The central question of this thesis is: “How can people be mobilised to feel strongly attached to or invest into their nations?” Following a review of literature on the psychology of nationhood, a social identity approach towards national attachment is suggested. The possibility of the family metaphor (e.g. fatherland) as a rhetorical device anchoring the nation in filial qualities (e.g. belonging) is discussed. In the first study, establishing the general prevalence of family metaphors and aiming to test their use as a means of mobilisation, the content of language corpora, speeches, parliamentary debates and national anthems is analysed. The results demonstrate frequent use, especially in connection to mobilisation (e.g. in speeches). Study II tests whether merely linking a stimulus to a family metaphor will elicit a positive response and increase national identification. It does so by presenting a student sample (n = 149) with a neutral picture stimulus with different titles including family terms and family metaphors; no effects of any particular picture title on national identity emerged, but a considerable share of participants provided negative Nazi-related associations when primed with ‘fatherland'. Given the apparent relevance of meaning, the third study employed a word association task to provide a more in-depth account of German (n = 119) and British students' (n =138) common associations for family metaphors, confirming that some participants associate them with a negative past (e.g. WW II) or negative politics (e.g. nationalism). In an attempt to avoid the impact of said negative associations, Study IV draws on brotherhood – the metaphor seen as most positive – adding a call for ‘working in unity as volunteers', i.e. a context matching the metaphoric use in anthems, contrasting it with a) a call to work ‘as citizens' or b) a non-matching context (‘being devoted'). While it was assumed that such a fitting mobilisation context (i.e. ‘working together') would be buttressed by a family metaphor, similar results emerged. In a sample (n = 102) matched to the overall population, the brother metaphor did not have an effect on national identification and participants reported lower agreement with a statement presented together with a family metaphor, often providing associations of nationalism or Nazism. The fifth study responded to the frequent associations of the Second World War by providing British (n = 109) and German (n = 113) students with a distant past (1830s) or WW II context prior to presenting a text that was either using family metaphors or not. It aimed to test whether avoiding a link to the Second World War would alleviate the negative associations. However, the results pointed in the opposite direction, i.e. German participants were more likely to invest in their nations if family metaphors and the 1930s occurred together, albeit the negative understanding of family metaphors provided in the previous studies remained, which can be interpreted as an expression of collective guilt. In the last study, a fictitious nation was presented to a general student sample at the University of St Andrews (n = 198) as either trying to achieve independence through militant struggle or building cultural institutions. As in the previous studies, the majority of participants saw family metaphors as negative, and only a small minority from countries with a higher acceptance of power-distance described them in a positive light. This thesis argues that, in the light of the results, the family metaphor has to be understood as evoking historically situated meanings and is seen as essentialising nationhood, a notion predominantly not matching the understanding participants had of their nation and consequently being rejected. It suggests that a) (national) identity research needs to be aware of context and b) other frameworks for exalted attachment should be investigated.

This study deals with the character of Jesus in the Gospel of John and follows the social-scientific approach and aims to correct the traditional views regarding the personality of Jesus. The aim is not a personality analysis but to situate Jesus as a typical person who was a part of and functioned in the first Mediterranean world. The pivotal values of the ancient world such as honor/shame; collectivistic/dyadic personality; family and group orientation; kinship; the patronage system with the patron/broker/client relationship and the purity system are applied to reach the aim of my thesis. It is found that Jesus was a collectivistic/dyadic personality. He functioned in this family orientated as well as in a group orientated community and socially structured patronage system as a broker, totally the contrary to contemporary personality drawings of Jesus found in modern literature. / In hierdie studie, wat 'n skripsie van beperkte omvang is, word nie gepoog om 'n persoonlikheidsanalise van Jesus te doen nie. Die studie wil die probleem van die toepassings en interpretasies van Jesus in populere literatuur aanspreek. Jesus word deur moderne mense en teoloe in prentjies en idees van 'n moderne mens met moderne kategoriee, denke en perspektiewe, waardes en oordele beskryf, geteken en geinterpreteer, en dit is nie 'n werklike getroue en realistiese weergawe van Jesus as historiese mens nie. Jesus word in populere literatuur as 'n individualis geteken; sy persoon en emosies word alleenlik in moderne denke en kategoriee geinterpreteer en dit word slegs op grond van moderne individuele ervaring gedoen. Hierdie interpretasies is nie tipies van die kollektiwistiese, groep-georienteerde eerste-eeuse mediterreense persoon nie. Afsydigheid en terughoudendheid (4:9, 10; 13:36-38) is kenmerkend van persone in hierdie samelewing waar warmte in verhoudings ontbreek het (2:16; 9:16)'. Emosies soos 'liefde' wat Jesus toon, is nie 'n emosionele konnotasie wat in die moderne samelewing dui op die gevoelslewe van die mens nie. In hierdie antieke samelewing het 'liefde' gedui op lojaliteit, solidariteit en groepgebondenheid en as Jesus die blinde man sy sig teruggee (9:7), herstel hy nie hier die geneesde man se plek as individu in terme van die moderne samelewing nie, maar hy herstel die sieke in sy regmatige, groep-georienteerde sosiale plek in die antieke samelewing waarin hy - weens sy siekte - as 'buitestaander' geetiketteer is en dus geen deel in die groep gehad het nie. In hierdie antieke eerste-eeuse mediterreense samelewing het ander spilpuntwaardes as in ons moderne samelewing gegeld. In hierdie kollektiwistiese en groepgebonde kultuur het persone gedeel in 'n gemeenskap met die spilpuntwaardes, norme en ingestelde sosiale reels van hierdie spesifieke kultuur en aspekte wat vormend op hulle ingewerk het. Jesus se persoon en optrede moet nagevors word in hierdie sosiale sisteem waar mag deur simbole daargestel is, en waar mense, dinge en gebeure elkeen 'n simboliese werklikheid verteenwoordig het. / New Testament / M. A. (Biblical Studies)

This study deals with the character of Jesus in the Gospel of John and follows the social-scientific approach and aims to correct the traditional views regarding the personality of Jesus. The aim is not a personality analysis but to situate Jesus as a typical person who was a part of and functioned in the first Mediterranean world. The pivotal values of the ancient world such as honor/shame; collectivistic/dyadic personality; family and group orientation; kinship; the patronage system with the patron/broker/client relationship and the purity system are applied to reach the aim of my thesis. It is found that Jesus was a collectivistic/dyadic personality. He functioned in this family orientated as well as in a group orientated community and socially structured patronage system as a broker, totally the contrary to contemporary personality drawings of Jesus found in modern literature. / In hierdie studie, wat 'n skripsie van beperkte omvang is, word nie gepoog om 'n persoonlikheidsanalise van Jesus te doen nie. Die studie wil die probleem van die toepassings en interpretasies van Jesus in populere literatuur aanspreek. Jesus word deur moderne mense en teoloe in prentjies en idees van 'n moderne mens met moderne kategoriee, denke en perspektiewe, waardes en oordele beskryf, geteken en geinterpreteer, en dit is nie 'n werklike getroue en realistiese weergawe van Jesus as historiese mens nie. Jesus word in populere literatuur as 'n individualis geteken; sy persoon en emosies word alleenlik in moderne denke en kategoriee geinterpreteer en dit word slegs op grond van moderne individuele ervaring gedoen. Hierdie interpretasies is nie tipies van die kollektiwistiese, groep-georienteerde eerste-eeuse mediterreense persoon nie. Afsydigheid en terughoudendheid (4:9, 10; 13:36-38) is kenmerkend van persone in hierdie samelewing waar warmte in verhoudings ontbreek het (2:16; 9:16)'. Emosies soos 'liefde' wat Jesus toon, is nie 'n emosionele konnotasie wat in die moderne samelewing dui op die gevoelslewe van die mens nie. In hierdie antieke samelewing het 'liefde' gedui op lojaliteit, solidariteit en groepgebondenheid en as Jesus die blinde man sy sig teruggee (9:7), herstel hy nie hier die geneesde man se plek as individu in terme van die moderne samelewing nie, maar hy herstel die sieke in sy regmatige, groep-georienteerde sosiale plek in die antieke samelewing waarin hy - weens sy siekte - as 'buitestaander' geetiketteer is en dus geen deel in die groep gehad het nie. In hierdie antieke eerste-eeuse mediterreense samelewing het ander spilpuntwaardes as in ons moderne samelewing gegeld. In hierdie kollektiwistiese en groepgebonde kultuur het persone gedeel in 'n gemeenskap met die spilpuntwaardes, norme en ingestelde sosiale reels van hierdie spesifieke kultuur en aspekte wat vormend op hulle ingewerk het. Jesus se persoon en optrede moet nagevors word in hierdie sosiale sisteem waar mag deur simbole daargestel is, en waar mense, dinge en gebeure elkeen 'n simboliese werklikheid verteenwoordig het. / New Testament / M. A. (Biblical Studies)