I have limited knowledge about mind control from the psychology degree I have just finished. I had been unhappy with my life as a witno for a long time but one particular lecture really pushed me to the point of leaving and after that lecture I never returned to the meetings. The lecture was on brain washing tactics employed in the military, there were so many points that struck a chord with me. The tactics that the millitary use can explain the torture of prisoners such as those in ABU Graib, obviously I am not suggesting that JWs are brain washed to the point of torturing others not of the jw fold (well they do that when they knock on the doors - joke!) but the mind control techniques can explain the act of shunning!! something so hard to understand by anyone not conditioned by the jws! Also explained is the prejudiced of "worldlies" something I felt much cognitive disonance over! I could never allign myself with hating worldlies who are good people!!
I have summarised the main points of the lecture - let me know if you agree with the parallels I have drawn?
GROUP PROCESSES IN THE MILITARY: INTRA- & INTER-GROUP RELATIONS
1. Intra-group relations: Social identity processes within the military How is a military identity formed?
a) Some argue that this process begins with the depersonalization (see Tajfel, 1978) of the soldier and countering of their civilian identity
b) Changes in the self concept (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954; Moreland, 1985): ‘orientation’ denotes the process that soldiers undergo upon joining the army, beginning with ceremonial initiation (see Moreland & Levine, 1982), such as oath-taking, bootcamp, unofficial rites of passage
Disadvantages of deindividuation/ a military identity: self-stereotyping by soldiers. Based on Branscombe et al’s (1998) work on social identity threat, soldiers with a high military identity are likely to respond to identity-related threat as follows:
N.b.:- Unpleasant initiations may lead to better evaluation of the military group than mild initiations (Aronson & Mills, 1959)
c) Interdependence of fate: (see Lewin, 1948) safety of each soldier depends on co-soldiers, whilst in combat – this may lead to higher valuing of the ingroup (Rabbie & Horwitz, 1969)
d) Cohesion: the extent to which soldiers are attracted to the idea/ prototypes of the military may influence their behaviour and attitudes and enhance group solidarity (Hogg, 1992)
Disadvantages of cohesion: Remember Groupthink and Risky Shift (Janis, 1982)? What are the likely consequences of a cohesive group of soldiers for decision-making?
2. Intergroup relations: perceptions and treatment of outgroups In general, the mere presence salient categorization can cause:
a) Illusions of outgroup homogeneity (Judd et al, 2005): this is the illusion that outgroup members are more similar to each other than is in the case in ones own ingroup. Mullen & Hu’s (1989) meta-analysis found that the effect was strongest in real groups. Where does a military group fall on the continuum?
Real group Minimal group
b) Prejudice against the outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and maltreatment of outgroup captives/outgroup members
Group identity is not necessarily predictive of outgroup hate (Brewer, 1999), but salient categories may predict prejudice (see SCT, Turner, et al, 1987)c) Infra-humanization: involves reduced attribution of human characteristics to the outgroup
Perhaps outgroups are also viewed as being easily “mind-controlled”
The British Army has the “15 (UK) Psychological Operations Group” and the US Army has
- “PsyOps”
- Disorientation of captives
- Sending of ‘subliminal messages’
- Administration of drugs (e.g. LSD)
- Humiliation and threat to captives’ dignity/ values
- US PsyOps is not permitted to conduct operations on US soil
3. The Superordinate identity: the military and the nation
Being in the military is arguably equated with being patriotic and serving the nation
Objecting soldiers are often treated as traitors (or as ingroup ‘norm deviants’, see Abrams et al, 1992; they also found that people with high group identity are likely to treat deviants most harshly
The norm of a soldier as a prototypical citizen may be seen as having been ‘violated’
Desertion of the army is an offence in many countries; e.g. At the extreme, hundreds of British soldiers were executed for desertion in the 1st world war. The US maximum penalty for desertion is execution.
Many US-Vietnam/Iraq war conscientious objectors exiled themselves to Canada
Conclusion
Social identity processes are an important of asset in the military - e.g. interdependence of fate can be crucial in battle
The role of categories in the military/in battle may underpin simplistic perceptions of the outgroup – including infrahumanization
National identity is an important superordinate category in the military, as well as other military super-ordinate identities