Shunning the Disloyal

There is a variation of an intimidation technique that needs to be examined and rejected. It consists of a loyalty pact that requires followers of an organization or an ideology to either understand and apply teachings and/or principles in a way that agrees with the hierarchy in the organization or be excluded. This comes from a mistaken notion by the leaders that they are chosen and infallible and if they have come to a conclusion then it is the only conclusion that can be acceptable.

Suppose there is an organization that has a guru appointed by a founder of a movement and he concludes his vision of the future is the only one consistent with the movement and all others who disagree or stray from acceptance of this vision are relegated to the status of outsiders. This is the true believer syndrome and it invades even the most rational of organizations. Since man is not omniscient as any weatherman will attest, why do we see such presumptuousness by anointed leaders? Is it a variation of the celebrity complex or is it a power play? What is wrong with declaring one’s personal conclusion with the acknowledgment membership is not threatened by disagreement? If an organization must be held together by a cliques’ agreement or a rulers’ dictate where is the room for independent thought?

Who has seen in history a mind so mighty that error was totally avoided? The story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” introduces this phenomena to the young but it doesn’t seem to stick with those who relish their status so much they are willing to damper truth itself ( evidently a function of the loyalty and number of their followers ). There is certainly nothing wrong with declaring certainty. There is nothing wrong with stating one’s reasons and making a case for one’s stance. There is something wrong with stating “ if you don’t agree with X then you are so corrupt you cannot possibly be an adherent of my flock.” Were this person chastised to this extent by the founder bestowing this discipleship, he would never have attained the status he clings to. Yet the sanction granted his errors is forgotten as he steps into the position of leadership to protect the true vision and interpretation the founder articulated.

Of course it is not only the top dog that commits this error. Underlings of a lessor status hitchhiking on the same sanction of the leader also display displeasure when conclusions are challenged or flat out rejected. This is the clique mentality that is attractive to only the parasitical thinking of an ingrained follower. The unsaid creed is best conveyed by the phrase, “ We must stick together on this”. From this approach we have the chosen pure that condemns the outsider, the dissenter, the independent thinker. The message becomes “ agree or leave”.

Many have encountered the clique approach to organization and see the splintering that inevitably results. The pure faith , or the pure belief or even the pure conclusion is latched onto by the pompous devoted to the source of their status sacrificing even the truth for their interpretation of the founder’s message. Discipleship is not just a phenomena of the religious. The executive that caters to the henchmen of his administration, the owner that favors his family above ability, the philosopher who “knows” the intent of the founding of a philosophical movement, and the pope, the political leader and all others on any plane that seek control above truth. Is it any wonder with these barriers to inquiry that humanity progresses so slowly? A barrier of intimidation can be as devastating as a physical barrier and is in all probability more lasting and destructive. A world of free inquiry becomes a mound of minds stagnating afraid to assert themselves. Even movements of free inquiry can erupt with a spokesman setting the limits for those who would support his cause. The purity they seek is often compromised when the donations they welcome come from those that are not of the ruling clique. For the dirty little secret is one who produces operates on a different principle even if expressing loyalty by adherence to the creed demanded. No one builds an innovative successful commercial enterprise by timidly waiting for dictates of “truth” from “ the master”. And this is a clue as to the source of success even in the realm of ideology. The independent mind must be recognized, utilized and operate unobstructed by intimidation. It is not intimidation that builds bridges or ideological movements. The methods of intimidation are either open or subtle, blatant or subdued, raucous or even silent but the form is unmistakable. It appears in the mind as a caution to conform, to submit, to stop. This is the moat that barricades the thought that is being pursued and becomes abandoned.

The worker who has a better idea is told he is not paid to think. The supervisor who decides not to report a poor production run to a boss that only wants to here the good news. A soldier who stops an attack because he is aware of the political disfavor he will incur from timid commanders. The student who puts down answers he knows are wrong but acceptable by his professor. This phenomena is as prevalent as the molecules of an elephant but it lies largely unchallenged and unidentified. It lies at the source of human dissatisfaction with interaction among the species. It occurs in couples and nations. And like a silent tumor it grows even in the most intelligent societies quietly, unnamed and deadly. Intimidation in any form should only be instituted in retaliation. It should not be an aggressive attempt to avoid persuasion. Those who operate under the false assumption that they have followers from the simple wisdom of their words yet look only to the hollow stares of mental slaves waiting to be enlightened have only their status to cling to for validation. Where the wish for progress is tantamount ideas and innovations must be encouraged without preconceived rejection. Shunning the disloyal must be avoided. The ideas accepted by the decree Professor X said so, is equivalent to the unexamined acceptance of ancient soothsayers proven throughout history to be charlatans.