GroupThink

Recent events in India have left me saddened, confused and angry. The most recent of course is the hullaballoo about a self-styled godman who was convicted of serious crimes against two of his female followers. Upon his conviction, his “followers” erupted in anger and proceed to damage, destroy and otherwise run riot until the Army moved in and cleared them out.

It did leave me wondering what makes an individual so blind in his faith that he (or she) loses all power of reason, challenge and critical thinking. That all evidence contrary to a belief and a line of reasoning is rejected as a false narrative and the sense of victimhood becomes so pervasive that it is used to justify irrational actions.

I think it corresponds to Groupthink.

1.      The opening situation is of a person or family that is already alienated to some extent from social moorings. The semi-rural environments that this particular godman operated in are deeply hierarchical and people from low-income groups, subject to persecution and humiliation for millennia, would have found the relatively flat and hierarchy-free environs of the group attractive. How do I say this? Mainly because unconfirmed reports suggest that in this heavily personality-based cult, there was no particular differentiation between classes of followers and everyone had equal (and limited) access to the leader.

2.      Repetitive messaging about a particular set of positive qualities attributed to the leader, including by himself. This creates a halo around the leader, which confers a particular status on him that is perceived by his followers as such. Note an earlier TV interview where the interviewer lists all his ‘accomplishments’ and then goes on to ask him what he doesn’t do - implying that this must be a very short list indeed!

3.      In a more subtle way, the repetitive messaging is also used to establish that the outside world – those that do not conform to the group’s norms – are inferior, damaging, or otherwise aggressive and seeking to destroy the cult in some way. Thus, ‘I am right’ is equated with ‘you are bad’ and forms an implicit justification for aggressive behavior when larger social norms (in this case, related to the charges of sexual assault brought against the leader) are sought to be enforced.

4.      Therefore, when the leader is convicted of charges brought against him, his innocence is presumed as a by-product of the social forces ranged against him and used to justify violent behavior.

The pattern described closely approximates GroupThink. The fact that the leader got away with such egregious abuse of his own authority and excesses against his followers was compounded by the general disbelief of the charges, which was why the victims found that they were not listened to and the entire case took years before it actually started picking up pace on investigation.

The best way to challenge GroupThink is to ask questions, present facts and consistently challenge. Yet, this is ideally done by someone within the group and not an outsider  (who is anyway perceived as the persecutor, reinforcing the groupthink belief of victimhood. Yet, to find an insider who has retained rationality is a huge challenge in all such groups. Now that the group is leaderless and rudderless (or more precisely, seems to be in the throes of a succession challenge), might be a good time to re-establish group norms that help create a more balanced, rule-bound set of behaviours.