"It is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action".
Recent controversy stirred up by Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brought my attention to this episode of horrible history: The Holocaust. According to him, holocaust is nothing but a "myth". Also, he has repeatedly denied the holocaust, calling the deaths of millions of Jews during World War II a mere "historical event" which is "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim". Western powers exert strong condemnation towards Iranian president's denial; Germany said the comments were "a disgrace to his country" while the US said they would "isolate Iran further". However, we all know that the holocaust is genocide of approximately six million European Jews, a program of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler, its allies and collaborators.
Is this a result of group think? I would say that the holocaust does have many symptoms of groupthink.
Let's examine them:
1. Shared stereotypes
This is rather apparent as members of thegroup view the Jews, as well as some other minority groups, as "undesirables". These people outside the group do not match up with the group's ideals, hence the desire to exterminate them.
2. Illusion of invulnerability
Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany’s leader, once proclaimed that his rule would last a thousand years. This clearly reveals the tendency to create excessive optimism and encouragement of risk taking in decisions.
3. Believe in group's own morality
Evidently, the Nazi Army had a very strong belief in its morality. The morality of the group is unquestioned, and the members tend to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Collective rationalism
It was evident that they had a collective rationalism where they rationalise their decisions on the killings with reasons which are largely attributed by the strong belief of the extermination of the "undesirables".
5. Self-censorship
There was a strong group consensus and ideology exerted within the group. Thus members do not challenge or present ideas that deviate from the group's consensus.
6. Pressure on dissenters
This is probably one of the more obvious factors. Members who are considered as disloyal would be heavily sanctioned. The Nazi Army had so much power and dominance over the people at that point of time that even people not in the group, had to comply. Saul Friedländer writes that: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."
One may point out that this historical event is not attributed by groupthink, rather by the pressure of the bureaucracy and its ideology. However, I am still in support of the point that groupthink is the foundation of the causes.
If we could turn back time, would things have changed if they had combat groupthink?
1. Appoint a devil's advocate
2. Be open to alternative decisions and reviews
3. Monitor group behaviour; be aware of symptoms
Above 3 points are some ways that we employ to combat groupthink. If these were to be applied to that context, it simply means that someone in the group has to stand up for his cause and present an outsider's point of view. Though this person could be heavily sanctioned, by voicing out his point of view on the brutality of the group, he is effectively busting the common belief of members that there is a consensus within the group and also the illusion of unanimity.
Besides mourning over this sad episode of horrible history, let us all remember and learn from the pains and sufferings of the Holocaust, and never to let history repeat again.
References and further reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8263548.stm
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/en-US/128978354015238644.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113171156&ps=cprs
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/nazis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
1. Shared stereotypes
This is rather apparent as members of thegroup view the Jews, as well as some other minority groups, as "undesirables". These people outside the group do not match up with the group's ideals, hence the desire to exterminate them.
2. Illusion of invulnerability
Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany’s leader, once proclaimed that his rule would last a thousand years. This clearly reveals the tendency to create excessive optimism and encouragement of risk taking in decisions.
3. Believe in group's own morality
Evidently, the Nazi Army had a very strong belief in its morality. The morality of the group is unquestioned, and the members tend to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Collective rationalism
It was evident that they had a collective rationalism where they rationalise their decisions on the killings with reasons which are largely attributed by the strong belief of the extermination of the "undesirables".
5. Self-censorship
There was a strong group consensus and ideology exerted within the group. Thus members do not challenge or present ideas that deviate from the group's consensus.
6. Pressure on dissenters
This is probably one of the more obvious factors. Members who are considered as disloyal would be heavily sanctioned. The Nazi Army had so much power and dominance over the people at that point of time that even people not in the group, had to comply. Saul Friedländer writes that: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."
One may point out that this historical event is not attributed by groupthink, rather by the pressure of the bureaucracy and its ideology. However, I am still in support of the point that groupthink is the foundation of the causes.
If we could turn back time, would things have changed if they had combat groupthink?
1. Appoint a devil's advocate
2. Be open to alternative decisions and reviews
3. Monitor group behaviour; be aware of symptoms
Above 3 points are some ways that we employ to combat groupthink. If these were to be applied to that context, it simply means that someone in the group has to stand up for his cause and present an outsider's point of view. Though this person could be heavily sanctioned, by voicing out his point of view on the brutality of the group, he is effectively busting the common belief of members that there is a consensus within the group and also the illusion of unanimity.
Besides mourning over this sad episode of horrible history, let us all remember and learn from the pains and sufferings of the Holocaust, and never to let history repeat again.
References and further reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8263548.stm
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/en-US/128978354015238644.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113171156&ps=cprs
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/nazis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
other than the symptoms you pointed out, I also feel that one disadvantage of group activities is that both the assumed and unassumed leadership of the group can lead to the limit of exchange of ideas.
ReplyDeleteconsider in the case of assumed leadership. assumed leadership is only possible in the premise that there is an individual who stands out, in terms of expertise in subject matter, or in terms of character. which means to say that the rest of the group are assumed lower in those. generally there is some form of fear of brainstorming for fear of disapproval from the assumed leader and hence ideas are held back
in the case of unassumed leadership, there is also fear in presenting unique ideas because individuals in the group are not sure where they stand in the group.
its often said that the organisation kills the organism, however as vanessa has pointed out above, it is more probable that the organism which is most dominant who will control the group, a major disadvantage, as the whole group would just agree instead of putting forth other ideas
ReplyDeletegroups tend to also benefit only those suited for cohesive sharing, those extroverted types who speak their minds, those introverted would just be trodden over with these loud people.
i agree that groupthink brought about of many causes in the world, be it good or bad. However, it always take one individual to rise and be responsible for the mobilisation. Hence, an individual's decision to be at source and get committed in promoting his cause made the difference. His 100% committment meant that he would go all the way to get whatever he needs to promote his cause, including the massive number of ppl.
ReplyDeleteThese are the history makers of the world, ppl who are willing to step up and take charge, to change whatever they deemed incorrect.
However, committed individuals like Hitler when coupled with the lack of love for fellow humanity creates the horrible history. However, we cannot help but be astonished by how far his committment brought him. And how much the groupthink could achieve... When ppl are united and like-minded, nothing seems to be able to stop them.
Hi Shuling!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is an example of groupthink. And agreed, Groupthink is definitely a social phenomenon that is prevalent in many organisations and communities, regardless of size or nature. While the effects might not always be the loss of life or destruction of property, it can be said that if ideas go unchecked simply because they are held by the majority, or those who are ostensibly experts or leaders in the community, they often cause quite undesirable results.
Another example of Groupthink can be seen in the 2008 financial crisis, which was partly caused by irrational exuberance among investors - everyone else was betting on the markets going up, so few investors, or even economists, dared to point out that financial assets were grossly overpriced.
The fact that Groupthink is seen even in such societies where diversity of opinions is tolerated, and even encouraged, shows that it is indeed a very strong force shaping people's thoughts and actions.
I read about the holocaust some time back.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about groupthink. Personally, I am against groupthink. When a group is too immersed with what they think, they often take no heed of others’ comments or even advices.
This reminds me of the discrimination of the Jews and also that of the Blacks. I remember reading about it in secondary school that the Jews are being forced to walk only on a small part of a path in the streets. Can you imagine how serious it is?
I cannot imagine such a situation happening in Singapore to the minority groups here. That would be totally horrendous!
Comment on mine too!
http://commmediadiscourse.wordpress.com
=)Kai Ting
Hello!
ReplyDeleteThe presence of Groupthink can bring disasterous results if it goes towards the extreme side. However, certain amount of groupthink can be beneficial in making progress for the group. As such, voluntary groups with committed volunteers can efficently complete their cause and advance towards their goals.
@Vanessa
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out another possible disadvantage of group activities! Could this disadvantage lead to groupthink too?
@Luke
ReplyDeleteSo I guess that there is a link between that disadvantage and groupthink? I’m a little confused. What I’m discussing here is that holocaust is possibly caused by groupthink. I don’t think assumed leadership is very evident here because Hitler was differentiated from the rest by his rank. There is no ambiguity of his status above the rest.
@Sihui
ReplyDeleteI think holocaust and many other genocides are the extreme outcomes of groupthink. Though groupthink is a disadvantage, the effect of it may not always be so drastic. The one that could have made a difference to this history, like you’ve pointed out, must be one who is committed to the cause. I’ve also suggested that the person could actually be the devil’s advocate, so as to make sure that the organization is headed towards the right track. Since we cannot rewind and record new episodes over this, we should always remember this so that we can prevent it from happening in the future.
@Celeste
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing another recent example of groupthink! What you’ve mentioned has drastic effects over the masses as well. Though groupthink can never cease to exist, I think that it’s really important to know how to counter them in case we’re put under the test.
@kai ting
ReplyDeleteThe impact of groupthink at a macro level is often immeasurable. Just refer to the above examples and you would know. Groupthink is indeed very undesirable. It brings no good but harm!
@Chu Yuan
ReplyDeleteI disagree with that. Any degree of groupthink isn’t desirable.
Being committed and dedicated as a group does not mean that the group is in groupthink. Showing some symptoms of groupthink also does not directly translate that the group is already in groupthink. One important differentiating factor of a group sunk in groupthink is that they no longer heed the advice from outside. The group becomes self-reliant and invulnerable.
For the example you’ve mentioned, I don’t even think it displays any symptom of groupthink. It only shows that the individuals in the group are dedicated and they have a strong sense group identity and goal.
I think for a group to be effective and functional, they really have to be acutely aware of what is happening within the group and outside the group. That balance would lead to the success of the group/organization.