Granfalloon

“If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon” –Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle


In the Age of Propaganda, Pratkanis and Aronson define granfalloon as “proud, meaningless associations of human beings”. Granfalloons are the insignificant reasons you can relate to some more than others – those who grew up in the same hometown as you, they share your birthday. According to Forgas, humans have a “need for positive social identity” (Forgas 786). These granfralloons help us cope with a large and complex world and give us a sense of belonging. Perhaps the criteria of forming these groups may be asinine but the reason behind them is logical. The criteria to define the groups are called a minimum group paradigm which “describes an experimental context… basis for categorization and discrimination between groups involved” (Crisp 188). Whether they are used for positive or negative purposes, using these granfralloons is something normal we see every day.

Although granfalloons are sometimes good, creating a sense of belonging and identity, many times they are looked upon and criticized as a bad thing. The problem with using granfalloons begins when people use their group distinctions and use it to treat others unfairly or to oppress them. People use these minor distinctions and make them seem like major ones to polarize groups. Then the people of that group feel like it’s us against them (any other group).Once they do that, then it is easy for people to justify their behavior by making the other groups seem like the enemy. Hitler used the granfalloon of the “superior Aryan race” and made everyone else outside this group (Jews, Gypsies, Communists) a threat and therefore an enemy. So when Hitler enacted his laws against these people and began slaughtering them, he faced no objection because he dehumanized them by lumping them into groups and made them seem like a threat to safety. Other examples include the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis and in Ireland, between Catholics and Protestants. Minor distinctions like religion and ancestry are used to create granfalloons and justify massive slaughter.

Still, even though granfralloons can be abused, I still think they are a good way of finding some group identity and be can be used for good. The idea of a nation could be considered a granfalloon, consisted of nothing more than people who live in the same area and follow the same rules of government. But the distinctions that create a nation help make sense out of a chaotic world. In sociology, someone’s group/ social identity helps shape their personal identity. The way we interact with others are shaped by it. Vonnegut says that to study a granfalloon you need to look beneath the skin of the balloon and that you would find nothing there. But underneath a balloon you have air and don’t we need that to survive? Absolutely.


Works Cited:

Crisp, Richard J. Essential Social Psychology. London: SAGE, 2007.

Forgas, Joseph P. The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives. New York: Psychology Press, 2002.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle. New York: Delta Trade Paperbacks, 1998.