In my last post I introduced the group dynamics concept of the collective unconscious. I want to follow up on that post by elaborating on some other key concepts that are applicable to groups. In my next post, I will discuss the role of the scapegoat that often emerges in a group. But first I want to focus on the defense mechanism of splitting as it pertains to the group level.
On an individual level, splitting is a primitive defense observed in infants that can persist into adulthood for some people. Infants are not yet able to make sense of the complexities of human behavior and so they need to split people into being all good or all bad. It is too hard to understand that the same individual one idealizes can at times behave in ways that are very hurtful. We often talk about splitting as black-and-white or all-or-nothing thinking. I tend to believe that the concepts of "good” and “bad” or “right” and “wrong” are man-made constructs that are limiting and simplistic. It is false to believe that any individual can be all good or all bad.
When we apply this concept of splitting to the group level, we observe how subgroups adopt an “us vs. them” stance. Republicans vs. Democrats. North vs. South. These groups often get polarized. Each subgroup believes that they are the good guys and the other subgroup is the problem. In my last post about the riot on the Capitol, I spoke about how Trump supporters believed that they were defending America and democracy while Democrats were the bad guys who illegally stole the election away and were undermining democracy. Democrats believed that Biden won the election fairly and that the riot was an insurrection that threatened our democracy and American values. Both subgroups truly believed that they were in the right.
It is easy to see how this is an example of splitting on a group level. The group in this instance is America, and the group members are all the U.S. citizens. One major subgroup is called Republicans and another Democrats. And we have been tremendously polarized, illustrating the “us vs. them” split I described. What is less easy to see is the connection between splitting and authority. Splitting is a defense mechanism. It protects the group against expressing uncomfortable feelings towards the group’s leader. It is safer for the group as a whole if one subgroup expresses anger towards another subgroup rather than for the entire group to express negative feelings directly toward the group leader who has power and could potentially use it in dangerous ways against the members. It is far less scary to allow the split to occur between the subgroups and to have the negative feelings located there. Now, we know that many individuals and the subgroup of the Democrats expressed negative thoughts and feelings towards Trump, the group leader at the time. But on the group level, on the level of the collective unconscious, it was much scarier for the group as a whole, that is, the entire group known as Americans, to be conscious of and express how utterly terrifying it was to have a leader who was so emotionally unstable and unable to effectively lead. Many people need to cling to the belief that Trump was a protective authoritarian figure that they could idealize. The split defended the group from having to access such terror.
I find it helpful to consider the members in a group as being either on-task or anti-task. The on-task subgroup consists of members who support the group leader and the task of the group while the anti-task subgroup is made up of members who are essentially attacking the leader by avoiding the task of the group. This can be understood as a split between the two subgroups which serves as a defense that protects the group as a whole against its deeply held unconscious feelings toward the group leader. These buried feelings may range from hostility, envy, and mistrust to dependency longings and sadness. I know that these are difficult ideas to digest and synthesize. I invite you to think about the various groups you are a part of, such as an organization or your family. Begin to consider ways in which there has been splitting that occurred between different members or subgroups. Perhaps these splits are operating as defense mechanisms that serve as a protection from negative, uncomfortable feelings - often unconscious - that exist towards the group’s leader.