Breaking the Code of Silence: Why the Bravest Stand Up to Their Own Crowd

When was the last time you really went against the grain and criticized your own side? For most of us, the answer is probably "not nearly enough." Humans have an innate tendency toward tribalism - sticking unflinchingly to their in-group, even when that in-group is clearly in the wrong. We vigorously defend our tribe's position and attack the other side, regardless of the actual merits of the arguments and facts. It's a type of moral hazard that allows for bad behavior to persist without consequence.

Consider the ideological clashes during the Cold War between Western capitalist democracies and communist nations like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and others. While proponents of communism aspired to create a classless utopia, the reality fell drastically short in practice. Whether it was the genocidal regimes of Stalin and Mao, the harsh repression of individual rights, or the economic stagnation and corruption rampant in communist states, there was no shortage of egregious failures.

Yet among true believers in the communist cause, there was an unwavering defensiveness and denial about these shortcomings within their ideological in-group. Soviet politicians and intellectuals insisted the Gulag forced labor camps, purges, and mass starvation under Stalin's rule were merely "excesses" on the path to equality. Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward, which led to the deaths of up to 45 million people, was euphemistically dubbed a "temporary breathing spell." Loyal communists worldwide turned a blind eye to the very types of human rights violations their revolutions purported to abolish.

Decades later in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the same pattern has played out among partisans on both sides. For Israelis, the expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank is justified through the prism of the country's security interests and ancient Jewish claims to the biblical lands. Meanwhile, many Palestinians and their supporters maintain that any and all violent resistance against Israel is legitimate self-defense. They minimize or rationalize acts of terrorism, refusing to acknowledge how indiscriminate attacks against civilians undermines their moral cause.

Within the European Union, the moral hazard of defending one's own camp regardless of facts manifests in the reluctance of many member states to address systemic violations by other EU nations. In 2020, the EU's executive commission found that the governments of Poland and Hungary were actively subverting judicial independence, press freedoms, minority rights, and other core EU democratic standards. Yet rather than hold these nations accountable, some have urged turning a blind eye due to complicated geopolitical alliances and economic factors.

The examples span the ideological spectrum, but the root cause is the same. There is a powerful psychological pull to avoid admitting negative truths about one's own in-group. Too often, individual members put loyalty to their tribe ahead of exposing or rectifying problems within it. They make the calculation that the cost of breaking ranks is higher than the cost of abiding misconduct. So instead of calling out bad actors and pushing for reform, they rationalize, justify, and defend the indefensible.

So why is it so difficult to take a stand against our own tribe? The psychological underpinnings relate to cognitive biases like confirmation bias, where we interpret new evidence as reinforcing pre-existing beliefs. There's also belief perseverance - the tendency to stubbornly cling to false assumptions even in the face of contradictory data. These mental blind spots, coupled with social pressures like the fear of being ostracized or blacklisted, create a formidable psychological barrier to speaking truth to power within one's in-group.

But here's the thing: by maintaining solidarity with morally dubious or outright unethical behavior, we become complicit in perpetuating those wrongs. The moral hazard is that the cost of misbehaving is externalized and distributed across the whole tribe, while the benefits accrue to the misbehaving individuals and factions. It's a dynamic we see play out again and again, enabling misconduct and postponing accountability.

The way to break this cycle is to listen to the wise words of comedian Chris Rock: "If you haven't pissed off your own crowd, you're doing something wrong." Speaking out against wrongdoing in our own tribe may be one of the most courageous and impactful things we can do - and one of the most difficult. It takes extraordinary moral fiber to risk the ire of one's peers by pointing out their flaws or failings.

But in the long run, those who can overcome the psychological barriers and find that inner ethical strength perform an invaluable service. They force needed self-reflection and course correction from within. In every great social and political reform movement throughout history - from the American Civil Rights Movement, to the Indian independence struggle, to the fall of Apartheid in South Africa - there were always key insiders who made the crucial decision to break ranks and expose injustice from within their own communities.

In Northern Ireland's sectarian conflict, figures like John Hume and the peace activists of the Catholic and Protestant communities rejected the absolutism of their respective tribal positions and advocated compromise. Their willingness to challenge orthodoxies and acknowledge wrongs on all sides paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement.

In South Africa, white anti-Apartheid activists like Donald Woods, Helen Suzman, and Beyers Naudé risked harassment, arrest, and being disowned by their own social circles to denounce the racist policies of the Afrikaner establishment from the inside. The African National Congress itself engaged in robust self-criticism, admitting to human rights abuses by its armed wing and other moral failures in the struggle.

Ultimately, it's this willingness to call out your own side that can help diffuse conflicts and propel society forward. Refusing to engage in denial, excuse-making, or whataboutism when members of your group cross ethical lines. Prioritizing truth over tribal allegiance. And understanding that airing your in-group's dirty laundry isn't disloyalty, it's the highest form of accountability that preserves integrity.

If more of us could overcome the psychological hurdles and find that moral courage, perhaps we could accelerate positive change on complex issues from climate change to economic inequality. As the saying goes, the most meaningful acts of courage are the inward ones that take true introspection and character. No movement for reform and progress can succeed without activists critiquing their own side first.

#opinion #conflict #truth #facts