,50*)
When significant intergenerational differences appear, they
express a progressive diminution of social involvement, and
at the same time a rejuvenation of generational stratum.
“Generation 35” (“decreteii” = “the children of the Decree”,
770/1967) is distinguishing as a “problematic generation”
/ unstable, ambivalent, oscillating between extremes.
* Values that correspond of the middle of the scale.
Conclusions
Most frequently, in the qualitative researches realized on “decretei”
samples, their “major problem” has emerged : burden (sometime
realized at the maturity period of their biography), through a
hurtful anamnesis of an original rejection:
Recurrent discourse in the identitary narratives:
“My parents didn’t desire me. Even if they have never
told me that, and they have offered me all their love
afterwards. I was so hurt. And all my later life has gone
with my unending attempt to convince them that their
sacrifice was worth it. It’s clear to me now that I didn’t
always achieve that. And I’ll never know if it was good
that I was born. I’m often followed by that crazy
thought: if Ceausescu’s delirium had never existed, I
would have never been born. Me and a lot of my peers
from my generation are forming an phantomatic people,
which does not find our place. And our great problem is
that we were condemned to life. A life in which our
world wasn't prepared to receive us. We got by as we
could. But what will come of this country when it would
be in our hands? We are just trying to regroup
somewhere. I’m so scared that I’m going to crash again.
And like me, my people would return to the darkness.”
(M.P, 37 years old)
Phantasmatic generation
Imperative of every authentic
psychotherapy = the need for any
liberating social pedagogy:
To overcome a trauma, we have to
assume it, then integrate it. It is just in
this way we can cut out the symptoms
of social autism that have been
disseminated in our society for more
than half a century.