"The committee concluded that the intelligence community was suffering from what we call a collective groupthink," said Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee. "This groupthink also extended to our allies and to the United Nations."
In London a few days later, Lord Butler of Brockwell and his Committee of Privy Counsellors issued a report that investigated "whether there developed within the intelligence community over a decade of analysis and assessment `group think' or a `prevailing wisdom.'"
The word is obviously in vogue in the English-speaking world of oversight. Although Roberts was being redundant when he used collective to modify groupthink, the committee staff was scrupulous in providing an etymology of the headline-provoking word in its 511-page report: "a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s to describe a process in which a group can make bad or irrational decisions as each member of the group attempts to conform their opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group."
If the committee's other conclusions are as outdated as its etymology, we're all in trouble. "Groupthink" (one word, no hyphen) was the title of an article in Fortune magazine in March 1952 by William Whyte.
"Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy," he wrote. "Groupthink being a coinage -- and, admittedly, a loaded one -- a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity -- it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity -- an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well."
Whyte derided the practice, which he argued was embodied by a trained elite of Washington's "social engineers."
The word now means "the result of successful pressure to conform." It is more pejorative than "conventional wisdom," a 1958 coinage of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, which itself is bottomed on "received wisdom," in turn rooted in "received custom," a 1382 church term for the teaching of tradition.
Why do so many of us assume groupthink to be Orwellian? The answer is in its analogy to doublethink, coined by George Orwell in his 1949 novel, 1984. He defined "the labyrinthine world of doublethink" as holding "simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them."
I queried Erin McKean, editor of Verbatim, for other think-formations besides the odious sickthink. (Verbatim, the valuable word-study publication that the lexicographer Larry Urdang founded in 1974, will celebrate its 30th volume next year.) She passes along James Kilpatrick's newthink, his criticism of "academic dragoons." She also cites oldthink (so five minutes ago) and Timesthink, the definition of which I have no need to determine.
Collaborative
July was intelligence month. Following the lengthy reports on intelligence shortcomings by the US Senate and by Lord Butler in Britain featuring groupthink, along came the 9/11 commission's report. Its most controversial word was collaborative.
What word best describes the sort of relationship, if any, that former president Saddam Hussein's Iraq had with Osama bin Laden's Qaeda? Bush administration officials, relying on CIA reports, have pointed to a series of contacts over the years that amounted to "mutual support" and, in Vice President Dick Cheney's choice of adjectives, "a longstanding" and "established relationship." The Sept. 11 commission staff at first concluded that these contacts "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Hawkish commentators (like me) objected strenuously to this staff formulation; when the final report was issued, signed by all members of the bipartisan commission, a modifier had been added to the controversial phrase, which became "we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
What does collaborative mean, and what does the addition of operational do to the relationship?
The word labor is right in the middle of collaborate. The co- in front means "together," and the -ate at the end makes it a verb: "to work together." Add an -ive, and you have the adjective collaborative. Synonyms are "collective, cooperative" and the most tightly connected, "joint."
Evidently the appearance of "no collaborative relationship" was too sweeping for some commissioners. Needed was another adjective to narrow the scope. The modifier chosen was operational. The specific sense of "able to function" is not what is meant here. A more general sense is defined by the OED as "engaged in or connected with active (military) operations, as distinct from being under training, in reserve, etc."
That modifier satisfied the commissioners who believed that contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq were evidence of sinister cooperation. It also satisfied others who believed that the contacts did not amount to actually working together to conduct terrorist operations. This demonstrates how all it takes to tone down a controversial adjective and make peace in the family is another, unfamiliar adjective.
Downhold
I recently ordered the Bush administration to "downhold nondefense spending." Readers who could not find this verb in their dictionaries were outraged.
It is newspaper telegraphese. The old United Press, which wanted to hold down its costs, used to wire its overseas correspondents, "Downhold expenses," thereby saving the cost of a word. UP reporters called their favorite bar "the Downhold club."
To those on usage's ramparts: You uphold tradition. I'll downhold expenses.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS