<p> 1 What’s good about groups?</p><p>Recent researchers in social psychology have taken a special interest in ‘groups’. For them the word denotes ‘face-to-face’ groups that enjoy frequent interaction, so by definition it refers to ‘small groups’. The following discussion assumes the usefulness of this scientific research and draws lessons from it without over-referencing the discussion for a Café setting presentation. By the way, the title also includes an implied ‘what’s ‘not so good’ about groups?’</p><p>Christian doctrine about church is still slow to apply the insights of other disciplines. For many Christians it’s quite enough to say that Jesus is present by the Spirit wherever believers meet face-to-face in his name. This simple approach also invokes fairly grand expressions to characterise church communities (e.g. Body of Christ, People of God). But the actual real life dynamics around these lofty descriptions remains neglected. Moreover, sometimes the albeit worthy virtues of ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ are in danger of being treasured as carrying no intrinsic defects or dangers themselves. </p><p>I note here a quotation that I’ve used for many years now and it still, for me, summarises things quite well: “As a sociological reality the church reflects the political intrigue, bureaucratic development, social stratification, class conflicts and boredom that occur in all institutions...” (J Cobble). What follows below tries to take this brute fact seriously with specific reference to smaller, face- to-face groups. </p><p>The presentation slides (which see) show first a conventional continuum between two poles: cohesion at one end along to conflict at the other. But then a strictly more accurate version appears. Now cohesion is an intermediate point on the line. It’s on the way to the extreme point of enforced uniformity. Conflict (meaning moderate and necessary difference and disagreement) is also intermediate, but in the opposite direction. It lies towards an extreme point of disunity. A narrative of these four points, conflict-disunity and cohesion-uniformity, follows below.</p><p>Conflict</p><p>The conflict in mind here is a healthy, creative kind, so not necessarily harmful or bad though all the same dangerous (as was once remarked of power).</p><p>(a) The intervention of (verbal) conflict can be positive if it helps bring injustice to an end. As Bishop Desmond Tutu observed: ‘whoever is “neutral” in a situation of oppression is on the side of the oppressor.’ Conflict often goes with the challenge that confronts wrong.</p><p>(b) Conflict can also force a group to rethink its position and reach positive innovation. It generates multiple insights from multiple experiences (let’s call it soft or ‘gloved’ conflict). This is what’s good about groups. The research evidence assures us of the productive power of groups that are cohesive and working well together but still open to the airing of difference – hence more productive in conceptions and tasks accomplished than a single individual can be. </p><p>Much also depends on how dissent is handled: A group that crushes dissent can generate over-focused, narrow thinking. But a group listening to minority voices produces broader focus on new information and alternative perspectives.</p><p>Status differences and conflict </p><p>Psychology has tended to confirm Foucault’s expectation of a sometimes subtle status differentiation in any group. This may be (1) partly on a ‘meritocratic’ basis, earned in some measure for example: because of advanced education, work experience, developed so-called 2 ‘emotional intelligence’ or skills in demand. Or (2) even more subtly, from non-meritocratic differentiation: gender, attractiveness of personality, social background, ethnicity etc.</p><p>These status-features create different expectations within a group, based on the ‘worthiness’ of particular members, leading, say, to more opportunities to lead. But equally there’s scope here also for put-downs, the marginalising of some voices, ignoring of others, whether from religious or social/secular assumptions about equality and inequality. I recall a meeting convened to discuss plans to help vulnerable people on the streets. The chair administered a put-down to Kevin for voicing a suggestion for action, all because the young man sounded less articulate than other contributors. But Kevin knew more about it than any of us, having once been on the streets himself. A vital, productive insight was both dismissed and missed.</p><p>Disunity</p><p>Positioned at the extreme of the continuum, this means extreme unresolved conflict, or the harsh end of difference. It can lead to apathy, splintering, meltdown or cessation of the group. Combat in such groups can arise from multiple causes: different goals, limited resources, strongly held opinions, inadequate social behaviours, insensitivities and individual (selfish) short-term gains pitted in defiance of group interest. </p><p>Cohesion</p><p>Two particular types of cohesion crop up in discussion and usually one is more primary in a group than the other:</p><p>A common-bond For this type of group, ‘personal attachment’ is primary in the cohesiveness. Much is at stake in groups of this kind, perhaps the group’s very existence because cherished personal relations are so much at stake. So strong measures and safeguards against conflict are often in place. </p><p>A common-identity For this type of group, members admire each other’s conformity to a common concern or distinctive (often termed ‘social identity’). It is a cohesion from people sharing a common commitment (eg political activism, ideology or protest). That also implies a self-perceived importance.</p><p>However where common-bond is primary the group usually still needs to be sustained by a common goal or identity and where common identity takes the lead (often where one-to-one attachments get little encouragement), too much weakening of interpersonal bonds will in the end make the group fail. Incidentally, traditional Christian theology already implies this. Believers in mutual concern, it is assumed, must belong to a common missional vocation in the world and, equally, that common vocation further binds people together in relations.</p><p>Uniformity Uniformity (not unanimity) is the extreme point on the continuum. This is my choice of word for what research reports as an inauthentic forced compliance through, for example, coercion, fear, emotional/psychological blackmail or domination. The effects can be as negative as those found from disunity (for example leading to demoralisation, fatigue, ineffectiveness and dysfunction). David Kipris describes the usual effects in general of such high control of power wherever it is found. The power-holder (individual or group):</p><p>1. devalues the performance of the less powerful 2. discounts their motives and believes him/her/itself instead to be the chief influence upon their actions, 3. views the less powerful as objects for manipulation 3</p><p>At this end of the spectrum is also the much-discussed topic of ‘Groupthink.’ To oversimplify a complex discussion let’s call Groupthink a group process whereby the exaggerated desire for a group’s total conformity has seriously negative and counterproductive effects. (For a recent, skilled summary of the state of discussion, see J. D. Rose, (Spring 2011). "Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory – a literary review", in Emerging Leadership Journeys 4 (1): 37–57). Accessed on http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol4iss1/Rose_V4I1_pp37-57.pdf )</p><p>Originally according to Irving Janis, the original populariser of Groupthink theory in the 1970s, there are distinct symptoms of the condition:</p><p>Type I, overestimation of the group, including 1) illusion of the group’s invulnerability and, 2) belief in its intrinsic morality </p><p>Type II, closed mindedness, including 3) a shared rationalization and, 4) stereotyping of out-groups </p><p>Type III, pressure toward uniformity, including 5) self censorship 6) deliberately fostered illusions of unanimity in the group 7) direct pressure on dissenters and, 8) self-appointed mind guards </p><p>Views vary about what may be safely and scientifically predicted as to the fate of a strong- conformity group (and about exactly which conditions will give rise to such results). A minority sees the strict form of Groupthink theory as a myth. However, Groupthink’s general lines have received a new lease of life now that some original case studies from political and big organisation have been dropped. Moreover, once the features of Groupthink have been articulated to the general reader, many people easily recognise it. They have witnessed the symptoms of Groupthink in real life face-to-face groups for themselves (a show of hands in the Theology Café session itself confirmed this). And Groupthink theory continues to endure in new ways, increasingly recognised in widely differing experiences and variously multiple fields. </p><p>It simply teaches us that any small group that over-cherishes a special and distinct identity for itself could well be facing developments dangerous to its own health and effectiveness. Research concludes that this danger is strongest the moment the group perceives itself threatened or contradicted. So typical symptoms of Groupthink activity are that the group:</p><p>(a) puts psychological or other pressure on dissenters to be compliant or feel guilty at undermining the group’s uniqueness and reason for existing, (b) even requires that a dissenter’s own internalised thoughts reconfigure themselves to fit the group’s exaggerated solidarity, (c) exalts the illusion of solidarity in the group to a status having priority over good decision- making, (d) resists, denies or rationalises new information received, so that this new input is somehow distorted to support the party line, (e) regards dissenters or outgroup members as inferior and open to manipulation, (f) consequently runs short of creative solutions to its most urgent and/or critical problems </p><p>Theology based on the Christian Scriptures easily chimes with, and could add to, these discoveries of recent research findings. By way of example, Christian thought asserts: 4</p><p>(a) the indispensable nature of honesty in face-to-face groups as a way of life not just a function. Christian communities themselves naturally display elements of both common identity and common bonds (all ‘in Christ’, all ‘witnesses’). (b) the flawed nature of all human relationships, (c) the supremacy of love over all gifts, tendencies and powers, (d) the absolute necessity of pursuit of transparency, ‘truth-speaking and truth-being’ (eg Eph.4.15 ‘truthing it in love’). This will operate in ‘one mind’ but ‘varied viewpoints’. (e) the illusory nature of human power and especially of self-importance. Starting with the following: 1) Phil 2: don’t think more of yourself that you should – ‘have this mind in you that you have in Christ… who took the form of a servant’. Here is a word to fallen dynamics, 2) Avoidance of cults of the elite and of the personality - no followers of Apollo or Peter only of Jesus, 3) Paul’s views of apostleship’s special character as primarily service and suffering (the Corinthian letters), 4) The light touch required from those advantaged in power relations (whether by office, merit, or fortune eg. 1 Pet 5.3), 5) Gifts and powers being seen as common service (Ro 12).</p><p>This has been only an introduction to the searching results of research in a field that examines group life dispassionately. Allied to honest Christian reflection it could more surely steer us between uniformity and disunity, and clear of destructive elements in church dynamics. But only if we’re aware of them.</p><p>For those wanting to examine the research further, an excellent reader in social psychology and small groups is John M Levine & Richard L Moreland (eds) Small Groups. Key Readings, Psychology Press, New York, 2006.</p><p>© Roy Kearsley 20013</p>