What Does Doris Lessing Mean by the Title Group Minds - Essay Example

Doris Lessing in “Group Minds” problematises the idea of freedom and individual liberty that Western society considers its birthright. She therefore adds a crucial line: “The fact is that we all live our lives in groups…Very few people indeed are happy as solitaries…Most people cannot stand being alone for long. They are always seeking groups to belong to…” (pp 49) Infact she draws the dangerous conclusion that by being unaware of our complete reliance on a kind of an ideological bondage, which colors our perception of ourselves and of the world outside us, the Western consciousness is helpless against “all kinds of pressures on them to conform in rnany kinds of ways” (pp 49). The subjectivity thus becomes an internalized version of something that dictates our being, be it through commercialization of gender biases or fixating stereotypes and archetypal ideas (blonde-haired women are dumb, fashionable gay man, notions of beauty, etc.). Hence, she highlights that “what is dangerous is not the belonging to a group or groups but not understanding the social laws that govern groups and govern us” (pp 50). Thus, ignorance makes us more gullible and more malleable and makes us helpless against all such invisible forces. The film, ‘Good Will Hunting’ as a realistic specimen of a young man’s struggle with a cornucopia of “expectations” that immediately tries to suck him into a world of performance and group joining politics. This not only threatens his apparent invisibility, and comfort beyond the social gaze, but also makes him realize the utter uselessness of conforming to social orders and institutional snobbery. However, Will escapes all such predicament. Manipulation, spontaneous obedience, group mentality and responding to social circumstances, as if they were psychological realities or unconsciously imbibing them to limit our intellectual and cognitive ability is what concerns Doris Lessing in “Group Minds”. Parallely, if we consider Foucaults argument in “Discipline and Punish”1 where he argues that discipline creates "docile bodies", ideal for making human beings respond fittingly to the scenario be it new economics, politics and warfare or the modern industrial age, is similar to what Lessing says in her essay. These bodies must be trained to function well in factories, ordered military regiments, and school classrooms. This theory is comparable to Lessing’s idea too, since Foucault seem to bring out the concept of an invisible force that gazes without been gazed at and insidiously disciplines the mind. The very starting line of the essay by Lessing seems to hint that very idea of the panopticon, which Foucault uses in this text: “My mind is my own, my opinions are chosen by me, I am free to do as I will…This set of ideas may sound something like a caricature, but it is not so far off how we see ourselves. It is a portrait that may not have been acquired consciously, but is part of a general atmosphere or set of assumptions that influence our ideas about ourselves” (Lessing, pp 49). Thus for group minds to work there must be a sense of freedom that does not allow one to question or believe that they are in control of their destiny and choices. However, the State or Group ensures the internalization of their disciplinary individuality within the bodies being controlled without any direct force. Althusser, like Lessing explains, though somewhat differently how that happens. Althusser2 in “Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays” held a similar point, where he says that it was necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image. Capitalist society, generally endows the subject with property and a feeling of being a self-conscious agent. This idea is slowly acquired within the structure of established social practices, which impose on individuals their role through Ideological State Apparatuses, which means an assortment of institutions like family, religious organizations, media and especially the educational system. Thus, these constitute as kind of a ‘Panopticon’ or disciplinary institution, which teaches by assimilation. It allowed for constant observation thus helping the internalization of disciplinary individuality: “The people administering what they believed were at the best extremely painful doses of electricity were under great stress, but went on doing it. Afterwards most could not believe they were capable of such behaviour. Some said: ‘Well I was only carrying out instructions’.” (Lessing, pp 58) If madness (or mental or physical behavior beyond the established norms of social definition or values) is silenced by reason (Censorship) as per Foucault and the anomalous nature of man is controlled by common sensible speech, then the seeming individuality can only be implemented in systems that have power relations and must control by taming the wild sides of the subconscious, which gets erased by such catechisms of socially “right” and acceptable language of expression and behaviour. Thus when Lessing narrates her experiences and that of Jean Rhys about the reception of their books, that received not much attention before a breakthrough was suddenly discovered that catalyzed a renewed interest of their novels and thus exposes the ‘Group Minds’ symptom even of reviewers, who are scared to like beyond anything that the market allows them to think. Thus she asserts “one may watch how an idea or an opinion, even a phrase, springs up and is repeated in a hundred reviews...but meanwhile each individual who has bravely repeated this opinion or phrase has been the victim of a compulsion to be like everybody..." This compliance to outside dictates without knowing how or where even to begin resisting it, for it is so absolute in nature that there is no transcendent position from where it can be objectively analyzed and changed. Lessing rightly says “The underlying assumptions and assertions that govern the group are never discussed, never challenged, probably never noticed, the main one being precisely this: that it is a group mind, intensely resistant to change, equipped with sacred assumptions about which there can be no discussion.” (Lessing, pp 53) Thus, she questions the practical repercussions of such group mentalities. It not only makes a teacher pay more attention to their boy students or a white male student more than a girl or a non-white student, but the teacher subconsciously displays his/her cultural biases, and thereby propagates what in Gramsci’s3 words is called, “Hegemony”. It is built deep inside a person of a dominant group and that therefore by its nature of uniformity (sharing of values) go unnoticed and natural or inevitable. Lessing also discusses the ineffectual causes of equality, liberty and fraternity being reiterated and resounded everywhere without a critical understanding or lack of methodology for effective practice in all practical reality interactions, be it a schoolroom or a patriotic day of celebration, nowhere the actual victims of such illusions are ever taught to resist the rhetoric that control them. Thus, Lessing questions the nature of our own reality to ourselves where we feel safe to quote one another in the name of free speech or free will, but in actuality, group minds are never given the full capacity to think beyond their ideological constraints. Thus, the language that we learn is the language that comes with the burden of added symbols, pre-conditions, ideas that one cannot escape, say for instance, the words like Man, Woman, Homosexual or even colors like Black have extended implications added to them that cannot be challenged without losing the property of the communicating itself. Good Will Hunting starring Matt Damon, Mini Driver, Robbie Williams, Ben Afflick and Stellan Skarsgård is a 1997 film, directed by Gus Van Sant, set in Boston, Massachusetts, can be taken as a good film that serve as counter-example to Lessing’s ‘Group Minds’ theory. It tells the story of Will Hunting, a troubled prodigy who works as a janitor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, despite the fact that his knowledge of and facility with higher mathematics far outstrips that of anyone in the university. The movie, written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck shows the complex process of this group dynamics being symbolically played, to transform Will into one of the university groups while he tries hard to remain in his de-classed position of a Janitor. Will has grownup in a back street milieu in an abusive foster home and has been exposed to the seamy side of life from childhood. As a grown up he oozes mistrust and rebellious hate for society especially for anything that are regarded as “normal” by group minds in Lambeau’s world. He immerses in books at his free will and keeps low profile friends who are beyond manipulation or who are not worthy of manipulation. It is a common working class, proletarian setting, where men are mastered not by their minds but by their social condition. Will is an iconoclast who drinks and does not fall into the trap of getting ahead in life with his genius and is seemingly content at his impoverished setting and uses it to stay invisible and thus free from outer pressure. But, Professor Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgård), a genius himself and a subject Medalist finds him out, after he catches him solving a complex sum that have taken him years to solve. Will receives a jail sentence for brutally delivering blows on a man who used to bully him as a child and it is there Lambeau meets Will and lays out his options: Either he can go to jail, or he can be released under Lambeaus personal supervision. His deal conditioned that Will must work on advanced mathematics with Lambeau, and secondly, he must see a therapist. It is here that the rules of discipline and punishment are laid out and the conflict between the forces of “pressure from outside” and “pressure from inside” comes to play more thoroughly and symbolically. Thus Lambeau’s position maybe read as one of the discursive or controlling force trying to initiate Will into his “Group Minds” through medically valid reason and thereby using Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) to slowly bend Will’s mind towards “normal” way of pursuing his genius. They have a difficult start, with Will being extremely defensive about talking about anything that is personal or related to anything in his life. Nevertheless, interestingly the role of the psychologist Sean is crucial here, since is serves as an agent of Lambeau. However, he starts responding to Will as a human being beyond his quality as a genius and his immediate usefulness as a member of the MIT research group. A strong bond is formed, where Will learns about his own love for Skylar (Mini Driver) and in the end pursues a future with her, leaving Boston and Lambeau’s world of genius behind. Though the intention behind Lambeau is quite well for Will, his seeming snobbery or attempts to create a phenomena out of Will is quite insensitive. In addition, it reflects selfishness on his part to credit his own reality (as the only good alternative possible) as an accomplished Mathematician and thereby undervaluing Will’s contentment with his own situation or being realistic about his future as a working class nobody. To some extent Lambeau also represent the bureaucratic academic forces that guide or to some extent create whole pseudo loftiness with intellectualism. Infact, Will’s response to the psychologist as well as to Lambeau is initially that of mistrust (with a childhood genealogy of course for such innate pathological fear of coming close to human contact and having to reveal his own deep down fears and vulnerabilities), rebellion and complete ignorance. His own disregard for his genius maybe interpreted as his complete disillusionment with social order and its attendant values of worth, prestige and other bourgeoisie aspirations, like money, career or dreams. He is a complete psychological misfit and Lambeau would not help him realize his potential as a genius, without making sure that he is mentally sobered and disciplined to understand the “value” or “worth” of his genius, without which it is just of no use. Lambeau’s ambition with Will Hunting make Sean guilty of trying to pressurize the defensive Will into submitting into a life of organized thoughts and crafted sense of the self. Sean comes to appreciate Will’s genius beyond its immediate application into a material reality. Will give a hard time succumbing and make fun of the high seriousness of Lambeau’s reality by turning down lucrative Job offers and by sending his friend Chuckie (Ben Afflick in the role of a construction worker) in his place. Will has no respect for any of Lambeau’s cherished egalitarian values. And, on the contrary he has nothing but contempt for them, which he expresses quite well when he remains absolutely adamant about valuing his “inferior” life. He remains quite adamant about not willing to succumb to lucrative pressures that require him to exchange his “inferior” life. He also gets a chance to undo all the miseries of his old life in exchange of everything that seem nothing but advantageous to a man who has nothing to lose. But this is where Will makes us all question how he really have nothing to lose or does he have more to lose by leaving his present position as a carefree genius who is living life for life’s sake? Will accepts drudgery like his friends and frees himself from the demanding and subjugating forces of a life that can only control him and his thoughts and movements forever. He chooses freedom instead and decides to leave Boston forever and follow his heart and pursue his own destiny with Skylar. A few important scenes are worth mentioning in this film. The first scene worth mentioning is the one between Lambeau and Sean who argues about Wills future, and which quickly turns into their own personal fight and the basic differences between their ideologies. In addition, they mention longstanding issues and arguments between the two, as well as their different ways of looking at the world. When Will walks in, unintentionally, breaking up the discussion, Lambeau walks off and Sean begins their therapy session. The session reveals Will’s horrific experience of child abuse and the consolation from Sean seam to affect the way Will defended his long-standing anger with the world. This scene is crucial, because the forces of solidarity defence and identification becomes complete between Sean and Will and they both come to understand each other and their world of ideology quite different from Lambeau. Will eventually comes to tears and embraces Sean, shaking and apologizing as he exorcises Will from the ghost of his childhood miseries. This scene reveals a reverse group mentality working against another dominant ideology represented by Lambeau and hence signifies the impossibility of existing beyond a herd that thinks alike (remember Will and Chuckie also share the same language with which they understand and define themselves in the world they inhabit). This brings one to another scene in the movie where Will is working at a construction site; he takes a break with his friend Chuckie who lets Will know his opinion about the situation. He asks Will not to waste his life because he understands the language of labor and hard-earned money. But with Will he can see brighter future (in terms of money and career) and thus he also reveals himself to be part of the dominant ideology, no matter how separated their ‘Group Minds’ are to that of the MIT scholars. Chuckie fails to understand why Will should allow his genius to go to a waste, since it can help him win a lottery when he is just "sittin on a winnin lottery ticket," and too afraid to cash it in. Will’s fear of the unknown lets him hide away into the haven of minimum risks and no failure, because somewhere he is scared of the potential of falling a prey to the overarching demands of an ideology that maybe unaware of him, but he is not unaware of it and thus realizes that he cannot escape its call forever. Thus, Will’s fear of failure makes the conflict of inner process and outer process seem important, since it reflects a small hope of participating in ‘Group Minds’ without having to go through the risk of being not offered an access to their knowledge or information. Thus, Chuckie bluntly admits that he, and all his other friends, would continue struggling and not having a chance to do anything to have what Will has. Thus, Will is made to understand the language of Chuckie and that suffices. Chuckie says that his greatest hope is that one day when he goes to pick Will up for work in his car, he simply wont be there and gone just like that. Chuckie helps Will to both rebel (with the interview process) and to understand the language of success in his own term that the professor fails to do. Another memorable scene where at the professors office, Lambeau reveals his impatience by rebuking Will, his protégé for messing up job interviews with his rebellious comments and attitude, Will shrugs it off. The anger of Lambeau reveals his slipping hope with Will and all his efforts remain misunderstood. In addition, he is unable to understand Will’s position beyond his world of fixed ideas. Will’s obedience is primary for him and the first resistance that Will puts up against him. Will spontaneously sets fire to a proof he had done for Lambeau, which sends the professor desperately trying to save it. This specifies that what is important to Lambeau is almost a matter of little worth to Will by sheer ignorance of each other’s practices and knowledge. Will considers this gesture “a joke" and both quite feel what they both have been pre-conditioned to feel through socialpractices. Lambeau seems very envious of, and haunted by, the sheer magnitude of Wills ability. He tells that knowing people like exist upsets his own world of compact contentment and no exceptions beyond anything. He wishes he had never met him, so he could sleep at night without the knowledge that someone like Will existed. Next important scene is Will’s job interview with the NSA. When with the interviewer, and a U.S. General promising him a bright future, Will turns down the job offer as a way of avoiding misery or taking up conscious understanding of a newer reality that hardly exists within his own Group and thus makes him skeptical bout it. Sean understands why Will’s spends so much time and energy trying to disbelieve the promises of a life that is beyond the reaches or reality of his own group ideology and the prospect of stepping beyond the boundaries of his protected shell scare him. But quite contrary to Lessing’s pronouncements, Will is aware of this fact and not quite manipulated into accepting the harsh reality of his life. This scene represents the growth of bonds between men of almost similar ideological experiences, and finding a way to make meaning of their selves, with language or rhetoric that is clearly not meant for defining their own position. Will’s reluctance with a good life is not just his inner distortion of the world at large that does not represent him, but his reluctance at being forced to belong in it, because ironically a greater ideology helps him understand that he is free to pursue his destiny, which is quite bright. “Group Think” therefore involves various level of interaction. It thus enables a self-reflexive understanding of situations or ideologies that serve to divide realities. It also help groups interact (violently or amicably, as in the case of Will and Lambeau) and thereby engage in a constant revaluation of the conscious or unconscious process (dominant ideology that imperceptibly guides us) of conformity to the group. Taking up ideologies with active undertaking is as much impossible as painful because it threatens a loss of identity and erases the notion of the self completely. Thus “Good Will Hunting” is a good counter-example of “Group Minds” that show an active involvement of analyzing the difficulties of transcending the inherent comfort or pain of “Group Minds” and also challenging them with equal force and ultimately succeeding. Works Cited 1. Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, New York: Random House. 2. Romagnolo, David. http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70ii.html#s5 Monthly Review Press New York and London, Copyright ©1971 by NLB as on 20.03.2007, Prepared © for the Internet,djr@marx2mao.org  (May 2002) 3. Gramsci, Antonio, 1971, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers Read More