<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Editor&amp;#8217;s note:\u00A0Every Sunday, Fortune publishes a favorite story\u00A0from our magazine archives. The Penn State abuse scandal has rekindled interest in the term &amp;#8220;groupthink,&amp;#8221; one that was coined in the pages of this magazine in 1952. What follows is the original article on Groupthink, which was part of the magazine&amp;#8217;s Communication series.\n\n  \nFORTUNE &amp;#8212; A very curious thing has been taking\u00A0place in this country &amp;#8212; and almost without\u00A0our knowing it. In a country where &amp;#8220;individualism&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212;\u00A0independence and self-reliance &amp;#8212;\u00A0was the watchword for three centuries,\u00A0the view is now coming to be accepted\u00A0that the individual himself has no\u00A0meaning &amp;#8212; except, that is, as a member of\u00A0a group. &amp;#8220;Group integration,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;group equilibrimn,&amp;#8221;\u00A0&amp;#8220;interpersonal relations,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;training\u00A0for group living,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;group dynamics,&amp;#8221;\u00A0&amp;#8220;social interaction,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;social physics&amp;#8221;; more\u00A0and more the notes are sounded &amp;#8212; each innocuous\u00A0or legitimate in itself, but together\u00A0a theme that has become unmistakable.\nIn a sense, this emphasis is a measure of success. We have had to learn how to get along in groups. With the evolution of today&amp;#8217;s giant organizations &amp;#8212; in business, in government, in labor, in education, in big cities-we have created a whole new social structure for ourselves, and one so complex that we&amp;#8217;re still trying to figure out just what happened. But the American genius for cooperative action has served us well &amp;#8220;Human relations&amp;#8221; may not be an American invention, but in no country have people turned so wholeheartedly to the job of mastering the group skills on which our industrial society places such a premium.\nBut the pendulum has swung too far. Take, for example, the growing popularity of &amp;#8220;social engineering&amp;#8221; (FORTUNE, January, 1952) with its emphasis on the planned manipulation of the individual into the group role. Or, even more striking, the extraordinary efforts of some corporations to encompass the executive&amp;#8217;s wife in the organization&amp;#8211;often with the willing acquiescence of the wife in the merger (FORTUNE, October, 1951). And these, as we hope to demonstrate, are no isolated phenomena; recent public-opinion polls,\u00A0slick-magazine fiction, current best-sellers,\u00A0all document the same trend. Groupthink\u00A0is becoming a national philosophy.\nGroupthink being a coinage &amp;#8212; and, admittedly, a loaded one &amp;#8212; a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity &amp;#8212; it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity- an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. Three mutually supporting ideas form the underpinning: (1) that moral values and ethics are relative; (2) that what is important is the kind of behavior and attitudes that makes for the harmonious functioning of the group; (3) that the best way to achieve this is through the application of &amp;#8220;scientific&amp;#8221; techniques.\nOnce grasped, as the work of the social engineers makes clear, these principles lead us to an entirely new view of man. And what a dismal fellow he is ! For the man we are now presented with is Social Man &amp;#8212; completely a creature of his environment, guided almost totally by the whims and prejudices of the group, and incapable of any real self-determination of his destiny. Only through social engineeringi. e., applied groupthink&amp;#8211;can he be saved. The path to salvation, social engineers explain, lies in a trained elite that will benevolently manipiilate us into group harmony. And who&amp;#8217;s to be the elite? Social engineers modestly clear their throats.\nThe vanishing layman\nThis vision of a new elite guiding us\u00A0to the integrated life has inspired some\u00A0interesting speculations (e.g., Aldous\u00A0Huxley&amp;#8217;s Brave New World, George Orwell&amp;#8217;s Nineteen Eighty-Four). The real danger, however, is something else again. It is not that the layman will be pushed around by the social engineers: it is that he will become one himself. Rather than the pawn of the experts, he will be the willing apprentice-and embrace groupthink as the road to security.\n\n  \nIs this coming to pass? Let&amp;#8217;s look for a moment at the direction American values are taking among the oncoming generations. There has been a rather disturbing amount of evidence that they are changing rapidly-and in a way that must warm social engineers&amp;#8217; hearts. Every study made of the younger generation, every portrayal they make of themselves-from their dating habits to their artistic inclinations uncovers one clear fact: our youth is the most group-minded we have ever had. Gregariousness, Time&amp;#8217;s recent study indicated (November 5, 1951), has become a necessity. &amp;#8220;They are parts of groups,&amp;#8221; one girl shrewdly appraises her contemporaries. &amp;#8220;When they are alone they are bored with themselves.&amp;#8221;\nWhile youngsters are not inclined to\u00A0philosophize, their attitude toward life\u00A0adds up to a fairly discernible set of values.\u00A0It could be described as a &amp;#8220;practical&amp;#8221;\u00A0relativism. The old absolute moral values\u00A0are disappearing. There is still black and\u00A0white, to be sure, but it is no longer determined\u00A0by fixed precepts; it is determined\u00A0rather by what the group thinks is\u00A0black and white &amp;#8212; and if someone does\u00A0things the way his group does, well, who\u00A0is to censure him for his loyalty?\nThe colleges furnish documentation of the drift. If recent surveys are any indication (FORTUNE, June, 1949), a startling\u00A0swing has taken place among students to the twin ideals of group harmony and expertism. &amp;#8220;These men,&amp;#8221; one of their mentors says in praise, &amp;#8220;don&amp;#8217;t question the . system. Their main aim is to make it work better-to get in there and lubricate the machinery. They&amp;#8217;re not rebels; they&amp;#8217;ll be social technicians for a better society.&amp;#8221;\nThe registrar&amp;#8217;s records bear him out.\u00A0Along with a concurrent drift from the\u00A0humanities, there has been a tremendous\u00A0increase in specialized courses &amp;#8212; and of\u00A0specialization within specialties. Significantly,\u00A0the courses that enjoyed the most\u00A0phenomenal popularity among postwar\u00A0classes were those connected with personnel\u00A0work. &amp;#8220;I like people &amp;#8221; became a\u00A0universal cry, and in droves students aiming\u00A0for business turned thumbs down on\u00A0the idea of general, executive apprenticeship\u00A0in favor of personnel work; here, with\u00A0stop watch and slip stick in hand, they\u00A0could measure away, safe from the doubts\u00A0and intangibles of the world without. The\u00A0picture was a mirage, of course, but it\u00A0was only by the most strenuous efforts of\u00A0placement officers and corporation personnel\u00A0people that students gave it up.\nDoes entry into business life transform these values? Apparently not. Talk with members of the younger generation of management-and we speak not of the disaffected but of the successful-and one is struck by a curious strain of resignation that often runs through their discussion. Like the heroes of J. P. Marquand&amp;#8217;s perceptive novels, they are disturbed by a sense of individual impotence. Dispassionately, they describe themselves primarily as members of their environment-men more acted upon than acting. They are neither angry nor cynical about it; they are caught on a &amp;#8220;treadmill&amp;#8221; from which they will never escape, perhaps-but the treadmill is pleasant enough, they explain, and in the group role they find the emotional security they want so very badly.\nSo with their wives (FORTUNE, October and November, 1951). No matter what problem they are discussing &amp;#8212; from the possibility of advancement to the style of their living-they instinctively phrase their problems in terms of their relations with the group. The relations, they concede, are not simple-there are the girls, the gang on Ferncrest Road, Charlie&amp;#8217;s people at the office, and a host of lesser constellations to conjure with. Tough as the job may be, however, it is a job to which they have dedicated themselves.\nThe system lovers\nTurn to the image of the good life in\u00A0popular cultures and you find the same\u00A0phenomenon at work. Slick-magazine fiction\u00A0tells the story. It has never, of course,\u00A0exactly called for a rebellion against the\u00A0status quo, but back in the thirties it did\u00A0present heroes and heroines who engaged\u00A0in some kind of mild strife with their \u00A0environment, told the boss off, or did something equally contentious. No longer. A FORTUNE analysis of 1935-36 plots and 1950-51 plots indicates that heroes and heroines have been growing remarkably submissive. Not only is the system they abide by-be it an Army camp, a business office, or a small-town environment-shown as more benevolent; in some cases the system itself becomes the deus ex machina that solves the problem.\nSo in serious fiction. More and more,\u00A0writers are concerning themselves with the\u00A0relationship of the individual to the group,\u00A0and more and more resolving it in favor\u00A0of the latter. The system &amp;#8212; and they don&amp;#8217;t\u00A0mean God or the universe &amp;#8212; is eventually\u00A0revealed to the hero as bigger than any of\u00A0us, and thus it is not only foolish but\u00A0wrong for him not to reconcile himself\u00A0to it. From the extreme of the angry, to-hell-with-the-whole-lousy-setup tracts of\u00A0the 1930&amp;#8217;s we seem to be going whole hog\u00A0in the opposite direction.\n\n  \nLet us have a look at the current bestseller,\u00A0Herman Wouk&amp;#8217;s The Caine Mutiny.\u00A0Since it is about the Navy, the system\u00A0shown has some aspects peculiar to service\u00A0life. The basic question posed, however the\u00A0individual&amp;#8217;s place in the system, has\u00A0great universality, and in an excitingly\u00A0told tale Wouk sketches one point of view\u00A0with such striking overtones that the book\u00A0\u00A0could almost go down as a landmark in the\u00A0shift of American values.\nThe story tells of the terrible dilemma\u00A0facing the officers of a mine sweeper; their\u00A0captain, one Queeg, is a neurotic, cowardly\u00A0incompetent. A typhoon brings the problem\u00A0to the breaking point. Through hysteria\u00A0and cowardice, Queeg is about to sink\u00A0the ship. In vain, Maryk, the stolid, conventional\u00A0executive officer, tries to get him\u00A0to keep the ship headed into the wind.\u00A0Queeg refuses. In the nick of time, Maryk\u00A0makes his decision. Under Article 184 of\u00A0Navy Regulations, he relieves Queeg of his\u00A0command. The ship is saved.\nWhat is the moral? Maryk, we find,\u00A0shouldn&amp;#8217;t have done it. Says the author&amp;#8217;s\u00A0protagonist, Lieutenant Willy Keith in a\u00A0letter to his girl (p. 463) : &amp;#8221; &amp;#8230; I see that\u00A0we were in the wrong &amp;#8230; The idea is, once\u00A0you get an incompetent ass of a skipper and\u00A0it&amp;#8217;s a chance of war &amp;#8212; there&amp;#8217;s nothing\u00A0to do but serve him as though he were the\u00A0wisest and the best, cover his mistakes,\u00A0keep the ship going, and bear up. So I\u00A0have gone all the way around Robin Hood&amp;#8217;s\u00A0barn to arrive at the old platitudes, which\u00A0I guess is the process of growing up.&amp;#8221;\nIn other times, perhaps, this definition\u00A0of maturity might have been regarded as\u00A0downright parody. Obedience and discipline\u00A0few could have caviled at. But would\u00A0they have applauded the counseling of an\u00A0obedience, so abject, so unquestioning, that we are asked, in effect, not only to put up with the evils of a system but to regard them as a right &amp;#8212; to reach out, as Norbert Weiner&amp;#8217;s phrase goes, and kiss the whip that lashes us? Would they have joined in censuring an act to which the only logical alternative is the passive sacrifice of several hundred lives? Hardly. The executive officer&amp;#8217;s action might well have been seen as an act of great moral courage-and one, furthermore, in true allegiance to the service; it did, after all, save the ship. The other byproduct, the withdrawal of Queeg from line command, might also have been interpreted as something less than a disaster to the system.\nNot so A.D. 1952. The moral, to judge\u00A0from what critics and readers have been\u00A0saying about it, has struck exactly the\u00A0right chord. The exec, as the dust jacket\u00A0has it, was merely a well-meaning man\u00A0&amp;#8220;beyond his depth,&amp;#8221; and more to be pitied\u00A0than censured. It is not for the individual\u00A0to question the competence of the Queegs\u00A0a system may contain. Queeg was a teacher.\u00A0Queegs are necessary. We needed Queegs\u00A0to win the war. So goes the assent. &amp;#8220;It is\u00A0about time that more books of this sort\u00A0were written,&amp;#8221; says J. P. Marquand. &amp;#8220;The\u00A0lesson the newcomer must learn is in many\u00A0ways the antithesis of democracy. It is\u00A0essentially a final acceptance of the doctrine\u00A0that full and unquestioning obedience\u00A0must be accorded a superior officer, no\u00A0matter how personally odious or stupid\u00A0this individual may be &amp;#8212; and that without\u00A0this individual surrender we can never\u00A0win a war.&amp;#8221;\nLove that system.\nThe permissive way\nWhat makes this wave of the present\u00A0particularly unsettling is the surprising\u00A0fact that it is in rhythm with one of the\u00A0dominant currents in contemporary American\u00A0academic thought. It would be a mistake,\u00A0of course, to treat the connection as\u00A0cause and effect; groupthink&amp;#8217;s roots go too\u00A0deep to be so summarily explained. But it\u00A0would be just as much of an error to dismiss\u00A0the academic underpinnings, as the\u00A0layman is so tempted to do, as mere ivory tower\u00A0mumbo jumbo. The ideology of\u00A0groupthink is often incomprehensible to\u00A0the uninitiated, but it is of great power\u00A0nonetheless. Translated by its disciples in\u00A0hundreds of lecture halls and papers, and\u00A0by their disciples in turn, it has given a\u00A0purpose and direction to the groupthink\u00A0movement that it would otherwise lack.\nThe movement, in a sense, is an offshoot\u00A0of the great academic revolt at the turn\u00A0of the century against formalism. To\u00A0Young Turks of the day the individualistic\u00A0tradition of American thought needed redefinition.\u00A0Too much attention, they felt,\u00A0had been concentrated on the lone individual;\u00A0as a consequence, the rigid values\u00A0built up for his protection were inapplicable\u00A0to the great social upheavals that\u00A0were taking place. What was needed was \u00A0a social view of man &amp;#8212; man as a unit of\u00A0the group &amp;#8212; and a willingness to adapt\u00A0society to his needs.\nMost of the credit generally goes to\u00A0John Dewey, who, with William Kilpatrick,\u00A0gave &amp;#8220;progressive&amp;#8221; education its impetus.\u00A0But there were many others &amp;#8212; Veblen in\u00A0economics, for example, and Roscoe Pound\u00A0in the law (&amp;#8220;The law is social engineering&amp;#8221;).\u00A0Like a fresh breeze, through almost\u00A0every field of American thought, the new\u00A0concepts swept, as converts enthusiastically\u00A0fell to whacking away at the restrictions\u00A0of the old absolutes. Social Man was\u00A0coming of age.\nWhen the cultural anthropologists got to\u00A0work on him, his final link to the old moral\u00A0absolutes was severed. From their comparisons\u00A0of primitive cultures, and, later,\u00A0our own, many anthropologists came to\u00A0the view that the ethics of a people are\u00A0relative. By this they do not mean that\u00A0ethics are unimportant, but rather that\u00A0they are not to be judged by any abstract\u00A0conceptions of &amp;#8220;right&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;wrong.&amp;#8221;\u00A0For if we realize that other cultures and\u00A0ethics are &amp;#8220;equally valid,&amp;#8221; to use Ruth\u00A0Benedict&amp;#8217;s phrase, then we will be jogged\u00A0into giving up all the more readily our outworn\u00A0traditions and our illusions of individual\u00A0autonomy. &amp;#8220;It is not any particular\u00A0set of values,&amp;#8221; another anthropologist\u00A0explains, &amp;#8220;but a way of looking at them\u00A0that is important.&amp;#8221;\nA half-century has gone by and the relativistic, social view of man idea is still gaining. The appetite for cultural anthropology, for example, has been growing at such a rate that Ruth Benedict&amp;#8217;s Patterns of Culture, first published in 1931, has reached, after a phenomenal newsstand sale, the No. 1 best-seller spot in the Mentor paper-book series.\nIn several essentials, however, the nature\u00A0of the movement against formalism\u00A0has changed drastically. What started as\u00A0a healthy revolt against dogmatism has\u00A0produced an offshoot that has succeeded\u00A0in becoming the new dogmatism itself.\u00A0And since, like all dogmatisms, it promises\u00A0respite from uncertainty, a society still\u00A0shell-shocked by the upheavals of the twentieth\u00A0century hasn&amp;#8217;t bothered yet to question\u00A0its effects too closely. To be sure, those\u00A0of the groupthink leaning customarily\u00A0speak of themselves as rebels fighting an\u00A0uphill battle against the enemy (&amp;#8220;medievalists,&amp;#8221;\u00A0&amp;#8220;academicians,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;absolutists&amp;#8221;)\u00A0but the dog they are kicking is practically\u00A0dead. They won that battle long ago.\nCertainly so in one sector of education.\u00A0Thanks to a strenuous academic controversy,\u00A0the momentum of the militantly\u00A0&amp;#8220;progressive&amp;#8221; brand was slowed down\u00A0some time back. Groupthink, however, cannot\u00A0be contained by a label, and to a formidable\u00A0body of educators the basic ideal\u00A0of adjustment to group values is so taken\u00A0for granted that the only remaining job\u00A0would appear to be working up better ways\u00A0of bringing it about. &amp;#8220;The American educator,&amp;#8221;\u00A0writes one of them, Professor\u00A0Stewart Cole, &amp;#8220;[must] treat pupils as\u00A0persons-in-groups-in-American-culture at\u00A0every stage of their social learning.&amp;#8221; To\u00A0do this the teacher should borrow from\u00A0such disciplines as anthropology, the social\u00A0sciences, psychology, and group dynamics.\u00A0&amp;#8220;The social interactions&amp;#8221; of teachers and\u00A0pupils should be &amp;#8220;the primary channel of\u00A0learning the good life for America.&amp;#8221;*\n*Educators of this bent cannot be accused of\u00A0swimming against the current. As a recent\u00A0Elmo Roper poll indicates, most Americans\u00A0now feel the second most important reason\u00A0for sending children to high school is &amp;#8220;to\u00A0teach them to get along better with other\u00A0people.&amp;#8221; (No.1: to get them ready for a job.)\nIn this free, permissive atmosphere, the\u00A0idea that the individual should be regarded\u00A0as personally accountable for the way he\u00A0behaves is, of course, old hat. And in the\u00A0popular view as well. &amp;#8220;If your young son\u00A0sticks his tongue out at you and calls you\u00A0a nasty old stinkpot,&amp;#8221; an article in American\u00A0Magazine good-humoredly, but approvingly,\u00A0counsels, &amp;#8220;just ignore the insult and\u00A0rejoice secretly that you have such a fine\u00A0normal child. He is simply channeling his\u00A0aggressive, aggrieved feelings harmlessly\u00A0by verbal projection.&amp;#8221;\nWhere &amp;#8220;social interaction&amp;#8221; is the watchword, the attitude conditioning is left, in large part, to the child&amp;#8217;s peers. Even more than their elders, they are quick to reward deviance with hefty interaction; and thus in the natural distaste of the crowd for the individualist we now have a social tool. And this, the child learns from the books written for him, is as it should be. In these tales of fire engines and trains, as David Riesman has documented in his disturbing study, The Lonely Crowd, the neophyte. groupthinker is taught that one wins by being directed by others &amp;#8212; and that the most important thing in the world is to be a team player.\nTo further ensure that the child need never be a person-not-in-groups, the necessity for little groupthinkers to think as individuals all by themselves may soon be obviated altogether. Individual homework is now to be eliminated. Writes Amy Selwyn in the Reader&amp;#8217;s Digest,&amp;#8220;Now authorities generally agree that children learn best if they do their learning in groups and talk out loud about lessons as they work.\n&amp;#8216;No homework&amp;#8217; spokesmen also say if children\u00A0were not required to spend their\u00A0leisure studying they would not develop\u00A0the resentment against study which often\u00A0kills all incentive to learn anything . . .&amp;#8221;\nLest the layman presume to question the\u00A0drift, groupthinkers explain that their\u00A0work is rooted in the Scientific Method,\u00A0and that now being a holy phrase, it is\u00A0made plain that the debate is closed to outsiders &amp;#8212;\u00A0if indeed any grounds for debate\u00A0exist at all.* &amp;#8220;Because this new &amp;#8216;doctrine&amp;#8217;\u00A0has for its base objective findings in anthropology,\u00A0social psychology, mental hygiene,\u00A0and scientific child study,&amp;#8221; Professor\u00A0Alain Locke of Howard University\u00A0says, &amp;#8220;there is an authoritative consensus\u00A0back of these newer educational procedures\u00A0that few would care to challenge.\n*&amp;#8221;I should like to see teachers and professors as sure of themselves, as confident in their training and experience, as surgeons are, and as impatient of lay advice&amp;#8221;-Margaret B. Pickel, Dean of Women, Columbia University; New York Times Magazine, June 3, 1951.\nOn the brink of nonsense\nHe is right. Many educators have seriously\u00A0questioned the excesses of educational\u00A0groupthink, but a large proportion\u00A0of them are curiously loath to do it out\u00A0loud right now. Criticism of the misapplications\u00A0of science, they know, will be\u00A0quickly seized as an attack on science itself.\u00A0To muddy matters even more, those\u00A0of the extremist fringe (notably Allen\u00A0Zoll) have succeeded in putting something\u00A0of the kiss of death on public discussion by\u00A0their attacks on &amp;#8220;progressive&amp;#8221; education.\u00A0They are really attacking something else,\u00A0of course; their reasoning is erroneous and\u00A0their motives suspect. Nevertheless, many\u00A0people who have a respectable argument to\u00A0make hesitate for fear they will lose their\u00A0standing as liberals. The debate, however,\u00A0cannot long be deferred &amp;#8212; certainly so when\u00A0it can be said, with some justification, that\u00A0the best friend progressive education has\u00A0today is Allen Zoll.\nThere are some signs that the wider implications of the groupthink movement may at last provoke a counterrevolution. Significantly, some of the most astringent critiques of groupthink are coming from the ranks of the sociologists (cf. &amp;#8220;The Image of Man in the Social Sciences&amp;#8221;Reinhard Bendix in Commentary,February, 1951). In its application to the law, Roscoe Pound himself has been led to protest the degree to which the social-utility concept has supplanted firm values. Similarly, in England &amp;#8212; which suffers groupthink too &amp;#8211;educator Sir Walter Moberly\u00A0has been stirring the universities to a reexaminationof the British variant.\nBut the best hope may well lie in the\u00A0ambitions of the groupthinkers themselves.\u00A0They stand poised, finally, on the threshold\u00A0of pure nonsense. For a long time they\u00A0have been growing uncomfortable over\u00A0their apparent denial of ethical relevance.\u00A0As the anthropologists themselves point\u00A0out, man does need a firm sense of right\u00A0and wrong, and an excessively relative\u00A0view destroys the old firmness.\nThis does not mean, however, that the\u00A0groupthinkers are chastened. Quite the\u00A0contrary. They now propose to cure this\u00A0pitfall&amp;#8217; of scientism with more scientism.\u00A0Ethics are to be made &amp;#8220;a matter of scientific\u00A0investigation.&amp;#8221; To some, this merely\u00A0means an objective study of ethics &amp;#8212; certainly\u00A0a proper enough task. To the groupthinker,\u00A0however, it means nothing less\u00A0than a theoretical apparatus for the scientific\u00A0determination of what is &amp;#8220;good&amp;#8221; or\u00A0&amp;#8220;bad.&amp;#8221; And thus &amp;#8220;to the innermost citadel\u00A0of dogmatic thinking, the realm of values,&amp;#8221;\u00A0they hopefully turn. &amp;#8220;The conquest of the\u00A0field of values,&amp;#8221; as one sounds the call,\u00A0&amp;#8220;would be almost the concluding triumph.&amp;#8221;\u00A0He couldn&amp;#8217;t be more correct.\nEthics without tears\nWhy should so despairing an ideology be so popularly contagious? In a society where the old family and community ties that so long cemented it have broken down, the impulse for association is an instinctive and healthy response. But a sense of &amp;#8220;belonging,&amp;#8221; a sense of meaningful association with others, has never required that one sacrifice his individuality as part of the bargain. Why, then, do so many rush to embrace a philosophy that tells them it is necessary? Why, like the moth, do we fly to the one thing that will consume us? Why, in a country with the sort of healthy political and economic base that has historically nourished individualism, are we so pathetically eager to join up in flatulent brotherhood?\nTo explain this impulse is to explain our\u00A0blind faith in scientism as well. For their\u00A0appeal is common, and many as the variations\u00A0may be, they come back, eventually,\u00A0to one simple, compelling theme.\nThey offer us freedom from moral\u00A0choice.\nThrough the deification of group harmony, buck-passing a moral decision becomes itself a moral act; the system-as The Caine Mutiny advocates-attends to these things so much better than the individual, and he might just as well relax and enjoy it.\nAnd there is freedom in another sense as well. Moral dilemmas exist because there is uncertainty. If we can now abstract a few parts from the whole of human nature and by analysis predict \u00A0objectively what will make for group\u00A0harmony, the intangibles that make\u00A0individual decisions so poignant may\u00A0be obviated altogether. Like a general\u00A0who is blessed with perfect intelligence\u00A0of the enemy, we will have\u00A0only one valid course of action before\u00A0us. We will have finally latched on\u00A0to certainty.\nWhy participate?\nOnce this denial of moral relevance\u00A0is made, folly must be the consequence.\u00A0For groupthinkers go on to\u00A0assure themselves that in groupthink\u00A0itself one finds moral fulfillment. It\u00A0is not put this crudely, of course; by\u00A0what has now become a ritualistic\u00A0explanation, our eyes are directed\u00A0upward to the goal of harmony,\u00A0group integration, dynamic equilibrium;\u00A0upward to a golden mean in\u00A0which everyone will finally attain the\u00A0blessed state of-grace? No, the\u00A0state of &amp;#8220;participation.&amp;#8221;\nBut participation for what? As a fundamental of the democratic process, as a means of self-expression and development, participation is abundantly desirable. In this sense, FORTUNE has argued strongly for participation; it has reported its application to the problems of management and will continue to. But the word, like its blood brothers &amp;#8220;communication&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;adjust,&amp;#8221; is assuming a sort of end-all quality. So let us put the question: Why participate?\nIn the litany of groupthink the\u00A0answers describe a complete circle.\u00A0One participates for the end of\u00A0&amp;#8220;social integration,&amp;#8221; for &amp;#8220;community-centered cohesion,&amp;#8221; for better\u00A0&amp;#8220;interpersonal relations,&amp;#8221; for &amp;#8220;group\u00A0harmony,&amp;#8221; for the reduction of &amp;#8220;social\u00A0tensions,&amp;#8221; for adjustment to the\u00A0environment. One participates, in\u00A0other words, that he may participate.\u00A0And so the end is really only a\u00A0means after all. Good means, yes, but\u00A0as an encompassing philosophy,\u00A0somewhat less than complete.\nEven as a means, participation can\u00A0be a tricky concept. It is easily confused\u00A0with getting a number of people\u00A0to do what one did before. And in\u00A0this aspect, unfortunately, it provides\u00A0the resolutely pedestrian with\u00A0a way of cutting down to size their\u00A0up-and-coming brethren. Similarly it\u00A0offers the faint of heart an alibi for\u00A0ducking responsibility-if a broth is\u00A0to be spoiled, it&amp;#8217;s convenient to have\u00A0too many cooks participate.\nPerhaps the most extraordinary\u00A0aspect of groupthink is the success\u00A0with which its double-talk has used\u00A0the old concepts of individualism to\u00A0justify their opposite. By letting\u00A0others decide, one decides. By submitting\u00A0oneself to the group, one becomes\u00A0an individual. &amp;#8220;It is precisely\u00A0this gradual change in our mental\u00A0horizon-new assumptions and hypotheses\u00A0taken as factual description \u00A0&amp;#8212;\u00A0that is sinister,&amp;#8221; says Lincoln Reis,\u00A0professor of philosophy at Bard College.\u00A0&amp;#8220;So that while we are presented\u00A0with a logical horror, we find it established and accepted widely as a fact.\u00A0Nowhere vulnerable to intelligence,\u00A0it is as impervious as a nightmare.&amp;#8221;\nIt is impervious because the ideal\u00A0of unity it holds out obscures for us\u00A0some disagreeable facts of life &amp;#8212; and\u00A0the necessity for facing them on\u00A0moral grounds. &amp;#8220;Communication&amp;#8221; is\u00A0a term in point. As used in its cult\u00A0sense, it implies the facile premise\u00A0that the conflicts that plague us are\u00A0due simply to &amp;#8220;blocks&amp;#8221; in the communication\u00A0flow, and that if we get\u00A0the technical hang of it, all will be\u00A0well. Up to a point this is true. But\u00A0people do not always argue because\u00A0they misunderstand one another;\u00A0they argue because they hold different\u00A0goals. These will always be a\u00A0matter of debate, and attempts to\u00A0evade. it through &amp;#8220;nonpartisan&amp;#8221;\u00A0communication or &amp;#8220;education&amp;#8221; programs\u00A0simply beg the question.\nUnity &amp;#8212; or monotony?\u00A0\n&amp;#8220;Unity&amp;#8221; is a double-edged sword. As our young corporation wife is witness, group harmony is not an unmixed blessing; conversely, neither are frustrations and tensions necessarily bad. They can be fruitful; indeed, progress is often dependent on producing rather than mitigating them. In large part, also, they stem from the scores of conflicting loyalties and allegiances we enjoy in a fluid society. Unless we forswear . these in complete fealty to one embracing organization, there is no easy way to escape the moral decisions they force upon us. Nor should there be. The danger, as Clark Kerr points out, &amp;#8220;is not that loyalties are divided today, but that they may beco. me undivided tomorrow.&amp;#8221;\nIt is precisely this smothering of\u00A0the individual that the drift to groupthink\u00A0seems to be making more and\u00A0more imminent. Few groupthinkers,\u00A0to be sure, believe themselves against\u00A0the individual. But in looking so intently\u00A0at man as a member of the\u00A0group, they have made man seem important\u00A0in this role only. There is the\u00A0frequent explanation, of course, that\u00A0only by group participation is the\u00A0individual&amp;#8217;s potential realized. But\u00A0this is only a half-truth. Individual\u00A0excellence must involve something\u00A0more than a respect for the group\u00A0and a skill in working with it.\u00A0&amp;#8220;The\u00A0sphere of individual action,&amp;#8221; writes\u00A0Bertrand Russell, &amp;#8220;is not to be regarded\u00A0as ethically inferior to that\u00A0of social duty. On the contrary, some\u00A0of the best of human activities are,\u00A0at least in feeling, rather personal\u00A0than social. . . Prophets, mystics,\u00A0poets, scientific discoverers, are men\u00A0whose lives are dominated by a vision.\u00A0..It . . .is such men who put\u00A0into the world the things that we\u00A0most value.&amp;#8221;\nFew of us are potential geniuses,\u00A0but the constant admonition to harmonize\u00A0and integrate affects us nonetheless.\u00A0Each day we are faced with\u00A0a multitude of decisions. Should we\u00A0trust our own judgment? Or does the\u00A0group&amp;#8217;s view have an inherent rightness\u00A0we cannot match?\nThe new values would incline us\u00A0to the easy harmony of the group view, for they would have us suppose that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; that the system has a wisdom beyond the reach of ordinary mortals. But this is not necessarily so. Man can be greater than the group, and his lone imagination worth a thousand graphs.\nHe is not often a creator, but even as spectator as &amp;#8220;the common man,&amp;#8221; he can rise in way his past performance would not predict. To aim at his common denominators in the name of ultimate democracy is to despise him, to perpetuate his mediocrities, and to conceive him incapable of responding to anything better than the echo of his prejudices. The &amp;#8220;equilibrium&amp;#8221; that is the compact to be made with this boor is inevitably static, and the trouble is not solved by sticking the adjective dynamic in front of it.\nHas the individual reached a low enough estate for us to become concerned? When the nation&amp;#8217;s best-selling novel advocates his abject submission without raising eyebrows; when some corporations make it policy not to hire honor graduates for fear they might not be good mixers; when it is seriously stated that &amp;#8220;natural leaders&amp;#8221; can be made obsolete, the time has come at least to think about the matter. For if the drift continues, man may soon case to fret over such things at all. He will finally have engineered for himself that equilibrious society. Gelded into harmonious integration, he will be free from tensions and frustrations, content in the certainties of his special function, no longer tantalized by the sense of infinity. He will at last have become a complete bore.\nThe answer is not a return to a &amp;#8220;rugged individualism&amp;#8221; that never was. Nor is it a slackened interest in social science and &amp;#8220;human relations.&amp;#8221; We need, certainly, to fin ways of making this bewildering society of ours run more smoothly and we need all the illumination science can give us to do it. But we need something more. Lest man become an ethical eunuch, his autonomy sacrificed for the harmony of the group, a new respect for the individual must be kindled. A revival of the humanities, perhaps, a conscious, deliberate effort by the corporation not only to accommodate dissent but to encourage it &amp;#8212; possible approaches to a problem so fundamental cannot easily be spelled out.\nOnly individuals can do it."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://fortune.com/2012/07/22/groupthink-fortune-1952/>