On social movement organisation disintegration – isn’t it Bion-ic, yeah I really do think…

Quick post.

I am fascinated by the ways groups start with high hopes/expectations (high hopes = hype) and within a few months tend to be all gone, or else fighting like dysfunctional rats in an itchy hessian sack. Seen it so many times. Been one of those rats too, for my sins.

This below about the Freudian Wilfred Bion may be of use in thinking about this. Or not. Who knows.

In Experiences in groups, Bion develops a theoretical framework of group functioning comprising two different mentalities: the ‘basic-assumption mentality’ and ‘work-group mentality’. These two terms relate to two fundamental ways of perceiving and thinking, and determine the ability of the members to relate to each other in relation to the purpose for which the group has met. The ‘work-group mentality’ describes the members’ disposition to tolerate tension and frustration coming from the group in order to achieve the shared objectives; the outcome when a certain prevalence of this kind of mentality occurs is constituted by the ‘capacity for realistic hard work’ (Bion, 1961: 157). The ‘basic-assumption mentality’, on the other hand, describes the status of a group all wrapped up in its own emotions: ‘anxiety, fear, hatred, love, hope, anger, guilt, depression’ (Bion, 1961: 166); the outcome in case of prevalence of this kind of mentality is constituted by losing contact with the aim for which the group has met, collapsing into a collusive process of ‘stagnation’ (Bion, 1961: 128). Bion stressed three different types of group configurations belonging to this latter type of mentality and emerging from the ‘proto-mental’ dimension: the baD (basic assumption of Dependence), baP (basic assumption of Pairing), and the baF (basic assumption of flight–fight).

emphasis added (de Felice et al., 2019  p.4)

When do you start to get this decay, this transfer from work group mentality to basic assumption mentality?  My hunch is that it progresses when some or all of these below kick in

Externally

• When it turns out the repertoires aren’t working
• When the resistance is higher than thought
• When the initial “buzz” and attention is faltering
• When numbers have plateaued or declined beyond the point that you can pretend it’s just a blip.

Internally

• When there are struggles over limited resources (adulation, control, etc)
• When the leaders are revealed to have feet of clay (whether this is made clear in public or not)
• Leader disintegration
• When group members’ poor behaviour (acting out, lunching out/free-riding etc) is not addressed etc.
• Defection of significant numbers of people to either inaction or other competing groups

[These conditions are loosely-coupled, of course, can set each other off and then create a doom loop]

Of course, groups may well start OUT in basic assumption mode, briefly pretend to themselves or others (with varying degrees of credibility) that they are in work group mode, before sinking back into a basic assumption.  Or switch between these basic assumptions.

In theory I’d do further study. In reality, this is a useful heuristic and I am not going to go stamp-collecting (who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?)

References

Bion WR (1961) Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.

de Felice , G., De Vita, G., Bruni,, A., Galimberti, A., Paoloni, G., Andreassi, S. and Giuliani., A. (2019). Group, basic assumptions and complexity science. Group Analysis, Vol. 52(1): 3–22; DOI: 10.1177/0533316418791117