“We live in a society plagued with ideological stereotypes, pigeonholing, typecasting, conventionalizing, categorizing, labeling, and imaging. If-and-only-if, you pledge yourself to a brand, an image, a label, the right cliché, the right clothes, or the right genre, then-and-only then, will you prove acceptable.” So writes prolific author, speaker, and clinician Dr. Asa Don Brown in a publication for the Canadian Counseling and Psychotherapy Association.
It’s becoming tougher and tougher to be an individual …a single human being distinct from a group.
American political commentator George Will suggests, there are those who “want to dilute the concept of individualism,” something, he contests, would be incompatible with the belief upon which this country was founded.
Elliot D. Cohen, another prolific writer and one of the principal founders of philosophical counseling in the United States, asserts in a 2012 Psychology Today article, “If you are your own person, then you will be prepared to stand your ground when your principles or values are at stake. This does not mean that you must fight every battle to the death, but there will be times when surrendering your values in order to avoid a difficult situation would be to destroy the personal dignity that is requisite to being your own person.”
Cohen references English philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, considered the most influential British thinker of the 19th century–a fellow who never attended a school or university, by the way–known for his writings on logic and scientific methodology and his voluminous essays on social and political life.
Mill emphasized the importance of thinking rationally in being your own person.
“He who chooses his plan for himself,” Mill said, “employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision.”
Cohen elaborates, “This means that, as your own person, you look before you leap. You do not act on personal whims. You welcome the opinions of others and remain open to alternative perspectives besides your own. You consider the pros and cons of your options.”
The conundrum is, as Yale University graduate Rob Henderson observed, “If enough people are dishonest about what they really think, then many of us will begin to confuse polite but dishonest assent with reality. You and I might hold the same opinion on something. But if it dissents from the opinion that you and I believe the vast majority of people hold, then we will be less likely to express it.
“If the truth becomes unfashionable to express, then we will all operate under the assumption that everyone else holds opinions they do not actually believe.”
That’s the major problem with “Groupthink,” a term first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis.
Groupthink occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. It’s based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people. This desire creates a dynamic within a group whereby creativity and individuality tend to be stifled in order to avoid conflict.
Kendra Cherry, a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist (relating to the interrelation of social factors and individual thought and behavior), writes in a May 13, 2019 article titled: “How to Recognize and Avoid Groupthink,” “People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd.
“In many cases, people end up engaging in groupthink when they fear that their objections might disrupt the harmony of the group or suspect that their ideas might cause other members to reject them.”
Social psychologist Janis identified eight different “symptoms” that indicate groupthink:
Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking.
Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions.
Rationalizing prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.
Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group’s ideas.
Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings.
“Mindguards” act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group.
Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way.
Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.
Janis considered groupthink a disease of otherwise healthy groups, making them inefficient, unproductive, and irrational.
Cherry agrees, “The suppression of individual opinions and creative thought can lead to poor decision-making and inefficient problem solving.” She notes, “It is more likely to take place when a powerful and charismatic leader commands the group.”
When the exalted former CEO of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan, achieved consensus too quickly, he famously declared: “If we are all in agreement on the decision–then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”
The Apostle Paul challenged the church in Rome (Romans 12:2), “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.”
Author Eugene Peterson put it this way, “Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking …”
Be an individual …
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works, as well as other topics. At times the column is editorial in nature.
Leave a Reply