Chapter 8 is titled “The Old Seven Deadly Sins (and Some New Ones)”.

Here, Menninger explored the individual characteristics that make “acts that lack conscience” possible.

He started by listing the classic seven deadly “sins”, which are not really “sins” but “types of vices”.  Then he elaborated on them, offering sets of alternatives, nuances, and synonyms.

The body of the chapter consists of sections devoted to each set of vices.

Before going on to Chapter 8, let me revisit the blog 7A through 7F.

At the start of Chapter 7, Menninger turned from the axis of crime(sin(symptom)) to a new axis, tentatively labeled “collective irresponsibility(sin(the seven deadly “vices” (Chapter 8))”.

By the end of Chapter 7, we have a new label for this nested form: group-think(sin(loss of conscience))

Let me put that into a picture.

Intersecting nested forms for blog 7E

Now, back to the question lingering from Chapter 7: Why would individuals want to commit wrongs (as part of a group) that they never would have committed as individuals?

Answer:  These individuals would have committed the wrongs on their own – if they lacked (what a Christian would call) “conscience”.

Another way to say this is: “lack of conscience” makes sin possible.

We can put that into a new nested form: collective irresponsibility(sin(lacking conscience)).

Collective irresponsibility (or group-think) puts “acts that lack conscience” into context.

Who gets the blame for collective irresponsibility (124-127)?

Here is a good option: a scapegoat.

Menninger preferred to blame the group leaders.  You know, “the golden calves”.

Not to fault Rene Girard on this, but focusing on the “scapegoat” ignores another feature of group-think: “golden-calfing”.

The golden calf is the person who is invested with all the invincibility associated with the collective.  This person cannot be questioned.  Everything she – I mean, he – does is correct, no matter how stupid or dysfunctional or short sighted or … without a conscience.  No doubt, the golden calf of the Exodus served a similar function.  That golden calf could do no wrong until … oh hell, is that Moses?

If you look at the Passion of Jesus the Messiah, you can see that He played the role of the scapegoat.  As Girard pointed out, there is significance to that.

At the same time, a host of figures were cast as the golden calves, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and best of all, Barabbas.  There is significance to that as well.

The scapegoat gets the blame for the collective irresponsibility that is personified by the golden calf.

Perhaps, we can turn the question around, as Menninger did in a number vignettes in Chapter 7: Why would individuals resist wrongs (committed as part of a group)?

Menninger recounted the story of a Dominican friar, Antonio de Montesinos, who, in 1511, preached against putting the Indians of Hispaniola into slavery.  He and his monastery stood firm until word was sent to the King of Spain.  The learned men of the Spanish Church (of great influence at the time) rebuked Montesinos for his error.

The monastery had a conscience.  The King of Spain and his courtier scholars did not.  Shame on them.

This example shows why it is so easy to criticize Christianity.  Some Christians are always seeking accommodation with “the Powers that Be”.  “The Powers that Be” act without conscience.  Christians (as a group) get the blame.

This points out the obvious advantage to group-think: Group-think allows you to act without conscience.  Even better, to the extent that you buy into the system, group-think will exchange your old traditional super-ego (a system of tautologies that mark what is good and evil, formed from family, faith, community and guild) with its own (system of tautologies).

This offers an answer to the question: Why would individuals want to commit wrongs (as part of a group) that they never would have committed as individuals?

Answer: These individuals would have committed the wrongs on their own, if they lacked (what a Christian would call) “conscience”.

Group-think influences how members will act out.

Group-think provides the illusion of invulnerability, the capacity to ignore warnings and to construct rationalizations (no matter how nutty), the comfort of unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group, targets for aggression (Others, whether in-group or out-group), and the Holy Grail – um, Holy Idol – of “correct thought”.

Best of all, group-think provides absolution for all atrocities committed under its name.  Individuals can commit wrongs as members of a group that they would never have committed as individuals.

Menninger listed examples (101-123).  Each of these examples raises, in its own way, the question: Why would individuals want to commit wrongs (as part of a group) that they never would have committed as individuals?

Instead of a Judeo-Christian nested form underlying Menninger’s nested form of crime(sin(symptom)), “free-will” probably belongs to a separate, intersecting nested form.

In Chapter 7, titled “Sin as Collective Responsibility”, Menninger dramatically shifted from the nested form of “crime(sin(symptom))” to another form, something like “collective irresponsibility(sin(the seven deadly “vices” (Chapter 8))”.

For Menninger, individuals express themselves within the confines of the groups within which they have loose membership.  Groups spontaneously organize.  Why? Membership implies self-interest.

Member’s self-interest has all the qualities of the “symptom”, discussed in Chapter 6.  However, with groups, something new enters the picture, especially when it comes to “what groups do all the time”: “group-think”.

Group-think is a kind of self-deception, or maybe, a deception among selves. Just as “crime” puts “sin” into a normal context.  “Group-think” puts “sin” into a normal context.  But “group-think” and “crime” cannot be exchanged for one another.

The resulting intersecting nested form.

This is the resulting intersecting nested forms.

Step 2 for the intersecting nested form.

This is the second step in the intersecting nested form.