The Summer of 1939
Summer of 1939: Lecture Objectives
1. Describe the events of the summer of 1939 and the dilemma of the Nazi vote.
2. Describe the Lewin democracy experiment.
3. State why laissez-faire turns to autocracy.
4. Contrast the nature of democracy and autocracy.
Two events of Summer 1939
Hitler invades Poland & Czechoslovakia Jagiellonian University
Kurt Lewin and his students Ralph White and Ron Lippitt publish their experiments on the nature of democracy and autocracy conducted at Iowa University
Hitler’s rise to power Fought in WWI 1920s-1930s: Germany in relative deprivation (Treaty of
Versailles; Frei Corp.) His demagoguery emphasized: nationalism, anti-
Semitism, anti-communism, Aryan strength Becomes Chancellor in 1932; Nazi party in 1932-33
elections receives 33.1, 37.4, & 44.9% of votes Autocratic rule (propaganda to justify regime; power
accumulated in the Nazi party) Results:
36.5 million human beings died in WWII 6 million Jews (over 90% of the total Jewish population in
Europe) plus untold other “undesirables” killed in genocide known as the holocaust
Kurt Lewin Fought for the Germans in WWI Jewish refugee who escaped Nazi
Germany in 1932 Founder of the field of experimental
social psychology First dissertations in social psychology His heirs in social psychology
Wondered: What is the nature of democracy?
The dilemma of Nazi vote Common definition of democracy:
majority rule of the people (through the vote)
Is it just majority rule and elections? If so, then Nazi Germany was a democracy
And so are: Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, Iran, Mussolini’s Italy (mob) plus other despotic regimes
Iraq & Palestine?
What is democracy?
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.”
James Bovard (civil libertarian)
What is the “more?” Wertheimer: the protection of minority rights
and the fostering of institutions to support those rights
Imagine that we vote that Student X must always bring donuts to class.
Minority = those not in the majority due to opinion, ethnicity, religion, or whatever.
A common complaint: Why did the courts overturn the will of the people?
Will of the people Power to the people
How to protect minority rights – America’s solution
Madisonian principles in the US Constitution Place checks and balances on the
accumulation and use of power Bill of Rights (plus some
Constitutional amendments) Contract among citizens to protect
each others’ rights
What is the “more?” Kurt Lewin: Democracy and autocracy
are “climates” or patterns of social relationships.”
Democracy: Leader leads the group in setting policy, tasks, and procedures
Autocracy: Leader sets policy, tasks, and procedures
Laissez-faire: Do your own thing; no leader involvement
Conducted an experiment to understand the nature of these relationships
Lewin’s experiment on democracy, autocracy, and laissez-faire
Setting: Boy’s club IV: Different types of leadership
Democracy Autocracy Laissez-faire
DV: Social effects Productivity & Creativity Satisfaction and happiness Hostility (false accusations)
Show DVD of original footage
Results of Lewin’s experiment
Productivity & Creativity Satisfaction and happiness Hostility (false accusations)
Productivity & Creativity Democracy
High rate of production; most creative products
Autocracy High rate of production, but only when
the boss was present; no creativity Laissez-faire
Lowest rate of production; poor creativity
Democracy and Productivity on the world stage Poor democracies compared to poor
autocracies show democracies Higher economic growth rates Better quality of life (clean water, literacy,
agriculture yields, health) 9 years longer life expectancy Better at avoiding calamites (e.g. severe crop failure;
economic ruin) Autocracies show short productivity increases that
then decline From: Siegle, Weinstein, & Halperin Sept/Oct
2004 Foreign Affairs
Satisfaction Democracy
Friendly relations; liked the group and group members
Autocracy Dependency & frustration;
manipulative of others (hide feelings) Laissez-faire
High discontent; bored; high-drop-out rate
Democracy and Satisfaction on the world stage Surveys of 100,000 person in 55
nations. Nations measured on capitalistic
democracy vs. autocracy High income, individualism, human rights,
and social equality Subjective well-being is highly
correlated with the indicators of capitalistic democracy
Hostility Democracy
Moderate rate of hostility Autocracy
Exp 1: Highest rates of hostility Exp 2: Highest rates (for certain leaders)
and lowest rates (for other leaders) that become high when leader leaves
Laissez-faire High rates of hostility due to boredom
(horseplay to pass the time)
Hostility in autocracies Leaders maintain their power through:
Scapegoating (blaming problems on a few out-members)
Leader excuse for failure Hatred of scapegoat increases cohesion Monkey on a stick: You don’t want to be a scapegoat Self-esteem boost (not like them)
Projection (accusing others of your own misdeeds) Deflects attention from leader’s sins and places blame
on others Two important indicators of authoritarian
leaders but it requires careful analysis Sibling accuses sibling of stealing the cookie; to
know the truth requires detailed “detective work”
Why less hostility in democracies? Throughout history: No mature
democracy has ever attacked another mature democracy! War of 1812 possible exception Mature democracies are not less aggressive
than autocracies; just that mature democracies do not attack each other
Immature democracies have higher rates of attacks than either autocracy or mature democracy
Why this pattern? Mature democracies:
Have mechanisms for conflict resolution other than war
Have means for status attainment other than position in hierarchy
Have interdependencies that dampen conflict Immature democracies
Do not have well-established conflict resolution mechanisms
Leaders may need to appeal to the people to maintain power and to do that it is useful to create scapegoats and enemies
Litwin & Stringer 1968 replication Set up a mock business simulation with
autocratic vs. democratic (affiliation) vs. democratic (achievement) leadership
Democratic (affiliation): leader encouraged placing a premium on good (fun) relationships (t-groups)
Democratic (achievement): leader encouraged achievement through personal goal setting
Litwin & Stringer results Autocratic
Norms Leaders and workers separated “Follow the rules or else” norm Do only what you are told
Results High rate of production but a costly
production process that negated profits; no innovation
Low job satisfaction
Litwin & Stringer results
Democratic (affiliation) Norms
Friendliness amongst all Equality Democratic decision making
Results Low productivity and moderate
innovations High job satisfaction
Litwin & Stringer results Democratic (achievement)
Norms (Silicon Valley) Keep busy; take on work Teamwork Individual responsibility for job Make job fun Beat everyone else (competition)
Results High productivity and very high innovations High job satisfaction
The Lewin experiment in broader context
What have we learned about the nature of the three types of climates?
Laissez-faire is not democracy Some of Lewin’s experimenters at first
thought democracy was merely do your own thing
Today’s variants of laissez-faire Libertarianism New Age Radical free market (kleptocracy)
Lesson: Democracy is not the lack of persuasion (propaganda) but persuasion of a certain kind (self-generated, participatory persuasion)
Laissez-faire becomes autocracy Michels Iron Law of Oligopoly: all
forms of organizations will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies (political power rest with a few elites) Michels was a socialist observing his own
movement Anthony’s Addendum: unless that
organization takes the steps needed to prevent the rise of autocracy
Why the Iron Law of Oligopoly? Power (influence) abhors a vacuum
Why are there North and South Koreas? Iraq post Saddam
Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” David Kipnis: experimental studies placing
people in power creates a metamorphism: Devalues target of influence; uses influence more;
believe he/she deserves to use power; believe that they are more worthy than others
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy The State is a
constitutional democracy or Abraham Lincoln’s principles “of the people, for the people, by the people” under the rule of law
Individual serves state & leader or Ulpain’s principle of Quod principi placuit legis vigorem habet. (What pleases the prince has the force of law).
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy Co-participation
of leaders in discovering solutions
Authority used to stimulate discussion
System of checks and balances
Predetermined solution by elites
Authority used to induce acceptance of elites
Leader behavior not constrained by rules of group
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy Reciprocity of
influence; multiple independent sources of information
Decentralized communication
Flexible group boundaries and roles that allow additional resources to be obtained to solve problems
Unidirectional influence from elites; single or colluding sources of information
Centralized communication
Rigid group boundaries and social roles
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy Minority opinion
encouraged as a means of better decision making; feedback encouraged
Agenda, objectives, and work tasks set through group discussion
Rewards used to move group towards objectives
Minority opinion is censored via neglect, ridicule, social pressure, or persecution; feedback discouraged
Agenda, objectives, and work tasks set by elites
Rewards used to maintain group structure and leader’s status and power
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy Merit based
promotion
Decisions are fact-based and requires technical skills
Capable of seeing “gray” of complex issues
Compromise & mutual gain
Promotion based on obedience and loyalty to own group
Decisions based on truthiness, self-interest, and corruption
Manchesian black-white thinking
Squash the opposition
Nature of Democracy vs. Autocracy Persuasion based
on debate, discussion, and careful consideration of options; self-generated and participatory; persuasion as discovery
Propaganda that plays on prejudices and emotions
The next lectures Address John Dewey & Ben Franklin’s concerns:
Dewey: “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife."
As he left the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell asked: “What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?“ Franklin replied, "A republic if you can keep it.”
Freedom isn’t free What are the social psychological processes that
promote autocracy and how can they be checked? Obedience to authority, conformity, granfallooning,
rationalization, propaganda, concentration of power, corruption
What are the social psychological processes that promote democracy and how can they be developed?
Tolerance & empathy, minority influence, prejudice-reduction, growth of middle-class, DIME & conflict resolution
But first….
We will look at why utopias fail See the power of the Iron law and the
need for conflict resolution mechanisms to resolve tensions
Begin our discussion on how to implement the democratic climate
What could these utopias have done to create a successful social organization?