The propensity towards corruption of undisputed
authority and the tendency to dysfunctional decisions of very cohesive groups
are facts recognized by sociologists and psychologists. Both phenomena have
been carefully studied by academia. The problems of any society worsen when the
two trends are combined in one single scenario.
Let us talk first about absolutism. Since no ruler
would accept that his or her behavior were analyzed by scientists, social psychologists Joris
Lammers and Adam Galinsky,
among others, have recurred to studies with volunteers who have been previously
primed as powerful (power primed) and brought to act in artificial situations
where they may exercise categorical authority.
Priming techniques include, among many, the
self-affirming repetition of phrases such as 'I am the one in command', or the
reliving of past circumstances in which participants had full control of
events. During Insight II, a motivational workshop which this columnist
attended years ago, the facilitators played ‘Gonna Fly Now’, the Rocky
film’s musical hit, when they wanted to grow the participants' sense of
authority. When we, participants, heard 'Gonna Fly Now´ we felt, I must confess,
really empowered to immediately perform with much energy the assigned tasks. We
were indeed primed for power.
In one of the simulations led by Drs. Lammers and
Galinsky, participants had to rate both their own behavior and that of third
parties, based on an ethical scale from one (totally immoral) to nine (totally
acceptable) in a large number of entries. The test results showed not only
negative influence of power in ethical conduct but also that the owners of
authority tend to judge others with a moral stick stricter than that with which
they measure themselves. The weak -the unprimed- in contrast, applied similar
metrics both to judge themselves as to measure the powerful. According to Dr.
Galinsky, power inclines those who have it toward either the breaking of
the rules or toward their free interpretation so that they may manipulate
evidence to suit their purposes.
The second problem around excessive leadership
comes from the so-called groupthink, a social anomaly, though its denomination
entails a positive connotation. Groupthink is an abnormal way of acting in
which the members of a group, seeking to maintain unanimous agreement, tend to
close their eyes to indisputable realities and ignore reasonable courses of
action. The cohesive groups that always appear around the powerful -the devoted
to the cause, the faithful servants of the leader, the beneficiaries of the
autocratic system- are particularly prone to this behavior.
Back in the seventies, American psychologist
Irving Janis documented in detail the causes and symptoms of groupthink .
Causes include the homogeneity of the group (political, social, religious ...),
the spontaneous or directed isolation from external sources of information and
the authoritarian leadership of the ruler in control -the subject of this
note. Symptoms are, among others, the blind belief in the morality of the
group, the indiscriminate disqualification of those who do not belong to it,
the pressure to 'straighten' the disloyal, and the censorship of ideas deviating
from consensus.
The scientific study of the harms of groupthink is
limited by the implicit difficulty to quantify subjective factors. Despite this
limitation, the detrimental impact of groupthink is clear and examples abound.
Two outstanding contemporary fiascos originated in groupthink environments are
the American invasion to
Iraq without
conclusive evidence to justify it and the concentration of modern physics
research over the past three decades in the so-called string theory, a field with questionable scientific
future.
It is thus evident that strong leaders with
unconditional followers cause major damage to any society or group. Those in
power who skillfully manipulate their players to win their loyalty would result
most damaging in any circumstance. Nothing can be as socially harmful as a
corrupted control with majority support.
For this reason the reelection of authoritarian rulers
with high electoral capital, whether legitimate or negotiated, is as
inconvenient as risky. Such reelections -some of peoples, other of dynasties-
so fashionable in the 21st century Latin America, are already showing their
unfortunate consequences in this region.
Gustavo EstradaAuthor of ‘INNER HARMONY through MINDFULNESS MEDITATION’
www.harmonypresent.com
No comments:
Post a Comment