One of the ways we jettison the responsibility for crucial decisions in group-contexts is by bowing to the will of the majority. As far back as 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville warned that a form of autocratic rule in the United States could easily take just this form. It takes a strong and centered individual to resist the seductive pull of majority rule in small groups. This is another way we seek to "escape from freedom."

::::::::

2. The Power of Group-Think: Our Collective Predicament and the Recovery of Humanity

"There is"more than a quantum leap between an ordinary group and a community; they are entirely different phenomena. Time and again I have seen a community begin to make a certain inute, I don't think I can go along with this.' Mob psychology cannot occur in an environment in which individuals are free to speak their minds and buck a trend."
M. Scott Peck

How many of us have just kept our mouths shut, when we knew it was right to speak up?

As early as 1935 in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville -- an extraordinarily astute observer of the newborn country of the United States -- spoke about group conformity and "tyranny of the majority", adding:

"Public opinion does with us what the Inquisition could never do."

The omnipotence of the majority, Tocqueville stated, profoundly influenced the American national character. The demagogue, the man of little principle, the crowd-praiser/pleaser, was the more politically viable figure in America; consequently, a low standard of leadership prevailed. The majority resisted criticism of its attitudes and actions from either its own leaders or the members of minorities. In general, few were willing to speak out; smug conformity reigned. He maintained that, so unlimited was the power of the majority in the United States that tyranny threatened; the 1835 text would argue that the strength of the many became "not only predominant but irresistible."

Tocqueville feared not only the silencing of individual and minority ideas and the resulting conformity of opinion; he also dreaded the further possibility that in democratic times new ideas might be denied a hearing and that the advance of civilization might therefore come to a halt. By 1840, these intellectual dangers had apparently become, for Tocqueville, the primary meaning of tyranny of the majority and a major focus of concern.

More recently, Daniel Goleman's thesis In Vital Lies, Simple Truths (1985) is that we have learned to direct our lives aided by an ingenious capacity to deceive ourselves: rather than face threatening facts, we can sink into a sort of blissful oblivion. Our very human urge for security prompts us to create "dormative schemas" within our awareness, and in the process, we twist and bend the outlines of our attention. Yet, we also have the capacity to gain glimpses of "the edges that frame our experience." In doing so we will find ourselves empowered to have more of a say over these "margins," as well as the limits to thought, feeling, and action these schemas impose.

Goleman goes on to argue that the "collective mind" is as vulnerable to self-deception as the individual mind, adding that:

"The particular zones of shadow for a given collective are the product of a simple calculus of the schemas shared by its members: the areas of experience blanked out in the most individual minds will be the darkest zones for the group as a whole"Cultures and nations offer the best example of this principle writ large."

Goleman's description of this "interpersonal-level of defenses" draws on work by Irving Janis, who came to formulate the notion of "groupthink" from research on groups ranging from infantry platoons to executives in leadership training. In all the groups he studied, Janis found, to one degree or another, a trade-off between preserving a sense of cozy solidarity, and the willingness to face facts and voice views that challenged key "shared schemas" of the group self.

Examples of this group dynamic abound: from Arthur Schlesinger's report of President Kennedy's "Bay of Pigs" fiasco to NASA's final account of the events leading up to the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. When this kind of dynamic is operating, group members are reluctant to do anything that would break the sense of euphoric cohesiveness, and it is quite natural to assume that there is consensus. This illusion is maintained because members,

"often become inclined, without quite realizing it, to prevent latent disagreements from surfacing"the group leader and members support one another, playing up areas of convergence in their thinking, at the expense of fully exploring divergences that might disrupt the atmosphere of congeniality."

In such a scenario - "to object"- is to stand apart from the group. Rather than become a pariah of sorts, potential dissenters remain silent. Self-censorship then becomes one pole of a mutually reinforcing feedback loop in relation to the prevailing group norm. The predictable consequence is a situation in which important feedback never enters the collective awareness. In this sort of climate, a sense of stability may in fact be achieved; yet, at the same time, questionable shared assumptions thrive unchallenged. "The first victim of groupthink," concludes, Goleman, "is critical thought." He continues:

"whether in a therapy group or a meeting of presidential advisors, the dynamics of groupthink are the same. Typically, talk is limited to a few courses of action, while the full range of alternatives is ignored. No attention is paid to the values implicit in this range of alternatives"The group simply cramps its attention and hobbles its information-seeking to preserve a cozy unanimity. Loyalty to the group requires that members not raise embarrassing questions, attack weak arguments, or counter softheaded thinking with hard facts. Only comfortable shared schemas are allowed full expression."

Mezirow (2000) cites the work of Langer, in describing two distinct types of learning. "Mindful learning," as defined by Langer, is the conscious creation of new categories, openness to new information, and an implicit ability to be aware of more than one perspective. "Mindless learning" involves a reliance on previously ingrained actions, distinctions, and categories as a basis for meeting the challenges of life.

Clearly, the emergence of a milieu involving "group-think" would be highly detrimental in any context, damaging our ability to remain aware and accountable regarding our "paradigms of inquiry." As embedded within specific ways of engaging the world"." Fallibilism" (Brian Fay,1996) reconceives objectivity not as an escape from cognitive commitments, but instead in part as the critical recognition of them. Critical recognition""demands [also] that investigators be accountable in the sense of recognizing their"political commitments"the ways their investigations are socially positioned". Self-aware social analyses consequently must include" [not only] that this positionality be acknowledged, but that the voices of excluded others somehow find their way into"reports and analyses."

The choice to remain "mindful" necessarily involves vigilance at both the group and individual levels. A such it requires a willingness to notice when defenses against anxiety are beginning to insinuate themselves into awareness and inquiry. Fay is quite clear regarding what is actually involved in putting concepts, such as "objective inquiry" and "fallibilism" into practice. In discussing the essence of critical intersubjectivity he states,

"Objective inquiry is one in which inquirers"bracket their own perspectives in order to enter sympathetically into the perspectives of rivals and critically examine the perspective which comes most easily to them. "Consequently, objective inquiries must insure collisions between rival perspectives."

Be this as it may, we tend to have difficulty living up to these ideals in group-life for at least one simple reason: at some level we recognize that, without our implicit agreement to "follow the rules" regarding what we may notice and what we may say - the veneer of consensus in our everyday interactions can easily peel away. Sooner or later, moments of serious contention will arise. And, when group coziness breaks down, things can become very tense indeed. At one level or another we recognize this reality.

Critical thinking and dissent, Goleman asserts, can be antidotes to shared illusions, ensuring that group schemas will be more in keeping with reality - or at worst honest mistakes rather than the product of groupthink. "The healthy alternative, of course, is a group that balances a sense of unity with an openness to all relevant information - even at the risk of a fracas from time to time."

Finally, it is useful to remember that "acceptable dissent," is not really dissent at all, for views that are considered "acceptable," will naturally be guided by the group's lacunae and shared schemas. Furthermore, we can expect that actually being the spokesperson for "unacceptable dissent" would be a difficult role indeed.

As already presented - when groupthink is operating each individual in the group feels him- or herself to be under an injunction to avoid making penetrating criticisms that might bring on a clash with fellow members and destroy the unity of the group. Therefore, a willingness to "rock the boat" is an essential quality of all those who would seek to counterbalance the inertial pull of collective denial. However, we need to be aware of another reciprocal reality: while such an individual (or subgroup) may be serving the larger group by bringing into the open those perceptions or facts that have been hidden, these dissenting members can be seen as "deserters" from the group's unspoken norms.

While "leaderless groups" can easily slip into a "tyranny of the majority," it takes a mature,skilled group leader to support and perturb the group into one which can evoke individual and group creativity.

It follows then, that for any collective to move beyond its blind spots and survive the rigors of "truth-telling and hearing," members will need to access resources which can nourish and sustain the group when its natural resistances and inertia come to the fore. Group participants' readiness to consciously cultivate qualities such as fortitude, patience, humility, endurance, persistence, and tolerance will be of immeasurable value.

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.