by Fiona Gardner
Stephen suggested that further analytic thought might contribute more to the discussion on Christ Church and dysfunctional group dynamics. Here are a few thoughts – taken from my book shelf.
It was the psychologist Carl Jung who said that if you want to lose your identity – join a group. He also wrote that the group experience takes place at a lower level of consciousness than the experience of an individual. Communal singing can work like this – the choir or congregation feels as if one, uplifted together, even if singing words that might not ring true or make sense to each individual member. In a group we escape from ourselves when our sense of security is increased and the sense of responsibility is decreased – it becomes what Jung calls a mass mentality which of course can be benign or malign (there are plenty of examples that come to mind), or a healthy mixture. And for each person in the group there is a heightened suggestibility and what Jung calls a suggestive group spirit (he refers at one point to the example of the confessions of the Oxford Movement) where the favourable social effects are experienced at the expense of the moral and mental independence of the individual. In the group our discriminative capacity is decreased: ‘one becomes braver, more presumptuous, more cocky, more insolent, more reckless; but the self is diminished and … individual judgement.’ This levelling down can be compensated by one person who emerges as ‘The Leader’ of the group spirit. This means that prestige and power conflicts keep arising: ‘social egocentricity increases in proportion to the numerical strength of the group’.
Regular readers of this blog are well up to speed with the various attempts to apparently ‘oust’ Martyn Percy from his position as Dean of Christ Church, Oxford from 2018 up to the present. In a letter circulated to members of General Synod of the Church of England in June 2020, the authors, lawyers Martin Sewell and David Lamming wrote how whilst the process was not transparent – ‘the only transparency is the motivation’. Whilst the motivation may be clear, there are murky and obscure processes going on in terms of group dynamics. David Lamming commenting on the Independent Review published on 11th March sees conflict of interests and loyalty as part of this. The Governing Body is a large group – over 60 (it looks like 41 involved in recent actions – so to return to Jung’s phrase ‘social egocentricity’ is pretty high which may help to explain the reluctance to reflect on what the group is doing. Jung put it like this: ‘When a hundred intelligent heads are united in a group the result is one big fathead’.
This is where Wilfred Bion might also offer clarity. Stephen referred the surviving church readership to Bion’s work on groups, and although Bion died in 1979 both his work on what happens in groups, and his work with individual patients are still held in high regard. His theory is based on what he discovered in his work managing a rehabilitation unit for psychiatric patients in the British Army during World War II, and later with small groups at the Tavistock Clinic. As Stephen and follow up commentators have stated the central idea in Bion’s theory is that in every group, two groups exist: the ‘work group’ and the ‘basic assumption group’. Bion was not referring to factions or subgroups within the group, but rather to two dimensions of behaviour within the group.
The work group is that element of group functioning that is concerned with the primary task or work of the group: which in this case would be governing Christ Church to the best of the group’s ability. The mature work group is aware of its purpose and can define its task. Its members work cooperatively as separate and discrete members who willingly choose to belong to the group because they identify with interests of the group. This group tests its conclusions, seeks knowledge, and learns from its experience. Bion notes that this level of maturity in the work group is very rare.
One of the defining characteristics of the emotional life of the Christ Church Governing Body would appear to be its inability to learn from previous experience. So, why would the Governing Body employ ineffective and self-contradicting behaviour that lessens the effectiveness of the work group? Why would it compulsively repeat this? Bion suggests that this is because in addition to the work group, the basic assumption group is strongly at play. The basic assumption group can be thought of as the ‘as if’ group, meaning that the group behaves ‘as if” certain tacit assumptions were held by the members. These assumptions are hidden in the group subconscious, outside the awareness of group members. The type of basic assumption group that fits best with the reported behaviour at Christ Church is the fight-flight group which assumes that it must preserve itself at all costs, and that this can be done only by fighting or fleeing from someone or something. The group has no tolerance for weakness and expects casualties since salvation of the group is more important than the needs of individual members. The fight-flight leader must inspire great courage and self-sacrifice, and lead the group against a common enemy. If none exists, an enemy will be created. A leader who fails to afford the group the opportunity for retreat or attack will be considered ineffective and ultimately ignored. When scapegoating (such as might be considered against Martyn Percy) occurs within a group dynamic, it is possible that the fight-flight assumption is largely at play. Members bond together to fight a common foe, the scapegoat, resulting in the majority of the group sharing a sense of purpose and ‘groupness’ often for the first time. One interesting aspect is the power of group mentality and the uneasiness experienced by individual members unless they are conforming to this underlying basic assumption.
When the rational group process is corrupted – as in this situation – then it means that there are powerful emotional states pushing judgement into second place. In other words, things are not seen clearly and there is no chance of learning from experience. Might it be possible that the arrival of and suggested policies changes made by Martyn Percy have created a feeling of being under threat – a somewhat paranoid basic assumption group where the fear is of change and the survival of the institution. Bion found that the basic assumption group offers a feeling of increased vitality; it also rejects that there are any difficulties – especially psychological difficulties or it offers a means of avoiding difficulties by focusing instead on the enemy. So, there is an excitement engendered by the basic assumption group, an excitement far removed from the usual dull meetings with agenda, procedures and points of order. Bion wrote of ‘This longed for alternative to the group procedure’. It’s exciting because it is fuelled by heightened emotions such as anxiety, fear, hatred and love – all contributing to the basic assumption. Under threat the basic assumption group might turn to the group history, using tradition and how things have been to protect the group in its struggle against the threat of having to accept an idea which might require individual progress and discomfort.
Each group member has to try and identify with either the basic assumption or the rational structure. It seems that a majority of the Governing Body are identifying with the basic assumption group and then would feel persecuted by what seems to them to be the arid intellectualism of the work group. Where basic assumptions become dangerous is when they are translated into action and again this is the pattern at Christ Church.
So, what might a group consultant suggest? If it was Bion he might use his idea of working on containment within a contained space where the powerful emotions could be held, processed and then communicated without everyone becoming overwhelmed by them. There then might be a restoration of the capacity to think sufficiently in each individual member of the body to refocus on the work group ethic. Or he might just see that the group has got stuck on the collective regressed level and see that any change at this point is a forlorn hope. Bion recognised that the fight-flight group has no concern for the welfare of the individual – as long as the group continues, and so will feel that any method of dealing with the group neurosis is opposed to the good of the group and will be rejected.
Thanks Fiona.
Business meetings!
I recognise your point about people being less dynamic when in a group. I find I tend to keep my mouth shut in such situations unless I feel very strongly. I’d rather get a quick decision in place so that the meeting can end. Meetings are almost always longer than I would like. Let others worry about the shade of paint to be used in the entrance hall, for example. Better still, give the decision to a sub-group on the understanding that the large group will accept their recommendation without further discussion so I can get home.
Did you know that a camel has been described as being a horse designed by a committee?
In the independent evangelical church I was formerly involved in, I was part of a Stewardship Team which was delegated to deal with financial and practical matters. It worked well for a time until the pastor and his wife began to personally intervene and challenge decisions., with support of their family and friends. It culminated in her insisting on taking over managing a heating installation project which was going well up to that point. The team broke up due to some members being asked to leave and others resigning.
The situation at Christ Church highlights the need for greater awareness of group dynamics within church communities of any denomination. If there is such an emphasis on fellowship within the language of church communities, it should be part of a ‘duty of care’ that those joining the church group are treated properly. Adapting Florence Nightingale famous quote – “The first requirement of a church is that it should do the sinner no harm”. Unfortunately, churches can do a lot of harm.
Thank you for this helpful post. A small point: In your first paragraph, you refer to the Oxford Movement. Were you, in fact, meaning to refer to the Oxford Group as led by Frank Buchman?
Hello Daniel, I took this from a letter written by Carl Jung to a Dr Hans Illing a psychotherapist in Los Angeles who was working on groups, and wanted Jung’s opinions. An article was published in 1957 in ‘Human Relations’ based on their correspondence.
The actual letter with this example was written by Jung in early 1955 and is in Volume 2 of his letters (published in 1976). He does use the term the Oxford Movement, and I had supposed this was a reference to Tractarianism and the move to Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E and the practice of hearing confessions.
However, I have now looked up the Oxford Group and Frank Buchman and see that group confessions were part of the requirements for group membership and that is referred to as a sect – so could Jung mistakenly have used ‘movement’ rather than ‘group’ in his letter?
Also I’ve now found that Jung does comment specifically on the Oxford Group in volume 18 of his Collected Works, where he writes:
‘My attitude to these matters is that, as long as a patient is really a member of a church, he ought to be serious. He ought to be really and sincerely a member of that church, and he should not go to a doctor to get his conflicts settled when he believes that he should do it with God. For instance, when a member of the Oxford Group comes to me in order to get treatment, I say, “You are in the Oxford Group; so long as you are there, you settle your affair with the Oxford Group. I can’t do it better than Jesus.”‘
So I think you may be right …
Thanks for raising this – all very interesting.
The Oxford Group morphed into something called Moral Rearmament and I remember it being very active amongst certain student groups in the late fifties and sixties. It had many hallmarks of a cult and certainly an old family friend, now dead, was, shall be we say, not helped by her involvement. I remember my father, a clergyman, warning me of its dangers. The emphasis on ‘sharing’ and even public confession suggests that the Oxford Group fits better with your argument and Jung’s than the Oxford Movement where confession was a private matter between Confessee and Confessor. I think that Jung was probably confusing the two.
MRA was also active among the armed forces during WW2. My father, who had served in the RAF, often used the expression ‘dim as a Top H lamp’. It seems he wasn’t impressed by MRA meetings!
.
Surely a “Toc H” lamp ? Toc H was the movement originally founded by the Rev “Tubby” Clayton in Belgium during WW1, to provide rest and spiritual help to soldiers fighting in the battlefield. It later morphed into a more general community charitable group. “Toc H” was the signals code for “Talbot House” where it all began; I presume the lamp represented hope and/or the light of Christ. Not sure if it is still active.
Sorry, I thought I’d typed Toc H. I’ve had laser treatment for my eyes this afternoon and am now back to 20/20 vision!
Bion was in the room with the soldiers he worked with. But most of us here are outside the (im)famous college in question. It’s hard to know what goes on in their meetings and who decides what. We’ve already inferred there’s considerable dysfunction at least from an outsider’s perspective.
“Institutional Narcissism” is a concept we have worked with before on this blog and elsewhere. Perhaps we could refine this to “Institutional Solipsism”. There’s a sense in which The College is almost completely self-referential, that no one else has an existence worthy of note. “We are who we are”: a deistic sense of their own significance. Certainly they don’t seem bothered at all by sequential actions that at best look bizarre or ill-founded.
Thick layers of endowment wealth insulate them from the realities of financial impairment or even reputational loss. Fear-behaviour such as fight/flight, I suspect, is more to do with the internal disruption to pecking order privilege succession than to any perceived external censure threat.
The solipsism is not without mirror in the external world. I suspect their sense of impregnability is not entirely imaginary with an illustrious list of alumni in high places ensuring significant political influence. Which ordinary person with an ordinary career and an ordinary salary in the Charity Commission can afford to risk all in a serious attempt to reign them in?
An insider’s perspective would be welcome hopefully to correct the above ideas.
Yes … a lot of this is mere speculation and a need to try and make sense of something that seems so odd and also unfair.
Where’s a mole when you need one?
Without wishing to interfere in this thread, it’s interesting that the official responses to the 2 JF Telegraph articles have disappeared from the safeguarding section of Emmanuel Wimbledon‘s website, when they were there a few days ago.