Back   OpEd News
Font
PageWidth
Original Content at
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Totalitarian-States-of-Min-by-Blair-Gelbond-Anxiety_Awareness_Consciousness_Dominance-180728-264.html
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

July 28, 2018

Totalitarian States of Mind in Organizations - Recovery of Humanity

By Blair Gelbond

Power-over scenarios are still rampant in organizations. This, naturally,provides rich food for authoritarians. Yet, it is an error to think that dominance resides in one person only.e.g. the "boss". Work groups are interdependent and emotionally based thought-forms (such as anxiety - as we know) are quite contagious. An alternative perspective is offered.

::::::::


We certainly can expect to find these "power-over" issues woven into the texture of our everyday lives - our relationships, family lives, and work lives. How many of us have had the experience of us have experienced misuse of power in the workplace, exercised by bosses or co-workers? Speaking of life in organizations today Wheatley has written that: "It is possible to look at the negative and troubling behaviors in organizations today as the clash between the forces of life and the forces of domination, between the new story and the old." (Berkana website, 9/98)

A fascinating perspective directly relevant to the concerns expressed by Wheatley can be found in an article entitled "Totalitarian States of Mind in Institutions." Its author, W. Gordon Lawrence (1995), blends a psychoanalytic group relations model with a socio-historic one in exploring ways in which such a "tyrannical mindset" manifests itself in contemporary businesses and organizations. Lawrence's incisive observations - here presented in some detail - add both depth and specificity to the general concerns raised by Eisler.

His working hypothesis is that - as our overall environment is perceived to be increasingly uncertain and complex (particularly in terms of economics), people at all levels of a given organization, find themselves resonating with a steadily building anxiety. In this milieu managers feel pressured to bring into being a variety of institutional structures which promise a sense of certainty.

Much as Morin and others have depicted, Lawrence describes daily life - especially in the modern world - being experienced within a context of "hyper-uncertainty." A primary antecedent of this phenomenon (also called "globalization") is "accelerated capitalism."

Reviewing some of the ways in which this is visible in the world today, he adds that, while these changes can be felt to be exciting or exhilarating, they are also frequently terrifying.

Being in business is experienced as "being at high risk" and it causes anxiety for owners, shareholders, and employees alike"as well as for the service industries with whom companies are also in business - suppliers, banks, accountants, etc. As capitalism accelerates at an unprecedented pace, managers find themselves on a psychological level being asked to "carry" much of this anxiety.

Lawrence alleges that managers are "used [by the groups and individuals they manage] to reinforce individual mechanisms of defense against [intense] anxiety." It is important to note that this is most often an unconscious, collusive process.

Lawrence is actually describing a circular feedback process through which a work-group attempts to holds its own anxiety at bay. In this scenario a manager typically ends up "holding" (or "being a container for") an enormous amount of unspoken and usually unconscious emotion. In addition, there are often strong demands coming from levels "above" the manager (in the organizational hierarchy) to present a facade of certainty, of being "highly knowledgeable," of being "able to handle things." In this light it is not difficult to see how such a role naturally attracts, not only authoritarian personalities (who already think about the world in black and white terms), but "narcissistic" people as well. He mentions that in actual totalitarian states this is called "the cult of personality;" in organizations he describes such individuals as "hubristic leaders."

Lawence reminds us of the reality that institutions have continuity specifically because one set of role holders chooses another set, who are then socialized to fill places in the hierarchy; this selection process has both conscious and unconscious dimensions. Due to survival fears, many businesses tend to select ruthless, ambitious leaders who are seen as individuals who will enable the institution to have a future. Yet, much of this process occurs at an unconscious level. Not surprisingly in such a climate, events in the environment are often interpreted in a paranoid way. In fact, for many leaders it is very difficult to hold on to any other perspective when all around them are demanding action.

Commonly, the imperative becomes very narrow: the company is losing its market share; avoid the threat of low or negative figures on the bottom line. Lawrence asserts: "The institutional culture becomes one in which you either get screwed or you screw others [and this in turn] feeds a paranoid/schizoid/narcissistic [approach to] leadership and [to a] collusive followership-matrix of institutional thought and authority relations."

Lawrence argues that when a "totalitarian state of mind" is present in an institution, the capacity for independent thought becomes diminished. This occurs, in part, due to a strongly felt need on the part of many people to "unconsciously defend" against intense disorganizing anxieties.

The price that has to be paid for this group (or "social") mode of avoidance is a rigid, authoritarian organization with its associated culture. The organizational culture limits its support and reinforcement to one type of expression: thought and speech that is "sure-fire" and "certain."

Whether stated explicitly or not (and usually it is not explicit), such organizations operate via the unspoken norm or rule that "there is no room for mistakes."

Ironically, (in terms of the organization's supposed goal of achieving success and creating superior outcomes) the sure-fire result of this fear of mistakes is that there is no possibility of learning from them. Meanwhile, a milieu is simultaneously generated in which it becomes dangerous to appear have thoughts which are different from the majority.

In this way it can be said that "the institution becomes the container of [all] thought;" there simply is no "psychic space" for original thought. Any alternative thought is construed (usually by a "silent" majority, and/or administrators) - as being an aggressive act. In such cases it is not a complex matter for management to offer its own authoritative translation of relevant occurrences, but in such a way which polarizes the work group against the complainer.

Directly relevant to Lawrence's conclusions are observations offered by Daniel Goleman (1985) in his book Vital Lies, Simple Truths. Whether we look at an authoritarian culture in an organization (usually a microcosm of larger structures), or at an entire society which exhibits totalitarian (and possibly fascistic) trends, the identical principles seem to apply.

In an organizational context one of the paradoxical results of this "social defense" against anxiety is a heightening of group anxiety, simply because there is no space in which these emotions can be absorbed, tolerated and worked through. Lawrence asserts that to the degree that independent thinking and a free exchange of ideas are removed from the institution, the "thinkers" and "feelers" begin to be perceived as people who need to be "expunged, wiped out, erased."

Hence, in institutions where a totalitarian state-of-mind is predominant, any economic cuts are prioritized toward reduction of services related to these functions, such as human resource management and education.

In such a climate it is quite common for management to become trapped by the idea that they can survive by utilizing a quick, painless intervention.

Lawrence calls this "the politics of salvation."

Lawrence notes that although the latest "magical new idea promising a 'millenarian' future'" is often sought after and embraced by the powers-that-be, it is highly unlikely that the new idea will be grounded in an honest, searching appreciation of the situation.

And, [not being the fruit of] "thinking of a lateral or divergent kind, [this very solution will tend to] have a built-in capacity for producing another crisis that will have to be solved using yet another [salvational approach]."

Finally, Lawrence brings to our attention one more reality. Once an organizational climate (through its leadership) is dominated by avoidant behavior, predictable consequences follow. The admission of uncertainty, anxiety, complexity, and empathy are - for all practical purposes - banned from consciousness and/or expression, resulting in a "skewing" of thought, emotions, and behavior.

Lawrence, from a psychoanalytic framework, terms this "the paranoid/schizoid position," and cites the well-worn analytic insight which teaches that one of the outcomes of residing in this "psychic position" is the splitting of objects in the environment into "good vs. bad:

"The idealized object - in this case the leader - is made good and is kept far apart from the bad, persecutory ones. One can see this

in institutions which construe the external environment as bad (and persecuting) and so the unconscious wish is to create a safe, good, internal environment in the enterprise.

Within the institution there will be a further splitting and hatred which will be projected into, for example, women, people of other races, and any person who might be expected to hold [a divergent position] "

When a paranoid-schizoid culture, so to speak, permeates an institution the personnel feel sanctioned to regard all competition as enemies who should be 'killed off'. Irrespective of whether [such a] campaign [is] consciously sanctioned or not - it [is certainly] sanctioned unconsciously" (Lawrence, 1995).

Yet, in the psychoanalytic field it is also common knowledge that human beings are able to embrace divergent cognitive perspectives and emotional positions which, "represent important developmental advances in which whole objects [non-fragmented perceptions of others and situations] begin to be recognized, and ambivalent [rather than split into 'good vs. bad,' etc.] impulses can become directed towards the primary object." In business terms, contends Lawrence, this is the precisely the place from which market and commercial realities can begin to be considered from a more reality-based vantage-point.

One of the more "advanced" (developmentally speaking) positions to which Lawrence refers is the "tragic" perspective. It is in essence a more empathic or "mutual" (or in Eisler's terms, "partnership") perspective on organizational/human conditions. Such a stance includes a willingness on the leader's part to "allow space for" a compassionate appreciation of human difficulties (including the difficulties inherent in the work environment itself).

It can also be said to include what might be called "a commitment to reality," a commitment to see things as clearly as possible, and to incorporate the insights gained into the everyday discourse in the workplace. This sort of manager tends to be quite aware of any malaise within their institution, and they will certainly be alive to the risks - for everyone involved - of being in business. Such a position naturally allows the manager to begin to demonstrate concern for the other employees in the institution, as well as a clear awareness of the kinds of authority that other role holders can exercise. But this kind of thinking is always hard to sustain, Lawrence stresses. There are a great many factors which can lead to a regression into the paranoid-schizoid position, thereby, in Lawrence's words, "providing the conditions for the emergence of psychotic modes of relating in institutions that support the unconscious justification of totalitarian states-of-mind."

Lawrence's summary directs our attention to what is possible yet remains all the more poignant for its accurate representation of many people's experience in organizations they describe as "crazy." He affirms,

"There [frequently] are individuals who hold on to a perspective that transcends the psychotic. They make themselves available for thinking which the totalitarian state-of-mind cannot tolerate and will not hear. [Although they may be labeled as] 'revolutionaries' or 'dissidents,' they are not. [In reality] they are [simply] stating another, contrary, political position - which offers [an alternative to] the regime. They are the ones who try to understand what is taking place in their society and institution.

To do so is to be in the "'politics of revelation" - which is more a state of being than doing. I mean by revelation the work of generating working hypotheses, interpretations, appreciations of the situation one is in, and what one's role might be in it". the politics of revelation [may also be called] the politics of generativity."



Authors Bio:

I work as a psychotherapist with an emphasis on transformational learning - a blend of psychoanalytic and transpersonal approaches, and am the author of Self Actualization and Unselfish Love and co-author of Families Helping Families: Living with Schizophrenia, as well as Mental Illness as an Opportunity for Transformation. My interests and life have taken parallel courses, which together have woven a complex tapestry: spirituality and meditation on the one hand, and political psychology on the other. I have studied and practiced with Ram Dass, Jack Kornfield, Mata Amritanandamayi and Gurumayi Chidvilasanda, and continue a daily practice of meditation. My early political education began with the writings of the founding fathers. Over time this led to involvement in the anti-Vietnam war and anti-nuclear movements. I was interested in the powerful molding of prevailing political and economic dynamics by what C. Wright Mills called the military-industrial complex. In time I have come to the conclusion that, despite various interest groups' attempts to minimize or trivialize the concept, the deep state is a reality - decisively and covertly shaping events on both the domestic and international fronts. I am interested in an exceptionally promising alternative source of energy that has yet to see the light of day. I see the current period as a precarious form of initiation rite into the beginning of adulthood for our species, and hope to do whatever I can to help us reach this goal. Meanwhile, I seek daily to recall the reality that the same awareness (the Ever-Present-Origin) looks out through all of our eyes, and actualize this in my relationship with other beings.


Back