Blogpost # 979        “GROUPTHINK”: THE DESPERATE LONGING TO BELONG [Redux]

It is responsibly necessary to clearly distinguish the rational, pragmatic, and voluntary context of “consensus,” from that of the self-abnegating and neurotic concept of “groupthink.” The contextual and dynamic essence of the contrasting concepts are irrefutably, antithetical.

The dynamics of consensus may be illustrated, among an unlimited plethora of examples, by the writings of Rousseau on the subject of what he termed the “The Social Compact” (“Contract”). It was his memorable observation that members of society, jointly and consensually, submit to the voluntary surrender of certain personal liberties (relevant to the public interest) by tacit agreement, in exchange for the many-faceted benefits of mutually living in society. Such a pragmatic and contractual concept of living in society necessarily is predicated upon the foundational existence of personal choice.  The willing members self-interestedly, elect by mutual consensus, to accept certain restrictions on individual liberty, deemed necessary and appropriate to living in a society with others.

The notable predicate in the definitional existence of “consensus” is the existence of an individuated, free, and determinative exercise of rational choice by its mutual constituents.

In bright contrast, the definition and dynamics of the phenomenon of “group think,” the latter, a derogation of the conception of free will, as well as an impediment to the dynamics of democracy, connotes the willing surrender of individual will and personal judgment for non-rational reasons; most often, observably, founded upon a (neurotically) perceived need for acceptance and group approval. The latter phenomenon appears to exemplify many irrational, even bizarre, extant human behaviors.

An individual’s election to surrender his personally held views and judgmental choices (as often declared in this blog space) reveals the likely presence of personal insecurity, and the resultant need for a comforting sense of acceptance is customarily founded upon an insufficient development of a stable and referential, self-image. Such failure is stereotypically, concomitant with an inadequate education or limited exposure to others of diverse views.

In the case of normally socialized, healthy, and contemplative individuals, as they mature, the accumulated experience of personal responses to the multitude of life’s varying stimuli, tends to afford, a sense of consistency of response; the latter precedential to the creation of a personal sense of identity (“self-image”) and the perceived capacity for self-determination. One’s developed self-image is his referential basis for moral decision-making (as rationally opposed to rewards and punishment, secular or divine) as well as his rational point of view.

The Founders often articulated their doctrinaire belief that the future citizens of the newly created experimental Democracy would, in a responsible and neighborly manner, debate the controversial issues of the day. The results of such debates would be of use in the governance of a Nation, “By and for the People.”  The white-wigged Founders were dedicatedly optimistic and, unfortunately, in error.

As we have written, in disappointing contrast to the Founders’ anticipated, neighborly, and dutiful conduct of debates on the controversial issues of the day, what developed was a divisive hatred between citizens of disparate opinion. Such groups have been engaged in consequent formation of insular fraternal groups or “tribes” of mutual and uniform opinion, engaged in a continuing state of hostile “Cold War” with other like groups of divergent views. This social dynamic may be seen as relevant in political, religious, and inter-active social contexts.

The motivation for membership in such a “tribal,” or insular group is, all too often, the product of the individual’s perception of personal insecurity and a neurotic yearning for the needed affirmation of group acceptance. In this context, the prevailing homogeneous tribal opinion, itself, may conceivably be of little interest to, or, realistically, at odds, with the views of the applicant to the group. The membership is sought, and upon acceptance enjoyed, to assuage such neurotic yearning for acceptance and affiliation. The individual’s willingness and perhaps, his overt demonstration of loyal support of the tribal message, or point of view,  may conceivably, amount to an actual denial of his own exercise of reason, in exchange for that needed perception of acceptance. Such willing submission to such a tribe’s prevailing stance is critically denominated as “groupthink.”

This thematic concept may be useful in the attempted comprehension of the bizarre, eternal loyalty, by Donald Trump’s huge, variegated (MAGA) conglomerate of discontents, in the face of his publically, demonstrated criminality and emotional derangement, and notably, despite his publically expressed, autocratic desire for the limitation of their personal rights.

-p.