primo levi 985

Towards a social psychology of extremesituations: Primo Levi's If This is a Man

and social identity theory

CHIARA VOLPATO* andALBERTA CONTARELLO

Department of General Psychology,University of Padova, Italy

Abstract

The present study deals with social relationships in the extreme situation of theconcentration camp, using Primo Levi's If This Is a Man, written just after the author'srelease from Auschwitz. This text was chosen because it is one of the most importanttestimonies of the Holocaust and, at the same time, a work of great artistic value. Ananalysis of the behaviour described gives us access to otherwise irretrievable data. Threeaims have been pursued: (1) to explore and describe interpersonal and intergroupbehaviour in extreme situations from the victims' perspective; (2) to analyse these typesof behaviour through social identity theory (SIT); and (3) to highlight certainobservations and comments by Levi, an excellent `privileged observer', which mightsuggest new directions of research in this ®eld. Turning our attention to interpersonaland intergroup relations, we submitted the text to content analysis. Correspondenceanalysis was then carried out. The results support the importance of Tajfel's (1981)theory for the analysis of extreme situations, but also suggest possible extensions of thepresent model following Levi's theorizing. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

If understanding is impossible, knowledge is imperative, because what happened couldhappen again. Conscience can be seduced and obscured againÐeven our own consciences(Levi, 1976, p. 3961).

In the months which followed his return from Auschwitz, Primo Levi wrote anaccount of his experience in the concentration camp, driven by the `immediate and

CCC 0046±2772/99/020239±20$17.50 Received 17 March 1997Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 8 April 1998

European Journal of Social PsychologyEur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29, 239±258 (1999)

*Correspondence to: Dr Chiara Volpato, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, ViaVenezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy. e-mail: cvolpato@ux1.unipd.it

Contract grant sponsor: Ministero dell'UniversitaÁ e della Ricerca Scienti®ca e Tecnologica.Contract grant sponsor: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.Contract grant number: 03378.CT08 (CNR).1Page numbers refer to the English edition translated by Stuart Woolf (London: Abacus, 1987).

violent impulse' (p. 15) to `bear witness' (p. 47) and give a true account of events bothfor himself and for those who never returned. Levi's account begins on 13 December1943 with his capture by the Fascist militia and his internment at Fossoli nearModena. From this camp, together with 650 other Italian Jews, he was sent toAuschwitz, where he remained until the arrival of the Russians on 27 January 1945.

If This is aMan has the grave tone and objective prose of a legal document. Of greatliterary merit, it has made an unrivalled contribution to the preservation andtransmission of the memory of the Holocaust of which it has become a symbol(Hirsch, 1995; Todorov, 1991). Levi's aim was to try to know, and help others toknow, from the inside, by re¯ecting on both individual and collective aspects andrelations between the living conditions and structures of this banishment. Thus, Levi'swork exempli®es in a masterly way what Quazza (1991) calls `the historicalmonographic method' (cf. also Catani, 1995).

As he remembers and re¯ects upon unthinkable events, which had, however, reallyoccurred, Levi observes that the concentration camp constituted `a gigantic biologicaland social experiment'. He continues: `Thousands of individuals, di�ering in age,condition, origin, language, culture and customs, are enclosed within barbed wire:there they live a regular, controlled life which is identical for all and inadequate to allneeds, and which is more rigorous than any experimenter could have set up toestablish what is essential and what adventitious to the conduct of the human animalin the struggle for life' (p. 93).

The present paper is an invitation to re¯ect on the memory of this perverse`experiment', in the conviction that social psychology has, in recent years, neglectedthe study of social behaviour in extreme situations to concentrate on the analysis of`normal' everyday interactions, despite the fact that recent dramatic events in not sodistant times and countries remind us of the unfortunate topicality of such themes.

The `experiment' described in If This is a Man, however, is not placed in directcontrast to civil life in society. Levi points out several times the continuity between thetwo worlds; camp-life brings to lightÐmaking them clearly visible by a simpli®cationprocessÐsocial mechanisms which also exist in the outside world. Thus, the analysisof extreme conditions may testify to aspects which also underlie `normal' everydaylife.

In the present work, Levi's text has been treated as a database full of those elementsnecessary to build up a knowledge of extreme situations. Archive research is not newto social psychology (cf. Wrightsman & Deaux, 1981), but it gained wider acceptancein the discipline mainly in the wake of authors such as Gergen (1973) and McGuire(1973, 1994). It proves particularly useful when the aim is not so much to corroborateand illustrate phenomena, as to derive or generate new ideas, especially in com-paratively new ®elds of research. Martin, Scully & Levitt's (1990) study on theconcept of injustice, Watson's (1973) on the expression of aggression in di�erentcultures, Worchel, Coutant-Sassic & Grossman's (1992) on the development of grouplife are some examples in this vein.

Social psychology, on the same lines as historical research (e.g. the Annales Schoolto name but one), has sometimes made use of literary material (a brief review ofstudies which have sought to couple literature with social psychology is to be found inVolpato & Contarello, 1995). As regards the present work, our use of Levi's bookmay be justi®ed in the ®rst place because one of our aims is to examine behaviourwhich cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. There is more to it than this, however.

240 C. Volpato and A. Contarello

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29, 239±258 (1999)

The uniqueness of Levi's testimony is due to his being an excellent participantobserver who, writing in the months immediately following his return in order toclarify to himself and others an unbearable experience, was able to blend the pathosof a ®rst-hand witness with the detachment of a scientist. Probably, his training as achemist contributed to Levi's sobriety of style, lucidity, and accuracy, features whichdistinguish his writing. Thanks to its expressive form, events and experiences whichwould be virtually impossible to recount in other ways are made more accessible andcomprehensible by Levi's testimony (Langer, 1991, 1995). Historians and sociol-ogists, in their objectifying way, cannot adequately represent phenomena such asbanishment and extermination; only the subjectivity of ®rst-hand experience canreally put such things across (Terni, 1991). It is precisely this subjectivity in Levi'saccount which makes it so precious for social psychologists whose main interest isindividuals' perception of the situation in which they ®nd themselves. A furtherreason for using Levi's book is given by its status as a `social object'. It enjoyedimmense success and was widely translated, provoking a great deal of reaction fromreaders in various countries (on this count, see Levi's comments on the reactions inGermany to If This is a Man in The Drowned and the Saved published in 1986; see alsocontributions by Woolf, 1991, and Stille, 1991, on the popularity of Levi's works inBritain and the USA). This testimony, therefore, has a great in¯uence on theconstruction of collective memory and thus fully satis®es the criteria of universality,popularity and availability often proposed for the choice of texts for content analysis(cf. Brislin, 1980).

Historically, it was in clinical and dynamic studies that the psychological aspects oflife in concentration camps have been examined. Some authors, e.g. Bettelheim (1952,1960), Cohen (1954) and Frankl (1947), using their personal experience and profes-sional training, have created a corpus of knowledge and observations for the study ofthe psychological processes connected with the genocide of European Jews. Oneexample of the fruitfulness of such testimony is Bettelheim's concept of extremesituations. `We ®nd ourselves in an extreme situation when we are suddenly catapultedinto a series of conditions where our adaptive mechanisms and former values are nolonger valid; moreover, some of them may even put the very lives they were meant toprotect in jeopardy. We ®nd ourselves, so to speak, stripped of our entire defencesystem and hurled down to the bottom again. We have to construct a new system ofconduct, values and lifestyles which suit the new situation' (Bettelheim, 1952).

Later, in the literature of clinical psychology and that of psychoanalytic orientationin particular, the term `extreme situation' was taken up again by various authors, whoused it in a broader sense to indicate traumatic situations in which the defensivebarrier of the Ego is defeated. Here, we will use the term with the meaning indicatedby Kijak & Funtowicz (1982), who proposed to limit its application to thosesituations in which the following conditions are jointly met:

(1) Finding oneself in a completely unknown situation without any precedent inone's previous history

(2) When other human beings are responsible for the su�ering(3) Undergoing aggression which, being legally justi®ed, creates guilt feelings in the

victim(4) Undergoing almost unbearable physical and psychological pain(5) Being a constant eyewitness to fatal torture and deliberate killing

Social psychology of extreme situations 241

(6) Being left in complete isolation, separated from one's family without anyknowledge of their fate

(7) Undergoing a complete change of environment(8) Perceiving no temporal limit to the existing situation(9) Undergoing a total loss of human and legal rights

(10) Having no chance to react against the aggressors(11) Being obliged, in order to survive, to behave in ways which would be

unthinkable in normal times.

In the clinical approach, a great deal of research has been devoted to theconsequences of such experiences for the survivors. The focus was ®rst placed on themedical and forensic-medical after-e�ects; later, the psychosomatic and psycho-pathological consequences experienced by survivors were investigated; lastly, thepsychological complaints su�ered by members of the second generation were studied(Chodo�, 1997; Devoto, 1985).

Comparatively few studies examine the behaviour of the prisoners and Nazis in theconcentration camps2, nor do they include theoretical re¯ections on the Holocaustand its wider meaning (Marcus & Wineman, 1985). The reasons for this lie, to someextent, in the methodological di�culties involved, but also probably in a generaldesire to remove the more dramatic and disturbing aspects of the recent past.

After the tragic events of the Second World War, social psychology also faced theproblem of evil (Alford, 1997; Darley, 1992), seen as the will to destroy other humanbeings, following Staub's (1989) de®nition. As an extreme example of such aphenomenon, the extermination of European Jews has given rise to works which havebecome `classics' within the discipline. The ®rst in order of time was the work ofAdorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford (1950), which identi®ed the originsof anti-Semitism in the authoritarian personality structure which characterizesindividuals who have received a repressive education, with little or no attention paidto a�ective development. The extensive empirical research, by means of which theauthors corroborated their hypothesis, provoked various theoretical and empiricalobjections, which have not, however, substantially undermined the validity of theresults obtained (cf. Brown, 1965; Brewster Smith, 1997).

A second attempt to examine the social behaviour to be found in extreme situationswas made by Milgram (1974), who maintained that the destruction of the Jewsconstitutes the example par excellence of an immoral act carried out in the name ofobedience to an authority perceived as legitimate. As is well known, Milgram'sconclusions were that most individuals are ready to obey orders which may even causeacute su�ering in defenceless victims if the order is given by a source perceived asauthoritative and expert. AlthoughMilgram's work had a mixed reception (cf. Miller,1986), in the course of time its results have proved to be reliable and repeatable.3

Milgram himself, and more recently Bauman (1989), attributed the harsh reactionwhich the publication received as an attitude of resistance towards the assertion thatordinary men might actively contribute to acts of extermination and genocide.

2The analysis of coping strategies in situation of massive stress identi®ed by Dimsdale (1974) and the studyof survival factors of which Des Pres (1976) and Friedlander & Milton (1983) are exceptions.3Levels of obedience similar to those found in the original study were found in Germany (Mantell, 1971),Italy (Ancona & Pareyson, 1971), Australia (Kilham & Mann, 1974), and Jordania (Shanab & Yahya,1977, 1978). On the importance of Milgram's work, see the entire Journal of Social Issues, 51, 3, 1995.

Other authors extended the ecological validity of Milgram's conclusions. Kelman(1973) studied the role of the loss of restraint in sanctioned massacres identifying threeprocessesÐroutinization, dehumanization, authorizationÐas mediating the part-icipation in acts of genocide. Kelmann & Hamilton (1989) have also tried to clarifythe processes of loss of responsibility in the military and bureaucratic apparatuses ofthe modern world.

Zimbardo (1969) explored a di�erent direction (cf. Haney, Banks & Zimbardo,1973) and, resuming Le Bon's ideas on crowd behaviour, studied deindividuation as asituation which is conducive to the outbreak of aggressive behaviour. In thedeindividuation process, the ability of self-observation and the individual's interest insocial comparison diminish. Similarly, self-control based on social emotions, such asguilt, shame and fear, weakens and the inhibitors which put a brake on the expressionof destructive behaviour also tend to yield. Zimbardo's theory led to various studies,but also gave rise to much criticism. In the last few years, an alternative model hasbeen advanced, the social identity model of deindividuation, which, in contrast to thetraditional one, emphasizes the role played by collective identities in the constructionof the behaviour in question (Reicher, Spears & Postmes, 1995).

Social psychology has thus tried to identify dispositional and situational factorswhich cause the weakening of the sense of responsibility in ordinary men and facilitatetheir participation in pogroms and genocide. The social psychological ®ndingsconverge with the results of historical research (Browning, 1992; Goldhagen, 1996;Lifton, 1986) to con®rm, on the one hand, Hannah Arendt's famous thesis on thebanality of evil, and, on the other, the centrality of the process of socialization indoing evil (Darley, 1992).

Social psychologists have focused their attention mainly on the analysis of theperpetrators. Less attention has been paid to the victims, an issue which is somehowdelegated to clinical psychology, as if individualistic and dynamic perspectives weremore suitable for examining the behaviour of a person who su�ers an extremesituation. Thus, social aspects of life in the camps, the social components of beha-viour of adaptation and resistance, the e�ects on the victims' identity have receivedcomparatively little attention. Go�man (1961) represents an exception in this regard.In his analysis of total institutions, such as prisons and concentration camps, theauthor ponders the process of institutionalization, which, in its various phases(morti®cation, knowledge of the system of privileges, and the search for copingstrategies), recalls the process of those who, having survived the ®rst selection, thenbegan their harsh lives in Auschwitz. The originality of Go�man's contribution lies,in particular, in identifying the connections and similarities between institutionswhich form part of the everyday landscape of civilized societies and those typical ofextreme situations, thus pointing out their continuity.

More recent social psychological studies, by contrast, have devoted less attention tosocial behaviour in extreme situations (Lutsky, 1995), although there appears to berenewed interest in the topic (cf., for instance, a section of the ®rst issue of PoliticalPsychology of 1997, dedicated to the causes and consequences of the Holocaust). Inthe last ten years, the most substantial contribution has been that made by Staub(1989, 1990) on genocide. The author reviews some historical examples of thephenomenon such as the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis, the Armenians bythe Turks, the Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, and the mass `disappearances'carried out by the Argentinean dictatorship. Staub identi®es the causes of genocide in

the combination of certain cultural and social features with particularly di�cultconditions of life which leads individuals to concentrate on their own need forsurvival and to discharge their hostility against external elements. He emphasizes theprogression along a continuum of destruction: there would seem to besuccessive downward slides from a lack of opposition to slight negative signs towardsa given outgroup to the fall of inhibitions towards acts of violence and the acceptanceof mass homicide.

Staub (1989, 1990) uses an interpersonal type of analysis (Doise, 1982), whereasBar-Tal (1989), on the same issue, employs an intergroup one to study the processesof delegitimization which consist of the classi®cation of a social group into extremelynegative and conspicuous categories, not usually applied to human beings. Thisresults in the permanent exclusion of the delegitimized group, which is thus placedoutside the circle of groups one is allowed to have contact with. This type of exclusionis marked by intense, negative emotions and governed by precise social norms. Thesecognitive and a�ective components are combined with extremely negative forms ofbehaviour which may even lead to the annihilation of the delegitimized group.

According to Bar-Tal (1989), the origins of delegitimization lie in the desire toelevate or di�erentiate one's own group or exploit an outside group, or in situations ofviolent intergroup con¯ict. Moreover, delegitimization has a number of functions: itjusti®es extremely negative forms of behaviour, allows radical intergroup di�eren-tiation, and enables the ingroup to express its feelings of superiority and have auniform view of the delegitimized group. In a later work (Bar-Tal, 1990), the authorshows how this pattern is particularly appropriate to the way the Nazi regimedelegitimized Jewish groups before and during the Second World War.

Staub and Bar-Tal too, however, study the phenomena from the aggressor's pointof view, by examining antecedents, motives and causes which might lead individualsand groups to carry out extreme acts against members of a given outgroup. Our work,on the other hand, favours the viewpoint of those who su�er the delegitimization oftheir own group, and become the victims of genocide. The aims of the present workare to explore and describe the forms of interpersonal and intergroup behaviourwhich occur in extreme situations, and interpret this behaviour using socialpsychological models.

The ®rst aim is based on our belief in the need to further our psycho-socialknowledge of human behaviour in extreme situations and that such rigorousdescriptions are an indispensable step in that direction. Once all the facts have beenmapped out in detail, we may then proceed to the analysis and classi®cation whichclarify the similarities and di�erences between various situations (Moscovici, 1989).

Underlying the second aim is the assumption that some of the theories and modelsdeveloped in social psychology may be usefully employed to explain social behaviourin extreme situations. We refer in particular to the social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel,1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) which interprets intergroup phenomena in an organicframework. According to this theory, social interaction may be placed along aninterpersonal/intergroup continuum. The interpersonal extremity contains thoseencounters where participants interact solely on the basis of their personal character-istics; whereas at the intergroup pole, we ®nd relations based entirely on membershipof a given category. All common human relationships are to be found within thiscontinuum. However, types of behaviour placed at or near the extremes correspondmore to the need for theoretical classi®cation and are unlikely to be found in reality,

although Tajfel (1981) points out that one is more likely to encounter behaviourwhich is near the intergroup extreme than that which is close to the interpersonal one.In social situations near the intergroup pole, the behaviour of members of one grouptowards members of a countergroup will be substantially uniform and there will be atendency to treat members of the outgroup as undi�erentiated elements of a singlecategory, without recognizing the di�erences which exist between individuals. WhatLevi describes is an example of this type of social situation where abusive andoppressive behaviours develop, emphasizing group membership and totally e�acingindividual characteristics.

Based on the assumption of a fundamental need for positive social identity, SITdescribes the strategies which members of various social groups enact in order toachieve, maintain, or strengthen a positive social identity. The strategies followed bymembers of low status social groups to improve their situation might be individual(exit, passing, assimilation) or collective (social change and social competition) (Lalonde& Cameron, 1994; Moghaddam & Perreault, 1992; van Knippenberg & Ellemers,1993; Wright, Taylor & Moghaddam, 1990). However, the concentration campsituation, marked by impermeable social boundaries and perceived as illegitimate, butstructurally stable, bymembers of the oppressed group, would not allow the enactmentof positive strategies such as those mentioned above. For the majority of the prisoners,the only possibility was passive acceptance of the negative social identity, whichcannot lead to processes of outgroup favouritism, as happens in situations of seriousbut not extreme inequality. The situation Levi describes has received little attentionfrom social psychologists, but we feel that a careful analysis of this testimony can giveuseful insights into the heuristic value of SIT even in extreme situations.

Thus, a third aim emerges: to generate insights and research hypotheses on thecognitive and a�ective processes which underlie human behaviour in extremesituations. As McGuire (1997) has recently pointed out, social psychologists focustheir attention almost entirely on hypothesis-testing issues to the neglect ofhypothesis-generating issues. But topics such as the one under investigation, on thecontrary, require theoretical re¯ection which can produce new perspectives. Accord-ing to Moscovici (1986), literary texts are rich in observations and comments whichre¯ect the implicit theories of their authors. It might be useful to reconstruct suchtheories not only from the point of view of literary criticism, but also from a scienti®cperspective, because these theories may contain original solutions to hithertounresolved problems. An analysis of the observations contained in If This Is A Manand its underlying psychological and social theories may therefore reveal unusual orsimply neglected aspects of human conduct.

METHOD

If This is a Man was submitted to a quantitative content analysis, which allowed us tosummarize the data in a contingency table, on which correspondence analysis wasthen carried out. In the analysis, all the interpersonal and intergroup relationshipsdescribed in the text were coded into 17 pairs (ten other pairs coded in the contentanalysis were excluded from the multivariate analysis because they appeared in lessthan four interactions).

As can be seen from Table 1, in most cases the couple summarizes the relationsbetween two social groups and also indicates the direction (for example, Nazis vsHaÈftlinge4 describes the Nazis' behaviour towards the prisoners, while HaÈftlinge vsNazis describes the prisoners' behaviour towards the Nazis). Sometimes, however, itproved impossible to indicate the direction precisely. It is no mere accident that thishappened for types of behaviour nearest to the interpersonal pole of Tajfel'scontinuum in pairs such as HaÈftlinge vs HaÈftlinge and Levi vs HaÈftlinge (at aninterpersonal level) where the behaviour occurs within the group of detainees,regardless of direction. We also deemed it necessary to distinguish the protagonist'sbehaviour; thus the ®fth pair takes account of times when Levi extricates himself fromhis condition to observe his fellow prisoners as a whole and judges them detachedlyfrom the outside. The seventh pair, on the other hand, groups together all theinteractions between one prisoner and another, regardless of the direction. SmallGroup vs Small Group indicates the behaviour of the various subgroups of prisoners,distinguished by national characteristics (Jews, Greeks, Greek Jews, etc.), familymembership (e.g. the Gattegno family described in the ®rst chapter) or situationalfactors (sick prisoners admitted to the clinic). Small Group vs Other HaÈftlinge gatherstogether the behaviour of one subgroup towards other detainees. It was used inparticular to describe the relations between the group of prisoners in Levi's hut andthe other prisoners left in the camp during the ten days between the Germans'withdrawal and the arrival of the Russians.

The coding units were determined using Triandis' (1964) de®nition of `socialbehaviour' as `a situation in which someone does something to or with another'.Following Pepitone and Triandis (1987), however, this de®nition was extended toinclude thoughts, emotions and intuitions so long as they were rendered explicit. As inprevious studies (Adamopoulos, 1982; Contarello & Volpato, 1991; Volpato &Contarello, 1995), the author's lexical choice was respected as far as possible in theidenti®cation of categories; synonyms were placed in the same category and evenlengthy paragraphs describing the same behaviour were condensed into a single unitof analysis. As can be seen from Table 2, ninety-one units emerged from the analysis.

Coding was carried out by the ®rst author of the present paper. Two months later,the reliability was checked by measuring the long-term `stability' as indicated byKrippendorf (1980). To this end, the percentage agreement index was used(Na/Na � Nd� 100, where Na is the number of agreements between the twocodings and Nd the number of disagreements) as well as Cohen's (1960) K index. The

Table 1. Couples used in the analysis of If This is a Man

1 Nazis vs HaÈ ftlinge 10 Kapos vs HaÈ ftlinge2 Small Group vs Small Group 11 HaÈ ftlinge vs Kapos3 HaÈ ftlinge vs Nazis 12 Kapos vs Nazis4 Small Group vs Other HaÈ ftlinge 13 Kapos vs Levi5 Levi vs HaÈ ftlinge (Intergroup level) 14 Kapos vs Civilians6 Haftlinge vs HaÈ ftlinge 15 Fascist vs Levi7 Levi vs HaÈ ftlinge (Interpersonal level) 16 Civilians vs Levi8 Civilians vs HaÈ ftlinge 17 Levi vs Civilians9 HaÈ ftlinge vs Civilians

4We decided to maintain the German word HaÈ ftlinge (prisoners) used by Levi to indicate the threecategories of prisoners in the camp: criminals, politicals, Jews (which constituted the majority group).

result was an agreement index of 97.8 per cent and a K coe�cient of 0.91, valueswhich, according to Fleiss (1981), may be considered `excellent'. The 91� 17contingency table was then submitted to correspondence analysis (Benzecri et al.,1976), following the SPAD package (Lebart & Morineau, 1985).

To give a full account of the richness of Levi's work and ensure no precioussuggestionsÐall too easily lost in quantitative analysisÐwere overlooked, a second

Table 2. Categories used in the analysis of If This is a Man

1 Capture, Arrest, Intern 47 Feel/express sadness, pain2 Interrogate 48 Feel/express friendship3 Order 49 Feel/express envy4 Threaten, Insult 50 Feel/express fear, panic, terror5 Live together, Do things together 51 Feel/express hate6 Pray with 52 Feel/express disdain7 Cry for 53 Feel/express lack of concern8 Share, Have solidarity with 54 Feel/express reliance, con®dence9 Ask 55 Feel/express curiosity10 Answer 56 Feel/express joy11 Deport 57 Feel/express kindness, courtesy12 Beat, Hit, Strike 58 Feel/express gratitude13 Think of, Study, Examine 59 Feel/express admiration14 Look at, Observe 60 Feel/express disappointment15 Argue, Struggle with 61 Be at mercy of16 Know, Be related with 62 Reproach17 Self-disclosure 63 Work with18 Greet, Thank 64 Show o� zeal, display fervour19 Look for 65 Damage, A�ront20 Select 66 Congratulate, Wish21 Kill 67 Exchange, Bargain22 Help, Lend, Give 68 Be silent with23 Depart 69 Collaborate24 Rob, Steal, Cheat 70 Sleep with25 Mock, Tease 71 Favour, Protect26 Incite, Urge, Advice 72 Discuss27 Ignore, Avoid, Not answer 73 Deceive28 Speak, Talk with, Converse 74 Judge negatively29 Obey 75 Feel/express a�ection30 Compel, Oblige 76 Be servile31 Conjecture, Make plans with 77 Save32 Reassure 78 Apologize with33 Refuse 79 Perceive the other as an enemy34 Inform, Say, Explain 80 Feel/express commiseration35 Avert gaze 81 Perceive homogeneity36 Forbid 82 Have no solidarity with37 Render account 83 Feel/express compassion38 Hug 84 Acknowledge a man in other39 Remember 85 Choose40 Welcome 86 Feel/express embarrassment41 Feel/express astonishment 87 Resist42 Feel/express anger, irritation 88 Feel/express sympathy43 Feel/express relief 89 Propose44 Feel/express respect 90 Reward45 Feel/express shame 91 Dismiss, Reject46 Feel/express contempt

exclusively qualitative content analysis was carried out. By means of this analysis, wetried to summarize Levi's testimony of the dehumanization and delegitimizationprocesses to test a possible correspondence between social psychology theories andthe victims'experience.

RESULTS

Quantitative Analysis

The Dimensions of Behaviour

Of the sixteen factors produced by the correspondence analysis carried out on thedata which emerged from the quantitative analysis, ®ve factors will be discussed. Theyaccount for 52.96 per cent of the total inertia and are followed, at a distance, byfactors which account for similar portions of inertia (see Table 3).

The ®rst factor, which accounts for 13.80 per cent of inertia, contrasts thebehaviour of the HaÈ ftlinge towards the Nazis with that of the Nazis and the Kapostowards the HaÈ ftlinge. The prisoners' behaviour is marked by their awareness ofbeing entirely at the mercy of the enemy, which is seen as an all-pervading fear andpassive obedience, albeit with one heroic attempt at resistance which ends tragically.The feelings which emerge are amazement at the unspeakable events, momentaryrelief and anger. By contrast, the Nazis' and Kapos' behaviour towards the HaÈ ftlingecan be identi®ed as command, bullying and absolute power over the others. Therelational picture here is bereft of feeling and lacks even the mere chance of humancontact. This factor outlines a dimension of status and destructive power character-ized by behaviour of subordination at one extreme and superordination at the other.Accounting for 13.21 per cent of the total inertia, the second factor contrasts, at oneextreme, the three intergroup relations taken from the ®rst factor, i.e. HaÈ ftlinge vsNazis, Nazis vs HaÈ ftlinge and Kapos vs HaÈ ftlinge, with the relationships Levi haswith his fellow-prisoners on an individual basis, at the other extreme. The former arecharacterized by the types of subordination and superordination behaviourmentioned above, revealing how the total asymmetry as regards status and powerreaches a point where the other person is reduced to nothing. Levi's relations with hisfellow-prisoners, on the other hand, is marked by cooperation, sharing, mutual aidand the exchange of words, warnings and con®dences. This factor seems thus tore¯ect the interpersonal/intergroup continuum which Tajfel suggests to describesocial behaviour. In the present case, the interpersonal behaviour is positive andexpresses ties of intimacy and equal status, support and trust, whereas the intergroupbehaviour is negative and expresses a sharp asymmetry with overpowering andattempts to adapt or resist.

The third factor (9.25 per cent of inertia) contrasts the behaviour of the HaÈ ftlingetowards two di�erent outgroups: Kapos and civilians, and Nazis. The ®rst pole isassociated with attempts at ingratiation with Kapos and civilians occupying variousroles in the camp. These consist of displays of zeal and the exchange of goods orservices, accompanied, however, by the awareness of being at their mercy and feelingsof disappointment and embarrassment. Herewewitness an attempt by the prisoners toestablish some form of personal contact, albeit necessarily asymmetrical, with civilians

Table 3. Correspondence analysis

Positive pole coord ctr cor Negative pole coord ctr cor

(a) First factor (I%� 13.80)HaÈ ftlinge/Nazis 3.41 52.9 0.57 Nazis/HaÈ ftlinge ÿ1.14 16.9 0.30

Kapos/HaÈ ftlinge ÿ1.15 16.6 0.29Obey 3.94 16.5 0.55 Order ÿ1.12 9.4 0.47F/e fear 3.94 12.4 0.55 Capture ÿ1.93 5.0 0.08Resist 3.94 8.3 0.55 Beat ÿ1.32 5.6 0.36F/e astonish. 3.94 4.1 0.55 Compel ÿ1.18 5.2 0.20F/e relief 3.94 4.1 0.55 Select ÿ1.31 2.8 0.19Be at mercy 2.70 3.9 0.36 Kill ÿ1.31 2.8 0.19F/e anger 2.09 2.3 0.61Ask 0.66 2.5 0.46

(b) Second factor (I%� 13.21)HaÈ ftlinge/Nazis 2.87 38.9 0.40 Levi/HaÈ ftlinge ÿ0.54 12.7 0.37Nazis/HaÈ ftlinge 1.06 15.5 0.26Kapos/HaÈ ftlinge 1.07 14.9 0.25Obey 3.38 12.7 0.40 Speak ÿ0.52 2.2 0.41F/e fear 3.38 9.5 0.40 Collaborate ÿ0.66 2.2 0.22Order 1.02 8.1 0.38 Share ÿ0.71 1.8 0.12Resist 3.38 6.4 0.40 Inform ÿ0.51 1.6 0.30Capture 1.98 5.5 0.09 Help ÿ0.45 1.3 0.08Beat 1.26 5.3 0.33 Self-disclose ÿ0.64 1.0 0.18Compel 1.10 4.7 0.18F/e astonish. 3.38 3.2 0.40F/e relief 3.38 3.2 0.40Select 1.25 2.6 0.17Kill 1.25 2.6 0.17F/e disapp. 1.86 1.9 0.17

(c) Third factor (I%� 9.25)HaÈ ftlinge/Kapos 4.65 77.4 0.83 HaÈ ftlinge/Nazis ÿ0.83 4.7 0.03HaÈ ftlinge/Civ. 1.69 11.3 0.20Deceive 2.93 20.6 0.79 Obey ÿ1.17 2.2 0.05Show of zeal 6.55 34.1 0.79 F/e fear ÿ1.17 1.6 0.05F/e disapp. 6.55 17.1 0.79Be at mercy 2.69 5.7 0.36Exchange 0.77 3.5 0.36F/e embarrass. 2.37 2.2 0.12Ask 0.38 1.3 0.15

(d) Fourth factor (I%� 8.75)Kapos/HaÈ ftlinge 0.67 8.9 0.10 Fascists/Levi ÿ7.18 86.8 0.84Order 0.57 3.9 0.12 Capture ÿ5.97 75.0 0.80Compel 0.81 3.9 0.10 Interrogate ÿ1.93 7.8 0.39Beat 0.77 3.0 0.12

(e) Fifth factor (I%� 7.96)Levi/HaÈ ftlinge 0.19 2.6 0.04 S.G./HaÈ ftlinge ÿ4.24 91.4 0.94Speak 0.25 0.8 0.09 Dismiss ÿ6.43 38.3 0.93Inform 0.27 0.7 0.08 F/e curiosity ÿ6.43 19.1 0.93F/e friendship 0.30 0.4 0.05 Have no solid. ÿ6.43 19.1 0.93Look at 0.18 0.4 0.03 Rob ÿ0.89 3.0 0.22Ask 0.21 0.4 0.05 F/e contempt ÿ0.94 2.9 0.38Compel 0.25 0.4 0.05 Damage ÿ1.01 2.9 0.48

Ignore ÿ0.84 2.3 0.39Greet ÿ0.64 1.5 0.14Mock ÿ0.46 1.2 0.18

and Kapos. At the opposite extreme, by contrast, lacking even the least possibility ofrecognition by the outgroup, the usual behaviours of fear and obedience emerge.

The fourth factor (8.75 per cent of inertia) contrasts the Kapos' behaviour towardsthe HaÈ ftlinge with that of the Fascists towards Levi. The Kapos' behaviour is brutalsince they act as the driving belt for the machinery of extermination. The Fascists'behaviour concern Levi's capture and interrogation and may be placed near theintergroup pole of Tajfel's continuum.

Finally, the ®fth factor (7.96 per cent of inertia) concerns two groupings within theworld of the prisoners. The ®rst pole is illustrated by the relationships between Leviand his fellow-prisoners and feature the constituent elements of interpersonalrelations. The second concerns the particular groups of prisoners, such as the Greekand Italian Jews, the Poles, the small group which formed in Levi's hut after theGermans had ¯ed, towards the other detainees. The behaviour of these groups ischaracterized by the desire to ignore outsiders or keep them at a distance, a lack ofsolidarity towards them together with curiosity and scorn at the a�ective level anddamage, theft and derision in terms of behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis

Dehumanization and Delegitimization

What emerges from Levi's account is the isolation of the individual within the con-centration camp. Each prisoner is alone; their previous identity becomes meaninglessand only a small minority can refer back to group membership. Interpersonalrelationships of considerable depth survive, but few are lucky enough to have theopportunity or the ability to form them. The others know only `the struggle for life . . .reduced to its primordial mechanism' (p. 94), interwoven with strategies for individualsocial mobility in which only the ®ttest have a real chance of survival. These areusually the worst in human terms, the utterly sel®sh, capable of exploiting theirfellow-prisoners even to their death.

Camp life takes place inside watertight compartments. No change of category ispossible. The groups were impermeable aggregates, marked by `caste barriers'(p. 126). The loss of the human condition and its reappearance with the oppressors'withdrawal are shown by the disappearance and re-emergence of group ties. Thegroup of unlucky travelling companions, which is a reference point and source ofsupport during the journey to Auschwitz, is deliberately broken up by the Germanson their arrival at the camp. Any attempt to preserve those ties soon fails in the face ofthe atrocity of the situation: `We Italians had decided to meet every Sunday evening ina corner of the Lager, but we stopped it at once, because it was too sad to count ournumbers and ®nd fewer each time, and to see each other ever more deformed andmore squalid. And it was so tiring to walk those few steps and then, meeting eachother, to remember and to think. It was better not to think' (p. 43). But when there is aglimpse of a chance of revival, a small group forms again to unite the e�ort to tacklean emergency and defend its tiny resources against the faceless multitude of the otherdesperate prisoners. After the Germans' withdrawal, a united group is formed in theclinic occupied by Levi and ten other patients; forgotten acts which herald renewedinterest in others reappear along with the desire to know others' experiences and

emotions and the determination no longer to use others as a mere instrument forone's own survival.

In Levi's account, the group, or rather the small group, is the basic molecule forsocial life. Its disappearance indicates the breakdown of every component of civilizedlife; its reappearance shows the laborious attempt to reconstitute the ties of solidarity.

In the text, strong emphasis is placed on the `demolition of a man' (p. 32), in otherwords, on the process of dehumanization which reduces individuals to `dead men'(p. 57), `non-men who march and labour in silence' (p. 96), `in whose eyes not a traceof a thought is to be seen' (p. 96) whom `one hesitates to call . . . living: one hesitates tocall their death death, in the face of which they have no fear, as they are too tired tounderstand' (p. 96), because `the experience of someone who has lived for days duringwhich man was merely a thing, in the eyes of man is non-human' (p. 178).

The stages of dehumanization are marked by being physically stripped, theelimination of one's name, the tattoo on one's left arm, the cancellation of normalhuman relations (`if we speak, they will not listen to us, and if they listen, they will notunderstand' p. 33), the harsh and arbitrary rhythms of life (`go out and come in; work,sleep and eat; fall ill, get better or die' p. 42), the falling back on one's immediatephysical needs, the restricting of one's aims (`today, in this place, our only purpose isto reach the spring' p. 77), and the cancellation of every horizon, past and future. Inthis process, speechÐthe basic feature which distinguishes man from the animalsÐiseliminated. The language of Auschwitz is the `Lagerjargon', a rough, primitive slang,shouted more then talked, punctuated constantly with shoves, and derived from thecontamination of various di�erent languages.

`The work of bestial degradation' (p. 177) carried out by the Germans is describedfrom the point of view of the oppressed group, whose more perceptive members realizethat the Lager is à great machine to reduce us to beasts' (p. 47), as Sergeant Steinlaufinformed Levi on the latter's arrival at the camp. The text contains a great deal ofanimal imagery. The prisoners are compared to `tired beasts' (p. 50), ànts' (p. 68), assheep hiding in the corners to protect themselves. The prisoners have `the opaquetorpor of beasts broken in by blows' (p. 124); they constitute a `silent, innumerable¯ock' (p. 125), àn abject ¯ock' (p. 155) re-echoing with di�erent tongues which to thecivilians sound as `grotesque as animal noises' (p. 127). The most exhausted prisonersremind Levi of `sledge-dogs in London's books, who slave until the last breath and dieon the track' (p. 49); they are `nothing more than an involucre, like the slough ofcertain insects one ®nds on the banks of swamps, held by a thread to the stones andshaken by the wind' (p. 48). The toughest prisoners, on the other hand, have `therudimentary astuteness of a draught-horse, which stops pulling a little before it reachesexhaustion' (p. 48); as such, they are beaten àlmost lovingly' by the better Kapos andthe blows are accompanied by èxhortations, as cart-drivers do with willing horses'(p. 73). The prisoner who is able to àrrange' matters and ®nds alternative means ofsupport for himself and his Kommando is likened to à bloodhound' who `has anastonishing nose for the soup of civilians, like bees for ¯owers' (p. 81), or anìchneumon' which `paralyses the great hairy caterpillar, wounding it in its onlyvulnerable ganglion' (p. 105). The prisoners' way of eating, òn our feet, furiously,burning our mouths and throats, without time to breathe, really is fressen, the way ofeating of animals, and certainly not essen, the human way of eating, seated in front of atable, religiously' (p. 82). The word fressen is the one most frequently used inAuschwitz. Again, in the description of `the human type most suited' for camp life, the

dwarf Elias, there are constant animal allusions (`bestial vigour', `climbs like amonkey', possesses `the deceitful bestiality' and `the instinctive astuteness of wildanimals' pp. 101±104). It is no coincidence that Levi wonders whether Elias is `amadman, incomprehensible and para-human' or `an atavism, di�erent from ourmodern world, and better adapted to the primordial conditions of camp life' (p. 103),using categories far removed from the human condition we consider normal.

The ultimate stage of dehumanization is epitomized by the ®gure of Null Achtzehn(Zero Eighteen), to whom everything is so indi�erent that he works without `troubl-ing to avoid tiredness and blows or to search for food' (p. 49). `He carries out all theorders that he is given and it is foreseeable that when they send him to his death he willgo with the same total indi�erence' (p. 49). At the collective level, it is expressed by theimage of the prisoners marching in the morning: `They are ten thousand and they area single grey machine; they are exactly determined; they do not think and they do notdesire, they walk' (p. 57).

Dehumanization originates from the delegitimization of the Jews by the Naziregime. Levi describes the consequences of the process not only for relations withinthe camp but also for those between prisoners and civilians. These two groups, onceagain, bear the hallmarks of impermeable aggregates with impenetrable con®nes.Members of the superior group tend to put the blame on those of the inferior one and,`mistaking the e�ect for the cause' (p. 127) judge the prisoners as a uniform outgroupworthy of their conditions. `Who could tell one of our faces from the other? For themwe are Kazett, a singular neutral word' (p. 127). The initials KZ, pronounced Ka-zett,is the colloquial German abbreviation of Konzentrationslager, concentration camp.The use of this term by civilians to indicate the prisoners shows how this group is seenin a homogeneous and uniform way, as an indistinct mass in which all traces ofindividuality have been obscured or lost. In the eyes of the civilians, the essentialhumanity of the prisoners fades to nothing and its disappearance justi®es thetreatment they receive. The cancellation of human characteristics is particularlyevident in the description of the encounter between Levi and Dr Pannwitz, who is tochoose prisoners for the Chemical Kommando. The look Dr Pannwitz gives Leviwith no recognition that the latter belongs to the same species indicates how even thevery basic elements of interpersonal relations have been undermined and distorted.`Because that look was not one between two men; and if I had known how completelyto explain that look, which came as if across the glass window of an aquariumbetween two beings who live in di�erent worlds, I would also have explained theessence of the great insanity of the third Germany' (pp. 111±112).

CONCLUSIONS

If This Is A Man allows the reader to observe an extreme situation from the point ofview of the members of the delegitimized group. The analysis of the text has highlightedcertain features of importance for social psychology, in particular, the principaldimensions underlying social behaviour in the concentration camp, which have beenidenti®ed by correspondence analysis. The ®rst factor expresses the power of destructionthat one group has over another. This feature occurs when the process ofdelegitimization of the outgroup is taken to its extremity. The second factor, which isjust as important as the ®rst in explained inertia, displays Tajfel's (1981) interpersonal/

intergroup continuum. The interpersonal pole contains relations on an equal basis whichare in some way intimate, whereas the intergroup pole is permeated by the explicit planof annihilation which determines the everyday relations of executioner and victim. Inextreme situations, the three dimensions of a�ect, intimacy and status which, accordingto Triandis (1978), underlie social relationships, appear to contract into a singlebi-polar axis in which intergroup relations are associated with extreme asymmetry ofstatus and the impossibility of human contact, while interpersonal relations areconnected to equal status and intimacy. Deprived of the space to express itself, thea�ective dimension virtually disappears in the world of the concentration camp.

The next two factors are expressed through intergroup relations, and particularlythose between prisoners and Kapos. The third describes the `grey area' of collabora-tion and comprises the prisoners' individual strategies to improve their personalconditions within the camp. The fourth consists of the brutal response by theirimmediate oppressors. Both factors portray situations with impenetrable boundariesbetween the groups, which the protagonists perceive as well-established in theirillegitimacy. The contamination and corruption perpetrated by the powers that beover the oppressed are especially highlighted.

The ®fth and ®nal dimension extracts, on one pole, the relationship between Leviand other prisoners and, on the other, the relations between small groups and singleprisoners. These groups consciously or unconsciously try to preserve or re-establishsome form of collective identity also at the expenses of individuals who are cast awayor crushed. This factor prompts further thought on one aspect which has receivedlittle attention from social psychologists: the contrast between the individual and thegroup. As Sherif (1966) explains, con¯icts and exclusions are caused by material needsalso in extreme situations. Overall, our results give great importance to the statusdimension, which permeates almost all the relationships illustrated. The dimensionsof a�ect and intimacy, on the other hand, ®nd little expression. The former consistsonly of the negative tones of hate and rejection, while the latter is barely present in thefew interpersonal relations that are still possible. As we have already seen, theinterpersonal/intergroup continuum is clearly visible. In the text, in particularrelationships near to the intergroup pole of Tajfel's continuum are described; thestrict social categorization of the camp eliminates the presence of the individual. Yetagain, Levi's words sum up the situation more e�ectively: `And on the sca�olding, onthe trains being switched about, on the roads, in the pits, in the o�ces, men and moremen, slaves and masters, the masters slaves themselves. Fear motivates the former,hatred the latter, all other forces are silent. All are enemies or rivals' (p. 48).

As far as the relations between the various groups in the camp are concerned, itshould be noted that the extreme situation, by its very nature, does not permit the use ofpositive strategies to improve social identity by members of the oppressed group,because it denies the very possibility of developing alternative solutions to the statusquo. In the lager, everything is concentrated around the need to survive, and identityprocesses are reduced to the minimum. The yawning gap between dominant anddominated groups makes any comparison between them unimaginable. The prisoners'opportunities for movement are extremely slight. The perception of instability,perhaps the most important factor a�ecting the voice strategyÐsharpness of groupde®nitions, impossibility of personal movement, perception of illegitimacy andinstability of dominant powerÐis absent. Neither is the sharpness of group de®nitionstaken for granted; in the camps, in fact, social relations become indecipherable for the

most part to the prisoners. According to Levi, `we' becomes devoid of meaning,breaking up into the perception of many fuzzy boundaries, since membership of theoppressed group is dictated by external criteria de®ned by the oppressors. Levidescribes only one isolated episodeÐwhich proves fatalÐof active resistance, thatcould be interpreted as social change. Otherwise all the victims' strategies amount toindividual attempts to improve their condition, such as trying to ingratiate themselveswith civilians and Kapos to obtain food or protection. The only other strategy Levimentions consists of the attempt to enact a working role similar to the one held beforeinternment. Such a solution provides a chance of safety not only because to carry out aparticular job in the camp objectively improves one's own living conditions, but alsobecause it prevents total destruction of one's individuality in the anonymous mass ofthe HaÈ ftlinge and allows one to maintain some trace of one's former image of oneself.

The qualitative analysis has highlighted the phenomena of dehumanization anddelegitimization which recall Go�man's (1961) description of total institutions. Suchphenomena are closely linked; they combine to e�ace, in the eyes of the oppressor,the victims membership of the human race, thus making possible their extermina-tion. In the text, the process of `bestialization' put into e�ect by the Nazis isdescribed with great clarity and apparent detachment; the obsessive use of animalimagery in Levi's descriptions of prisoners give us insight into the way dehuman-ization permeates even the detainees' perception of themselves and causes theintrojection of categories and patterns imposed by the oppressor. The use of the verbfressen for the act of eating is an example of how the dominant group uses andimposes terms, in reference to the minority group, which are not usually applied tohumans but only to animals.

In most cases, the problems which arise can be convincingly interpreted in the lightof models developed by social psychological research, for example, the interpersonal/intergroup continuum mentioned above, the homogeneity of the outgroup (Mullen &Hu, 1989) described in the Results section, and the absence of collective strategies ofimprovement of social identity.

Thus, the ®rst two aims of the present work have been ful®lled: we have obtained adescription of the interpersonal and intergroup behaviour within the concentrationcamp based on the account of a reliable and authoritative witness; this behaviour hasbeen analysed from the viewpoint of social psychology with particular reference to thetheory of social identity.

From the study some indications with regard to the third aim also emerge. Theanalysis of Levi's text reveals some themes, however, which require further theoreticalexamination. For example, in If This is a Man, the concept of dehumanization isbroader than that normally used in social psychology. It includes the loss ofindividual characteristics not only by members of the persecuted group but also by allthose involved in the camp. Each social actor appears to be so rigidi®ed in theirmembership of a social category that they have completely sacri®ced their indi-viduality: `The personages in these pages are not men. Their humanity is buried, orthey themselves have buried it, under an o�ence received or in¯icted on someone else.The evil and insane SS men, the Kapos, the politicals, the criminals, the prominents,great and small, down to the indi�erent slave HaÈ ftlinge, all the grades of the madhierarchy created by the Germans paradoxically fraternized in a uniform internaldesolation' (p. 127±128). In Levi's eyes, dehumanization a�ects both victim andoppressor because all those involved in extreme situations undergo a tragic and often

permanent impoverishment of their own personality. It is di�cult, perhaps impossibleeven, to tell whether this is due to the fact that the account is told from the victim'spoint of view or whether the fact of not seeing in the other person a human being alsodestroys the humanity of the perceiver.

Another aspect to explore concerns the creation and extinction of group ties andthe distinction between groups and social categories. In social psychology, it is thepractice to analyse the form and structure of a small group, taking for granted itspotential to exist. In Levi's account, the small group disappears during routine camplife and then reappears on a few occasions and after the Germans' withdrawal. As wehave already said, the small group seems to form the framework necessary to producepositive human relations, whereas its cancellation means the absolute paralysis ofcivilized life. Therefore, the physical existence of the small group cannot be taken forgranted in this context. Thus, the analysis of extreme situations prompts the socialpsychologist to re¯ect on the conditions which facilitate or impair the formation ofthe more usual types of relationships.

Another aspect which emerges from our reading of Levi's text is the distinctionbetween small and large groups, or rather, between face-to-face groups and broadersocial categories. According to the theory of social identity, the group is de®ned interms of membership and no distinction is made between small and large groupings.Levi's observations of Auschwitz point out that small groups succumb, but largecategories, with their impenetrable con®nes, continue to determine the lives of allthose present, a fact which should lead scholars to ponder the di�erent functionsunderlying various group formations.

Finally, the re¯ections on the `grey area', the `protekcja', and collaboration are ofgreat importance. Discussing them, in The Drowned and the Saved, Levi lays down asort of natural law: the greater the oppression, the more the oppressed appear to bewilling to collaborate with their oppressors. Such a statement might be useful as astarting hypothesis for research which further analyses situations which do not permitthe enactment of positive strategies to improve social identity. Even guilt-feelings, the`shame' of having survived felt by many prisoners (including Levi) after their release,might be read in a social psychology perspective as su�ering derived from theawareness of being compelled to live outside the human condition as it is commonlyintended, without the support of collective identi®cation and interpersonal solidarity;guilt-feelings due to the regret of being `renegades', without any will or opportunityfor choice; guilt-feelings at having obtained some degree of safety for their ownpersons but not for the group.

One ®nal point is this: Levi suggests that extreme situations may be used as a kindof litmus paper for understanding so-called normality. In other words, extremesituations may make crystal-clear certain processes underlying society which areconfused and hard to decipher in everyday life. For example, extreme situationshighlight the `ferocious law which states: ``to he that has, will be given; from he thathas not, will be taken away'' ' (p. 94). To this law may be ascribed the fact that thestrong, the astute and the ovebearing are held in high regard, while the weak aregenerally looked down on. `In history and in life one sometimes seems to glimpse[such] ferocious law' (p. 94), but is usually obscured by social instincts, habits andnorms which protect the weak.

In conclusion, our results produce a map of social behaviour in extreme situationsas viewed by an insightful member of the delegitimized group. Clearly, this

description should be complemented with other testimony as well as variousdocuments from the archives and compared to results obtained in other disciplines.Once this has been done, the process mentioned above might greatly enrich ourknowledge of extreme situations by increasing the data available for social psychologytheorization and contribute to keeping alive the memory and collective re¯ection ofthose extremes which mark the history of man.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the editor, Eddy Van Avermaet, and referees for their constructivecomments on a ®rst draft of the paper.

REFERENCES

Adamopoulos, J. (1982). Analysis of interpersonal structures in literary works of threehistorical periods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 157±168.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). Theauthoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

Alford, F. C. (1997). The political psychology of evil. Political Psychology, 18, 1±17.Ancona, L., & Pareyson, R. (1971). Contribution aÁ l'eÂ tude de l'agression. Dynamique del'obeÂ issance destructive. Bulletin de Psychologie, 25, 233±249.

Bar-Tal, D. (1989). Delegitimization: The extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice. InD. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglansk, & W. Stroebe (Eds), Stereotyping andprejudice. Changing conceptions. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs. A conception for analyzing group structure, processes, andbehavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and Holocaust. Oxford: Blackwell.Benzecri, J. P. et al. (1976). L'analyse des donneÂes. Vol. 2. L'analyse des correspondances. Paris:Dunod.

Bettelheim, B. (1952). Surviving and other essay. New York: Knopf.Bettelheim, B. (1960). The informed heart. Autonomy in mass age. Glencoe: The Free Press.Brewster Smith, M. (1997). The authoritarian personality: A re-review 46 years later. PoliticalPsychology, 18, 159±163.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis in oral and written material. In H. C.Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 2. Methodology,Boston: Allen & Bacon.

Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: The Free Press.Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary men: Reserve Police Battalion 101, and the ®nal solution inPoland. New York: HarperCollins.

Catani, M. (1995). Even if we were to tell it, we would not be believed: A lesson from the workof Primo Levi. Current Sociology, 43, 137±160.

Chodo�, P. (1997). The Holocaust and its e�ects on survivors: An overview. PoliticalPsychology, 18, 147±157.

Cohen, E. A. (1954). Human behaviour in the concentration camp. London: Jonathan Cape.Cohen, J. (1960). A coe�cient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 20, 37±46.

Contarello, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Images of friendship: Literary depictions through theages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 49±75.

Darley, J. M. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil. Psychological Inquiry, 3,199±218.

Des Pres, T. (1976). The survivor. An anatomy of life in the death camps. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Devoto, A. (1985). Il comportamento umano in condizioni estreme. Lo psicologo sociale e il lagernazista. Milan: Angeli.

Dimsdale, J. E. (1974). The coping behavior of nazi concentration camp survivors. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 131, 792±797.

Doise, W. (1982). L'explication en psychologie sociale. Paris: PUF.Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportion. New York: Wiley.Frankl, V. E. (1947). Ein Psycholog erlebt das K.Z. Wien.Friedlander, H., & Milton, S. (1983). Surviving. In A. Grobman & D. Landes (Eds), Genocide.Critical issues of the Holocaust. Los Angeles: Rossel Books.

Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psych-ology, 26, 309±320.

Go�man, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and otherinmates. New York: Doubleday.

Goldhagen, D. J. (1996). Hitler's willing executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.New York: Knopf.

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulatedprison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69±97.

Hirsch, G. (1995). Genocide and the politics of memory. Chapter Hill: The University of NorthCaroline Press.

Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Re¯ections on the dehumanization ofvictims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 4, 25±61.

Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. Toward a social psychology ofauthority and responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitterand executant roles in Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 29, 696±702.

Kijak, M., & Funtowicz, S. (1982). The syndrome of the survivors of extreme situations:De®nitions, di�culties, hypotheses. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 9, 25±33.

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.Lalonde, R. N., & Cameron, J. E. (1994). Behavioral responses to discrimination: A focus onaction. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds), The psychology of prejudice: The OntarioSymposium, Volume 7. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Langer, L. L. (1991). Holocaust testimonies. The ruins of memory. New Haven & London: YaleUniversity Press.

Langer, L. L. (1995). Admitting the Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lebart, L., & Morineau, A. (1985). Systeme portable pour l'analyse des donneÂes (SPAD). Paris:Cesia.

Levi, P. (1958). Se questo eÁ un uomo. Turin: Einaudi.Levi, P. (1986). I sommersi e i salvati. Turin: Einaudi.Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide.New York: Basic Books.

Lutsky, N. (1995). When is `obedience' obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary.Journal of Social Issues, 51, 3, 55±65.

Mantell, D. M. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 4,101±112.

Marcus, P., & Wineman, I. (1985). Psychoanalysis encountering the Holocaust. PsychoanalyticInquiry, 5, 85±98.

Martin, J., Scully, M., & Levitt, B. (1990). Injustice and the legitimation of revolution:Damning the past, excusing the present, and neglecting the future. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 59, 281±290.

McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: seven Koan. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446±456.

McGuire, W. J. (1994). Use of historical data in psychology: Comments on Munsterberg.Psychological Review, 101, 243±247.

McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics.Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1±30.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science.New York: Praeger.

Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1992). Individual and collective mobility strategies amongminority group members. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 343±357.

Moscovici, S. (1986). The Dreyfus a�air, Proust, and social psychology. Social Research, 52,23±56.

Moscovici, S. (1989). Preconditions for explanation in social psychology. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 19, 407±430.

Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analyticintegration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233±252.

Pepitone, A., & Triandis, H. C. (1987). On the universality of social psychological theories.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 471±498.

Quazza, G. (1991). Primo Levi letto da uno storico. In A. Cavaglion (Ed), Primo Levi. Ilpresente del passato. Milan: Angeli.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuationphenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of social psychology,Volume 6. New York: Wiley.

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1977). A behavioral study of obedience in children. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 35, 530±536.

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of thePsychonomic Society, 11, 267±269.

Sherif, M. (1966). Group con¯ict and cooperation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil. The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Staub, E. (1990). Genocide and mass killing: Cultural-societal and psychological origins. InH. T. Himmelweit & G. Gaskell (Eds), Societal psychology. London: Sage.

Stille, A. (1991). Primo Levi negli Stati Uniti. In A. Cavaglion (Ed.), Primo Levi. Il presente delpassato. Milan: Angeli.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup con¯ict. In G. Austin &S. Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Terni, M. (1991). Il romanzo della storia. Prometeo, 9, 42±49.Todorov, T. (1991). Face aÁ l'extreÃme. Paris: Seuil.Triandis, H. C. (1964). Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral component of attitudes.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 420±430.

Triandis, H. C. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 4, 1±16.

van Knippenberg, A. D., & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in intergroup relations. InM. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives.London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Volpato, C., & Contarello, A. (1995). Relations personnelles et culture: Une analyse de texteslitteÂ raires. Social Science Information, 34, 205±224.

Watson, R. I. (1973). Investigation in deindividuation using a cross-cultural survey technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 342±345.

Woolf, S. J. (1991). Primo Levi e il mondo anglosassone. In A. Cavaglion (Ed.), Primo Levi. Ilpresente del passato. Milan: Angeli.

Worchel, S., Coutant-Sassic, D., & Grossman, M. (1992). A developmental approach to groupdynamics: A model and illustrative research. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson(Eds), Group process and productivity. Newbury Park: Sage.

Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, M. (1990). Responding to membership in adisadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 58, 994±1003.

Wrightsman, L. S., & Deaux, K. (1981). Social psychology in the 80s. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindi-viduation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds), Nebraska Symposium onMotivation Vol. 17. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

primo levi 985

Documents

state vocational school for industry and craftsmanship the...

information systems for modern management, 1987, robert g...

affidavit of levi leipheimer -...

liceo "primo levi" di montebelluna · created date:...

primo levi, auschwitz survivor

primo levi - the drowned and the saved

primo levi and the chemistry of literature -...

implementing primo and primo central

primo 73 primo 75 primo 81 primo 91 primo 93 - msi usa ·...

cuaderns d'italià - 19 (2014) - per ricordare primo levi

web view“shoah” is a jewish word and it means...

also by primo levi survival if in auschwitz -...

università “primo levi” -...

per una traduzione dell’osetinskaja lira di kosta...

cosmic anger : abdus salam - the first muslim nobel...

memory, catastrophe and narratives of pain: primo levi,...

technology of war - mrs. mcgrew's...

centro primo levi new york september 24, 2016 printed...

i primi della classe istituto «primo levi» di...

carlo levi open day - scuola secondaria statale di primo...