opinion

In 1972, American social psychologist, Irving Janis coined a new word - groupthink - to introduce a theory that could serve to explain several decisions of the foreign policy-making elite which ended in "fiascos"such as Pearl Harbour, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Vietnam War.

Janis defines groupthink as "the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action".

The use of the theory has since been extended to other fields of decision-making in groups or organisations, especially small ones.

According to the theory of groupthink, individual decision-makers in small organisations or groups tend to cease thinking for themselves and merge their opinions with the prevailing group viewpoint because they perceive that to be for the preservation of group cohesiveness.

Excessive respect for, or loyalty to a strong leader in the group, or the strong desire to maintain personal friendship within the group, also contribute to the phenomenon of groupthink.

As a result, individuals who have different opinions, doubts or disagreements about the majority or mainstream thinking in the small group would not express them openly within the group for fear of breaking the group's cohesiveness, or losing the friendship with fellow decision-makers or being seen, condemned, ostracised or marginalised as 'ungrateful' and 'disrespectful' of the strong leader in the group.

Groupthink escalates as the perception of external threats to the collective security or well-being of the group intensifies.

'Devil advocates'

After extensively studying historical records and the memoirs of participants and observers of the decision-making process that led to those "fiascos", Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink, namely:

- An illusion of invulnerability

- Unquestioned belief in the group's morality

- Rationalization

- Stereotyped view of opponent,

- Conformity pressure,

- Self-censorship

- Illusion of unanimity and

- Predominance of "mindguards" in the group.

The combination of these symptoms would finally lead to situations where the group fails to (1) survey a sufficient range of alternatives or objectives, (2) examine the risks involved due to wishful thinking, (3) re-examine courses of actions that had been previously rejected and (4) work out contingency plans.

To prevent groupthink, Janis suggested that small decision-making groups should encourage critical evaluation by assigning 'devil advocates', occasionally subdivide the group and then reunite to air differences, welcome critiques from outside experts and associates, and call a 'second-chance' meeting for group members to air any lingering doubts before implementing a decision.

At this moment when the sentiments of American 'jingoism' and 'anti-Americanism' are running high globally, it is time for both sides to remember the theory of groupthink with the positive desire of avoiding or preventing more mistakes and errors.

Critical questions

For those who hate or dislike the United States for reasons ranging from the White Christian Crusade against Arabic Muslims to the extermination of Red Indians, unilateral proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine, support for Israel and Zionism, secret bombings of Cambodia, overthrowing of president Allende in Chile, conduct of war in Vietnam and the subversion of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, should ask themselves a number of questions:

Do ordinary Americans leading normal lives in New York, Washington or any part of the world deserve to be suddenly and cold-bloodedly murdered en masse in an undeclared 'war', without knowing why?

Would we want that to happen to us because some Asians like Attila the Hun, Gengis Khan, or some Muslims invaded and caused untold suffering to the people of Europe in the past?

Would we sit idly doing nothing if robbers broke into our homes and harmed our families?

While they condemn the US for many wrong foreign policies, do they have the moral courage to give credit where credit is due, like the sacrifice of the American people in the First and Second World War, and their contribution to the successful suppression of Italian Fascism, German Nazism and Japanese Militarism?

Are they so sure and certain that without American leadership in international politics, the world would be better than it is now, and non-American states would never fight among themselves?

While Americans and their allies, should also ask themselves a number of questions:

Why are there so many people in Asia, Africa, Latin America and even Europe so critical of the US' foreign policies even verging to a point of losing their basic sense of mercy and compassion in the aftermath of the terrorist mass murder of innocent and unarmed Americans?

Do they really think nuclear missiles, smart bombs, fighter jets and robotics alone can forever eliminate or suppress the grievances, genuine or otherwise, of many Muslims and other people of Asia, Africa and Latin America against what they perceived to be American imperialism and hegemonism?

How sure are they that no innocent and unarmed people of Afghanistan would be killed or maimed intentionally in the military operation?

Americans must remember that a just war must not only have a just cause or jus ad bellum (which it now certainly has), but must be strictly accompanied by a just conduct of war or jus in bello .

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) which produces the subscriber-based political report, Analysis Malaysia. James is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.