INSIGHT: Party Politics and the Dangers of ‘Groupthink’

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. The negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses” (Janis, 1972).

One of the great advantages of a new parliament benefitting from a plethora of Independent MPs and MPs from a range of Minor Parties is that the negative effects of Groupthink would be negated. Larger numbers of MPs with diverse viewpoints would force genuine debate in the House of Commons and in the media. Alternative ideas and viewpoints would receive the appropriate amount of examination and rigorous critical attention. This means that decisions might take longer – but there is a much greater chance that these decisions would be the right ones for the country, rather than the right ones for specific major political parties and their inner core of voters. A greater number of Independents and MPs from Minor Parties would stand a good chance of preventing Groupthink in a future parliament. They would check the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats convincing themselves that their ideologically-driven decision-making is in the ‘national interest’. Any political party in government would not have a free pass with the important decisions facing the country. They would still have a litmus test – a larger group of Independents (drawn from the whole political spectrum – both Left and Right) that would not collectively vote for a strategy because their party leader had told them to. Major parties couldn’t simply have their whips enforce the will of the Prime Minister or party leader across a large number of voting MPs. They couldn’t simply get their will on successive issues unchecked by winning the count: they would have to win the argument. Surely our democracy would be improved by such a state of affairs and the dangers of Groupthink would be kept in check. The more extreme, reckless and damaging political ideas would likely be filtered out in favour of strategies with benefits for a greater range of British people.

MORE ABOUT ‘GROUPTHINK’

Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. Psychologist Paul t’Hart (1998) developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance.” Janis identified the dangers of Groupthink as “The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions against outgroups.”

Irving Janis studied a number of historical 'disasters' in American foreign policy, such as failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) - when the US administration sought to overthrow Fidel Castro - and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. Following his studies he concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions were made largely due to groupthink, which prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. The concept of groupthink has been subsequently used to explain many other faulty decisions in history. These events included Nazi Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the Watergate Scandal and more recently the invasion of Iraq. The attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 was a prime example of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by Naval officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming itself for an offensive attack. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harbour, but their warning was not taken seriously. They assumed that Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped. The Navy and Army in Pearl Harbour shared rationalizations about why an attack was impossible. Officers succumbed to social pressures and did not want to face scrutiny by objecting to what had become the common belief that Japan would not attack Pearl Harbour. Leading officers at Pearl Harbour reinforced each other's feelings of faith and invulnerability and it is the reason why the United States was defenceless against Japan's attacks.

To make Groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of Groupthink. He indicated that Groupthink is indicated by groups suffering excessive optimism and an unquestioning belief. They rationalize warnings and alternative viewpoints that challenge the group’s assumptions. They stereotype those who oppose the group as weak, biased and stupid. They experience self-censorship of ideas that deviate from group consensus and indulge illusions of unanimity among group members. To such groups silence is viewed as agreement. They place direct pressure on group members who question the consensus and view it as a type of disloyalty. Groups experiencing Groupthink also have self-appointed members who make it their business to shield the group from dissenting information. There is strong evidence to show that the Groupthink phenomenon impacts on real-world decisions on a daily basis. Groups that are engaging in groupthink target the consensus group decision and bypass alternatives without careful consideration or discussion.

Do these sound familiar? All three of the major political parties in this country – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – present the British publish with these symptoms. Groupthink is dangerous and demonstrated on a daily basis. A greater number of Independent MPs and MPs from Minor Parties would help keep Groupthink in check and prevent it from further destroying true democracy.


No comments:

Post a Comment