While this was a really interesting podcast to listen to, it was also very very disturbing. For me, besides the 900+ people dying, the most disheartening part of the story was that Jim Jones started off fighting for equality and spiraled down a terrible path. The path he followed seemed to parallel the concept of power we cover today that absolute power corrupts absolutely. While his followers initially joined the church based on a semi-permanent structure of inequality (joining a hierarchically structured church), there was no abuse, or oppression involved. However, Jim shifted his role as leader when he essentially refused to follow a path of temporary inequality, making himself into a god, and causing the deaths of 900 people.
Obviously, Jim Jones is a great example of a toxic charismatic. He was extremely successful in gathering a following and then manipulating them for his personal goals. What I find really concerning is that despite all of the warning signs, Jones was still able to cause a massacre. Is there not a way that outside intervention could have been better, or the followers could have subverted Jone’s authority? It seems like by now (after WWII with Hitler and this example) that we should have built some kind of safeguard to work against toxic charisma, similar to the ways that groupthink can be dispelled.
I agree that we should have some kind of safeguard to work against toxic charisma, but I think in reality that is really difficult to actually put in place. To answer your question, I think that by the time the massacre happened, many of his followers were so brainwashed that rebellion wouldn’t have been possible, and they were so isolated to prevent outside intervention.
It makes sense to me that there should be some kind of safeguard around toxic charismatics, but it seems that, that would be difficult to implement. The podcast mentioned that it was difficult to know exactly when and why things started to take a turn for Jones. Also, many of his followers did talk about feeling really good under Jones, so they liked his work and it would be difficult to get them to give up that leader. It just seems difficult to know when you would need to enforce this type of safeguard.
I agree to an extent that this is an example of absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Yes, it is certainly fair that Jim Jones’ status most likely led him to keep wanting more. But, the podcast also discussed how he was an avid user of drugs that most likely pushed his brain past the point of insanity. So, with that added factor in this power dynamic I don’t necessarily know if this is entirely the best example of power as the corrupting source.