One can indeed often observe a certain "dynamics" in groups, where the interest of the group supersedes anything, even human rights. Even though 'a group' as such should not be able to claim anything more than respect for individual human rights. In meetings, companies or associations, it often happens that the group takes decisions which almost no individual member would ever take.
1) Try to convince a group to do good for external people (that don't belong to the group): it is almost impossible, because a single opponent in the group is sufficient to block your proposal. 2) Try to convince a group to condemn an external person or an external group: it is extremely easy. In the very rare case you have an opponent, he will immediately be considered disloyal to the group. It only takes one disapproving sentence and "mischief is afoot", the entire group will end up inventing the most cruel measure against that person. Because people essentially seek recognition in the group they belong to, groups have a tendency to behave in a very selfish way. And as groups have no 'soul' of their own as individuals have, they can't be held accountable in the same way as individual people can.
1) Try to convince a group to do good for external people (that don't belong to the group): it is almost impossible, because a single opponent in the group is sufficient to block your proposal. 2) Try to convince a group to condemn an external person or an external group: it is extremely easy. In the very rare case you have an opponent, he will immediately be considered disloyal to the group. It only takes one disapproving sentence and "mischief is afoot", the entire group will end up inventing the most cruel measure against that person. Because people essentially seek recognition in the group they belong to, groups have a tendency to behave in a very selfish way. And as groups have no 'soul' of their own as individuals have, they can't be held accountable in the same way as individual people can.
There are plenty of examples. Is the main genocide of the 20th century the work of an individual (Hitler) or the work of a group? We like to say the first, but we know it is at least the combination of both. How should you behave as an individual if you happen to live in Germany in 193x? In the Bible, Jesus' death is not really attributed to an individual person. He is first condemned by the Sanhedrin (a group), later the mob (another group) prefers his death over the death of Barrabas. Individual people played their role, but only the group was able to show such a lack of pity.
Are there examples where a group behaves better than individual people? Perhaps social security could be considered a case where a group is more generous than an individual, but you could argue that social security is only the ransom that politicians pay for social peace, and that social security is not really born out of generosity of the contributors (moreover it doesn't 'feel' like that).
Are there examples where a group behaves better than individual people? Perhaps social security could be considered a case where a group is more generous than an individual, but you could argue that social security is only the ransom that politicians pay for social peace, and that social security is not really born out of generosity of the contributors (moreover it doesn't 'feel' like that).
What is the implication? That it is always wise to consider the potential cruelties we may be committing on behalf of the groups we belong to. Exaggerated loyalty to the group, combined with an unconscious 'omerta', may lead to complicities we regret later on. I also refer to my earlier blog about bullying.
1 comment:
A helpful summary. Consider also a kind of manual for group loyalty, the Nibelungenlied, in a very good Penguin translation by A. Hatto.
Post a Comment