Denial – Rational-Understanding.com

In a previous article at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/, I described the concepts of personal and cultural denial. In summary, denial is a psychological defense mechanism identified by Freud and his daughter. When we encounter a situation that causes us anxiety and about which we can do nothing, then we alleviate our anxiety by denying the existence of its cause. Cultural denial is a much stronger form. When a group experience anxiety due to a common cause, then they reinforce one another’s denial through the process of socialization, i.e., punishment for mentioning the cause and reward for remaining silent about it.

However, there is another form of denial that is stronger yet. It is a very common organizational pathology that infects management hierarchies. To explain its cause, I must take a step back. The relationship between a junior manager and a senior one is an informal contract, whereby the junior manager supports the senior one in return for delegated power and the benefits of status. There is often much competition for management positions and the senior manager usually controls who will fill them. So, if there is a problem in the organisation, then a junior manager will be reticent to speak truth to power and report it to a senior one for fear of appearing in breach of the informal contract. This creates anxiety that can result in personal denial. That is, whilst we may be aware of the problem, we do not think about it or discuss it and do not realize that others are in the same position. There are, of course, those who do think about the problem but whose primary concern is to navigate it in their personal interest. In the hierarchy, almost all senior managers are junior to a yet more senior one. So, if the problem is reported to them, this affects their own denial, and they can discourage further reports with veiled threats. In this way, denial can infect a whole management hierarchy. The managers may know of the problem but are unwilling to talk about it, and so, it goes unaddressed. Furthermore, the hierarchy is unable to recognise that it suffers from this problem because denial is itself the subject of denial. Ultimately, recognition often only occurs when there is a catastrophe.

The classic example is the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. A brief description of events leading up to this disaster is given below. However, there are many other more mundane examples, two of which I will also discuss.

The shuttle Columbia was launched in 2003 with seven astronauts aboard. During takeoff, a piece of insulating foam from the external fuel tank was seen to break off and strike the shuttle’s wing. Foam had broken off before and in one instance it dented the casing of one of the solid rocket boosters. However, this was the first time that foam had struck the shuttle. Concerns were raised by a relatively junior member of the NASA team and requests were passed up the line for remote inspection of the shuttle’s wing while it was in space. However, the prevailing view in NASA was that the foam was not sufficiently dense to have caused any significant damage. Three potential remote observations by aircraft, ground telescope and satellite were considered but rejected by the management team. A proposal for an external inspection by the astronauts was also rejected. All would have taken time out of the crew’s very tight schedule of scientific experiments, thereby harming NASA’s reputation. The junior member who raised the concern, when he pressed the matter, was told by his manager not to be “Chicken Little”, i.e., not to raise false concerns. A working group was established to consider the matter but complained that they did not have visual evidence on which to base their work. They were told to do their best without it and concluded that there was no safety concern. The astronauts were informed of the strike but again were told that there were no safety concerns.

As we know, when the shuttle returned to earth it broke up during re-entry with the loss of all seven astronauts. Even then, the denial persisted. Managers claimed that there must have been some other cause. Only when the external accident investigation team fired a similar piece of foam at a mock-up wing, and it punched a large hole was the denial overcome. Many in the management team then recognised their error and there were expressions of “mea culpa”. Others, however, went to ground. It is uncertain whether the lives of the crew could have been saved had the damage been investigated. However, it is clear that management denial prevented any attempt to do so.

More detail is given in the excellent documentary on BBC Iplayer entitled “The Space Shuttle that Fell to Earth” at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001tts2/the-space-shuttle-that-fell-to-earth.

Recently, I have had dealings with two UK public service organisations, both of which have a communication problem with their customers that impacts seriously on their ability to provide a satisfactory service. In one case there is a lack of feedback on reports from the public about safety concerns. This, of course, discourages them from making such reports in the future, and so, safety issues are probably going unaddressed. In the other example there is a lack of feedback on the progress of maintenance tasks not only to customers but also internally. As a result, costly mistakes are made, tasks go unaddressed, and the administrative costs involved in correcting this is high. Both organisations suffer the same denial syndrome. Although they both have complaints departments, they appear to see their role as one of defending management from criticism. They use various techniques among which are gaslighting, irrational arguments, and word games, i.e., implying one thing whilst actually saying another. It can be very time-consuming and frustrating to obtain the truth, and in so doing one can become labeled as the problem. So strong is the denial that the last-resort is often self-harm by, for example, simply not replying to the customer or asking them to contact an external regulator. Both organisations also employ “improvement managers”. However, whilst they may be aware of the problem and agree with the customer, they are also part of the management hierarchy, have a living to earn, and face the same difficulties in speaking truth to power.

Please, do not take these examples as implying that management hierarchies in the private sector are immune to the problem. Many do in fact suffer from it, although the topic of denial may be different, for example, a bullying, misogynistic, anti-social, or anti-environmental culture.

So, what is the solution to this syndrome? As we have seen from Columbia, a catastrophe will bring recognition. However, we should of course aim to avoid catastrophes. Bypassing the hierarchy, i.e., whistleblowing, is one solution, although it is notable that many organisations are now putting whistleblowing policies in place to control this. Leaving the organisation is another, although this will merely worsen the situation. A form of natural selection will take place in which those who are more susceptible to the syndrome remain, whilst those less susceptible leave. The only real solution is awareness of the problem, which I hope this article will encourage; better management training, including recognition of the syndrome; greater honesty with ourselves, even if this means suffering some anxiety; and greater honesty with others, especially those with power over us. There is a degree of personal risk in the latter and the way that a problem is flagged up will depend on the circumstances. However, it would clearly help to understand the benefits and disbenefits of acknowledgement vs. denial, and to emphasise the benefits of the former and the disbenefits of the latter.

Our normal understanding of “denial” is of something practiced by an individual. In this context it was first proposed by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s. His daughter Anna Freud then went on to develop it and other related concepts in the 1930s. Personal denial is a psychological defence mechanism that protects us from suffering anxiety. People who practice denial will not accept the truth despite objective evidence and this can, for example, occur when we have a cheating partner, an addiction, or a mental health problem such as narcissism. Denial of this nature is not always a bad thing. It gives us time to psychologically adapt to a distressing situation. However, it can also cause us to fail to seek help when, for example, we are faced with a health or addiction problem.

What is less well known is that denial can also be practiced by a group of people who face a common threat that would otherwise cause them to suffer anxiety. For example, to talk about the holocaust, death or climate change is traumatic, therefore we can practice denial. Such denial by a group of people is commonly known as a “conspiracy of silence” or co-denial. However, because norms and beliefs are involved, I prefer to refer to it as “cultural denial”. The concept is explored in the excellent little book “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life” by the American sociologist, Eviatar Zerubavel. (Zerubavel, E. 2006)

Zerubavel argues that the reason cultural denial is not well known (and also, I would argue, his book) is that cultural denial is itself the subject of cultural denial. That is, we do not accept that cultural denial exists, do not wish to talk about it, and do not wish to hear about it, lest it cause us anxiety. There are also difficulties in identifying the existence of denial. As Zerubavel says “As one might expect, what we ignore or avoid socially is often also ignored academically, and conspiracies of silence are therefore still a somewhat under-theorised as well as under-studied phenomenon. Furthermore, they typically consist of non-occurrences, which, by definition, are rather difficult to observe. After all, it is much easier to study what people do than what they do not (not to mention the difficulty of telling the difference between simply not talking about something and specifically avoiding it.)”

Cultural denial can be extremely powerful because it is reinforced by the process of socialisation. Through this process, which can be exercised unconsciously, we learn social norms, that is, the rules of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. If we do not follow those norms, then we are punished by our peers, by for example shunning, expressions of disgust and so on. If we do follow them then we are rewarded, by inclusion, expressions of pleasure, etc. So, if one person raises an issue which the other prefers to deny, they will experience an adverse reaction and eventually learn not to raise the matter.

Cultural denial is also reinforced by the simple fact that others are practicing it. If everyone around us appears not to recognise a problem, then we can begin to doubt the evidence before our eyes and wonder whether it is our own perception, memory, or reasoning abilities that are at fault.

Cultural denial is also linked to cultural speciation. Zerubavel observes that cultural denial can lead to us becoming distrustful of one another and is morally corrosive. There will be those who acknowledge a situation even though it causes anxiety, and those who do not even though the evidence is clear. The two groups will socialise their members and divergent cultures will begin to form. These cultures can be regarded as threats to one another, and so, their relative power is important. If one group holds much greater power, then the tendency will be for the other to be silenced. However, if the two groups are relatively equal in power, then competition will occur. This competition can increase the threat felt by both groups and can steadily escalate through a process of positive feedback. The greater the threat perceived by a group, the more effort they will put into social cohesion, and thus, the greater the threat perceived by the other group. This is similar to the evolutionary arms race between a predator and its prey, known in biology as coevolution. In the social context, it can therefore be referred to as “cultural coevolution”.

Climate change exemplifies cultural denial. Four main “denials” are involved.

Denial that climate change is taking place. This has been the situation for over a century now and denial is caused by anxiety that climate change will end our standards of living and even our lives. The Selma Morning Times reported on the 15^th October, 1902, that “A Swedish Professor, Svend Arrhenius, has evolved a new theory of the extinction of the human race. He holds that the combustion of coal by civilized man is gradually warming the atmosphere so that in the course of a few cycles of 10,000 years the earth will be baked in a temperature close to the boiling point. He bases his theory on the accumulation of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, which acts as a glass in concentrating and refracting the heat of the sun.” Sufficient evidence has now accumulated for most of us to accept that climate change exists but influential deniers remain. This denial has been extensively researched for the World Bank by the American Sociologist, Kari Marie Norgaard, and she concludes with several suggestions for tackling the problem. (Norgaard, K.M., 2010)

Denial that climate change has an economic cause. This denial also still persists. It is based on the anxiety that altering the economy will lower our standards of living. The economic causes are therefore largely ignored, and, where they are not, are the topic of heated debate. To date we have used fossil fuels to power our economy. This has resulted in exponential growth. However, we now have other technologies that can do a similar job. There are also social reasons for believing that perpetual growth is unsustainable. So, this anxiety can be reduced by focussing on the positives of alternative sources of energy and planning for a more socially and environmentally friendly economy; one that involves an attitude of custodianship rather than exploitation.

Denial that many of our norms, values, and beliefs are the consequence of cultural manipulation. Culture, like the biological genome, is subject to random mutation. However, an emergent property of human beings is the ability to manipulate the values, norms, and beliefs that comprise our culture, using advertising, propaganda, etc. This is referred to as cultural manipulation. To date, this ability has been used mainly by vested interests such as businesses, politicians, and religious leaders.

The denial of cultural manipulation exists because we value free will and it would cause us anxiety to believe that our values and beliefs are not necessarily our own. Although we may be aware of cultural manipulation, its denial takes the form of believing that it is only others and not ourselves who are subject to it. This is incorrect. To give an example from personal experience, a few years ago I took part in some marketing research and watched two adverts promoting gym equipment. To say that I am unenthusiastic about physical exercise is putting it mildly. However, I was astonished to find that, after watching the adverts, I quite strongly “wanted” the equipment. Fortunately, I recognised the source of this irrational want and was able to dismiss it. So, to test for these implanted “wants” and “objectives”, I now take a minute to examine them, ask myself if they are rational, and question their source.

Examples of cultural manipulation include:

the belief among some religious groups, i.e., creationists, that, contrary to all the evidence, evolution does not exist;
the belief that evolution is purely tooth and claw competition, a view thought to have been promoted in the early and mid-20^th Century to justify commercial competition, political conservatism, imperialism, and racism; and
the shift towards a consumer society, largely brought about by TV, and now smartphone advertising.

Cultural manipulation can, however, be used in a positive way to establish values and norms that are consistent with the long-term wellbeing of humanity and the ecosystem in which we live. It is not necessary to specify these values in detail. Rather, we should choose sensible fundamental ones and allow society to work out the details by the usual evolutionary process of trial and error.

The more co-operative we are, the less we are prone to negative cultural manipulation by selfish sort term vested interests, and the more successful a society is. We should therefore make negative cultural manipulation socially and legally unacceptable and use positive cultural manipulation to instil values and norms conducive to our long-term survival. However, a better understanding of the processes involved is first needed.

Denial that many of our leaders have dark personality traits. I will discuss this problem in future articles, but it is an unfortunate fact that people with dark personality traits have less empathy and fewer ethical constraints. So, they are more likely to ascend to leadership positions than others. Once in such a position, they will act in their own interest rather than in the interest of society and the environment. They will also act in the interest of the organisation from which they derive their power, by for example, prioritising profitability above all else. The anxiety associated with this denial is fear of retribution if leaders with dark traits are challenged. Retribution can, for example, be loss of employment, status, reputation, and, in some countries, even the loss of life. So, almost unanimously, we dismiss this situation as normal.

Furthermore, people with dark personality traits can be good at impression management. So, it can be difficult to recognise them and, even when we do, we run the risk of being deemed a false accuser. For example, in the recent case of the nurse and serial baby killer, Lucy Letby, senior doctors were instructed to write a letter of apology to her for repeatedly raising concerns about her. (Halliday, J. 2023)

Only when a crisis occurs, such as the Russia/Ukraine war or the invasion of the Capitol Building, do we seem to recognise a leader with dark personality traits. However, despite a vast amount of objective evidence, there is barely any recognition of this as a more general problem.

There is, of course, a causal relationship between these three denials. The dark personality traits of many leaders are responsible for the nature of our economy, and that, in turn, is the cause of climate change. It is notable that we appear to be slowly overcoming these denials, starting with the effect, and working back towards the root cause.

References

Halliday, Josh., North of England correspondent, The Guardian, Sat 19 Aug 2023 07.00 BST. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/doctors-were-forced-to-apologise-for-raising-alarm-over-lucy-letby-and-baby-deaths?ref=upstract.com

Norgaard, Kari Marie, (2010). “Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change.” © Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/9066 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/e13ec434-dd37-5dc7-8ca8-ddfaa9187fec

Zerubavel, Eviatar, (2006). “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life” New York: Oxford University Press.

Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Matthew Shapiro for the Selma Morning Times reference.