Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER 55 SOCIETY, SCIENCE AND MOVIE by a Psychiatrist one of the more unexpected results of the war was the discovery by psychologists and psychiatrists that in order to get anywhere in the social science field, they could no longer work in glorious isolation, but would have to collaborate with those concerned with specific problems. A second, and perhaps more unexpected result was the mutual discovery by these specialists and some of the documentary film makers that they possessed in common the desire to present to the world knowledge about human problems, as their conscious contribution to social progress. This discovery resulted from the collaboration between the Army psychologists and psychiatrists, the Directorate of Army Kinematography and the Ministry of Information on such films as Personnel Selection — Recruits, Personnel Selection — Officers, The New Lot (out of which was born The Way Ahead) and various films on morale and war psychiatry. The Army group who collaborated in these film ventures now form the core of the newly created Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. They are anxious that the collaboration with film makers, achieved during the war, may be continued. It may be thought unusual that a group of specialists studying the deep recesses of the mind should seek to collaborate with such groups as documentary film makers. However, the trend in social science is towards dealing with problems in active relationship with other groups concerned with similar problems. In so far, then, as documentary films attempt to portray living human beings and their problems they will secure the warm support of the psychiatrist and social scientist. It is in this light that the Tavistock Institute recognises in the documentary film a powerful ally in presenting to the public social problems and tentative solutions. It is likely, too, that these specialists may be of assistance to the documentary film maker, not only by providing technical advice and assistance, but also by bringing to his notice the wealth of human material obtained through the study and treatment of real people and communities. Before discussing some of the fields of work of the Institute applicable to documentary problems, it will be useful to indicate some of the roots from which the new organisation has grown. The Development of the Institute Early in the war, psychiatrists began their work in the Army by treating individuals, officers and men, who had developed a variety of disturbances owing to the strains of the new situations , in which they found themselves, and the new demands made upon them. Further than this, the psychiatrists hoped in time to be able to prevent psychological disturbances from arising at all. As a result, several of them found themselves more and more concerned with questions of the general well-being of groups within the Army. That is to say, they tended to become "social psychiatrists", or "sociatrists". In its turn, this outlook led to the development of selection procedures for both officers and men. From it arose, too, a new approach to battle conditioning, battle training and tactics, new methods in psychological warfare, both in military intelligence and in broadcasting, and new techniques for solving problems of repatriation and resettlement. In addition, practical contributions were made to the assessment and maintenance of morale and discipline. While the work done in the Army necessarily had many features that were specific to the military group, many aspects were obviously of a general nature in their application to the welfare of all kinds of groups. In particular, Army experience seemed peculiarly applicable to many of the practical problems of social reconstruction. As a result of requests from many civilian bodies, it became clear that some sort of civilian organisation was called for. So it was that the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations was established, with the assistance of the Rockefeller Foundation. It is the goal of this group eventually to become self-supporting on the basis of practical work done for the community. Many of the problems with which the Institute will be concerned are in line with problems treated by documentary film makers. In general these problems may be described as the study of human relationships within industrial, cultural and family groups. For the want of a better word, the term "sociatry" has been used to designate this field of work. It is intended to include all aspects of the treatment of group or social problems, and in this sense the psychiatrist and documentary film maker are equally "social doctors" or "sociatrists". "Sociatry" and Documentary The practice of sociatry came originally from the group treatment of neurotic patients. The group discussion techniques used in this field were found to be applicable to many other kinds of group. They have been applied to such varied purposes as officer selection and current affairs discussions. From the study of these varied applications of group methods is rapidly emerging a new and better understanding of the structure, development and requirements for smooth working of groups in general. It is possible that the results may be applicable to the problems of group discussions in relation to films. There are, however, other more general applications of group techniques to problems which, because of widespread public interest, may interest the documentary film maker. One such is the increasing public interest in the family aroused by the widespread family resettlement problem, the changing status of women and mothers, and anxiety over the birthrate. Here we would attempt to treat the family as a group in relation to the rest of the community, rather than dealing with, say, an anxious mother or a delinquent child in isolation. Another example is that of assisting in raising the productive efficiency of industry through the establishment of smooth working human relationships. Here group techniques can be applied, for example, to the removal of emotional stresses due say to poor foreman-worker relations, or to the eliciting of information concerning the attitude of workers in a particular industry to the rest of the country — a problem which apparently applies to the coal mining industry today. Another field in which the study of human relations is of value is in the study of culture patterns. This was begun during the war through the study of various aspects of the morale and psychological structure of the German Wehrmacht. This resulted, among other things, in the definition of an authoritarian personality type corollated with Nazi ideology, perhaps defining the prototype of the potential Fascist in our own midst. The method used in this study provides a possible link between intimate personality study of political attitudes, and group dynamics. It is intended to continue these studies in relation to such problems as the domestic behaviour of parents and the personality development of their children, and the effects of stresses resulting from the influence of authoritarian characters in key positions in industry and other groups. Some of the above problems may perhaps lend themselves in one way or another to film treatment. Also the general sociatric approach may be of value in giving a flavour or orientation to some particular film. This, however, raises the question of the methods by which collaboration between the specialist in human relations and the documentary film maker can be achieved. Tentative beginnings might be made along the lines of uncovering problems requiring urgent film treatment, discussion about actual scripts, technical consultation on the film treatment of specific problems, and discussions concerning the psychological aspects of film content in order to assist director and actor towards a more penetrating analysis of underlying themes. Film Research In addition to collaboration between the specialist and documentary film producer in attacking common problems along the lines suggested above, the Institute is deeply interested in one other project which is equally of concern to the documentary film maker — that of fundamental research into the psychological mechanisms underlying the effect which the film has on the audience. Initial research by other workers in the field has already fortified the intuitive knowledge that the film in fact does something to the audience and has even to a certain extent revealed what the film is capable of doing. But there still remains the deeper question of how the film operates on the audience — the dynamics of the interplay between the film and the observer. It must be admitted that some of the film research conducted by psychologists in the past has suffered from an academic quality, due, perhaps, to its being carried out with too little regard for practical problems. The Institute would hope, {continued on page 64)