I’ve been reading In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth, a fascinating read about group dynamics and the power of the majority to overwhelm minority viewpoints, whether those viewpoints are right or wrong.
The book dissects the classic movie Twelve Angry Men as a case study in how a minority viewpoint can persuade others against the odds and pressure of a bullying majority. Last week I blogged about the new council meetings and the concept of an Underground Church from the Arrington biography, the idea that more open discussions happen in less formal settings than our usual Sunday School meetings. The councils are a potential way to bridge that gap between formal teaching and informal discussions that could allow individuals to share their views, even if they are not the party line. But most commenters reported that despite the potential for more sharing of viewpoints, there was also a lot of policing of non-majority opinions happening.
Twelve Angry Men demonstrates tactics that enable a minority viewpoint to be heard and eventually to persuade. If you are unfamiliar with the plot, the entire show is a jury discussing a murder case that has been presented to them. At the beginning of their deliberations, 11 of the 12 have voted guilty. The one hold-out simply says he doesn’t feel it’s right to condemn someone of murder without more discussion. Several vocal members of the jury, including the foreman, are increasingly angry at the lone dissenter. The room is hot, and there’s an important baseball game everyone wants to get to. They trust the district attorney’s word and distrust the accused, a young man who allegedly stabbed his father. They trust eye witness testimony (and overheard testimony), and the defendant’s lawyer didn’t present a very capable defense to refute the charges.
It’s a helpful case study for those with different viewpoints who want to be heard.
The take-home message is that, if you control the process, you control the outcome.
During the initial polling of the jury, the foreman who is an outspoken bully who wants to get home as soon as possible requests that everyone raise his hand if they believe the defendant is guilty. While there are eleven hands that go up, a closer watching reveals that some of the hands go up quickly, while others wait to see how many hands have gone up. The delay is brief, and on first watching, it’s hardly noteworthy. Only when they feel they are comfortably a part of the majority do they weigh in. One hand goes up for “not guilty,” and immediately, the focus is on trying to bully that person into submission to the will of the majority. Everyone attacks him as the barrier to their “success,” the one creating disunity, the one getting in their way.
An important turning point comes when the foreman suggests that the eleven “convince this man where he is wrong and we are right.” Hubris is out in full force . . . This suggestion changes the usual offensive position of the majority to a defensive one. Rather than press Fonda to defend his position, which we know would likely result in ridicule, each juror now explains his own position. One by one they defend their belief that the defendant is guilty, usually with pronouncements such as, “It’s obvious,” or reminders that an eyewitness “saw” him commit the crime.
As we quickly see, several of those who hold the majority opinion have simply not considered whether some of their assertions might be wrong. Their confidence derived from being part of the majority. The eyewitnesses could be wrong, as the dissenting Fonda points out. And then it becomes apparent that there are some gaping holes in the eyewitness testimony.
Having each individual defend his position has another consequence. Their testimony shows the holes in the majority’s unanimity. We know that a break in that unanimity will severely undermine the power of the majority. The eleven may agree on the verdict, but not for the same reasons. In the film, they disagreed on those reasons and argued about it.
Each also reveals his certainty–or lack of it. If you are looking for an ally, it is important to notice those in the majority who are unsure.
In knowing who is unsure, he also knows who is most likely to be persuaded. Although the foreman intended this exercise to be one that would favor the majority, it actually revealed to the dissenter who was most likely to be persuaded.
At one point, the jurors seem to be at an impasse. Sensing some uncertainty, Fonda wisely announces that he wants another vote, but this time he wants the vote made privately–in written form rather than verbally. He announces that he himself will not vote. If all eleven vote “guilty,” he will not stand in the way. They can stop the deliberation and return a verdict of “guilty.” Note that he takes the high road in his suggestions. It is hard to deny him. Note, too, that he does not indicate any uncertainty or change in his own position. He is simply acknowledging the power of the majority and the difficulty of changing their minds.
Predictably, when the vote is taken and a new lone dissenter is found, the majority once again immediately begin to point fingers, to try to ferret out the one who has prevented consensus. One old man raises his hand and says that while he’s not yet persuaded, he is no longer certain. He also feels that Fonda has shown courage and deserves to be heard in earnest. Deliberation can now begin afresh.
Here’s a quick recap of how Fonda’s character, the lone dissenter, was able to be persuasive, point by point:
- He recognized that a verbal, open vote would simply reinforce majority viewpoints by making it unsafe to dissent and reinforcing the opinions of the most vocal group members.
- He is willing to disagree with the majority, demonstrating courage and honesty.
- Rather than stonewalling or attacking other group members’ views, he simply asks to have a discussion given what’s at stake.
- Rather than sharing his own reasons (which puts him on the defensive), he asks those who claim to hold a majority opinion to state their reasons. Not everyone has equally good reasons or equally strong convictions. In some cases, he has revealed their lack of courage or lack of honesty in asking them to defend their views. This opens the eyes of the group members to just how shaky a consensus really is.
- He pays attention to the verbal and non-verbal clues that tell him who is most likely to become an ally.
- He lowers the stakes for someone to become an ally by requesting a secret ballot rather than an open verbal one.
- At the same time, he encourages an ally to take a stand by recusing himself from the process. Anyone who is even partly persuaded or has a doubt about the majority viewpoint now feels the pressure of knowing that without their dissent, the accused will be convicted. The verdict rests on their (newly shaken) confidence. By doing this, the ally is no longer allowed to remain hidden, but must come into the open.
- Tellingly, the man who now dissents points to Fonda’s courage, considering it admirable. He wants to emulate that courage that Fonda has demonstrated. Because Fonda has stepped aside, he is willing to demonstrate that same courage in front of the group.
This case study is helpful if a group is making a decision and wants to improve the ability to make the best decisions possible. If everyone simply goes along without having to think about their agreement, there is no learning, no understanding of their own or each others’ reasons. One lone dissenter, even if she doesn’t persuade another person, even if she ultimately changes her own mind in the process, will improve the group’s understanding and decision-making.
Massage: An Analogy
Why is groupthink and majority opinion such a hindrance to good decision-making? What if that majority just happens to be right? Even if the majority is right, a contrary viewpoint exercises reason-making that is otherwise not required. Group members flex their thinking muscles rather than just riding the coattails of the group.
Consider a massage therapist’s work. Certain parts of the body hold tension from repeated motions, or lack thereof, patterns of behavior. Glutes may become tense from too much sitting at a desk. When a worker repeatedly hunches over a computer, the shoulder muscles become knotted and hardened from remaining in one position for too long. A traveler with a heavy handbag may strain one arm more than the other, resulting in pain and limited motion. Therapists recommend stretching the muscles in the opposite ways to counteract the effects of these repeated motions, to release the built up tension in the muscles so that the body has more range of motion and to eliminate pain. Without treatment, over time, these repeated motions (or lack thereof) can alter one’s posture or ability to do certain tasks. The therapist counteracts these negative effects.
Any good massage (IMO) involves some pain as you allow the therapist to probe at the knotted muscles and gently move them in ways they have become unused to moving. Similarly, the lone dissenter pushes the group, creating momentary discomfort and even anger. Group members cry out for the person to be silent or find another group because they dislike the struggle and pain and would rather remain comfortable–for the moment–with their limited range of motion. That’s a natural response, but it’s not a good strategy for a healthy body.
In the Church, we have comfortable answers and arguments, ones we proffer reflexively without thinking. No thought is even required after years of giving the same old comfortable answers that are unchallenged by the group: read scriptures, pray, obey, follow the Prophet, pay tithing, go to the temple. These answers are not always problematic in their own right, but they are shallow, vain repetitions when we are giving them without thinking. Our spiritual muscles also get hardened from the repetition. Opening up our thinking and sharing new ideas is required to truly create a healthy body of Christ.
Consider these thought patterns you may have observed that are very comfortable for the majority:
- Quoting male church authorities to back up one’s argument; the higher the authority, the more secure one feels in their rightness.
- Relying on one’s own pedigree of church callings to give credence to one’s argument.
- A minority viewpoint being countermanded by someone in a higher position of authority in the meeting.
- People saying “When the brethren speak, the thinking is done,” usually meaning it never began.
- Discomfort when someone shares a personal story that doesn’t have the expected happy ending (e.g. grief, faith struggles, divorce).
- Willingness to bash those who have left the faith with assumptions that they have a “darkened countenance” or terrible lives or that bad things are happening to them now.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Lovely exposition of the issue HG. Thank you.
I certainly felt like the lone “not guilty” voter in HP Group. Issues expressed by me were laughed at (nothing that is not now contained within the essays).
Interestingly, I had a few people come up to me afterwards (those who might have raised their arms slowly) and expressed their support for my position.
It’s a lonely place to be and has social, religious and personal consequences. I stopped going to church (for other reasons) soon after these situations. I now feel a level off spiritual, intellectual and social freedom that I did not feel at church. There are times I feel sad about this. Nonetheless, I felt the need to be honest with my beliefs and myself.
Bill Reels most recent podcast on the “Hoax” details the process he went through in this regard (mostly st the end of the poscast episode). Dissent and divergence in opinion (even if it is consistent with LDS belief) is often perceived to be akin to being deceived, being contentious or being on the verge of sin.
Great analogy and there is much to be learned for this in church (and other) setting.
I am just surprised there were no comments about it being 12 angry MEN and playing with that angle.
I love your comment of: “When the brethren speak, the thinking is done,” usually meaning it never began.
Wonderful post and valuable insights. Thank you.
•Relying on one’s own pedigree of church callings to give credence to one’s argument
This one can cut both ways. I use this all the time to give what is increasingly the “minority” opinion. But being the former bishop of my ward gives me credence that others don’t have when they speak up. I use it all the time!
One simple clarification…
This was a fictional movie.
Not a case study.
It was set up in such a way that the full data set could only point to not guilty, but the full data set was not apparent at the beginning.
Can you please clarify the point of your comment, Kkkk?
Thank you for an insightful post, Hawkgrrl. I lurk here. I always enjoy your posts. One note of contrast that strikes me is that the stakes of the situation in Twelve Angry Men were time-limited, person-limited, and crystal clear. At church, things get more nebulous. At church, it’s typically not the case that an over-hasty majority decision will immediately condemn a person to prison, or give him his freedom. What results is a for minority voices speak up very ad hoc, flashing in the pan for a short time then disappearing without much permanent effect. (Obviously, this applies to cases when they speak at all). Maybe the minority viewholder feels comfortable that way, with a view to keeping the peace in the long run, but it’s not exactly strategic.
I wonder if it would be over-stretching the imagination to envision a coordinated, unified “hold-out” voice when it comes to issues the hold-outs feel are deeply wrong, like perhaps the November Policy, or simply feel need further group deliberation and discussion, like perhaps women and the priesthood. The rhetorical strategies used on these issues thus far were on the provocative side, weren’t they? In comparison to what you outlined here, at least.
I’m not saying provocation is wrong. I’m just wondering whether the ultimate goal might not be to get general attention to issues, but to get specific attention to a few key situations. Getting that one dissenting voice to multiply into two. Getting that one other person on the panel to say “I’m not ready to agree with you, but I’d like to talk more about it.”
Also, in the fictional situation, Henry Fonda didn’t have the option to just leave the jury. He was stuck there. In real life, the dissenters are free (and often actively encouraged) to leave. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Group dynamics seems like a great topic for reflection given how many group discussions happen each month in church (four adult Sunday School classes and four third-hour classes). The new let’s-all-sit-in-a-circle meeting once a month is even groupier than the standard class.
The problem with wide open discussions in an LDS setting is that there are so many doctrines and historical claims that are non-questionable. So an open discussion, for someone who actually wants to discuss things, is a real minefield. If the discussions were about your favorite football team or your favorite dish when you eat Italian, sure there can be friendly disagreement. And if the topic is how to help this family or fix that problem, sure there can be a productive brainstorming discussion. But ask about a doctrine like the Word of Wisdom or a historical practice like polygamy or consecration — friendly disagreement will not generally be allowed. So open discussion won’t work for most topics.
Happy Hubby: While it’s true that the original movie was only men, there was a subsequent made-for-TV version with a mixed gender jury (updated to reflect modern realities), and there was also an episode of Veronica Mars (“One Angry Veronica”) which used this same theme for the episode arc, also with a mixed gender–and mixed race–jury. As juries become more diverse, this method of evaluating group dynamics keeps film and TV makers interested.
In a recent RS council, a sister brought up a situation that I thought was really great for discussion. She said that as a mother she was worried that people in the ward would judge her because her daughter’s prom dress wasn’t “modest” by Mormon standards (meaning it could be worn with garments, even though her teen daughter is not endowed obviously). It was a great discussion and way to bring up the topic because she was the one in the vulnerable position, not wanting to be judged, and nobody wanted to dogpile on her or sound catty and terrible. Instead there was more focus on avoiding being judgmental and not driving kids away with our strictness. Someone in the discussion said that a testimony of modesty comes later, and I pointed out that at age 50, I still didn’t have such a thing. The standards of “modesty” within the Mormon church are not some eternal principle. They are cultural, and they have varied over time. The current ones seem driven by some of our leaders’ political alliance with the Evangelicals; we want outward markers of our inner devotion. We want to show the world that our women submit. Several sisters more or less agreed with me. I said we need to keep garment-wearing separate from modesty. They shouldn’t be conflated into one thing (and they certainly aren’t for men).
I rarely comment but must say you picked my very favorite movie. It has influenced my thought processes in many ways. I recently had the opportunity to volunteer for a talk in bishopric meeting. The talk is to be based on the line “who am I to judge another, when I walk imperfectly?”. One of the first things I did was to watch the movie again. I have several weeks to prepare and am looking forward to it.
Given the recent conversations about Brown vs the apostles on the Ban, the title seemed like what Brown tried unsuccessfully to do.
Great post!
I recently attended a wedding in my extended family, and leading up to it I was having a hard time deciding if I was going to go to the sealing. I had intentionally chosen to allow my temple recommend to expire, and this was the first family function under my new reality. Part of me wanted to fudge a quick renewal so that my absence didn’t have to be A Thing with relatives, but another part of me wanted to openly embrace where I currently am and gently explain that I’m not really doing the church thing at the moment.
I ended up deciding not to renew, and I asked my a close family member to quietly let it be known that I shouldn’t be expected in the sealing room. During the reception and other festivities, several others approached me one on one to let me know that they were also running into problems with the church. Most of them had renewed their recommends to keep the marital or filial peace, but it was very powerful for me to realize that I’m not alone as the dissenting voice. We were only able to connect with each other on that level because somebody took the first step in letting dissent be known.
I don’t mean to say that all dissent has to happen in the form of public actions like temple abstention, but we the anxiously lurking dissenters sometimes need to speak up in order to find each other 🙂
I recently saw this old black and white movie. It’s a great movie, but I don’t see it as a good model to use when it comes to issues regarding church membership.
The way I see things, if someone is discontent with the church for any reason then I think they need to be honest with themselves. If they can not answer the temple recommend questions honestly they need to do one of two things, go to the Lord and get an answer to their concerns or go to the Bishop and tell the truth and surrender their temple recommend. Then make a plan that fits.
All the other concerns about hurting your family or your standing in your neighborhood are real, but living a lie is not the solution. Eventually, the truth will come out.
Many church members have turned to the Lord for help and received answers. I am one of them.
I think Wendy Ulrich is and excellent example. She came to a cross roads in her faith journey and just about gave up on the church. She says, for a while she kept quiet and lived the life of a Mormon, but inside she was struggling. She apparently had problems with Joseph Smith. One day, she decided not to worry about her disbelief and focus on what she believed in. She kept studying, praying, and serving. Then when she least expected it, answers came. In her words, “powerful experiences with the Spirit came, convincing evidences…” She said, she felt Joseph Smith stand by my side and say, “Wendy, you know me”.
She now has a rock solid testimony borne of the Spirit. See her book, “Let God Love You”, pages 42-46
I guess God just doesn’t like me as much as Jared and Wendy Ulrich. I also have spent many, many (x 10) years praying. I’ve received answers, wonderful answers, but not a single one of them has solved the JS problem or made the temple a healthy place for me to be.
I learned some relevant psychology just yesterday.
1. Disagreement in a group setting induces cognitive dissonance. Like always, it seems to be proportional to how important the issue is to the participant. Mormons, who tend to avoid all negative feelings, avoid this, too.
2. Because cognitive dissonance is similar to guilt, we can resolve it by “confessing.” I think this is why we so badly want to speak up when the majority is against us, and why the majority responds aggressively. We’re basically built to offload dissonance on each other until we reach consensus or find understanding.
When the majority is too major, though, we have to find other ways. Thanks for the lesson on them, hawkgrrrl.
Right there with you, Anon for This. It’s a perfect example of the recent post about infinite prayer loops.
Jared,
“she decided not to worry about her disbelief” can also be called “living a lie”. Examples you provide aren’t the only outcome. When they don’t work for people you gaslight them about their faith.
For over a decade my wife has struggled with section 132 and a host of other questionable doctrines, including prophetic infallibility. She eventually took her concerns to the Stake President (our bishop was a gossip).
The right decision for her was to leave the church. This was not easy, especially when she let our daughter know she wouldn’t be able to attend her Temple wedding.
In the church we celebrate the courage of those who overcome family challenges to join the church. Don’t underestimate the courage it takes for one to leave and don’t gaslight them.
My comment is a bit of a tangent but still mostly fits. When I was in high school I was in a play cast as juror #3 – the belligerent juror who won’t change his mind and insists that the defendant is guilty. The line I remember most is when a juror #3 screams at juror #8 “I’ll kill him I’ll kill him!” while being restrained by other jurors. The irony! At the beginning juror #3 seems to be a leader and at the end he’s the lone holdout.
I used to be the TBM who would never consider doubting the brethren or doctrine. I was Peter Priesthood. Many years later I find myself sometimes wishing I hadn’t been born in the church and struggling to find where I fit in. I would never have thought this 180 degree turn would happen to me. I would add two items to the list of thought patterns for the majority: 1) this will never happen to me 2) dismissing logic and reason as man’s imperfect understanding.
I agree with Jared. When I had questions, I pressed on and eventually came to know with surety that the church is not true and I should leave. Count me as one who knows through experience that answers do come in time.
Great stuff to think about, HG. Thanks for the post.