Thinking about Groupthink

Groupthink is defined as "a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. . . . members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking."

The motives that have been identified include wishing to avoid being seen as foolish, as disloyal or as a "separatist." Sometimes it's just the burning, desperate desire for acceptance that makes us subordinate our power of discrimination to whatever the circumstantial leader or reigning "culture" wants us to do or think.

Eight symptoms of groupthink

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

After reading the above list I thought: "Wow, we might be world champions in groupthink!" Then I corrected myself: "In some culturally remote and intellectually backward pockets of our movement we might be ideal examples of groupthink."

I don't plan for this to be a long entry, so I won't get into analyzing each of the above symptoms; but let me have a go at one or two:

"Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions."

We might assume that our methods of spreading Krishna consciousness are perfect and unassailable. Therefore we rationalize that it's not our fault that we are not inspiring more people to surrender to the life of bhakti-yoga. We might say: "Yes, other religious groups grow much more than us, but it's only because our principles are so high!" Well, in certain areas (like matrimonial discipline) some other groups are much more rigorous than us, with higher and stricter standards.

Enamored by our assumptions of infallibility, we fend off suggestions that we should improve our methodology in proselytizing.

We create a "theology of failure" to legitimate our poor performances at persuasion: "Yes, we get very few people to chant Hare Krishna, but we are selling books and these will all become devotees in their next life!" (chorus: "Jaya! Jayaaa!! JAYAAAAA!!!")

Here is a classic one, thoroughly and painfully documented in the history of our Society:

"Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions."

We are sadly familiar with the sub-culture generated by this delusion: anything goes in the service of Krishna! Since Krishna is absolute (oops, capital A, sorry...), since Krishna is Absolute, I was saying, all that we do in His service is also Absolute. Therefore breaking state laws and breaking even basic ethical principles is completely authorized, or rather recommended. The glitter of short-term apparent gain blinds us to the long-term inner and outer reactions. (We thought the law of karma did not apply to us...)

As a consequence our devotees may develop a thuggish mentality that keeps them at the margins of civilized society. The movement deservedly gains a poor, tainted reputation.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's identified three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

• Directive leadership.
• Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
• Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

As our movement grows in maturity and diversity (and as we focus on attracting more intelligent people, from the educated classes), these causal factors will gradually slacken. How much work is there in your place?