No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cleansing and separating: From modern agriculture and genocide to post-separation era
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2021
Abstract
We propose that the metaphor of cleansing was a by-product of modernization processes. Based on cultural and historical evidence, we claim that the activation of cleansing metaphor triggered positive associations in times when separation was a positively regarded element of human culture and agriculture, but it should not exert the same effect in times when separation became culturally anachronistic.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandura, A. (2012). Moral disengagement. In Christie, D. J. (Ed.) The encyclopedia of peace psychology (pp. 1–5). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bilewicz, A. M. (2020). Beyond the modernisation paradigm: Elements of a food sovereignty discourse in farmer protest movements and alternative food networks in Poland. Sociologia Ruralis, 60, 754–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilewicz, M. (2019). Obedient authoritarians or lay Darwinists? Ideological motivations of genocide. In: Newman, L. (Ed.) Confronting humanity at its worst: Social psychological perspectives on genocide (pp. 29–61). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čehajić-Clancy, S. (2019). Perceptions of shared morality as an important socio-psychological mechanism for finding the common ground. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
Čehajić-Clancy, S., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). Appealing to moral exemplars: Shared perception of morality as an essential ingredient of intergroup reconciliation. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, O. F. (1916). Eugenics and agriculture. Journal of Heredity, 7(6), 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J. (2005). Racial encounter: The social psychology of contact and desegregation. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Gibbons, S. R. (2014). Our power to remodel civilization: The development of eugenic feminism in Alberta, 1909–1921. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 31(1), 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture. Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Holmgren Design Services.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. (1995). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (No. 95). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, B. A. (1983). The American Breeders’ Association: Genetics and eugenics in an agricultural context, 1903–13. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2018). Methodological deviation from the original experiment. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 605. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0403-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazoyer, M, & Roudart, L. (2006). A history of world agriculture. From the Neolithic age to the current crisis. Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
McAlister, A. L., Bandura, A., & Owen, S. V. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mingay, G. E. (1977). The agricultural revolution: Changes in agriculture, 1650–1880. A and C Black.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siev, J., Zuckerman, S. E., & Siev, J. J. (2018). The relationship between immorality and cleansing. Social Psychology, 49, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veteto, J. R., & Lockyer, J. (2008). Environmental anthropology engaging permaculture: Moving theory and practice toward sustainability. Culture & Agriculture, 30(1–2), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. J. (2016). Black youths, joblessness, and the other side of “Black Lives Matter.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(8), 1450–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkowska, M., Beneda, M., Čehajić-Clancy, S., & Bilewicz, M. (2019). Fostering contact after historical atrocities: The potential of moral exemplars. Political Psychology, 40(3), 565–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions
Related commentaries (27)
A not-so proximate account of cleansing behavior
Bio-culturally grounded: why separation and connection may not be the same around the world
Body ownership as a proxy for individual and social separation and connection
Cleansing and separating: From modern agriculture and genocide to post-separation era
Cleansing and separation procedures reflect resource concerns
Considerations of the proximate mechanisms and ultimate functions of disgust will improve our understanding of cleansing effects
Cultural mindsets shape what grounded procedures mean: Cleansing can separate or connect and separating can feel good or not so good
Culture, ecology, and grounded procedures
Developmental antecedents of cleansing effects: Evidence against domain-generality
From washing hands to washing consciences and polishing reputations
Going beyond elementary mechanisms: the strategic interplay between grounded procedures
Grounded procedures of connection are not created equal
Grounded procedures of separation in clinical psychology: what's to be expected?
Grounded separation: can the sensorimotor be grounded in the symbolic?
Grounding together: Shared reality and cleansing practices
Incomplete grounding: the theory of symbolic separation is contradicted by pervasive stability in attitudes and behavior
It's a matter of (executive) load: Separation as a load-dependent resetting procedure
Leveraging individual differences to understand grounded procedures
Proper understanding of grounded procedures of separation needs a dual inheritance approach
Psychology of cleansing through the prism of intersecting object histories
Separation/connection procedures: From cleansing behavior to numerical cognition
Specifying separation: avoidance, abstraction, openness to new experiences
The impact of grounded procedures can vary as a function of perceived thought validity, meaning, and timing
The lack of robust evidence for cleansing effects
The role of goal-generalization processes in the effects of grounded procedures
The role of meta-analysis and preregistration in assessing the evidence for cleansing effects
The role of mortality concerns in separation and connection effects: comment on Lee and Schwarz
Author response
Grounded procedures in mind and society