Hello,
I've written a blog article on the topic of JW practice of shunning, inspired by a few recent threads on JWN where the results of social psychologist Stanley Milgram's work on authority figures came into the discussion:
http://awgue.weebly.com/countering-jw-shunning-how-the-implications-of-stanley-milgrams-work-may-suggest-using-a-different-approach.html
As usual, the article will be available for reading there, but please discuss over here in this thread.
Here's the start of the article, to give you a taste:
Adamah
Countering JW Shunning: How the Implications of Stanley Milgram's Work May Suggest Using a Different Approach
(Image from July 15, 2011 Edition of Watchtower)
"Ordinary people, simply carrying out actions in the name of (worship to Jehovah), and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terribly-destructive process....even AFTER the destructive effects of their participation becomes patently obvious, and they are asked to carry out actions which are incompatible with fundamental standards of basic human decency."
Those are words of social psychologist Stanley Milgram, modified ever-so-slightly in order to apply his concept to the Jehovah's Witness practice of shunning.
Of course, shunning is a form of social ostracism used in ancient societies, from the Greeks to the Hebrews (it's interesting to note the practice in Judaism only started AFTER the Hebrews were prohibited from stoning their own people to death, due to the constraints placed upon them by foreign rulers who controlled their land.)
In the case of challenging the ongoing cruel practice of shunning, we've seen countless impassioned pleas from those who point out how cruel and emotionally-painful it is for THEM, being the target of shunning. Although these painful accounts are very heart-felt, they actually are quite ineffective; shunning continues, partly because they paradoxically only CONFIRM the message that the WT is delivering to its members that shunning HAS to be uncomfortable for the shunned, since it's done "for their own good"! The Society claims that shunning WON'T be effective UNLESS it is complete!
If you haven't heard the talk, such dubious claims were repeated to members Worldwide during the recent 2013 District Convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yLdwe_6JsU
The WT's justification likely soothes the panged guilty consciences of members who shun, since they intuitively KNOW deep down that it IS cruel to throw their own "flesh and blood" under the bus to save their own skin, simply because the group orders them to do so. But by complaining, it's only reinforcing the message delivered by the JWs; the pleas only serve as positive feedback for their pre-existing beliefs, which reinforces their 'confirmation bias'.
Let's re-examine the artwork the WTBTS offers that depicts a family who is shunning (here it is again):
Notice how the face of the shunned member walking out the door is not shown, whereas the faces of the anguished parents are exquisitely depicted in the foreground.
Is that an accident, an oversight?
Hardly: they're showing the emotional anguish and turmoil that shunning causes the JW members! The WTBTS doesn't DENY the emotional pain caused by the practice to their members; they're actually BOLDLY PUTTING IT ON DISPLAY! Now, why would they want to do THAT?
The pain and suffering are shown as the burden of being a JW, as if they're being tested by Satan (which plays quite nicely into the whole "we're always being persecuted, and are suffering this torment for the sake of God" meme). Of course, these feelings are supposed to be internalized and suffered in silence, especially in front of the shunned individual; it's the old "never let them see you sweat" mantra, but one is supposed to suffer quietly in the name of God.
Worse though, is the WTBTS actually attempts to turn the tables on the situation, claiming that the shunned person is the CAUSE of their mental anguish, as if THEY'RE the faithful family are the VICTIMS, the source of the problem!
See the denial there, the inability to "own up" to the pain we cause others?
(Mark that thought: I'll be revisiting that idea later of needing to own up to the harm one causes others.)
The shunning problem is challenging to address, as the psychology is rather complex; the fact is, the WTBTS is simply smarter on the shunning issue than ex-members, as their tactics reflect their deep understanding of psychology and human nature which exceeds that of most of their ex-members; it makes sense, in that members are actively DISCOURAGED from learning the basics of human psychology when inside (the WTBTS knows that those who are unaware of such topics are easier to control using methods derived from Milgram's work).
The JWs actually ARE telling the truth that shunning MUST be uncomfortable for the shunned, as that's the WHOLE POINT of social ostracism: it's used precisely because the individual's behavior was deemed as unacceptable by the group, and the group is attempting to control the individual's behavior to reduce the odds of recidivism (repeating the behavior). So while the practice of shunning IS uncomfortable for the target and causes emotional pain, it's pointless to waste one's breath mentioning your pain: it's telling them what they already know, and it actually VERIFIES your pain, which is VALIDATING what they're trying to accomplish when they shun. Hence such anguished pleas are extremely unlikely to be effective in leading to cessation of shunning; it's playing into the JW agenda.
Clearly, a different approach is needed to address the practice of shunning.
A basic premise of human psychology as used in advertising is that you cannot expect others to change THEIR behavior if you're not able to offer them sufficient reason as to why it would be in THEIR best interests to do so. That's basic human nature: most humans, as high-minded as they may think of themselves, are known to be self-centered, narcissistic, and greedy, so any attempts to influence their behavior MUST dangle the "carrot" of what personal benefit such a change will provide, explaining "what's in it for me (them)". We need to explain how a change in behavior will personally benefit THEM to not shun.
However, in the case of JW shunning, the barrier as to why to continue to shun others is obvious: members MUST shun 'marked members' in order to not be shunned themselves!
ALL JWs know this, and it usually is whispered at some point to anyone who doesn't know; if individuals refuse to go along, then good discipline and order is broken down, and the entire power structure of the organization is threatened.
The same principle applies to ANY organization that has to maintain control over the actions of individuals, eg in the military the process is called "maintaining good military order and discipline via the chain of command", etc. Corporate organizations rely on the same processes.
So the KEY to breaking control is by appealing to the member's self-interest by focusing on the LOSS, the HARM, the significant EMOTIONAL TOLL exacted on individuals who sacrifice their personal morality by going along with group-think, AKA mob mentality behavior. They need to understand the HARM experienced, the LOSS of individual identity.
Even though they may not recognize it, the ones who go along with the group are also VICTIMS as much as the person they are shunning, since it's robbing them of their personal sense of humanity, their dignity, transforming them into a mindless member of a silent mob who is an unthinking cog in a machine, only following orders.
Rephrased, instead of focusing on the perspective and experience of the shunned, it would be more helpful to focus on the harm it does to the INDIVIDUALS who shun.
The WT requires individuals to subsume their inner sense of morality to accept the will of the group (in the name of God), engaging in "group think" practices which only reinforces the power of the group: "practice makes perfect", so with each subsequent individual they shun, it only makes it easier the next time, and eventually shunning becomes an unthinking knee-jerk response that makes questioning the action increasingly immune from cognitive challenge (it shifts into the territory of habit, just the way it's always been done).
You already understand this concept, as JWs rely on the same principle of one's conscience getting worn down by repeated sinning, getting easier to do with time: it's the same idea, except applied to shunning.
The practice of blindly following the commands of a leader or authority figure was studied by social psychologist Stanley Milgram in his famous study at Yale in 1961. The following video depicts a recreation of Dr. Milgram's study: simply replace the 'authority of science' with 'authority of the elders and members of the congregation' (adding the element of peer pressure into the mix), 'delivering electrical shocks as punishment' with 'delivering emotional shocks of shunning as punishment', and 'subjects administering electrical shocks' with 'JWs who shun', and you've got the exact same paradigm in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f6LLV3fkXg
(The conclusion of the article is on my blog, link at the top of this post)
Adamah
(Image from July 15, 2011 Edition of Watchtower)