With contributions from leading scholars in the field, Rebels in Groups brings together the latest research on dissent, deviance, difference and defiance.

Many of the most famous figures in psychology – Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo and others – have emphasized the pressures to conform and obey which are present in groups, and focused on the positive value that groups place on loyalty and uniformity. From this perspective, dissent, deviance, difference and defiance have been regarded as detrimental forces within groups: reflections of a lack of group loyalty, a sign of disengagement or delinquent behaviour. Contrary to traditional views, this book presents an approach which considers rebellion to be a normal, functional and healthy aspect of group life.

Rebels in Groups presents the latest thinking on these issues by examining a broad range of groups – such as political groups, task groups, and teams in organisations – and by considering diverse fields of psychology, including social, organizational, and developmental psychology. In the process, it shows how new approaches to the study of dissent, deviance, difference and defiance have refined our theorizing in this area and shed a more nuanced light upon the role of rebels in groups.

Jolanda Jetten is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia. She has published on topics relating to peripheral and marginal group membership; deviance within groups; normative influence and conformity; the role of perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness in intergroup discrimination; coping with devalued group membership; and identity change processes. She is currently Chief Editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology and Associate Editor with Social Psychology.

Matthew J. Hornsey is an Associate Professor of Social Psychology and Associate Dean (Research) at the University of Queensland, Australia. His research focuses on the social psychology of intergroup relations, identity threat, criticism, dissent, collective forgiveness, and the tension between individual and group will. He is currently Associate Editor for the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, and the Australian Journal of Psychology.

Rebels in Groups

Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and DefianceBy Jolanda Jetten Matthew J. Hornsey

John Wiley & Sons

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4051-9685-7

Chapter One

The Many Faces of Rebels

Jolanda Jetten and Matthew J. Hornsey

To illustrate a principle you must exaggerate much and you must omit much (Walter Bagehot)

Serge Moscovici started his 1976 book, Social Influence and Social Change, with the above quote. Even though it is not immediately clear for the naive reader how this quote relates to the content of the book, it quickly becomes apparent that Moscovici is not referring to processes relating to understanding conformity, dependence and minority influence. Instead, he is commenting on our practices when conducting research in this field. What is the exaggeration that Moscovici is referring to?

Before answering this question, it is important to assess what Moscovici’s book was trying to achieve. One of the main aims of his book was to examine the tension between the pressure of conforming versus the forces pushing for innovation and change. Of course, no one will dispute the omnipresence of these two opposing forces that guide our individual and group behaviour on a daily basis. Given this, why is it that social scientists have been more interested in what makes people conform than in what makes them defy authority and group pressure? Or as Moscovici put it: why do we exaggerate conformity and downplay processes relating to rebellion?

We do not have to look far to understand what Moscovici is referring to. For example, why is it that we are more interested in understanding why 12 per cent of participants in the classic Asch line study conformed on all trials than in the 24 per cent of participants who never conformed at all (Asch, 1951)? Why do we focus on explaining the 63 per cent of participants taking part in Milgram’s study in 1963 who delivered what they thought was the maximum shock of 450 volts to a learner, and not on the 37 per cent of participants who insisted at some stage in the study that they did not want to continue shocking the learner? Finally, why is our theorising geared towards understanding why groups do not appreciate ‘black sheep’ and the conditions under which such ‘black sheep’ are evaluated most negatively? Why do we not instead focus on our liking for rebels and mavericks who challenge group norms and do not appear to be afraid of standing out (Bellah et al., 1985; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004)?

Many of the most famous figures in psychology (e.g., Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo) spent their careers examining conformity and obedience pressures within groups. It is true that these studies have captured the attention of a generation of researchers for a good reason. These researchers tried to understand how obedience and conformity could lead to the destructive consequences witnessed during World War II. Coming to terms with the Holocaust, these studies reveal many important insights in the psychology of dissent, deviance, difference and defiance within groups and have clearly enhanced our understanding of the consequences of conformity (Farr, 1996).

However, some of the conclusions from these classic studies have been taken out of context; they have been interpreted as showing that conformity is the default in groups and that rebellion is generally not welcomed, is suppressed, and at times is actively punished by others in the groups. This has led to a psychology that has focused on the positive value that groups place on loyalty and uniformity and it paints a rather dark picture of groups’ perceptions of dissent, deviance, difference and defiance: as detrimental forces within groups, as reflections of a lack of group loyalty, as a sign of disengagement, or as delinquent behaviour.

Still, this general message would not be a problem if it was accurate. But is that the case? Or is it, as Moscovici suggests, that we may have exaggerated the extent to which individuals and group members conform, are obedient, and are intolerant of difference and deviance of others? In Moscovici’s words: ‘It is difficult to explain why social psychology has been so obsessed with dependence’ (Moscovici, 1976, p.18). Or on a lighter note: ‘The French say cherchez la femme; social psychologists say look for the dependence, and everything will be explained’ (Moscovici, 1976, p.19).

The main objective of this edited book is to provide a counterforce to the dominant message emerging from social psychological research that groups strive for conformity, homogeneity and sameness, with little respect for deviance, dissent, difference or defiance. Even though the pressure for conformity is without doubt a dominant force in group life, we have perhaps exaggerated the extent to which it affects group processes. That is, in our desire to understand conformity, we have perhaps unavoidably neglected and downplayed the important role played by those who are dissenting, deviant, different or defiant in group life. These individuals are not just a nuisance and trouble-makers. In many cases they are just as important for the functioning of the group as members who are trying hard to fit in and work for the group – indeed, they are often the same person. But why is it that we have been so captured by conformity in groups and why have we developed a dogma that deviance is detrimental for groups?

Do Social Psychologists have a Problem with Rebels?

Compared to other social scientists, it appears that social psychologists appear to be especially concerned about the negative effects of rebels in groups. For example, sociologists often point to the important function that deviance plays in group life and the beneficial effects of deviance. Emile Durkheim (1958) highlighted that deviance and crime are important activities within any healthy society. He argued that, in the process of responding to deviance, group members come together and bonds become tighter. It also enhances an understanding of the collective consciousness of a community, demarcates group boundaries, provides structure to groups, and clarifies important rules and norms that guide collective behaviour. In responding to deviance, groups’ perceptions of being in control and being in charge of the way social change manifests itself are enhanced. It is therefore not surprising that sociologists like Erikson (1966) emphasise that groups need deviants. What is more, he argues that societies often develop institutions to sustain some level of deviance in society. At times, societies even ‘recruit’ deviants because they fulfil an important function. Rather than perceiving deviants as threats to the social order, deviants are part and parcel of the society and their presence stabilises society because it keeps these societies vibrant. If one takes this as a starting point, societies’ behaviour is aimed at keeping deviance within bounds, rather than eroding it completely. Erikson (1966) quotes Aldous Huxley to make this point:

Now tidiness is undeniably good – but a good of which it is easily possible to have too much and at too high a price … The good life can only be lived in a society in which tidiness is preached and practised, but not too fanatically, and where efficiency is always haloed, as it were, by a tolerated margin of mess (Erikson, 1966, p.13).

This view is very different from the way social psychologists approach deviance. In the latter view, deviants undermine stability and, in order to restore stability, groups would be better off to get rid of these individuals as quickly as possible. The differences between these views may appear subtle, but they point to a fundamentally different assumption: sociologists perceive deviants as part of a healthy society – even nourishing this society whereas social psychologists perceive them as separate from it. Indeed, in the latter view, healthy group life can only resume without deviants.

As a final comparison, sociologists are quick to point out that the broader contexts in which behaviour occurs affect whether the act is perceived as deviance or not and that there are no objective criteria in establishing whether an act is deviant. Erikson highlights that ‘behaviour which qualifies one man for prison may qualify another for sainthood’ (1966, p.5). Sociologists will point out that there are more similarities than differences between the deviant and conforming group members because they both operate in the same community, culture or group, guided by the same rules and principles. Research on witchcraft hysteria has, for instance, revealed that those who were identified and accused of witchcraft held very similar norms and values as their prosecutors (Mather, 1866). Social psychologists, on the other hand, study deviance in settings where deviance is clearly defined; both the deviant and the conforming member will have no difficulty knowing who is who and where they each stand within the group.

The Consequences of an Analysis Defining Rebels as Problems

In noting that social psychologists and sociologists appear to approach and theorise the issue of deviance in a different way, the basic assumptions underlying the study of rebels in groups become salient. More specifically, and contrasting from sociology, social psychological literature has tended to lead to the suggestion that: (a) conformity is the default within groups and that dissent and deviance rarely occur; (b) dissent, deviance and defiance are the opposite of conformity and loyalty; and (c) those who depart from the status quo are perceived as trouble-makers, and that groups feel they would be better off without them. Let’s examine these points in greater detail.

When looking at the way social psychologists have described the way groups respond to deviance, we often highlight that deviants are threatening to the group’s identity and cohesion. The underlying assumption appears to be that the group’s goal is to make everyone similar. People being out of step, being different and breaking group rules is not just a nuisance, it also undermines the group identity and group equilibrium. No wonder group members are predicted to be harsh on those who dissent and are different.

But is this really what happens? We think that rebels may indeed often be downgraded, if not outright rejected and excluded, but this is certainly not an automatic group response. Looking around us, the groups that we find ourselves in on a daily basis are full of individuals who disagree with others in the group (even challenge key norms of groups). They consist of people who speak their mind and at times throw a tantrum because they just do not agree with the group’s course of action. Indeed, people may speak up and dissent from important group norms not because they want to be difficult and destructive, but because they care for the group and its future (Hornsey, 2006; Packer, 2008). Importantly too, this is not just one or two, or even a handful of individuals in a group who can be conceived of as engaging in rebellious behaviour, it is all of us who behave in this way (albeit perhaps not all of the time). So, rather than assuming that the majority of group members are conformist and that the group negatively evaluates anyone who is not, we actually all appear to be dissenters, deviants, different and defiant at least part of the time while being in groups that matter to us. So, when are we deviant and when are we a loyal group member? Are the two all that easy to distinguish?

To illustrate to what extent there appears to be a mismatch between the social psychological portrayal of group member behaviour and reality, just consider what the world would look like if we placed such a strong emphasis on conformity as suggested in the literature. That is, groups would consist of sheep anxiously avoiding deviating from the majority opinion, too afraid to share their personal opinions with others in the group for fear of facing rejection. They would want to show their loyalty to the group by downplaying their individuality and by emphasising that they would fight and die for the group and follow the group wherever it would lead them. It is not just that we personally have never been in such an Orwellian or sect-like group, it is probably fair to say that such groups appear to be the exception rather than the rule. These types of groups are more likely to be found in horror or science fiction movies than matching any kind of reality. What is more, and as Durkheim (1958) argues, even if such groups were commonly found, members would very quickly want to find someone breaking the rules, because groups need rebels:

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary defence does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such (1958, pp. 68–9).

If we accept that conformity is not the default within groups – that group members may at times be harsh towards deviants, but at other times admire them, enjoy their company and like to hear their thoughts – and that we have all been rebels within some of our most valued groups, why does the psychological theorising about rebels appear to be separate and distinct from group process research? Put differently, why is our reasoning about dissent, deviance, difference or defiance not better integrated with our theorising on group processes in general? As outlined above, there may be good historical reasons for this. However, aside from the fact that we paint a picture of group life that seems removed from reality, there are at least three broader consequences of this development that are cause for concern.

First, by assuming that the reduction of deviance is the goal of most groups, we fail to understand social change. Indeed, social change would not be possible if there were no rebels and deviants: groups need deviants to move forward. By developing a psychology where deviance is the exception, detrimental to group life, and conformity is adaptive and normative, we can explain only stability and the process of restoring the current status quo (Moscovici, 1976). As Turner (2006) argues, this is consequential:

Social psychology spends too much of its time explaining how society is reproduced, how the present recapitulates the past and very little on the other half of the problem, how and why society changes, how the future is created in the social present. Such a huge distortion of the defining problem cannot but harm the science and indeed it does (p. 45).

Second, by focusing on groups being intolerant of deviance, dissent, difference and defiance, we paint a rather dark picture of group life. In this view, groups are portrayed as being intolerant and dogmatic (see Spears, 2010, for a recent discussion). Groups are certainly not seen as places where creativity can flourish, critical self-examination can ever be encouraged or respect for difference will be commonplace. The view of groups as negative, oppressive and limiting influences on individual expression is too simplistic and has for too long stood in the way of developing a proper understanding of how individuality can be the result of group life rather than being harmed by it (see Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Jetten & Postmes, 2006).

Finally, and related to the previous points, a psychology that perceives conformity and sameness as the norm and rebellion and deviance as the problem fails to take into account individual group members’ agency. Individual group members are not passive bystanders when their groups punish deviant group members. They are active agents who make decisions on how they want to act within groups and how they position themselves within these groups. It is only when we abandon the idea that groups want their members first and foremost to blindly conform that we come to understand not only how individual agency is possible within groups, but also how it is formed, shaped and achieved within groups (see Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

The Present Book

In the last few years, there is a renewed interest in processes relating to dissent, deviance, difference and defiance within groups. Interestingly, much of this research tends to break with traditional views portraying groups as stifling evil forces that undermine individual agency. Instead, these recent accounts have focused on expressions of dissent, deviance, difference and defiance as normal and often healthy aspects of group life. Researchers have emphasised that group members actively engage with other group members, strive for individual distinctiveness within the group, and negotiate and challenge the group norms. Indeed, many researchers argue that a lack of difference and dissent can lead to stagnant and suboptimal group culture, with potentially disastrous consequences. In short, research has moved away from the view that deviance, dissent and defiance in groups are problematic and unwelcome by definition. Instead, researchers have developed a more refined and complete account of these processes by highlighting the negative as well as the positive functions of dissent, deviance, difference and defiance in groups.

(Continues…)

Excerpted from Rebels in Groupsby Jolanda Jetten Matthew J. Hornsey Copyright © 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Excerpted by permission of John Wiley & Sons. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.