Month: October 2019

I found this podcast very intriguing as it dives into Jonestown and Jim Jones as a leader. Something that was interesting was that Jones was actually a good person and encouraged his followers to act on racial inequality. Learning about what Jones did before The People’s Temple spiraled out of control was something that made this podcast engaging. Hearing how people joined his church for what Jones was preaching and his methods, and not the religion itself speaks to Jones’ effective charismatic leadership and how he utilized it in order to gain followers.

It’s also interesting how Jonestown took a turn and became a very negative thing. It was sad that Jones used his charisma and large following selfishly rather than continuing to benefit the community like he did at the start. Overall, hearing about how Jonestown unfolded in this podcast was very interesting.

5 Comments

So this podcast is incredibly interesting as i had no knowledge of the events of Jonestown. the idea that someone so charismatic and seemed to genuinely be a transformational leader can turn so toxic and crazy is wild. the correlation to Hitler seems very uncanny also, in regards to the natural charismatic becoming hooked on pretty much all the known drugs then taking a deep dark dive that kills a lot of people, shows just how powerful a leader can be if the followers participate in Groupthink, it essentially gives the Leader unlimited power to do and act however they want.

It is very sad however that he had to take  what seemed to be a very influential role in altering how civil rights came about and squander it on neigh narcissistic tendencies. it seemed like promising and genuine servant leadership with what he was doing, but the combination of drugs and the groupthink of the followers really lead to a wild spectacle of blind faith and murder. i guess the takeaway of the whole podcast is don’t drink the kool aid, especially when it is laced with cyanide.

5 Comments

I was highly intrigued by the story told of Jim Jones and the endeavors he once took hold of during his lifetime. It would have never occurred to be that Jones was not only a preacher but a racial activist who advocated hard for socialist values. One of the speakers in the podcast mentioned just how hard Jones vouched for black people, wanted to help black communities and even encouraged integration within his church. At first, I was thinking to consider Jones to have been a charismatic leader because of his ability to reach and relate to good amount of people, especially those who were being oppressed and were nothing like him. Yet, maybe his sense of “charisma” could have been ingenuine because of the way he spoke “like a black minister” and had the cadence of a black preacher to reach the black community. One could definitely consider Jones to have been a controlling and narcissistic leader. According to the researcher from the podcast, Jones began to talk about himself as if he were a living god after the death of Father Divine. Jones saw just how effective this was for Father Divine and soon became intensely opportunistic. 

I am also unsure of whether or not to consider Jones to have been a transformational leader. His church, People’s Temple, was once regarded as a safe haven and he did seek to aid disparaged communities around him. Yet, it was almost as if Jones tried too hard to do a “good thing” and that goodness backfired severely. Initially, Jones was sincere about fighting against racial inequity. When People’s Temple became established and up on its feet, Jones apparently would recruit people using fear. He would publicly shame people through lashings, harassment by followers, and others for anyone who defected. One could consider him a dictator, transformational leader, servant leader, tyrant, and toxic charismatic all wrapped in one. I believe that some of his followers were definitely victims of groupthink who tried not to deviate from the norms that surrounded them in order to survive. 

3 Comments

Jim Jones preached racial equality. He started his roots based on good things. Also the time period allowed this because of how separated and unequal society was for people of color. He started the People’s Temple and accomplished things like helping restaurants desegregate. He helped to rehabilitate and educate people struggling with drug addiction and started free nursing homes.

Then he started declaring crazy things like that he had been Buddha, and Jesus Christ. He also started moving people and trying to create an entire socialist commune. He played on the fears of others, things like nuclear bombs.

Finally he moved the cult to Guyana. This is when he really started to isolate people or “believers” from their families. If they were willing to give up their lives for the “People’s Temple” then they were invited to come move to Guyana and to work for many hours very harshly to help build the compound.

Jim Jones started off a good guy. He seemed like a trustworthy leader. Despite the fact that some of his actions were questionable, Jones had gained enough respect to retain support through it. This is what allowed him to become a tyrant. He then became so extreme that his encouraged over 900 to kill themselves. However, he also forced others to drink it or injected them with the poison. This story shows that it is very dangerous to allow any levels of tyrannicide. It is hard to stop something once it gets enough momentum despite how easy it may be to look back on it in terror and confusion. This is not fiction but it is real life. It seems like something that cannot happen to anyone but it can and it has. This shows that we, as people have to stay educated so that we don’t drink the kool-aid. Once a tyrant leader has galvanized enough support, we may not have time to spit it out if we realize it too late. This was the story for those 900 people.

4 Comments

I previously did not have any knowledge of Jim Jones and Jonestown (which may be bad sorry) so I was very shocked at the whole podcast. The beginning was even alarming because the hosts were talking about how he started out with a bunch of good things but kept alluding to later in the podcast when we would find out some of the not so good acts he and his followers committed. I find it interesting how they mention the followers rationalizing Jones’ actions because they were just already so invested in him and that they didn’t really know anything else because they were so deep into his beliefs. This reminds me of parts of the groupthink where the other people may rationalize unrealistic dangers because they just didn’t see the enemy as an actual threat.

I guess I am surprised at how not more than those twenty people did not want to defect, especially after they weren’t really “allowed” to go back to America and then when the congressmen was assassinated but okay. The contradictions he used when he would go against The Bible but also quote scripture would be a major sign of crazy to me if someone tried to start this kind of church based on these aspects and it wasn’t even THAT long ago and that’s terrifying. Also how he admired Hitler that’s major weirdo stuff.

4 Comments

Having not known much about the story of Jonestown, I thought the podcast was super interesting. I think it’s crazy that Jim Jones actually started off as a really good guy. The podcast mentions that the formation of his church was based on social change. The church worked to feed the hungry, preach racial equality, and integrate Indianapolis. Even when things started to go in the wrong direction, Jones genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing.

At the end of the podcast, the hosts compared Jones to a psychopath or a serial killer. They said that his background of an abusive father and overprotective mother fit the pattern of a typical psychopath, as well as his ability to use charm to get what he wanted. The problem with this comparison is that Jones thought he was doing these terrible acts for the benefit of his community. In his twisted way, he cared about their wellbeing, unlike a psychopath who lacks that emotion.

3 Comments

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.

3 Comments

I found it very interesting to find the origins of Jonestown and the people’s church. At first it started as what seemed a good idea. He wanted to create real and good change in the US. I had never heard that he started as a good leader. Then he started to use his power for bad instead of good.
I see him as both a tyrant and unethical charismatic leader. He was charismatic enough to get a huge following and convince his followers to believe in him. He convinced many many people to pick up their life’s and follow him blindly. Where I see him transition from serving his followers to being a tyrant is later off in his teaching. He started using his followers for his own personal gain and whatever he desired instead of helping create change like he originally did.

3 Comments

In the podcast I found it surprising that Jim Jones who is known for the deaths of over 900 people had good intentions in the beginning and was an activist for racial equality and other popular problems in his time period. One of the first things he did for his cause was starting a church but this is when it started to go downhill. It mentions in the podcast that he would have these talks in the church and he would talk to them as if he is a living god and refer to himself that way. In his church meetings he would manipulate people into joining his church by using different tricks of sleight of hand. This is where we started seeing the traits of a toxic charismatic and narcissist.

In the podcast one of the things that was said that was shocking was that Jim Jones was a big fan of Hitler and this is especially shocking because he was an activist for racial equality earlier in his life and he actually got the big suicide plan from Hitler and thought of it as the perfect escape out of their lives. An interesting piece of the podcast was that he tested his followers in a sort of ritual called the “White Night”where he would say that he made poisioned Kool-Aide and saw if his followers would drink the Kool-Aide. When I learned that some of the followers drank it, I thought about the kind of qualities someone like Jim Jones possesses in order to convince people to commit suicide willingly. It was surprising to see that someone that went to fighting for racial equality would change their views entirely and plan a suicide that killed more than 900 people.  It leaves a couple of questions as to if he was a toxic charismatic or a narcissist or was he both.

2 Comments

Prior to listening to this episode of the “Bad Ideas” podcast, I had heard of Jim Jones, Jonestown, and, of course, the “drink the Kool Aid” expression. What I did not know were the origins of the cult. I was surprised to hear that Jones was a proponent of racial equality because when I think of extremists who separate themselves from society, I tend to think of people fighting progress in society and rebelling as a result, not those who are advocating for progress. I then asked myself “How can something founded on such positive ideas turn negative?”. This reminded me of our discussion of groupthink.

When talking about groupthink, we talked about how a group with unified values and beliefs that has high cohesion can push each other to become more radically extreme, exactly what happened with Jonestown. The people of Jonestown, under Jim Jones’s influence, pressured each other to push even farther in their beliefs, so much so that they lost a sense of morality and reality. The article on groupthink also said that groups suffering from groupthink are more likely to kill people outside of their group without remorse, exactly what happened in Jonestown.

The creation of groupthink in Jonestown makes sense because Jim Jones studied and admired Hitler. Hitler’s tactics inspired either group cohesion (leading to groupthink) or fear among his citizens. Jones used very similar tactics and saw very similar results. I do find it odd that Jim Jones was an advocate of racial equality yet admired Hitler because Hitler’s beliefs stand in direct opposition to this. This makes me think that Jim Jones prioritized power and influence over his own morals, but that is just speculation.

4 Comments

I found the Bad Ideas podcast to be very informative about Jim Jones and the life he led, especially with the Peoples Temple and Jonestown. I did not know that Jim Jones was so influential in Indiana in terms of his social work with desegregation and really making an effort to end the stigma that was then placed around African Americans. I found it very interesting how Jones was able to enact such great change, and then turn his power into something that was detrimental to people. At a time, the press loved what he was doing, and he could have continued down that path, still having power, but been a great social activist. I found that the description of how Jones came to be known as the cult leader was very similar to a charismatic leader.

Jones played into people’s fears and made them all feel loved and accepted which is how he got such a large following. I think that Jones also was extremely manipulative in the way that every move he made to get people to believe he was a miracle worker was calculated. I was also reminded of the leader follower relationship dynamic when listening to this podcast, it sounds like in the beginning the Peoples Temple was a place of temporary inequality where the leader would enlighten the subordinates to become like them, but in this case, Jones got power hungry. Another thing that I found really intriguing was the fact that they said that Jones was obsessed with Hitler and that is where he partially got the suicide pact idea from. I think that this is very contradictory of his socialist and utopian beliefs. This does make sense when comparing Jones’ leadership style and what his wishes for Jonestown were.

3 Comments

On Bad Ideas Podcast, this episode talked about Jonestown/The People’s Temple and its founder Jim Jones. Jim Jones started off by preaching racial equality and advocating for desegregation. He started his church based on the purpose of changing the world. Members of his church were committed to feeding the poor and they started free nursing homes. This surprised me because I never thought of a cult having good, normal intentions at the beginning, but that the ideas were radical from the start.  But then, Jones started to become more radical and believed he could “heal” people. For example, the podcast mentioned that someone complained about their cancer to him and he was somehow able to rip it out of them. This was absolutely crazy to me that someone could believe that because that is not how medicine works. Jones also claimed to be a psychic and although this was manipulative, it was also clever. During his information meetings he would have current members talk to people in the audience and then give him notes about them so that Jones could pretend he was a psychic by talking about them, without knowing them. Jones would use this in order to convince those members of the audience to join the church and most did.

One thing that struck me was how Jones was only able to have one child with his wife because of her back problems so he got another lover, which reminded me of King Henry VIII.  Jones then chose to start his community in Guyana because the natives spoke English, it was isolated, and they could help people. After the community was established things started getting really crazy with physical punishments and people were being isolated from their families and all of their possessions belonged to the church. One of the most crazy events that happened before the big murder/suicide night was the White Night rehearsals where Jones would test his followers’ loyalty to see if they would “drink the Kool aide”. It is crazy to me how something started with such good intentions and ended with the deaths of hundreds of people. Jones believed he was doing the right thing, but he endangered society and the lives of all his followers. This is leaves the question: is Jones a charismatic leader or a toxic charismatic?

2 Comments

On Tuesday 22 October I went to hear Mary Kuhn, Assistant Professor of English at UVA, give a talk called “Plant Feeling in the Anthropocene.” Although this is science, she focuses on language and human treatment of other beings, and how that affects both them and us. Her speech focused on the move in science towards treatment of plants as highly skilled and intelligent as they are. So many books, articles, and podcasts have been published to try to break down the borders between human intelligence and the complex systems that plants carry out.

These ideas of plant sentience began to take off in the 19th century. It is interesting that, as she points out, we save terms such as “learning, memory, decision making” for creatures with actual brains. And even people in this industry stray away from using these terms, however, their resistance is because they believe it reduces their complex systems to our level. Moreover, our brains perform less complex systems than they. We use terms such as a vegetable to describe someone who is mentally dead. Many scientists believe that their treatment as subjects rather than objects plays a big role in our want to protect them. Knowing that trees experience pain and pleasure, and even that tree parents live along their children connects them more with humans and even animals. I think this is can moreover go in to understanding words and ways of thought that we use in order to justify discrimination against one another based on differences, by trying to make “the others” as different from “us” than possible. 

Leave a Comment

In the “Jonestown” episode from the Bad Ideas podcast, the speaker, Tony, runs through the reasons people join a cult such as the one led by Jim Jones: the Peoples Temple. He was very active in the racial equality movements and evangelical circles; he claimed to be psychic and healing, making his followers feel like they were witnessing something “surreal and powerful”. Many people joined his church because they believed in his message and the actions he was taking to effect change– essentially why people join cults. He tried to micromanage everything within the Church to appeal to people that he was essentially doing good for his community. Jim Jones in the Church recruited people by fear, force, public shaming, and isolation from their families. When people entered Jonestown, they had to hand the custody of their children to the Church and worked backbreaking labor; in return, they were building a community with the same values and making lives for their leader, Jim Jones.

 

When followers do not dissent, they will ultimately “drink Flavor Aid”– both literally as in Jonestown and figuratively in other leader/follower dynamics. “Dissent” is defined by Cheney and Lair as “the rejection of views that most people hold”– but what happens when people do not counter conformity? Followers will be coerced into a figurative (or literal, in this case) “suicide”– or succumbing one’s individual identity. I would argue that the followers become equally as toxic as the leader. Tony, in Bad Ideas, notes that Jim Jones was a huge proponent of Hitler, and the first thing I thought of was the millions of Germans who went along with the “Final Solution” and did not dissent. Excluding those forced into the Schutzstaffel (SS) against their will or because they were scared, Hitler’s followers who did not dissent against his ideology helped Hitler’s endeavors continue to annihilate billions. 

 

Anna Marston

1 Comment

In Domination/Subordination, I agree with many aspects of the author’s argument around the dominants, but not as much for the section regarding subordinates.  Miller paints the subordinates as almost helpless victims, who have to resort to unorthodox methods in order to react to the prejudice they endure. The indirect methods are mentioned when Miller writes of actions that, “…contain hidden defiance and put ons” (Miller, 228).  This may have been true in a more historical sense, where there were much stricter societal norms and laws to limit subordinates such as women and people of color, but I believe that cannot be applied in today’s society. I believe that there is more opportunity for subordinates to be direct with their dissatisfaction towards their dominant counterparts.  This does not mean that they won’t experience the backlash and danger that Miller mentioned, but much of those consequences can be used as a rallying cry for the subordinates in today’s society.

 

While I believe that Miller limits the potential of subordinates in this day and age, her description of dominants was accurate and insightful.  Miller emphasizes one key point that I believe is very applicable to those dominants who are not striving for temporary inequality: the need to suppress the subordinates.  The dominants, “…prefer to avoid conflict – open conflict that might call into question the whole situation” (Miller, 227). By avoiding conflict, the dominants make an unhealthy societal norm that looks down upon addressing the existing inequalities.  I feel like this can be very applicable to many situations of permanent inequality, such as between men and women. I did not consider this idea of avoiding conflict when I thought of inequalities, but Miller’s article made me realize the dangers about societal limitations on open dialogue.  While I believe that there is more opportunity to speak out about issues today compared to the past, there still is work to be done to establish truly free and open conversations around inequality.

5 Comments

This play was very interesting, one could see how different types of charisma played out within the family dynamic. the older sister can be seen as the toxic charismatic. this is evidently seen through how she treats her younger siblings and their significant others, along with her own son. Where as the middle brother could possibly be seen as a neutral charismatic but more tyrannical. Trying not to take sides until absolutely necessary but leaning toward his own self interest and his familial interest. the youngest child of the group, does not seem to have very many outstanding charismatic traits but his significant other, River, does. she seems to be the only true non “evil” charismatic. she could almost be seen as a transformational leader of sorts encouraging her fiance to get healing through his family, trying to cause good for her “followers.

the play really emphasizes the ultra toxic charisma of the father as well. He played all the roles of his first two children in life as well in death becoming heroified by some of the children losing all of his bad traits. this is something completely applicable to history, we can see this namely through presidnents and how they most of the time seem like they can do no wrong, like George Washington never being able to tell a lie, or Lincoln  always being honest. this reverence causes some of the characters to become blind followers to him, i.e. his daughter being blind to his flaws.

Over all the play was amazingly preformed and all the actors executed all roles well.

Leave a Comment

In Miller’s reading, she described what domination and subornation were and how they are important. She talks about the “superior” party and a “lesser” party in a society. I found this section interesting because I never looked at it in the way Miller did. She uses parents and children as an example and I think she is correct. In the text, she says, “The ‘superior’ party presumably has more of some ability or valuable quality, which she/he is supposed to impart to the ‘lesser’ person.” I do agree with her statement because when I look at it from the perspective of a parent and child this fits.

Miller also says that we have not found a good way to carry out central tasks. The central task of movement from unequal to equal. She then goes on to say, “Officially, we say we want to do things, but we often fail.” I found this very interesting but correct. It is just like she said earlier, we have not found a way to carry out certain tasks and sometimes if we try, we fail.

8 Comments

In the reading and analysis of Miller’s “Domination/Subordination” and Cheney and Lair’s “ Elevating Dissent” some important and diverse views on inequalities and the idea of superiority were introduced. Early in Miller’s chapter in the section about inequality they make the statement: “the superior person is supposed to engage with the lesser in such a way as to bring the lesser member up to full parity; that is, the child is to be helped to become the adult.”(Miller). While this makes obvious sense in the example used (child and adult) I believe it is very important to recognize the subjective nature one should take to approaching a person or population that they perceive as inferior.

This connects me to a concept I learned in my World History class, “the white man’s burden”. The “white man’s burden” revolves around the idea that in history, individuals in western societies that believe they are superior’s sense of obligation to help “inferior” countries or populations. While in some cases in history this is all out of good-natured desires to help those they view as less-fortunate, this idea is rooted in racist and religious beliefs that are very subjective and ignorant. This has become an extreme issue because of differences in beliefs and cultures; who decides what is a “superior” way of life? While these moments in history and even present-day may have been out of good intention they have lead to major conflict and struggles in the said “inferior” countries. Some examples of this are imperialism or religious expansions were in some cases the more powerful party enforces their own ideologies on another society that may not want their interference.

8 Comments

After reading these two articles, I was reminded of the concept of the never-ending cycle. With Domination and Subordination, it would seem that these two concepts reflect this cycle. The Dominant group as described by Miller believes that the normal way of life is a good way of life and that there should not be change. The idea of Change is one that scares and bothers the dominant group. Subordinates who are usually oppressed feel the need to change but are put down by the system put in place by the dominant group. Because its hard for the submissive group to rise to equality, the system remains the same and the subordinates are less motivated and it makes it almost impossible for the rise to equality. One thing in Cheney’s article that I found important was “Dissent at work often involves the ability to challenge existing policies without fear of retribution and it can be encouraged or discouraged at the level of the organization’s climate.” For the most part, challenging the dominant group is rare and very hard to do. Because socialization factors lead people to live and believe certain things, the subordinates are already at a disadvantage and it makes it harder for the dominant group to understand why change needs to be made. There is always a challenge and less collaboration between the groups which is why change is soo hard and why miller explains that those groups don’t actually work to elevate the inferior to equality instead they are kept in the same place and even as time goes on the cycle continues to work and change is minimal.

6 Comments

Miller talks about two different inequalities right off the bat. I think this is a really unnoticed idea in todays society. With temporary inequality we look at it as generally a positive thing. For example, parents raising children and teaching them manners. Permanent inequality is based off uncontrollable characteristics such as race. However, many times society is so polarized I feel we can not make the distinction between temporary and permanent inequality.

Finding that distinction is very crucial. For example, a teacher can be teaching a kid that he or she is already inferior. When the two inequalities intersect, I think it can lead into mass permanent inequality. These kinds of inequalities are hard to find as they are done in a covered up way. Distinguishing between healthy temporary leadership and unhealthy permanent leadership is important to stay clear of possible tyrannicide and dictatorship. These articles made me wonder if we have all been under permanent inequality, but we just do not know how?

 

8 Comments