flexibeast.space - quotes
Tourish's “Ideological Intransigence, Democratic Centralism and Cultism: A Case Study” (1998)
“Ideological Intransigence, Democratic Centralism and Cultism: A Case Study” [PDF]
Members experienced enormous pressure to conform. Dissent led only to group criticism sessions, which everyone was naturally anxious to avoid. To avert such an eventuality all members eagerly denounced the others.
Members tended not to leave as the result of rational reflection and conscious decision, but dropped out in despair, exhaustion and crisis.
Any group meeting was one obvious place where this came into play and the tone was set. For example, the leadership would give a presentation on a change in the direction of some work or would open up a denunciation of a comrade for some error. Once the leadership finished, each militant would be expected to say how much he or she agreed with the presentation or the criticism. Ideally, each person was to say something different from what had already been said; but more to the point each person was expected to agree with (‘unite with’) whatever was going on. Questions, should there be any, had to be couched within an overall agreement.
Underlying these practices were the cardinal assumptions that social, economic and political catastrophe lay on the immediate horizon, that a vanguard revolutionary party was essential to lead the working class back from this abyss and towards the conquest of power
These accounts, building on the definitions of cults discussed above, suggest that political cults tend to be characterised by the presence of the following traits.
1. A rigid belief system. In the case of left wing political cults this suggests that all social, natural, scientific, political, economic, historical and philosophical issues can only be analysed correctly from within the group’s theoretical paradigm – one which therefore claims a privileged and all-embracing insight. The view that the group’s belief system explains everything eliminates the need for fresh or independent thought, precludes the possibility of critically appraising past practice or acknowledging mistakes, and removes the need to seek intellectual sustenance outside the group’s own ideological fortress. All such thinking is dismissed as contaminated by the impure ideology of bourgeois society.
2. The group’s beliefs are immune to falsification. No test can be devised or suggested which might have the effect of inducing a reappraisal. The all-embracing quality of the dominant ideology precludes re-evaluation, since it implies both omniscience and infallibility. Methods of analysis which set themselves more modest explanatory goals are viewed as intrinsically inferior. Those who question any aspect of the group’s analysis are branded as deviationists bending to the “pressures of capitalism”, and are driven from the ranks as heretics.
This conviction is combined with contempt for all other organizations on the left. The closer such organizations are to the group’s own ideological lineage the more likely they are to be the targets of abuse.
Given what is now known of social influence this approach is almost certainly destined to prevent genuine internal discussion. Firstly, it is not at all clear when “full freedom to criticise” can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that the dissident ceases their action on pain of expulsion from the party.
All resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure for them to be withdrawn. They invariably were.
Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies which show that when people take a public position in defence of a proposition there is then a strong tendency for their private attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviours. In short, if people tell others that they support X (for whatever reason) their belief system will begin to agree that indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been the more likely it is that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line it becomes increasingly difficult to hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at large while maintaining an inner party regime characterised by frank and full discussion. Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.
It has been widely noted that apocalyptic images pervade the ideology of cultic groups.
Firstly, [catastrophism] tends to black and white thinking in terms of prognosis, combined with a straining sense of urgency. Mutually exclusive and totalistic options for the future are assured. Either there will be a completely new form of society, hitherto unknown in human history, or there will be a relapse into forms of Nazism, this time threatening global nuclear destruction. No other options are available. The future is presented as a choice between imminent salvation or eternal damnation, and one which hinges on every action which party members take. Secondly, such a perspective is a classic cult means of extracting maximum involvement from people alongside a minimum critique of the group’s position. It imbues the organization’s routine activities with a sense of colossal urgency, purpose and conviction which normal politics can never hope to match.
“The more you agreed with the leader the more he or she cited your contribution in a 15-20 minute summing up at the end. If you disagreed, your contribution would be unpicked, but if it wasn’t sufficiently enthusiastic about the line it would – even worse – be ignored. In this way you soon knew who was in and who was out. There was a distinct tendency to promote the most conformist comrades to key positions”
Research suggests that merely being a member of a group encourages the development of shared norms, beliefs systems, conformity and compliance (Turner, 1991).
The desire for affiliation is one of the most deeply rooted features of human existence (Hargie and Tourish, 1997). A driving force behind it is our desire to reduce uncertainty, by embracing ready made explanations for the conduct of others (Berger, 1987). In particular, a number of crucial studies (Burgoon et al., 1994) show that anxiety producing situations increase a person’s need to affiliate with others and can also change their pre-existing criteria for choosing companions.
Tourish and Irving (1995) have argued that it is useful to conceptualise the issue of cultism as a continuum. At one end of the spectrum we find voluntary associations of people co-operating to work out their ideas and develop a shared sense of purpose. At the other end are manipulated individuals, compelled to uncritically accept the theories of unchallenged, infallible and uncorrectable leaders. Organizations and individuals can move back and forth along this continuum. Harmful practices may reach such a level that the group experiences a qualitative rather than quantitative transformation, emerging as a fully fledged cult. In one sense this approach makes analysis more difficult, since it becomes more conditional and less “black and white”. Groups are not necessarily either cults or not cults. They can be both, at different times and under different circumstances. The key is to identify what techniques of social influence are being used, and the extent to which the people involved recognise the dangers inherent to a great many forms of organization.
Left wing activists, in common with all those interested in movements which set themselves ambitious goals of social, moral or commercial regeneration need to temper enthusiasm for change with a stronger awareness of the techniques of social influence, and a greater scepticism towards totalistic philosophies of social change. Without such an approach, individuals face life-long disillusion with any form of political action.
☙