Carman,
In re-reading your post, http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/06/22/our-house-from-carman-de-voer/ I continue to notice new levels of richness and meaning.
Freire describes some of the core insights of Partnership: “Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence” (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p.66).
Yes, as Freire describes, domination is system of relations, including our relation to self. We are divided beings in as much as we internalize the voice(s) of dominant, controlling others. As young children, we tend to absorb parental and cultural moods, attitudes, and perspectives. It is, therefore, so often true that children of dominating parents (or of a hostile culture) struggle with self-criticism and self-doubt. In the Dominator paradigm, this is the position of feeling “less than” others. In this psychological literature, this is sometimes called “shame.”
Psychology also describes “projection” as a psychological defense mechanism. One way of copying with our “disowned […] feeling, wishes, needs and drives […] is to attribute them to others” (Bradsahw, 109). We may also gain some temporary relief from the pain of internalized oppression through identification with the oppressor (Bradshaw 106). When we identify with dominator (our externalized notions of power, prestige), we may experience ourselves as feeling “better than.” In this state, we may project undesireable characteristics onto others and “do unto others as has been done unto us.” It is, therefore, a truism that, in the absence of healing, people who have been abused, often become abusers themselves.
In a dominator system (such as is predominant in our culture), there is a tendency to either feel less than or greater than others, and whether one feels inferior or inferior can vary depending on time and circumstance.
Judgement appears to be the mechanism by which this occurs. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is common to fear the judgement of others — particularly those we perceive to have some level of power over our lives.
One dynamic for maintaining the “upper hand” in a dominator relationship is silencing, in which one does not permit others the privilege of speaking their truths. This dynamic may be internalized as self-silencing.
Codependency has been defined in a variety of ways. One pertinent definition is, “A pattern of coping which develops because of prolonged exposure to and practice of dysfunctional family rules that make difficult the open expression of thought” (http://www.winning-teams.com/codependent.html).
This same dynamic has been described in organizations. In the 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Stephen R. Covey describes the dynamics of codependency in organizations and how its negative effect on organizational effectiveness (17). For an excerpt, see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XM8lWue6vQUC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=leadership+codependency&source=bl&ots=9i5CVzn618&sig=YVd9e402EUHfsY4Vbi7GjwRLxzY&hl=en&ei=vO2JSrycEoPusQOj1ajPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=leadership%20codependency&f=false
Author John Gardner writes, “Most ailing organizations have developed a functional blindness to their own defects. They are not suffering because they cannot resolve their problems, but because they cannot see their problems.” The perspective of each individuals and organization (which is ultimately shaped by its members) seems natural and normal; therefore, real alternatives may not be readily seen, or when seen, may seem counter-intuitive. Seeing alternatives, including personal and organizational health, is an imaginative act.
If we can label a core problem of contemporary organizations to be co-dependence, then, what might the literature of psychology and recovery have to teach us with respect to creating healthier, more flexible, collaborative, and creative environments?
Also, what is the relationship between a Partnership relationship and perspective (based on mutual thriving), coaching and the psychological-social paradigm of recovery?
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for your illuminating pool of insights on the “dominator system” and “dominator paradigm.” I reflected on your comments all week—especially while walking to work over Vancouver’s Cambie Street Bridge.
Fear and punishment seem to be the dominant emotions fostered by dominator systems.
Orwell’s Oceania—a caricature of the ultimate exploitative and oppressive system—exemplifies the extreme end of organizational pathology. I thought it might be instructive to construct a profile of Oceania—its mission, vision, values and structure. As the example of the Chloe Factories (1999) shows, many organizations may not be too far from Oceania.
Organization of Oceania
Thesis: Organizations exhibit a propensity to malignant narcissism and radical mental manipulation.
Key Concepts:
§ Ingsoc—the prevailing philosophy.
§ Newspeak—the official written language of the Party
§ Doublethink—the officially induced trance state
§ Crimestop—party-protective stupidity
§ Goodthinkful—thinking in Party-approved ways
§ Blackwhite—unconditional obedience and unstinting abhorrence of enemies
The Psychological Profile of the Party
Organizational Vision
“A boot stamping upon a human face forever!”
Organizational Mission
1) “To conquer the whole surface of the earth”
2) “To extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”
Organizational Objectives
• Preserve hierarchical structure
• Preserve oligarchic privilege and power
• Protect the image of Big Brother as omnipotent and infallible
Organizational Climate
§ Dominated by fear and fanatical hatred of the “enemy”
Organizational [Psychopathic] Personality
§ Engrossed in its own image and impression management
§ Obsessed with the veneration and infallibility of Big Brother
§ Consumed with control
§ Contemptuous of the physiological, emotional, and spiritual needs of the people
§ Cruel
Organizational Program:
§ Eradicate all human qualities such as love, friendship, joy of living, laughter, curiosity, courage, and integrity
§ Execraete declared “enemies”
§ Torture and eliminate “dissidents”
§ Train children to place loyalty to the Party above human relationships
Organizational Philosophy (Ingsoc):
§ Ingsoc has as its aim the preservation of power at all costs and even wages war simply to preserve its hierarchical structure—to the extent of bombing its own citizens.
§ All intelligent citizens are conditioned through fear to accept its worldview.
Organizational Technologies
§ Telescreen: utilized to monitor, control and discipline citizens; Members live from birth to death under the watchful eye of the Thought Police.
Organizational Culture
§ Crimestop [inability and unwillingness to think uncomplimentary things about the Party]. Crimestop is “protective stupidity,” in that it shields the Party from scrutiny. It is stopping a thought before it gets started, that is, at the threshold of consciousness.
Manifestations of Crimestop:
• the power of not grasping analogies
• failing to perceive logical errors
• misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc
• being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction
§ Goodthinkful– habitually thinking and acting in Party-approved ways
§ Newspeak– is the official written language of Oceania. Though no one speaks Newspeak in 1984, it is steadily becoming the lingua franca of the New Order. Newspeak is not a medium of communication, per se, but, rather, a vocabulary intended to narrow the range of consciousness and to make thoughtcrime [any thought diverging from the official philosophy] impossible. Its purpose is not to facilitate communication but to enforce submission, as is the case with jargon in present organizations.
Newspeak is the language of the lie. Newspeak is carefully crafted to focus the range of thought, to enforce a uniformity of opinion, and to render ‘unorthodoxy’ thought impossible. It is at once the manifestation and cause of evil (Peck, 1983, p.242).
All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, and mental attitudes of Oceania are designed to sustain the mystique of the Party. Newspeak is the language of manipulation and deceit. Its purpose is to subvert intellectual engagement and to perpetuate the Party’s myth of omniscience.
§ Blackwhite– has two contradictory meanings. On the one hand it means that if the Party says black is white, then it is white. When applied to opponents, it means utter inability to believe any utterance. In either case, blackwhite is the ultimate test of loyalty to the Party. One must not simply know that black is white, when the Party declares it to be so, but, rather, one must thoroughly believe that black is white. This kind of mental elasticity is made possible through doublethink.
§ Doublethink– is the ability to hold two contradictory opinions simultaneously. It is consciously induced unconsciousness (orthodoxy). Put another way, it is the ability “to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies.”
Anatomy of Doublethink:
• to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them
• to forget any fact that has become inconvenient
• to deny the existence of objective reality while taking to account the reality which one denies
Organizational Structure
• Ministry of Truth (promulgates propaganda)
• Ministry of Peace (perpetuates war)
• Ministry of Love (promotes torture)
• Ministry of Plenty (perpetuates starvation)
An excerpt from Organizational Behaviour In A Global Context, p.411:
The Choe Factories—Power Relations in the Workplace
“In the spring of 1999, the Choe factories, located in New York City, shut down operations due to wage claims from workers. The Choe factories operated as a contractor producing garments under an exclusive agreement for Donna Karan International. the workforce was comprised of 70 Chinese and Latina women. Workers were unionized under the Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).
Research carried out by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) found the organization, DKI, and the union representing the workers in violation of numerous international human rights. p.411
Over 12 years the workers were subjected to restrictions on movement and bathroom use, monitoring with surveillance cameras, unpaid overtime, and abusive supervision.
Constant surveillance meant that, if workers were to raise their head from their work, supervisors would immediately reprimand them by speakerphone, “No talking, work.” No one was permitted phone calls, even in emergencies, and phone activity was monitored by management. Lilia was not permitted to go to the bathroom (which was often padlocked) unless she had finished her piecework. Even drinking water was unavailable when the fountains on-site did not work.”
Bye for now,
Carman
Carman, Thank you for offering the example of Orwell’s Oceania, as perhaps the ultimate example of a Dominator organization. Oceania is perhaps a pure example of a direction that human organizations can take when their core value is power (money and power-over) and there are no other strong mitigating values or externally or situationally imposed limitations.
Recently, I’ve been speaking about the role of “doublethink” and “newspeak” which are both reflected in the well documented phenomenon in which organizations say one thing and do another.
This gap between public communications and action can arise for several reasons:
1) Lack of self-awareness on the part of the leader (we are not always aware of our true motives);
2) Belief in an ideal but a lack of awareness of the true costs;
3) Cynicism.
Whatever the cause, the gap leads to skepticism, a lack of investment on the part of organizational members, and ultimately poor performance.
One example, would be one in which organizational leaders and corporate policy discuss the importance of product quality or customer service, while acting in ways that reduce that capacity. The pressure to reconcile the public face and actual practice tends to flow downhill to the front lines (often the least powerful members of the organization). If a person at the front lines was to express the perception that the “organization isn’t really committed to quality (or customer service — whatever it might be), there is a good chance that that person would be considered perverse, negative — perhaps a poor performer. “After all, it is obviously company policy that we serve our customers… and we’ve asked others in the department and they don’t share your view…”
The way a company approaches public statements regarding ethics and how it ensures that the organization complies with ethical policies is particularly sensitive. In one situation I observed, team members all privately identified ethical violations in their immediate environment, but most publically stated that they did not know of any violations. The reasons they gave for not reporting the violations were: 1) Fear of possible negative consequences, and 2) the belief that the company did not really want to know.
In this kind of environment, there is a deep lack of trust, and problems can become more difficult to identify and fix…
So, leaders who want to develop healthy, flexible organizations in which members believe and are invested have a stake in creating an environment in which organizational members can share their experiences and perspectives without fear of negative consequences.
The power differential between managers and individual contributors, itself, tends to reduce upward feedback. “Newspeak” further reduces trust.
What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?