Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second
time. After that, have nothing to do
with him.
~Titus 3:10
In my last three posts, I explored three typical features of cult dynamics: group compliance, dependence on a leader and devaluing the outsider. In the last post of this series, I end with the fourth feature: avoiding dissent.
In my last three posts, I explored three typical features of cult dynamics: group compliance, dependence on a leader and devaluing the outsider. In the last post of this series, I end with the fourth feature: avoiding dissent.
I would like to remind the reader that, like Deikman, I am
exploring these dynamics as quasi universal features of group life. They tend to be invisible because they are so
omnipresent, and their suppression only seems to make them less conscious,
often in the suppressors themselves. Groups
that consider themselves immune to “cult dynamics” because of their
rationality, secularity, modernity or some other presumed higher level of
development, can be the most insidious of all, precisely because of that blind
spot.
If suppression is powerless to mitigate these dynamics,
awareness has a much better track record.
I write to bring awareness to my own, and hopefully others’, tendency to
fancy ourselves above cult dynamics, and, in this post, to speak to the often
unspoken, unconscious agreement to avoid dissent implicit in our attachment to groups.
As we shall see, avoiding dissent can include avoiding any
discussion at all.
Avoiding Dissent
Adherence to a particular set of beliefs, or dogma, is a
normal part of belonging to any group but, when dissent begins to threaten the
group, group dynamics threaten to turn cultic.
Cults, like fusional families, cannot tolerate differentiation; hence
the phenomenon of groupthink, i.e., the predictable and scripted quality of
opinions voiced by cult members.
According to Deikman, “Conscious and unconscious suppression
and restriction of dissent is perhaps the most characteristic feature of cult
life”[1].
We typically imagine cult members as the proselytizing Jehovah’s
Witnesses that come to our door handing out pamphlets, recycling dogma or reciting
scripture to recruit and indoctrinate.
We are less aware of the phenomenon of “mindguarding”, though we have
all at one time probably been mindguards around the dinner table. Mindguards try to insulate themselves and
others from ideas and opinions that might contradict accepted doctrine in order
to avoid destabilizing the group. According to one author:
A mindguard is a member of the group who, in an attempt to preserve the central group idea, omits any information which may cause doubts to arise within the group. A mindguard assumes the responsibility of sheltering the other members of the group from any “controversial” information which may create a disruption in the overall group dynamic. (…) The goal of a mindguard is to prevent any questions regarding the group’s decisions from becoming apparent to the other group members.[2]
Overt tactics used to suppress different beliefs involve
such things as rewards and punishments or other strategies that put pressure on
group members to conform to the group mindset.
More passive but equally effective tactics include isolation and
disengagement from challenging conversations, or the selective citing of
experts and researchers who validate the group’s viewpoint while avoiding,
censoring or ignoring those who don’t.
The mindguard’s agenda can be hidden, even from himself,
behind slogans (“if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”),
rules of conduct, “participation guidelines” and the invocation of moral
rectitude with catch phrases like “right speech”, “noble silence”, “political
correctness” or, as in some countries, “national security”. Mindguards can occupy apparently respectable
functions like that of a Board member, group moderator or chairperson. The use of secrecy, holding meetings behind closed
doors and ignoring divisive comments are justified to themselves and others as
a service to the community or as fulfilling some other higher agenda. As Deikman remarks, “we react to dissent as
to an enemy, countering with argument or patronizing dismissal”[3].
I have reported examples of “patronizing dismissal” here on this
blog. I have mentioned censorship,
silence, and stonewalling within the Buddhist community, particularly by Ken
McLeod and his Board of Directors. While
some have immediately, and others eventually, engaged in dialogue in ways that
I’ve found both encouraging and humbling, others have seemed to want to mindguard.
The mindguard can be totally unaware of his cult-like
behaviours or even of the allegiance he is mindguarding. He may see himself as a champion of human
rights and freedoms even when he may be unable to tolerate different beliefs. This was recently the case in Quebec where
Pauline Marois invoked a Quebec Charter of Freedoms that forced secularity on
Quebecers, an irony to which she and her followers seemed quite blind. The mindguard may see himself as beyond all
dogma and affiliation, for example, as pure critique. You don’t have to recognize your cause as a
cult to behave in cult-like ways.
Recently, on his
Google plus page, Hokai Sobol, a Shingon Buddhist teacher committed to “spurring
and assisting the emergence and propagation of a non-sectarian, real world,
‘post-eastwest’ Dharma”[4],
publicly shared a link to an interesting Tricycle article on the student-teacher
relationship. He comments that the
article “fails to explain in which ways it is nothing like the child-parent
and/or client-therapist relationship.”
In a comment, the only one posted, I asked Hokai if he would
care to elaborate on the differences he sees, and invited him to address the author’s
point about holding the “relational space”.
My comment was basically an invitation for him to say more. In response, Hokai first ignored me. Then, a week later, he deleted the whole post
including the link and our comments. The
day after this, he blocked me and re-posted the link including his original comment
but excluding my own.
Why would Hokai want to avoid, not just dissent, but the
very possibility of a conversation in which he was asked a simple question? He was not obliged to answer, but he
apparently felt the need to delete the record of his silence.
It is remarkable that a “post-traditionalist” like Hokai
Sobol who presents himself as beyond traditional notions of “verticality” and
authority and who tweets about Snowden and cyber censorship, took such pains to
exclude me from an online public conversation, and to hide that from his
readers. One can only wonder precisely
what belief Hokai was mindguarding in this situation. One can only speculate, because his avoidance
of any dialogical give-and-take leaves us and probably himself unclear as to
just what his opinion is.
As Deikman writes, “Only a lively appreciation of dissent’s
vital function at all levels of society can preserve it as a corrective to
wishful thinking, self-inflation and unperceived rigidity.”[5]
[UPDATE January 5, 2015: After several months' hiatus, Hokai Sobol recently re-blocked me on Twitter]
