Groupthink

 One of the definitions of groupthink as discussed in Irving Janis’ book excerpt is that it is a subtext of nonverbal cues and subtle manipulations, consciously or unconsciously activated within a group.  These subtle messages affect the process of groups in their decision making.  It isn’t always bad news but it is when the decisions are being made with limited, controlled and manipulated information, especially when the decisions involve human lives.   Janis references the book 1984, George Orwell’s big brother story, about Oligarchy and seeds groupthink into the 1984 vocabulary.  This puts the word in a linguistic context and also gives it a connotation of something unjust, : as Janis writes,   “The invidiousness is intentional: groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment”. (32)

  

Janis continues with six main ideas that he describes as “defects in decision making” (33).  All of them are about how information is resourced within the group.  Some of the problems he talks about are not enough examination of the data or reexamination of it, not getting valid outside opinions, or not taking those opinions seriously, or the members of the group are interested only in the data that supports their views.  His point in discerning these behaviors of information sorting is to examine how decisions are made.  Poor decisions are the results of faulty processes that include many forms of psychological, emotional and intellectual manipulation.  

Groupthink is  “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking  that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group,  when members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (32).    He uses as an example the Bay of Pigs decision and explains the phenomenally dysfunctional history of the process from inception to action to failure.  He “ranks it among the worst fiascoes ever perpetrated by a responsible government” (34).  Contributing factors to this were that all the major assumptions were wrong.  The whole idea was based on incorrect information and assumptions that the event would go the way they planned.  The Nixon/ Eisenhower, Kennedy/ Johnson administrations made up the scripts and expected that they would be followed, not taking into consideration "other options". Janis asserts that groupthink creates a vacuum, a sense of invulnerability to danger.

Robert McNamara talks about the Bay of Pigs in the documentary  "The Fog of War" with a long view of what happened.  The first lesson that he tells us that he learned is to “empathize with your enemy”.  His more recent view holds more wisdom now than it did during the actual event. McNamara in 1962 was a main actor in  groupthink during the Kennedy administration and an even bigger one in the invention of the Vietnam War.  The distillation of his part in the decisions of the Bay of Pigs is that  “it was luck that prevented nuclear war” not erroneous thinking. 

I chose to write about this excerpt on groupthink because it was so rich and difficult and pushed me to think, contemplate and write from a less emotional point of view.  It also hit home, maybe a little too closely.  I have been struggling for many years with my own version and aversion to groupthink in my spiritual community.  I shy away from the vocabulary  used  and actually get stomach aches when I hear a lot of it being used.  When I pulled away from my community I felt like a traitor, all my hard work seemed like it dissolved because I lost the witnessing of my chosen community.  It has taken a lot of time to regain my self confidence and work through resentments.  This is difficult to write about. I will have to take some time to reexamine my experience through Janis' model.

  Reading and tasting all these different points of view, from other classes as well,  is beginning to give me a new lens to see through.  Writing about these different viewpoints helps me to discern what my own are, and to examine their origins, effects and validity.   This blog post was an attempt to practice with this new lens.  Is this the beginning of an "open dialogue"?