THE BIFRONTAL FACE OF FATALISM: COLLECTIVIST FATALISM
AND INDIVIDUALIST FATALISM
Amalio Blanco - Darío Díaz (2007)
Summary:
Fatalism has traditionally been a central framework for the study of psychological processes in contexts marked by collectivism and
weak economic development. In these cases, it has been shown as a cognitive scheme defined by the passive and submissive
acceptance of an irremediable destiny, attributed to the force of nature or the will of some God. This image has lost its sharp
contours. Currently, fatalism also accompanies the lives of people in individualistic cultures and advanced and opulent economic
contexts, presenting itself as a state of uncertainty, insecurity, and helplessness in the face of the events of the global risk society.
In this article, we develop this double aspect of fatalism.
Ulrich Beck, one of the most astute thinkers in the social sciences, predicts that endemic uncertainty will characterize the lives and
basic existence of most people, including the seemingly well-to-do middle classes, in the coming years. This mention of the middle
classes is not rhetoric, but a suspicion that security and certainty have begun to abandon the main beneficiaries of modernity. For
the most disadvantaged, little will change: their existence will continue to be marked by a logic of domination and passive
submission, often masked behind the will of some God.
This idea, central to Max Horkheimer's theory, challenges psychology as a science and profession at the service of well-being.
Uncertainty, insecurity, resignation, conformity, and apathy place us in the realm of fatalism. Today, fatalism has a double face: as
a strategy of adaptation to uncontrollable threats (such as environmental destruction, terrorism, unemployment, and exclusion)
and as the traditional passive acceptance of an irremediable destiny emanating from a natural or supernatural force.
THEORETICAL PRECEDENTS OF FATALISM: THE NEED FOR COGNITION AND THE NEED FOR CONTROL
Most higher animals have strategies that include orienting responses, locomotor exploration, and investigative responses, grouped
by Berlyne (1960) as exploratory behavior. This behavior is essential to be effectively in the environment, to learn to respond to its
demands and to face its risks. Humans are no exception; Our exploratory behavior accumulates crucial information to adapt and
act in our environment. As Jones and Gerard (1980) said, the person who acts not only receives information, but needs all the
pertinent information available.
Close to this need for information is the need for cognition, defined by Cohen, Stotland, and Wolfe (1955) as the need to
understand and make comprehensible the experiences of the environment. Cacioppo and Petty (1982) describe this need as the
tendency to enjoy complex cognitive activities. Schachter (1961) linked cognitive clarity to the need for affiliation, while Doise
(1979) defined it as an effective tool in the struggle for survival.
Control, along with certainty, is central to the psychosocial tradition. Theories such as exchange (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), locus
of control (Rotter, 1966), reactance (Brehm, 1966), belief in a just world (Lerner, 1971), attribution (Kelley, 1971), helplessness
(Seligman, 1981), empowerment (Rappaport, 1981), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) focus on control. Bandura (1997) states that
human beings have always struggled to control the events that affect their lives. This need to dominate the environment is
omnipresent in the animal species, as suggested by White (1959), who argues that our behaviors seek to interact effectively with
the environment.
Control implies knowledge, power, activity, and confidence in our actions. According to Seligman (1981), effective interaction is
controllable: we make the desired outcomes occur as a consequence of our voluntary responses. However, Ulrich Beck highlights
that the globalization of risk and the limited controllability of the dangers we have created lead to uncertainty, insecurity, and lack
of trust in institutions, which causes cognitive, emotional, and behavioural disturbances.
Uncertainty and uncontrollability cause a variety of disorders: passivity in the face of traumatic situations, trouble solving simple
problems, and health problems such as stomach ulcers. This also affects the competitiveness and coordination of movements,
illustrating the depth of these disturbances in various contexts.
1
Made by MatyBuda
AND INDIVIDUALIST FATALISM
Amalio Blanco - Darío Díaz (2007)
Summary:
Fatalism has traditionally been a central framework for the study of psychological processes in contexts marked by collectivism and
weak economic development. In these cases, it has been shown as a cognitive scheme defined by the passive and submissive
acceptance of an irremediable destiny, attributed to the force of nature or the will of some God. This image has lost its sharp
contours. Currently, fatalism also accompanies the lives of people in individualistic cultures and advanced and opulent economic
contexts, presenting itself as a state of uncertainty, insecurity, and helplessness in the face of the events of the global risk society.
In this article, we develop this double aspect of fatalism.
Ulrich Beck, one of the most astute thinkers in the social sciences, predicts that endemic uncertainty will characterize the lives and
basic existence of most people, including the seemingly well-to-do middle classes, in the coming years. This mention of the middle
classes is not rhetoric, but a suspicion that security and certainty have begun to abandon the main beneficiaries of modernity. For
the most disadvantaged, little will change: their existence will continue to be marked by a logic of domination and passive
submission, often masked behind the will of some God.
This idea, central to Max Horkheimer's theory, challenges psychology as a science and profession at the service of well-being.
Uncertainty, insecurity, resignation, conformity, and apathy place us in the realm of fatalism. Today, fatalism has a double face: as
a strategy of adaptation to uncontrollable threats (such as environmental destruction, terrorism, unemployment, and exclusion)
and as the traditional passive acceptance of an irremediable destiny emanating from a natural or supernatural force.
THEORETICAL PRECEDENTS OF FATALISM: THE NEED FOR COGNITION AND THE NEED FOR CONTROL
Most higher animals have strategies that include orienting responses, locomotor exploration, and investigative responses, grouped
by Berlyne (1960) as exploratory behavior. This behavior is essential to be effectively in the environment, to learn to respond to its
demands and to face its risks. Humans are no exception; Our exploratory behavior accumulates crucial information to adapt and
act in our environment. As Jones and Gerard (1980) said, the person who acts not only receives information, but needs all the
pertinent information available.
Close to this need for information is the need for cognition, defined by Cohen, Stotland, and Wolfe (1955) as the need to
understand and make comprehensible the experiences of the environment. Cacioppo and Petty (1982) describe this need as the
tendency to enjoy complex cognitive activities. Schachter (1961) linked cognitive clarity to the need for affiliation, while Doise
(1979) defined it as an effective tool in the struggle for survival.
Control, along with certainty, is central to the psychosocial tradition. Theories such as exchange (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), locus
of control (Rotter, 1966), reactance (Brehm, 1966), belief in a just world (Lerner, 1971), attribution (Kelley, 1971), helplessness
(Seligman, 1981), empowerment (Rappaport, 1981), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) focus on control. Bandura (1997) states that
human beings have always struggled to control the events that affect their lives. This need to dominate the environment is
omnipresent in the animal species, as suggested by White (1959), who argues that our behaviors seek to interact effectively with
the environment.
Control implies knowledge, power, activity, and confidence in our actions. According to Seligman (1981), effective interaction is
controllable: we make the desired outcomes occur as a consequence of our voluntary responses. However, Ulrich Beck highlights
that the globalization of risk and the limited controllability of the dangers we have created lead to uncertainty, insecurity, and lack
of trust in institutions, which causes cognitive, emotional, and behavioural disturbances.
Uncertainty and uncontrollability cause a variety of disorders: passivity in the face of traumatic situations, trouble solving simple
problems, and health problems such as stomach ulcers. This also affects the competitiveness and coordination of movements,
illustrating the depth of these disturbances in various contexts.
1
Made by MatyBuda
