Bad Religion (3) Fundamentalism, Group Bias

In the past two posts, I have considered a very specific aspect of unhealthy religiosity; namely, legalism and works-righteousness (self-righteousness). My goal was not to rehash old ground, but share how this kind of bad religion has wounded and beleaguered my own faith.

In this post, I want to explore an important social dynamic that drives fundamentalist groups that tend toward legalism/works-righteousness and a host of other religious ills.

In the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, Henry Fonda starred as Juror No. 8. The film is a classic, shot in real time. It is the drama of a jury deliberation of a murder trail. The film begins with the jurors sitting down in the deliberation room to vote on the defendant's guilt or innocence. At the end of this first jury vote, Juror No. 8 is the lone dissenting voice. He believes there is reasonable doubt and the case against the defendant is circumstantial. The other 11 jurors come down hard on him. He refuses to back down, but goes on to lay out his case point by point. He then asks for a second vote. But, this time by secret ballot. If the vote comes back with the other 11 jurors all voting guilty, Juror No. 8 agrees to acquiesce to the group. But, the vote comes back with one other Juror (No. 9) voting not-guilty. The plot them moves toward a unanimous 'not-guilty' decision, but only after long and difficult deliberations that unmask individual prejudices and motivations.

What is amazing about this film, is that it shows group bias in action. It is so much easier to defer to the group, rather than asking questions and challenging the status quo. In faith-groups, we struggle with group bias no less than any other group. American Christian fundamentalism is largely a development of group bias. The criteria for fundamentalist ideology is more often than not what the group says.

Group Bias
In the 1970's, a team of psychologists in Bristol, England, headed up by Henri Tajfel did groundbreaking research on social groups. They established the principle now known as 'group bias.' Tajfel and his colleagues demonstrated the tendency to favor one's in-group over others across all forms of group membership. Even when individuals are arbitrarily and randomly assigned to two distinct groups, members of these groups showed clear favoritism for their group. An American Psychologist article (November, 2007), by Marilynn Brewer, helps clarify what drives group bias and the social dynamics at work. She writes,

As group membership becomes more and more inclusive, the need for inclusion is satisfied, but the need for differentiation is activated; conversely, as inclusiveness decreases, the differentiation need is reduced, but the need for assimilation is activated. These competing drives assure that interests at one level are not consistently sacrificed to interests at the other. According to the model, the two opposing motives produce an emergent characteristic—the capacity for social identification with distinctive groups that satisfy both needs simultaneously.

The tension between these needs for inclusion (belonging) and differentiation (distinctiveness) seeks a balance that is optimal for group functioning. Brewer says,

Evidence for competing social motives comes from empirical demonstrations of efforts to achieve or restore group identification when these needs are deprived. Results of
experimental studies have shown that activation of the need for assimilation or the need for differentiation increases the importance of distinctive group memberships, that threat to inclusion enhances self-stereotyping on group-characteristic traits, and that threat to group distinctiveness motivates overexclusion and intergroup differentiation. Further, assignment to distinctive minority group categories engages greater group identification and self-stereotyping than does membership in large, inclusive majority groups.

Unpacking Brewer's conclusions would take more space that a brief blog post like this will allow. Suffice it to say, when social groups are heavy on establishing group identity (distinctiveness), they increase the importance of "self-stereotyping on group-characteristic traits." When group identity is threatened, members are motivated to be over-exclusive and further differentiate within the group. The apostle Paul warned of this in Galatians 5:15:

But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

Case in point: The Hair Question (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
For a small minority of Christian groups, the teaching on head coverings is considered a vital and essential part of the Christian faith. A literal, but usually forced, interpretation is mandated by members of these groups (either a veil or long hair--sometimes uncut--hair for women is required).

It goes without saying that this passage of scripture has baffled more than a few exegetes and biblical scholars. Recent scholarship at Tyndale House (England) by Bruce Winter has shed some light on head coverings that may provide a solution to the exegetical problems (way beyond the scope of this post). Nevertheless, fundamentalists and small religious factions that need a higher level of distinctiveness to maintain group identity latch onto this passage as another criterion for in-group norms. When the obvious questions about this passage are raised, members of such small groups will ignore the centuries of biblical scholarship, much less the more recent scholarship. Instead, they self-referentially claim that the passage is clear to "everyone" in their group. Dissent on the interpretation of this highly ambiguous and difficult passage will signal out-of-group behavior. What the passage actually says is less important than maintaining group identity.

How many radical fundamentalists have thoroughly questioned the beliefs and practices of their particular groups? I would guess not many, and not for long if they wished to continue to belong to the group.

The way out of group bias toward healthy faith communities
Like Juror No. 8, we must take the time to ask questions, ignore the pressure to assimilate our thinking and behavior, and challenge prejudices and sinful motivations (i.e., fear, spiritual abuse, power, control, etc.).