Groupthink,
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge two people who drew out the implications of the findings of Social Psychology in understanding the dynamics of the culture of the Jehovah's Witnesses. JanG offered some exellent information on this subject. Teejay also provided some insights he had learned on this subject.
One subject that was not mentioned was the concept of Groupthink. I will provide some information on this subject that is excerpted from a piece I wrote, but never published on the subject of the nature of organizations, as it applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Here is what I wrote:
Unity and Solidarity - the good news and the bad news.
When a group develops a common languange, a standard mode of dress, and acceptable status hierachy, and a unified set of goals, they obtain a sense of comfort and security that is truly unique and fulfilling. That's
the good news.
Here's the bad news. The members of the group can become so homgeneous in their thinking that they act as one individual rather than as distinct individuals. They make their decisions without the benefit of diverse ideas and experiences that could help them reach wise decisions. A social psychologist, Irving Janis, studied this phenomena, and used a word to describe what can happen in this kind of setting. The word is found in the title of his book, "Victims of Groupthink (1971).
In his study of highly cohesive groups, he included only secular groups; no religous groups were studied. I mention this because these characteristics are exaserbated in religious organizations.
Janis listed eight characteristics of groups that gave them the potential for making disastrous decisions because they became the victoms of Groupthink. When I describe the eight characteristics of Groupthink as studied in secular organizations, you will discern how much more powerful these effects are in religious organizations. These characteristics are especially prominant in Governing Body decisions as docuemented by Ray Franze and in local elder decisions as docuemented my many here on this discussion forum.
1. The Illusion of Morality.
The Illusion of Morality is the illusion that everything that we are doing is good, right, and just. Everyone wants to believe that they are good and honest and what they are doing is right and just. However, if we are insulated from outside ideas, we cannot check out the "rightness" of our conclusions. If corporations and government bodies fall prey to this insidous problem, just think how much more suseptable a religion is that deals in morality on a continuing basis.
An issue that comes to mind for me is the one of the Governing Body saying in years past that oral sex was immoral, without any understanding of human sexuality.
2. Shared Stereotypes.
If you are part of a tight knit organization, or part of some decision making group in that organization, you develope a we-they attitude. We are right, and they are wrong. I think within the Witness culture, this even developes between the Governing Body and the rank and file. The Governing Body is good in their eyes and the rank and file can't be trusted.
For an organization, the outside world can be the enemy. A secular example, could be a major corporation who percieves the government with all its controls to be the enemy. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses consider the whole world to be "of Satan", obviously they have stereotypes about "the world." One of the biggest surprises people find out when they leave the Witnesses, is that the stereotypes they were taught about the world are not true.
3. The Illusion of Unanimity.
People can meet to make a decision, and each member of the group can believe that they are the only one who has a serious reservation about the concusions that the rest of the group is reaching. As a result, the people with reservations do not speak up. There may be several people with reservations but no one expresses them and, therefore, a disastrous decision becomes more likely. An example would be an elders judical committee meeting, where one elder has reservations, but does not express them.
4. Self Censorship
Self Censorhsip is closely related to the illusion fo unanimity. A person feels compelled to inhibit his or her comments so as not to "ruffle feathers" or "rock the boat". Harmony is respected; arugement is not. Thus, useful ideas do not surface and get discussd and disaster can result.
5. Rationalization
We want to feel that we are logical when we make decisions. In a highly cohesive group, dicrepancies and inconsistencies can be rationalized away so the that the "right decision" can be made. It is sort of like saying; "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."
6. Direct Pressure
If someone in the group does dissent, the others are likely to put direct pressure on the dissenter through ridicule or sarcasm to stiffle the one who opposes the popular view. If the person continues to voice dissent over a long perion do time, they are likely to be expelled from the group, i.e, disfellowshipped. (Yes, it does happen in other organizations, my friends.)
7. Mindguarding
A person of prominence may hire a bodyguard to protect them from physical harm. By the same token, a memeber of a tight-knit group may protect the rest of the members of the group from intellectual harm by shielding the rest of the group from disturbing information. Thus, the group becomes further insulated from information that may disturb them, the very information that they may need to make an effective decision.
8. The Illusion of Invulnerability
Keep in mind that Irving Janis's work on Groupthink was done with secular organizations. He described many cases where groups making governmental decisions took on the the characteristics of Groupthink, and these groups came to think they were invulnerable, which led to what he termed "political fiasco's".
Does the Governing Body believe that they are invulnerable to the dissastrous effects of bad decisions? I believe so. The prediction of 1975 as being the year of Armageddon was on of their biggest fiascos.
The End.