I've seen a lot of people ask time and again how an organization like PETA can seriously think up and promote such oppressive campaigns as its recent fatphobic outdoor advertisement. In a word, one way of explaining PETA's desicion-making is: Groupthink.
"Groupthink" is a social-psychology concept Irving L. Janis developed to explain a defective process of group decision-making. In his 1971 article "Groupthink," Janis says:
The symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgments of their leaders' or their colleagues' ideas. They adopt a soft line of criticism, even in their own thinking. At their meetings, all the members are amiable and seek complete concurrence on every important issue, with no bickering or conflict to spoil the cozy, 'we-feeling' atmosphere.
Paradoxically, soft-headed groups are often hard-hearted when it comes to dealing with outgroups or enemies. They find it relatively easy to resort to dehumanizing solutions--they will readily authorize bombing attacks that kill large numbers of civilians in the name of the noble cause of persuading an unfriendly government to negotiate at the peace table. They are unlikely to pursue the more difficult and controversial issues that arise when alternatives to a harsh military solution come up for discussion. Nor are they inclined to raise ethical issues that carry the implication that this fine group of ours, with its humanitarianism and its high-minded principles, might be capable of adopting a course of action that is inhumane and immoral. (Emphasis in original.)
While PETA isn't orchestrating bombing campaigns, its campaigns do follow the same pattern of decision-making and dehumanization that is characteristic of groupthink. Even when being directly confronted, PETA spokespeople refuse to consider or even acknowledge how its campaigns perpetuate oppression. In interviews about its fatphobic campaign, PETA spokespeople consistently rationalize the campaigns fatphobic answer to losing weight in humanitarian rhetoric, even calling it a "life-saving message" "designed to help people." Of course, the idea that PETA sees itself as a savior of fat people is itself a supremacist notion.
Over the years I've spoken with several people who have worked or been interns at PETA and they've all described to me a corporate culture that matches Janis's description of a "cozy, 'we-feeling' atmosphere." They've described decision-making meetings where the people self-censor and avoid criticism of the leaders' and other staff's ideas. I talked to one woman who described PETA's brainstorming sessions where staff and interns would think up one oppressive campaign idea after another. Questioning the underlying oppression on which these campaign ideas are based is strongly discouraged. Not surprisingly, the woman I spoke with described these meetings as the worst part of her time at PETA.
From 'Groupy' to Ally
Usually, no matter how oppressive PETA's campaigns get, nearly everyone I talk to who still supports PETA will at some point always recites a version of the phrase: "But PETA does some good." This is the "get out of jail free" card most commonly used by PETA supporters to dismiss harsh criticism and seek concurrence and unanimity. But the reality is there is no amount of ostensible "good" that can justify perpetuating oppression.
Being an ally depends on intervening in situation where oppression and exploitation is perpetuated. Withholding criticism in these situations only allows oppression to continue. So whenever we withdraw from confronting oppression what we inevitably end up with is soft-heads and hard-hearts.
