GROUPTHINK

In the world, today, it seems as though there are more and more people who identify with one group or another while attempting to dispel any criticisms of that particular group. We see groups with extra protections under various laws such as hate crimes, and special rights granted to various groups. These protections and positive claims rights came about as a consequence of groupthink, collectivism, and variants of so-called “social justice.” This is not to say that these groups, or others, do not deserve rights, per se. Rather, the point of Justice is that all are equal under the law, and are granted the same negative claims rights as others. By adding any word in front of Justice, e.g. “social” justice, or adding additional words preceding “rights,” it negates the purpose of both Justice and rights. Like any ‘good’ or ‘completeness,’ as opposed to bad or broken, ‘Justice’ is to already be balanced and complete under the law. 

In the past and present, there have been and are situations where people have been hurt by another group, a majority, or the judicial system itself. In these situations where the innocent are negatively impacted, there is still no need to provide extra rights to the victim or their respective group. There should, instead, be a movement to correct the imbalance, not provide extra weight for the side of the proverbial scales that are being robbed from; because when you add to one, you have either robbed from another or granted extra privileges under the law, thus making it unjust. When an unjust act is committed, it is brought before the law to help determine retribution for the losses or grievances as a cost to the offending party, and this is to bring the scales of Justice back to an even keel.   

As people continue to scramble for their identity found within a group rather than by themselves, they have neglected their very own individualism as a person and traded it for a herd mentality. This, in turn, leads people to become collectivized and to naturally partake in groupthink. 

‘Groupthink’ is a word coined by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. Dr. Janis provided eight symptoms of what he determined to be ‘groupthink’ as stated in the following: 

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. 
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. 
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. 
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. 
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. 
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. 
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. 
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. 

Much like Orwell’s 1984, the concept of ‘groupthink’ arouses the mind to either dismiss the claims when one is well-established in their current groupthink mentality of collectivism and blind faith of leadership while dismissing their own self-identity within their own individual place in the world; or, the concept of ‘groupthink’ sparks the awareness of the reader to be self-critical and skeptical of our own place in the world as an individual while pushing for ridding ourselves of the mob mentality. As social creatures, i.e. humans and people, we can tend to naturally rely on groupthink as it is a lazy way of acquiring knowledge and finding a place to belong in the world. However, not only is it philosophical sloth, but it is also detrimental to the foundations of logic, rational thinking, and Justice itself. 

Groupthink robs the individual of their Reason, as it relies on the elites of the group or the ever-shifting sands of culture and subjectivism. Groupthink robs the individual of exploring and growing, as it limits the interactions and thought processes of what can and cannot be explored, as it builds psychological borders and restrictions around whatever is to become “holy,” revered, faux pas, etc. Groupthink, as a species of collectivism, breeds an environment of the in-group and the out-group, an “us versus them” mentality, rather than the pursuit of what is true, Just, and factual. In turn, this acts as a conduit of human and social regression rather than flourishing and progress. 

In order to best combat ‘groupthink,’ it behooves the individual to self-assess, question themselves and others, especially when red flags of collectivism and groupthink arise. As the study of methodological individualism demonstrates, through and through, only the individual acts and only the individual thinks. To rob yourself of your own individualism and capacity to Reason by granting it to the sporadic oscillations of groupthink is the antithesis of what it means to be a ‘person,’ while simultaneously it obliterates the very Justice that the groupthink mob erroneously pontificated it was fighting for.