On Groupthink: Part I
Primary tabs
Recently, No Blood for Hubris suggested I look to Irving Janis's 1982 book Groupthink (as the second edition of Victims of Groupthink is called) to shed some light on the kind of mass delusions and biased analysis I often critique.
Since apparently few people are interested in preventing fiascoes (there's tranches and pallets of cash in them thar shock doctrines!), the book is currently out-of-print.
Having picked up a used copy, I see that the theoretical and practical material — the part of most interest to me — is found in three chapters:
- Chapter 8, The Groupthink Syndrome
- Chapter 10, Generalizations: Who Succumbs, When, and Why
- Chapter 11, Preventing Groupthink
FYI, the first seven chapters consist of a brief introduction followed by chapters on four famous American fiascoes (Bay of Pigs, Korean War, Pearl Harbor, escalation of the Vietnam War) and two more-successful policy processes and outcomes (Cuban Missile Crisis, Marshall Plan). Chapter 9 focuses on the Watergate cover-up.
In the Introduction, Janis defines groupthink thusly:
"..a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. "Groupthink" is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell presents in his dismaying 1984 — a vocabulary with terms such as "doublethink" and "crimethink." By putting groupthink with those Orwellian words, I realize groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. The invidiousness is intentional: Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures.
He concludes the Introduction with a description of his "central theme":
The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-makng in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups.
Could this shoe, perhaps, fit in-groups like The Village, organized religion, the aptly named "Dittoheads," and Progressive Blogosphere 1.0? Various partisans in Israel / Palestine debates? Golly, that's a tough one.
* * *
Part I of this series focuses on Chapter 8, The Groupthink Syndrome.
The chapter begins with Janis's lists of the symptoms and consequences of groupthink. (Note: the following synopsis of symptoms is adapted from the one in Wikipedia).
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
1. Illusions of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking
2. Unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, causing members to ignore ethical or moral consequences of their decisionsType II: Closed-mindedness
3. Collective efforts to rationalize warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions and ongoing commitment to past policy decisions
4. Stereotyped views of opponents as weak, stupid, and too evil to negotiate withType III: Pressures toward uniformity
5. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus
6. Shared illusions of unanimity, due in part to self-censorship of unpopular opinions and the presumption that silence means consent
7. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
8. Emergence of mindguards — members who shield the group from information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions
Note that in Janis's context, symptom #4 refers to stereotyping that belittles and underestimates "enemy leaders," who are projected as being easy to defeat. I'd warrant that we see similar stereotypes propagated when in-groups judge any sort of disrespected "other." Further, we've seen groupthink stereotypes slant in the opposite direction, where the group exaggerates the threat or the powers of The Other — such as the Reaganites' view of the Soviet Union, the Bushies' view of Saddam Hussein, and some Democrats' view of the "all-powerful" Karl Rove and "the Clinton Machine." Some of these false assessments may be done with manipulation in mind; regardless, they are easily reinforced by group dynamics of the sort Janis describes.
Janis sees seven typical undesirable consequences from groupthink:
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to reevaluate initially rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selective bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contigency plans.
As Lambert noted some time ago, "groupthink" can be a dodge to suggest that "mistakes were made" by faulty bureaucratic dynamics, as opposed to by willful actors. Willful though they may have been (and were), the Bush leadership and support network were nonetheless deeply inhaling their own fumes:
As we've seen, the intelligence community isn't a candidate for groupthink. But I can think of one small group that is: Bush, Condi, Rummy, Wolfie, and the rest of the neocons and assorted sycophants.
Anywhere where self-satisfied cliques operate, the risk of numbingly shoddy reasoning exists.
Cocky about their knowledge and exceptional moral fiber, closed-minded about alternative interpretations and solutions, and lockstep in uniformity that squelches any hope of second thoughts — groupthinkers won't necessarily be wrong, but if they are wrong, their chances of getting right are awfully poor. Their resoluteness will be unshakable as they march forth into the Big Muddy.
- vastleft's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
No Blood for Hubris is great
NBH advised me that numbing and denial were perfectly valid strategies for dealing with the aftermath of the primaries....
1. Numbing and avoidance, I think I said. ; )
2. Autonomic dysregulation: hypervigilance, irritability, anxiety, panic, angry outbursts
While one is on the battlefield, these are useful behaviors, not symptoms.
Of course, the kicker is that we all need to get the f*ck off the battlefield and leave our PTSD symptoms behind.
But we can't.
We're still there.
And now we turn our attention to all these recent threads . . .
irritable? check. hypervigilant? yep. angry outbursts? . . .
Just noticing . . .
Dunno what it means. Just noticing.
Look, I'm a WASP...
So, as far as either numbing or denial, it's Whaddaya got?
is this going to turn out to
is this going to turn out to be about israel and palestine?
It's certainly applicable, but...
As I suggested in the post, it's by no means just about I/P.
At the time I ordered the book, I/P wasn't the hot topic of the day, though now that it's back on the front burner, it's one of the key topics I'll be thinking about as I consider the impact of groupthink.
The initial, and still major, relevance to me in Janis's book was Obamania and CDS. But also the groupthink that made the Iraq War seem like a cakewalk... or necessary... or appropriate at all.
It's in the media's ability to convince itself -- and many of our countryfolk -- that Al Gore was a lying scumbag, John McCain was a maverick hero, and George W. Bush a swell guy who should be our president.
It's about the ability of society -- globally and locally -- to propagate and defend religious myths... which, in no small way leads us back to I/P, as the world's most volatile manifestation of religious insanity, not to mention some of the worst policy thinking one could imagine (except for those who delight in ongoing violence and degradation).
I think you are wrong about
this:
I/P is not at its core about or because of "religious insanity". The original Zionists were not at all religious, and the original Palestinian resistance was not of a religious nature either, either before or after Israel became a state. In fact, Hamas was originally registered and monetarily supported by Israel in the late 70's in an (idiotic) attempt to pull support away from the secular nationalist Fatah. Hamas achieved its electoral success 3 years ago, not because of its religiosity but because Fatah was seen as corrupt and willing to sell out the average Palestinian in its dealings with Israel while Hamas had consistently provided social programs that helped the individual Palestinians.
And on the Israeli side, according to the Israeli government, one can be a "Jew" and be an atheist at the same time. "Jewishness" is based on whether your mother or grandmother was a Jew. Believing in Judaism is not necessary at all. And there is discrimination in Israel against the Arab Jewish citizens, even though they are better off than the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Arab Jews must often negate their Arab roots and culture in order to get ahead in Israel. This would not be the case if the crux of the problem was a religious one.
The conflict is much more closely resembling an ethnic conflict with Zionism being an offshoot of European colonialism and romantic nationalism. Yes, there are religious crazies on both sides, but "religiosity" is merely used as an excuse for ethnic bigotry that would exist even if you extract the religious aspects.
I don't mean to divert the whole discussion away from "groupthink", but in the past you've written that 1) you aren't very knowledgeable on the I/P conflict, and 2) that the conflict is mainly the result of "religious insanity". I would like you to consider the possibility that you are letting your conclusion #2 prevent you from dealing with your lack of knowledge of #1. (Since you already "know" the answer, why seriously study the question, right?) But if you haven't studied the question, what makes your "conclusion" valid?
This kind of thinking, where one reaches a conclusion before really looking at the problem seriously and then makes the problem fit the preferred "conclusion" is an example of faulty reasoning; the kind of reasoning that could easily be amplified by groupthink and lead to disastrous policy thinking.
Yup
Was gonna make a similar comment but so glad you beat me to the punch.
Not all ethnic struggles are religious at heart. Part of the problem in many present day conflicts is that the former European imperial powers sliced and diced borders and ethnic groups in such a way that it encouraged disputes and conflicts. Reducing the conflict to "religious wars" is a scapegoat that reduces the role of imperial powers and good ol' fashion greed--which is "(non)religion-invariant".
zee zee,
The issue isn't whether religion is the straw that stirs the drink or just one ingredient in the drink. At a minimum, it adds a lot of gusto, because certain land is bequeathed to some chosen people or other, some places are "sacred" and can't be / must be visited be some or other descendants of somebody or other.
To me, religion and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, and in the Middle East, they have often fueled each other. Magic beings and/or our forefathers want a certain destiny for us, so let the rights and interests of others be damned!
Since you've apparently flipped the bozo bit on me, you've seemingly got a preferred conclusion of your own.
You're choosing to paint me as believing that I/P is exclusively or necessarily primarily about religion, when I didn't say or intend that. I said in I/P we see today's "most volatile manifestation of religious insanity, not to mention some of the worst policy thinking." Is that not true? Isn't religion-fed insanity at least part of the problem? And did I not acknowledge that terrible groupthought policy (in which religion may or may not be a factor) plays a substantial role?
the religion tho, says that we can't have Israel --
I-P is all about land -- who owns it, how it got the way it is now, what happened to those that were there all along -- and what's still happening to them. And the colonial powers/empires who claimed it as well thruout history, as well as the UN, Europe, and WW2.
and Zionism --
Well, from the part I've read...
The Torah is quite a blueprint for a rather remarkably violent form of Zionism.
it's not a blueprint, nor describing the present, or
any kind of goal at all -- but is a history -- which people tend to not notice, but is incredibly relevant -- and incredibly irrelevant to us here now and to what we should be doing here now and why we are here now.
and it's not Zionism -- Zionism is a movement developed by people with the goal of a Jewish nation (and not necessarily in Israel, either).
Bible is over if you want it, eh?
Or as Pete Townshend put it:
"You’ve been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door, but no one had the guts to leave the temple.”
If only because fundies are supporting AIPAC's agenda to prep for the Rapture, I'm not so sure we can put the OT/NT behind us, much as I wish we could.
My simple picture of Zionism
is that indeed it was secular. But the generation that founded Israel died out a long time ago, and I would wager that today the strongest motivation (besides money and power, of course) is indeed "the Holy Land."
I'd say that the "Holy Land"
is a motivator mainly for the Christian Zionists in the US, whose knowledge of the conflict is simplistic and limited, but Israel remains quite secular and there are much stronger forces at work there than the "Holy Land". I'd recommend reading Idith Zertal's book, "Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood" or Avraham Burg's new book, The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes". Zertal is a distinguished Israeli historian. Burg is a former Knesset Member(Labor Party) and former head of the Jewish Agency, and second generation Israeli. He now lives in France and is a French citizen.
If you don't have time for the books, read Baruch Kimmerling's lengthy review of Zertal's book in the Nation. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050110/ki...
(Kimmerling was a well-published professor of sociology in Israel. He died last June.)
Not quite sure what you mean by
but you've either missed my point, or don't dare acknowledge it.
I have no qualms about people coming to conclusions, whether they agree with mine or not. My warning is about reaching a conclusion and then either trying to fit the all the facts to match your predetermined conclusion, or not even bothering to look at the facts, since the conclusion is already set in stone and facts aren't necessary. The only significant factor you have sited in this and other earlier posts about the root causes of the conflict are religious ones, and yet you admit that you don't know much about the conflict. This is my problem with what you said. Whether you think it is the "straw that stirs the drink or just one ingredient in the drink", it is the only factor you have deemed important enough to mention in your earlier posts and in this one, and yet you know very little about the conflict, and appear not to want to know or hear any more, unless it supports your foregone conclusion.
I don't see the conflict as really religious at its core or even at its periphery, nor is the basis for the insanity religious-- it is ethnic conflict and bigotry. Religion merely provides some of the "justifications" for bad actions that people want to commit anyway. For an example, white Europeans in the fledgling US didn't hold black slaves because the Bible told them to. They held slaves because they wanted to, and considered blacks inferior to them, and not worthy of the same rights and considerations as whites had. So they looked for justification of their slaveholding in the Bible. Now that no one considers slaveholding morally right or justifiable, it is no longer allowed, even though the Bible didn't change and people here are still overwhelmingly Christian. For another more pertinent example, Judaism pretty clearly says that Jews must wait for the Messiah before returning en masse to the Holy Land, but yet that part of Judaism is conveniently overlooked because it doesn't support the prevailing prejudices in Israel. So other "religious" and non-religious justifications are used for taking land from the indigenous people.
You seem to be force-fitting your conclusions
To keep religion out of it, even at the periphery. Wake me when the Wailing Wall and The Dome of the Rock are converted into a shopping mall and no one much cares.
Still not addressing my point...
But simply amplifying it. You don't feel the need to know anything more about the conflict because you've already figured it out without the need for facts.
OK, you win
When I get the time, I'll check out whether I'm delusional that the problems in the Middle East are at least "peripherally" related to religion.
No I'm afraid you did.
Nowhere did I claim you were delusional. I'm simply and repeatedly telling you that I think its faulty reasoning to come to a snap conclusion about something that you yourself admit you don't know much about. Its also not wise reasoning to try to form-fit your facts to your desired, previously invested in, conclusion. You keep missing the point. I will withdraw.
yup -- Religion merely provides some of the "justifications"
exactly.
Too many Americans tho, immediately automatically associate everything as Israel=religion--whether Jewish or some Christian end-of-the-world thing... and also Arab/Palestinian/etc =Muslim and/or terrorist and evil.
Of course, I segued from religion to...
... the myriad bad policy decisions, but please keep up the superior theme about us dumb Americans who don't know any better.
Huh?
Zuzu writes:
Huh? Even "at the periphery"?
I have a vivid picture in my mind from years ago, reading about Orthodox chanting "Begin King of Israel" when he was first elected, and thinking "We are so fucked." That's surely religion, and not so peripheral, either.
Ditto Sharon triggering the last intififada with a trip to The Dome of The Rock. That, again, is surely religion, and not peripherall.
I don't think that seeing Zionism, at it's origin, as being secular, and today's conflict, over 100 years later, as having a strong religious component, are contradictory either. History is complex.
chickens, eggs
certainly a lot of the early zionists [but not all of them] really did believe that ceiling cat really did promise them that particular special piece of desert, and muslims [and they're not the only ones] don't make the same sharp distinctions between law and religion that we do [or used to, anyway], but i think you may be giving religion a bigger role in the 'insanity' part of it here than is warranted.
i've never been to either palestine or israel, so i could be waaaay wrong on this, but it looks to me like nowadays religion is the characteristic for defining the in-group/out-group in this particular conflict, kind of like shirts and skins in basketball, rather than the driving force it once [if it ever] was.
i have to admit, i hadn't been keeping up with the russian aspect.
anyways, i'm over-sensitive on being pro-palestine, having been so since way back before it was cool [and having got a few death threats to show for it too] but otherwise, yes, examining groupthink is good.
Groupthink, the internet and scholarly disagreement
Interesting article. Hope this doesn't jump ahead of your chosen pace, but with a mention of Cass Sunstein included I couldn't resist.
It didn't seem to me that the article was really...
... about groupthink in Janis's sense, more about a side-effect of internet research -- that the top search results are becoming "short-tail" phenomena.
"Group think" in the title was, I think, basically a pun (if not a humorous one).
Groupthink in this way
For the diligent researcher, the old system was challenging to learn but fairly straightforward; once understood it was simple if tedious to navigate and, if a decent library was available, pretty close to comprehensive. With the internet the process is simple and fast but that speedy simplicity is seductive, making it appear as though a thorough search has been done when what has happened is a weighted skimming of the literature based on popularity - the composited thinking of the group - which can be based on any of a multiplicity of errors and untoward influences.
It is this combination of speed and appearance of precision that is seductive and potentially misleading to the human psyche, especially the modern one that worships, if you will, at the alter of the god Technology. Can't tell you how many papers I've reviewed and critiqued where the conclusions were buttressed by citations that were very recent and often shaky but in the moment popular because the cited author was prominent or influential and thus often read. That the referenced work was flawed or just one of several possible interpretations would have been revealed by boring down another layer or two but in the eyes of the paper's author hey, this is what the search engine returned so it must be the authoritative set.
Whether the internet will be a force for driving diversity or vehicle for facilitating homogenization is, I think, still an open question. Perhaps it will mimic the rest of civilization's processes and become both, but the great danger of groupthink is certainly facilitated by human enthrallment with speed and ease of use - McLuhan x Orwell could be very unpretty.
Not much danger of groupthink here, though; too many rascals, and that's a very good thing.
"when in-groups judge" --
isn't it more fluid than that tho -- almost always, in fact?
especially when it comes to fundamental/deeply-held beiiefs and principles -- that both predate membership in any given "in-group", and that also don't change or have been considered essential and "lines in the sand" -- regardless of group membership -- and regardless of whether they're shared or condemned by any given in-group?
also -- and very important - we all belong to multiple groups -- some long-lasting, and some that change, dependent on the group changing and/or our own interests changing or some other factor.
political party membership, a religious identity, an activity-based group that may or may not be issue-related, single or multiple issue-based affinities, class and sub class groupings, sexual orientation, where and how we live at any given time, economic situation at any given time, etc ...
we all have venn diagrams chock-full of overlapping identities/"groups" that we belong to, and some are ephemeral and some aren't -- isn't it too reductive to label any view or position "groupthink" simply because it matches a current "in-group" at that specific time?
and don't most of us also hold views that contradict one or more of our group ids as well?
Exactly!
+100, as to the question:
Now, to the question of identity....
NOTE Because although I agree with what I see as the implied answer to this question, I also see groupthink quite clearly in the examples that VL gives. So there is a real question here, and one we all confront every day.
Yes and yes
Yes, we belong to various overlapping and non-overlapping groups, and yes not every consensus is groupthink.
Janis details many symptoms that are clues to when groups are in its throes, as described in the post, as well as further tests described in his book to weed out false positives (such as when the bad thinking is plainly top-down more than group-constructed and reinforced).
The shoe only fits where it fits. But just as we might say "power corrupts," a similar inexorable force quite possibly tugs at all "in-groups," whether they succumb to it or not.
"similar inexorable force quite possibly tugs at all "in-groups"
which brings me to the exchange between you and Paul at OpenLeft --
the forces and "tugs" for Paul are very different than for you -- on multiple levels -- some due to multiple more "permanent" group ids (which conflict enormously in themselves and are irreconciliable, which is important too), and some due to this specific situation, and the degree of investment in it, etc.
Something some of us may see as "groupthink" may actually be the opposite, because of the "inexorable force" of one or more "in-groups" being brought into the picture when discussing one thing and not another and importance of those groups, etc.
And why people speak -- or don't speak -- of things in certain ways at certain times is not always because of why we may think it is. Sometimes it's impossible to realize the power of some "groupthink" if you don't belong to a group. And it's certainly impossible if you have a negative view of a whole class of "groupthinks" (like religion).
Paul was reacting against a very very powerful and pervasive "groupthink" (that isn't applicable to-- or shared by-- all who read him) -- even if what he said could be read as "groupthink" in itself.
also, doesn't the labeling -- & dismissal -- of views
as "groupthink" -- by people who see themselves as outside the "group" they're thinking of (when they're doing it) -- and see themselves as free of, objective, or as holding another view, or outside the issue/view entirely, and thus in a position to judge others (which is all of us at one time or another, since we all id as "with" and as "against", depending on what it is, and we judge others who we don't agree with at the time, etc) -- hurt discussion and understanding?
it's not like disagreeing with others, and it's not listening, and it's not conducive to conversation or exchange of views. It's just labeling so that you can either dismiss the view -- or the person holding it, no?
That is a form of group think as well, no?
I know exactly what you're talking about but it seems, according to the list of signs/symptoms in the original post, this behavior seems part of the groupthink phenomenon.
only sometimes, i'd say --
propagating, following along with, and repeating and believing groupthink (for various reasons) reinforces group identity and especially personal affiliation with "this group"/"my group" -- even when it's negative and about some "other" or some "other group"/"them".
labeling and dismissing something as "groupthink" can be individual as easily as it can be "group" - associated, no? And it can be based on those conflicts bet the various groupthinks each individual has themselves and how one or more of those is more valued by a person than those being expressed by the group, or it can be based on assessment of the merits of the "think" itself (by testing its validity/truth in some way or another), or because of hostility towards the "group" itself or some members of it, or because of disagreement with the group's goals overall beyond that specific "think", etc. ... no?
To me, the biggest warning sign is
The absolutely unquestioned belief in the group's beliefs and the absolute inability to consider subtleties, countervailing information, etc. Along with that comes the bending of morals, facts, and everything else.
A good example is the sort of liberal who argues that Mitt Romney doesn't just have objectionable policies, he's also ugly. The progressive who thinks that ageism is OK as long as it's against McCain, that sexism is OK as long as it's against Sarah Palin or evil DLC-monster Hillary Clinton.
I use left-side examples, because to stay loyal to the GOP these past several years demands such unsavory values or amazing mental gymnastics that it's hard to even find the rational bearings to show where they're going off the rails.
Yet, if we're not groupthinkers, we should be capable of entertaining a thought such as that George W. Bush isn't a racist. That's not to say that such a thought is correct, just that it's good practice not to be blindly unwilling to consider arguments and information even at the loss of the simplifying comfort that opponents' evil is boundless (or, in other matters, that their grievances are non-existent or trivial).
To conflate that willingness to entertain subtleties and conflicting facts and analysis with "false equivalence" is to argue that no potentially countervailing data should ever be considered, because they endanger our resolve and lockstep unanimity. An argument that gives me the willies.
"we should be capable of entertaining a thought"
-- but that's just it.
I think that that's the real underlying point applicable to all discussions, and it's why there's pushback against labeling and dismissing and reduction -- especially here -- and that it's not because of groupthink or even a reaction to groupthink, but because it insults and prevents "entertaining a thought".
like your labeling of I-P as religious, and because you don't value it, it insults those of us who have different views -- and there's a reaction based on the labeling -- we see it here even now -- and then there's not "entertaining a thought" anymore because it becomes all about whether the presented view/frame/think is actually correct or not.
which goes back to the multiple id thing and how they don't match and align with the multiple ids of others, and that's ok -- and actually good for discussion -- and it's not groupthink, and it's not ok to presume that our own individual views of things are commonly held, etc.
The value of understanding and recognizing groupthink
Does not stop short at the pleasures or discomforts of disparaging labels.
It helps us understand when we're potentially being misled by True Believers whose information and analysis have been excessively filtered or biased. And it helps us understand when we may be succumbing to the same impulses.
The problem is...
... that although all groupthink labels, not all labels come from groupthink.
"Name it and claim it," as AA says. Works for discourse as well. Anybody who's ever done moderation and administration knows, for example, that there really are trolls and sock puppets (no, not on this thread).
As I read, I couldn't stop thinking about...
...how this applied to the free market religion, Capitalism, as "the dominant American ideological truth."
Thanks.
ps: Interestingly, the article at that link was written on January 3, 2001.
& private homeownership, & tons of things --
all the "American Dream" stuff is -- and the "we're good"/"we're the freest country in the world"/"We're #1"/ bla bla bla...
Those examples sound more like ideology and propaganda
to me. They are manufactured for mass consumption, where groupthink, if I understand it, is neither.
Commentary on the role or lack of role of religion in I/P
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai...
but you can't use a biased & religious sample to decide --
or to somehow indicate that they speak for all Jews or Arabs or other religious people in the world -- they are not objective by definition, and don't speak for all of their religions in any way at all -- and the 3 out of 12 most vehemently accepting of religious basis there use it to bash Muslims and/or Arabs too -- Cal Thomas and Rodriguez and Brooks -- one neo-con and 2 "Christians".
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield -- Hamas Has a Point, But So What?--
and the only!!! identified Muslim there -- Taylor -- Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Political, not Religious
If you want to keep seeing it as a religious thing, fine -- realize tho, that there's no religious solution at all that's "right" -- and that the vast vast majority of the world doesn't see it as you do -- and that the vast vast majority of those against this oppression aren't seeing it thru any other than the lens of common humanity and decency, and rights and crimes.
and also -- Sally Quinn and the WaPo should never be taken as any kind of representative sample of anything -- especially religion. They reflect the Village, which is amoral entirely.
related and important --
if you see I-P as religious in nature to begin with, you're already using a groupthink -- before you even start to examine or assess or discuss this.
and here's another common one that's similar -- and used by both sides on this --
Who Are Israel's Friends? --
Good grief! Talk about force-fitting your conclusions.
Yes, lets learn about the conflict from Sally Quinn, Cal Thomas, and Deepak Chopra! That will surely end the groupthink. I'm sure they know all the answers, so we won't have to think at all.
The question asked was phrased as a religious one and was asked of a panel put together to elicit religious answers. (The question:"Hamas leaders claim that their understanding of Islam makes Israel's survival a theological and moral impossibility. What's your response to that? How should Israel respond? How should other Muslims respond?" left out considerable context as well.) As far as I can tell, none of panelists are experts on the Israel/Palestine issue but I assume that because you think it supports your foregone conclusion you cite it here. Otherwise, I can see no reason to cite it. It is totally useless as a learning tool.
The only panelist who seemed to have any real knowledge on the subject was Pamela Taylor and she provided the needed context to the question by quoting Hamas leader Khalid Mish'al .
In that context, Hamas's thinking on the "theological and moral impossibility" of Israel's survival is not much difference from MLK's or Mandela's thinking on the "moral impossibility" of segregation and apartheid. Their tactics certainly differ, but their theological underpinnings on this subject are no different, and don't differ markedly from current secular humanist thought on the subject.
As I said before, if you truly study the problem from all angles , without going into it with a set-in-stone conclusion about its root causes, and still come out with the idea that it is in significant part a result of "religious insanity" I won't fault you. I will disagree with your conclusion but I won't fault you for having it. But if you are going to cherry-pick sources to support your snap conclusion and not be open to just learning from all informed sources, then I think you'd be better off studying groupthink as it applies to yourself before trying to inform others about its dangers.
it sounds weird, but --
even tho us Jews -- and Muslims -- around the world -- all of us -- no matter what or where we stand -- feel connected to this in ways people who aren't don't-- because of religion and group id, we most often have to fight groupthink -- on this, and on all matters related to Israel, and most especially the US-Israel support, and deep and deeply biased relationship.
the groupthink on this hits us in our hearts because of religion and tribe (especially because there so few Jewish people in the world and we're all brought up to be alert about our survival bec of history) -- and we recognize -- because of our religions! -- and our views on humanity and behavior (and maybe more than non-Jews and non-Muslims) -- that it's actions that are the problem, and human decency -- and that when it comes to religion, there are laws both religious -- and moral and ethical and humanity-based -- that guide our behavior towards others -- that are far far far far more important than religious views on territory or land -- always. And that our religious rules should not ever be the rules on state or group or military or political or diplomatic action for the world -- ever (something most Christians don't believe, as far as i can tell--seriously).
it's hard to explain clearly. everything is tangled, like with all problems/issues in the world.
very related too --
10 Questions for Mark Juergensmeyer on Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State, from Christian Militias to Al Qaeda
when you look at conflicts like I-P or Muslim-Hindu violence in India or Sikh stuff or the ongoing Christianization of our own laws and govt and schools, etc -- you can see which have religion as primary motivators and which don't -- whether religious justification is used or not.
Most modern/current ones have non-religious ones as the primary motivators, i'd say -- with the exception of Christians here in the US who are explicitly working for theocracy -- most boil down to official actions and social/societal causes -- inequality, discrimination, oppression, power, territory, etc.
"they felt that their people
"they felt that their people were under attack and they were excited about joining the fight"
this is a pretty good description of how many of my the south is gonna rise again! neighbors feel. even after all these years.
quite a number of them are happy to go take it out some ay-rabs in eye-raq.
Quick, someone tell Juan Cole
That religion isn't even a peripheral factor in the Middle East. The ignoramus references "two militant Islamist entities to Israel's north and south, Hezbollah and Hamas," who perhaps are somewhat involved in the ongoing crisis in some way.
Oh, and a shout-out to those who continue to perform nearly religious miracles of self-fulfilling malarkey. In order to play some bizarre game of gotcha, not only have certain commenters continued to ignore that I listed both religion and bad policy as factors in the Middle East, and that nowhere in this discussion did I claim that religion was the only or the #1 problem, there's now a freakout because I linked to a collection of commentary on the relationship between religion in the Middle East, a collection that includes at least one column saying that religion is not the key factor (a point I alluded to in my comment title). I haven't endorsed all or any of that commentary (frankly, I haven't gotten around to reading any of it yet, but thought it might be of interest to share), but please carry on as if I did!
zomg!
juan cole said islamist! militant islamist!
in spite of the very obvious fact that other parts of the world have their share of religious extremists too [surprise], if you magickally turned them all into atheists tomorrow poof! it would do nothing to stem the fighting.
Really?
You mean, like, magically abolishing the Pope and the Catholic Chruch would have done "nothing" to affect the Crusades? Or magically abolishing the Reformation would have done nothing to "stem the fighting" in the Thirty Years War? Good to know.
above my pay grade to analyze long-dead christianists
my comment, the intarwebz eated it [ok, some cats were helping me type]. it was a good one too, but anyway, in the present-day middle east, they hate us [and our proxy, israel] for our imperialism.
Sure, you can shift to a new argument when you lose the old one
Cats or no, Hipparchia, you originally wrote:
In response, I instance examples where that proposition simply is not so. You then write:
Which is (a) not the original point, (b) is not the same as "they hate us only for our imperialism," and is, (c) therefore entirely compatible with VastLeft's original point, which was to disprpve zuzu's absurd proposition that religion is "not even a peripheral factor" by instancing trivially obvious cases where it was.
"Any stick to beat a dog" -- bad arguments, good ones, anything goes. If there could be any clearer illustration of why I distrust all sides on the poisoned ground of I/P discourse, it would be hard to find one.
Just to clarify
Because I'm a pedantic bitch like that, is VL's argument is with zeezee not zuzu.
Carry on. :D
Oh, Jeebus
And having mixed you up with amberglow... But at least you'll grant me that z_z_ is easier to confuse with z_z_, right?
Yes, I'll grant you that
Don't do it again, or you'll get sentences next time, bub!
sentences!
argh! no!! not sentences!!!!!!
quicksand to the left of me, boiling mud to the right
srsly, i had a nice long essay composed, complete with 6 or 8 links, on whether and how much religion was/is driving the conflict... whether and how much the conflict is/was fomenting religious zealotry... and why i think that religion could disappear from the face of the earth in one swell foop right this minute and nobody -- not the israelis, not the palestinians, not the iranians, afghanis, iraqis, armenians, jordanians, south ossetians, or ________, not the u.s. -- would even notice.
to be honest, i haven't a clue where you were you were going with the reformation and crusades. it's fairly common to view the rise of mohammed and mohammedism and the ottoman empire as a religiously-inspired response to the religiously-inspired crusades, but i'm with xenophon, wars tend to be about the mundane issue of resources.
i'm blogging at you from the beaches of florida instead of from the hinterlands of the u.k. because some ancestor with odd religious practices got on a boat and sailed to a far-off land, ostensibly to escape persecution. his progeny prospered and propagated and 400 years later that turned out well for the people who had been living here.
not.
anyway, i see israel and palestine as being approximately here on the timeline, and it's not israel that's playing the part of the 5 civilized tribes.
always nice to have god on your side in a war, but while a few of the zealots of my acquaintance would blink a couple of times if ceiling cat lost out to basement cat, most of them would never even notice.
Bingo
Bingo, Hip.
Though, I must disagree about the how religion plays into this. Below the surface of this for both sides is the belief that their god granted them dominion over this particular land, and especially on one side of this where it's written into their very religious text. Both sides get away with showing the other side as invaders. In the Zionism side of things, I hear people vehemently argue that it wasn't religious, but the two are inextricably tied together. It's not a religious movement, but it's a movement that has always been rooted in religious tradition, with Land of Israel never being far from its mind. Hell, the very name of Zionism has its etymological roots in a physical place in the so-called Holy Land.
Might be worth a try
IMHO, at the very minimum, religion provides:
a) Air cover to those who want the fight, the land, etc., because almost no one will criticize religion and its "sacred" business
b) Some # of zealots
c) Powerful symbolism, even for those who aren't especially religiose
i'd be happy if religion
i'd be happy if religion went away tomorrow.
a. air cover, it's whatever you want it to be.
b. there are waaaay more zealots in the middle east now that we've invaded two countries and are rattling our sabers at a third.
c. we respond powerfully to symbolism. everybody makes use of that response to get us to do things.
Still trying to form-fit your facts
to your conclusion I see. And now you've even taken to dishonestly replacing "religious insanity" with "religion" to try to make your point. If you'd bother to read your own cite you'd notice that Cole is not making your point for you, but is rather pointing out that the failure of the Bush doctrine and the growing hatred of the US and Israel by the Arab and Middle Eastern world is not the product of "religious insanity" but rather of our own stupidity and violence toward the region.
So, now you've escalated to false charges of "dishonesty"
When I refer to religion, I am referring to something delusional (or at best fictional). Is that not clear?
Have all your references to religion in the thread included the (redundant) quote "religious insanity"?
As you surely realize -- unless you've completely broken from reality -- my reference to Cole was specifically because that respected critic of US/Israel policy refers to major Palestinian players as "Islamists," plainly rebutting your farcical argument that religion (sorry, "religious insanity") doesn't play even a peripheral role in the Middle East, a rhetorical burden of proof you've lain upon me because, apparently, your goal is to discredit me for having the temerity to prefer rational thought to groupthink on an issue where you don't consider it welcome.
Writing a check that your comment can't cash
If you write a check for calling somebody dishonest, zeezee, you'd better be able to cash it. In support of your charge of dishonesty, you summarize Cole's thesis this way:
The key phrase is "not the product of." Well, if that's how you read Cole's thesis, you're just flat out wrong, since the (claimed) hatred is obviously as well a product of religious belief. Just look at the actors involved, citing Cole:
So, when you call somebody dishonest, you're writing a check that you'd better be able to cash. You did, and you can't. For the record, the problems with your comment are:
1. As a factual matter, it's false. All I have to do to disprove your thesis of "not the product of religious insanity" is to cite religious actors involved in creating the product, which I have done.
2. Tactically, the comment is stupid because, while using the "if you actually read" trope, of Cole, the comment doesn't actually go on to quote Cole. So anybody who actually goes on to read, and then cite, Cole, can refute you, as I did.
3. Tactically, the comment is even more stupid because the summary of Cole's thesis, as framed, is trivially easy to undermine.
The "product" of line of reasoning is linear and simplistic. I suspect it's tendentious rather than analytical. I suspect that some defenders of Israel may have settled on the argumentation that serves best to drive away opposition by degrading the discourse, rather than by true engagement. Such an argumentative style has the additional advantage that it's easy and quick to write, and so involves little investment of time; whereas engaging it creates a time sink for those who would do so. (This is the tactical advantage of the "if you read" trope as used. Reckless charges of dishonesty are certainly one way to poison the well.) In other words, this looks to me like the form of trollishness I'm already very familiar with from the OFB.
TROLL PROPHYLACTIC Yes, we have an empire. Yes, we should get rid of it; we can't afford it, and it's wrong. Yes, Israel plays a role in our imperial project. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I just don't happen to believe in "any stick to beat a dog" -- that is, false charges and bad analysis in support of good causes undermine the cause. ("Of all Sauron's works, the only fair.") YMMV, but if so, this is not the blog for you.
NOTE * VL would argue, I think, that religion and religious insanity are the same thing, since a belief in, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as insane as any other belief that alien beings, invisible to others, can communicate with you if the appropriate rituals are performed and mental attitudes assumed.
UPDATE Let's work on our cliches, zeezee. It's "force fit" not "form fit."
Lambert and VL
I re-read my series of posts and now realize that I misspoke and I didn't realize it until looking back now. I apologize to VL for calling him dishonest because I thought I had said that I don't consider "religious insanity" a major or minor player in the root of the conflict. I realize that in one post I used the term "religion" and not my intended term, "religious insanity" (which was VL's term to begin with.) Thus when he(she?) made the comment about Cole and "religion" I originally thought that he was dishonestly mischaracterizing what I had said earlier, rather than realizing, as I have just done, that I was being quoted correctly and the error was my own in misspeaking. I would hope that it would be clear that if I had indeed said that "religious insanity" was not player in the root of the conflict and VL had changed that wording to merely be "religion" that I would have indeed been correct in calling his phrasing of my argument dishonest. But I was wrong, and so I apologize.
I don't see religion as being synonymous with "religious insanity". MLK was religious as is Desmond Tutu and myriad other great minds that have struggled for equality and justice for all. And yes, there have been religious figures who were batshit insane and cruel and bigoted. But bigotry and cruelty are (non)religious-invariant. To my mind, simply writing off the conflict as a case of "religious insanity" is lazy thinking and doesn't help inform about the problem, not does it offer any solution. It fact it makes a handy excuse to just throw up your hands. (Disclaimer: I am personally an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. I just don't like wholesale dissing of anyone's religion, even when its done by a non-believer. )
As to your other arguments:
I would strongly disagree. To prove my statement false, you not only have to cite religious actors are involved, you have to show how their involvement stems from " religious insanity". You haven't done so, and I can't see any proof of that from Cole's article. If you see the religious insanity there, point it out please. I can't cite you something that I can't find, so I would think that the onus would be on you to prove the "insanity" part. I think its pretty clear that Cole is attributing the worsening view of the US and Israel in the Middle East to bad actions on those two countries part.
Cole:
.....If you see that as support for a theory of "religious insanity" in the Middle East, then you need to elaborate. The "insanity" looks to me like its coming from over here, and its governmental, not religious.
And finally:
My apologies for misquoting the cliche. If you think its a cliche, perhaps you should mention that to VL who used the term first. Just saying....
And as for the personal
It would be nice if you would stop mind-reading. You are not very good at it in this case. I disagree with you point of view. Other than my error in wrongly believing that you had mischaracterized my quote, for which I apologized, I haven't spent my time casting aspersions on your motives. I don't have any problems with your motives, and I am perfectly willing and able to see them as well-intentioned. I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the same courtesy.
I appreciate the apology
Sorry, but I truly haven't the time to give a detailed response to your defense of your other points.
You have hammered away at me as someone who's making the facts fit the conclusion, when I have in fact made precious few conclusions, which is intentional because I do not try to oversell my expertise on I/P. I want to see better and more illuminating and more reliably honest (and more reliably humane) discourse than seems to available in my typical haunts, and certainly better than in the MSM.
No doubt, there are many resources I could read if I were to make I/P "my beat," but that's not in the cards in the near future, not that I expect I could become some unique font of solutions.
I have surfaced a "pet issue" which is simpatico with my interests and (growing) knowledge about the way groups of otherwise intelligent people contort their thinking and bully others into conforming or shutting up (and, religion is an especially powerful tool for such things, regardless of how central it is to the current I/P woes). What I've seen in this discussions provides more anecdotal support for the idea that progressives don't want well-rounded discussions about I/P, they want to condemn Israel.
That Israel may deserve all that condemnation and perhaps more is not what I'm "on about." I want to know that the sources I'm hearing that condemnation from are fair, rational, opposed to all killing of innocents, and not-groupthinking, and I have little reason to be confident that they are.
Arthur Silber - Noted Groupthinker
Arthur Silber is unfair, irrational, and not opposed to all killing of innocents. We knew it all along.....
So with that out of the way, what would define the well-rounded discussions that you seek? What qualifies as "illuminating, honest, and humane" in your view? What level of equivalence is required for it to make the cut? Where is this evidence of groupthink, unfairness, yada yada, of which you often speak? In comments perhaps?
Seriously. Is saying that both the Israeli right-wing and the Hamas are to blame for the end of the ceasefire not enough to ensure "groupthink" isn't at work?
How about the posts at this site?
many ppl here are insulted by you when they try to illuminate
-- and that's beyond a shame, VL. it makes a total mockery of what you say you want to see regarding discussion of this.
considering that over and over and over you say you don't know all the facts of this ongoing and very very well documented and decades-long conflict, why are you so hostile to those facts that don't fit your preconceived thinking on I-P -- and on religion in general?
you still won't even consider that this is not a religious conflict -- and you're wrong.
Since my time is limited, I will respond to one point
zee zee:
You write:
Actually, I just took more time to search the thread. As I suspected, "form fit" (as opposed to "force fit") is, in fact, introduced not by VastLeft, but by you.
Just, as we say, saying.
UPDATE Let me correct myself. I had in mind this famous exchange from Bull Durham:
Sad. this is the only thing you chose to repond to
and you misunderstood my comment. I apologized for misquoting the "cliche" as "form-fit" rather than "force-fit". "Force-fit"- you know, the "cliche" I got wrong--was first used by VL, and was used prior to when I used the misquoted "form-fit". Or is the cliche ("force-fit") not a cliche when VL uses it, only when I do in response? (And, to use a Bull Durham term, I was batting .500 on getting the "cliche" right.)
I interpreted your original remark about getting my "cliche" wrong as an implied dig at using cliches. Was I wrong? You like cliches, you just object to them being misstated? Or were you just trying to be "boring"?
Update I was only batting .333 on getting it right. Not great, but a decent average for baseball.
If we ended our own imperial project...
... then I/P, which is a sideshow to that larger project, would, in the best case, solve itself. In the worst case, things could hardly get worse, since our meddling would no longer be part of the problem.
I'm sorry to disappoint the partisans on both sides of this thing, but no matter how you look at it, I/P is a second-tier issue considered from the standpoint of our own national interest -- and by "national interest" I mean justice for the little people the Village is fucking over so badly.
Does what we're spending on Israel this year come close to the two trillion Hank Paulson's golfing buddies just looted? Does the cost come close to Iraq? No and no. Do the lives lost come anywhere near to Iraq? How about the lives lost due to our health care "system"? No and no. Do the political consequences for our system of government come anywhere close to the distortions introduced by the national security state? Of course not. Does Israel's survival as a nation matter more to me than our survival as a nation? No. Are we facing the question of our survival as a nation? I would argue yes; that's the effect of the collapse of Constitutional government and its replacement with a financial dictatorship.
All of which goes far to explain why I find I/P discussion supremely uninteresting; and you can add to that the lack of a visible and obvious solution. Perhaps, after that right wing religious loon (sorry for the redundancy) shot Rabin, there is no solution.
And I can't help but think Our Betters are more than happy to have "the left" (or "progressives" (or "liberals")) consume themselves over a side issue while they prepare to institute another round of Shock Therapy -- which, I will remind you, may prove quite lethal, literally, to us and/or people we know. The cancer is here, in this country, in the Village. I/P is a relatively minor metastasis, easily treatable when the main cancer is irradiated.
All that goes to explain why I haven't read this thread with total attention (except to try to kill off accusations of lying).
That said, the evidence I must have missed.
1. I have a vague picture -- "vague" by comparison to my picture of domestic politics, that is -- that (a) mainstream media coverage is relentlessly pro-Israel, and that (b) "the left" (or "progressives" (or "liberals")) are strongly pro-Palestinian. I saw stats from the BBC showing point (a). Where are the stats on point (b)? Failing stats, where's the evidence?
2. Where's the I/P equivalent of the Daily Howler? Is there anywhere I can go to read humane and reasonably a-partisan commentary with some expertise about what's happening on the ground?
3. If the answer to #2 is No, have these threads done anything to help solve that problem? I hesitate to say "Simple answers...", but...
I'd disagree with you on
I/P being a second tier problem. Our failure to rationally judge Israel by the same standards we hold other countries to, and our failure to understand what is really going on in I/P was a highly significant factor in our tragically misguided invasion of Iraq, which in turn, besides killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (which will "blowback" on us one day), has cost us, what, trillions of dollars? It was, after all, the neocons, with their distorted views on the "threats" to Israel from Saddam's non-existent WMDs, who led us into that War. And it was with Israel's encouragement and faulty intelligence(as well as our own) that we went into that War. I'd quote you from the Juan Cole article that VL linked to, but since I'd already done that at length in another response to an earlier point you made, I won't waste the space here, but simply point you to my earlier quotations from the article.
That being said, I understand that you disagree on its status as an important issue. But let me give you my answers to a few of your questions.
This was exactly the point that many of us were making in response to VL's assertion that most "left" blogs are not only strongly Pro-Palestinian, but that such blogs mostly fail to condemn violence on both sides. As far as I have seen in the conversation, VL has failed to provide any evidence of either of his points. If you want stats or evidence, perhaps you could persuade VL to share them with us, because we've been unsuccessful in getting any proof of his assertions so far.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that the "pro-palestinian" blogs that I have frequented condemn violence on both sides, and can also tell you that not all "left" blogs are "pro-palestinian". Some have blind spots, or special exceptions for the discrimination and oppression that Israel enforces on the Palestinians. Some are just very poorly informed and don't know the facts. I don't have stats, but then I wasn't the one making blanket unsupported statements.
I wouldn't call Daily Howler "a-partisan". I love Somersby, but his commentary always has a viewpoint.
However, if you want "humane and reasonably a-partisan commentary" I can repeat my suggestion that I have made twice before. For general info, I would go to ICAHD , Taayush , ISM and, for a look at a West Bank village being strangled by the Wall, try Friends of Freedom and Justice-Bilin . Al these are dedicated non-violent organizations that include both Israeli Jews and Palestinians in their membership, and are dedicated to equality and peaceful coexistence.
If you just want news coverage that isn't limited by the US MSM bias, I'd suggest checking out "Palestine:Information with Provenance" which catalogues and posts links to news and opinion pieces from a variety of Israeli, Palestinian, international and US sources. If you want to follow the news from a leftish Israeli perspective, you can read the English edition of Haaretz . I'd recommend the writings of Gideon Levy, Amira Haas, Tom Segev and Akiva Eldar, but you can get a range of Israeli perspectives from left to right at the paper. Gideon Levy and Amira Haas in particular have often reported first hand from the Occupied Territories.
If you want to read some pithy and honest commentary that's closer to home, try Tony Karon (former South African Jew, former Zionist kibbutznik, now living and writing in the US on the Middle East and international affairs) . Or read the archives at Lawrence of Cyberia Her posts there are always impeccably sourced and logically reasoned. You could also visit
Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam .
I could give you more if you like, but I think that those are a good start.
Thanks for the references
Anything with the word "provenance" in it appeals to me; but most of them seem to have national colors splashed over them, and lots of slogans. I'll look at them in more detail when I get a chance. Frankly, I prefer Al Jazeera, and I'm surprised you don't mention them. They seem like a news gathering organization on a global scale, and because they're a large organization, I can factor out and compensate for their tendencies and biases, much as I can for our own Pravda and Izvestia.
As far as a secondary issue, I gave the metrics: Lives lost, trillions lost. I don't see engagement my main thesis that America's imperial project is the primary issue, and that I/P is secondary* within that frame. If you disagree, and you think that support for Israel is the primary driver, and the imperial project secondary, then I suggest you post on it. Yes, I'm well aware of the role that the neo-cons played at the ideological level and as bureaucratic infighters.
For my part, I see this series of threads as ample demonstration of Janis's views -- after all, the original point of the post, if anyone remembers, was to present a checklist of the characteristics of groupthink, so that groups could self-correct themselves when they fall into it. Given the primary, I think the analysis will be useful, going forward. The utility of a simple-to-apply checklist seems, for some reason, to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
And with that, my engagement with this thread, and hopefully with I/P, and its partisans (at least in the I/P context), is mercifully at an end. VL can answer for himself on the issues he raises.
NOTE "Highly significant," as you say. Sure. But still secondary, as I wrote.