Social Defense Theory: Applying Psychoanalysis to Organizations

Social defense theory is an application of individual psychoanalytic theory and concepts to wider socio-cultural phenomena. The theory attempts to employ Kleinian “object relations thinking to make sense of the anxiety and defense within organizations in general” (Mnguni, 2010, p. 2).

Psychology theory has long supported the role of psychological defenses in maintaining stability. An abundance of literature and research is available that examines and expands on Sigmund Freud’s theories of protective, unconscious mechanisms that individuals employ to relieve discomfort. We defend against displeasure, hurt, and anxiety. However, while protective mechanisms shield the ego, they also, in many instances, inhibit growth. We overlook, or deny, elements in our environment that could provide knowledge to lift us to higher levels. In social defense theory, these same concepts apply to social organizations.

Key Definition:

Social defense theory is the use of defense strategies by a group to relieve group anxiety.

Social defense theory is derived from the work of several notable psychologists in the psychoanalytic domain. Wilfred Ruprecht Bion, an influential English psychoanalyst, suggested “the emotional life of the group is only understandable in terms of the psychotic mechanisms” (Bion, 1952). In 1955, Elliott Jaques wrote an essay furthering the concept of social defenses, examining the presence of certain defense mechanisms present in social institutions.

Following Jaques paper on social defenses, Isabel Menzies-Lyth, a British psychoanalyst in the Kleinian tradition, known for her work on unconscious mechanisms in institutional settings, conducted research of organizational defenses employed at a hospital to protect the nurses from the high anxiety of their duties.

Menzies-Lyth wrote, “in all situations where I have worked, anxiety has been a central issue: how anxiety, its experience and expression and the related defences, adaptations and sublimations are a major factor in determining personal and institutional behaviour; anxiety both personal and communal in members of institutions, and anxiety in apparently more isolated individuals such as consumers, individuals, however deeply affected by their immersion in the networks of society and their internalization of that society” (Menzies-Lyth, 1989, p. viii).

Social defense theory is a psychoanalytical approach to understanding the hidden motivations that infiltrate social organizations to defend against inherent anxiety of people within the organization. Social psychologists recognize that groups unconsciously adopt an individual set of dynamics. These unconscious traits of groups often conflict with the primary task of the organization.

Alastair Bain wrote, “all organizations have socially constructed defenses against anxiety which aroused through carrying out the primary task of the organization.” He continues, “These social defenses may be evident in the organizational structure, in its procedures, information systems, roles, in its culture, and in the gap between what the organization says it is doing and what it is actually doing” (Bain, 2016).

Jacques suggests that “one of the primary cohesive elements binding individuals into the institutionalized human association is that of the defense of against psychotic anxiety” (Jacques, 1957, p. 479). Jacquez suggests that defense mechanisms such as identification, projection, and introjection are common social defense found in social institutions.

Several key concepts intertwine within this theory.

Group Dynamics

Groups, although composed of individuals, take on a life of their own. Groups of people tend to organize together, reining in the chaotic mental activities of the individual., integrating the individuals into a cohesive unit with common basic assumptions about the purpose of the group (Bion, 1952). The group unconsciously adopts means to protect the individuals from discomforting anxieties. These defenses then interfere with the primary task of the group as well as inhibiting growth.

See Group Dynamics for more on this theory

Systems Theory

T. Franklin Murphy explains that, “a system is a set of things (people, cells, processes, etc.) that when interconnected they produce their own pattern of behavior” (Murphy, 2023). Systems are self organizing. A business or group may propose the primary task, set up a rude structure, and recruit members, but immediately the dynamics of the group coalesce, forming new emergent behaviors.

Donella Meadows explains, “a system’s function or purpose is not necessarily spoken, written, or expressed explicitly, except through the operation of the system. The best way to deduce the system’s purpose is to watch for a while to see how the system behaves” (Meadows, 2008).

Defense Mechanisms

Defense mechanisms are psychological strategies that individuals unconsciously employ to manage and mitigate discomfort or anxiety stemming from various sources, such as stress, trauma, or internal conflicts. These mechanisms can take many forms, including denial, projection, rationalization, and displacement. While they serve an immediate purpose by providing relief from emotional pain or uncomfortable realities, their reliance on short-term gratification often comes at the expense of long-term personal growth and development. By prioritizing instant relief over confronting underlying issues or addressing challenges head-on, individuals may inadvertently hinder their ability to learn from experiences and evolve emotionally. This dynamic creates a cycle where temporary comfort becomes a barrier to true self-awareness and resilience in the face of life’s complexities.

See Defense Mechanisms for more on this topic

Learning and Growth

Learning is a process of engaging with circumstances and information that we don’t know. To seek new knowledge requires voyaging beyond the comforts of what we know (or believe to know). Ellen Ramvi explains that learning require containing the pain connected to ‘not knowing’ (Ramvi, 2008). Willingness to learn is a humbling journey into vulnerability and uncovering of a reality that disconfirms the facts we believe we know.

Bain wrote, “to learn, whether as an individual, a group, or an organization requires giving up ignorance, or something that is thought to be known. If it something the individual, group, or organization thinks it already knows, to learn, and thereby change, is like a mini-death to a known way of being” (Bain, 2016).

An organization’s primary task often has inherent stress related to its fulfillment. Most of the early research on social defense theory centered around schools and hospitals. However, groups of any size will take on protective structures to ease the anxiety of members of the group. For instance, we elect officials to govern our local, state and federal needs. These needs (the primary task) include safety, opportunity, and general services.

Yet, the primary task is often sacrificed to the hidden defenses employed to soothe anxiety. Anxiety arises from change. Instead of progressing, meeting challenges to resolve our primary needs, politicians exert tremendous effort, time, and money to defend against voter anxiety. Often, group dynamics create a common foe, and then follow the leaders to battle against the imaginary demon. It is all a defense mechanism diverting attention away from change.

Voters process lies and denials from their leaders better than they process change. Oh, the soothing sound of “I never said that.” We can believe nothing ever changes. We can hold to the unchangeable direction of our leaders and die in comfortable ignorance.

Defense Mechanisms Noted in Menzies-Lyth’s Nursing Study

Menzies-Lyth explains that the primary task of the hospital is to care for the ill-people. “The nursing service bears the full immediate and concentrated impact of stress arising from patient care.” She adds, “the objective situation confronting the nurse bears a striking resemblance to the phantasy situations that exists in every individual in the deepest and most primitive levels of the mind” (Menzies-Lyth, 1960).

Defense Mechanisms Employed in Hospital

She listed the following defense mechanisms discovered in her research:

Splitting up the nurse-patient relationship
Depersonalization, categorization, and denial of the significance of the person
Detachment and denial of feelings
The attempt to eliminate decisions by ritual task-performance
Reducing the weight of responsibility in decision making by checks and balances
Collusive social redistribution of responsibility and irresponsibility
Purposeful obscurity in the formal distribution of responsibility
The reduction of impact of responsibility by delegation to superiors
Idealization and underestimation of personal development possibilities
Avoidance of change (Menzies-Lyth, 1960)

Many of these social defense mechanisms are not unique to the nursing environment. We can see some of them in law enforcement organizations, schools, and social services. Like individual defense mechanisms, not all mechanisms are bad. Some serve a purpose, protecting from emotional overload. However, in excess the distract from the primary task of the profession, and interfere with organizational and personal growth.

Displacement within Organizations

Displacement is a psychological defense mechanism where individuals redirect negative emotions from their original source to a less threatening target. This can happen within organizations when members cannot express their frustrations towards the source, such as a superior or the organization itself, due to potential consequences. Instead, they might “take out” their emotions on something or someone less risky, like a colleague or a different department.

For example, an employee who is angry at their boss might suppress that anger because expressing it could be harmful to their career. Some authoritarian style organizations do not allow for employees to discuss frustrations and disappointments with superiors. Instead, the grief flows downward to acceptable easy targets. A chastised employee might display irritability towards other colleagues. This redirection helps individuals cope with emotions that could be considered inappropriate or harmful in a particular setting, allowing them to maintain a sense of safety and protect their self-esteem.

In a larger organizational context, displacement can serve as a way to channel these emotions into more productive outlets. However, if overused, it can lead to dysfunctional relationships and a toxic work environment. It’s important for organizations to recognize and address the root causes of such emotions to prevent the negative effects of displacement.

See Displacement: A Defense Mechanism for more on this defense tactic

Associated Concepts

Social Stress Theory: According to this theory, individuals with a lower social status are more likely to experience stress and have a greater susceptibility to its negative effects. This, in turn, increases their risk of developing mental health issues.
Affective Events Theory (AET): This theory explores the impact of workplace events on employee emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. It emphasizes how job conditions, interpersonal relationships, and organizational culture shape these events.
Wilfred Bion’s Basic-Assumption Theory: This theory delves into group dynamics, revealing unconscious assumptions like dependency, pairing, and fight-or-flight, shaping group behavior. These assumptions influence how groups function, posing potential dangers like groupthink and loss of individual identity.
Group Relations Theory: This theory extends Bion’s ideas. The theory examines how groups function on a spectrum from task-oriented to being diverted by the defensive needs of members. It explores unconscious group dynamics driven by stress and regression.
System Justification Theory: This theory proposes that people have a motivation to defend and justify the status quo, including the existing social, economic, and political arrangements.
Moral Disengagement Theory: This theory examines the various mechanisms individuals employ to rationalize and justify unethical actions.
Role Theory: this theory seeks to explain how individuals understand and act out their social roles in society. According to this theory, each person has a set of roles that they fulfill, which are defined by a specific position or status in a social group or organization.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Like all theories, social defence theory has strengths and weaknesses. It provides an interesting framework for examining group dynamics. The cohesiveness of a group often rallies around a common cause that is much different than the touted primary task. For example, often political rebellion groups chant freedom and then systematically work to destroy the institutions that protect their freedoms.

Individual human behavior is complex and evades understanding. Human behavior in groups adds an extra element, creating even more complexity, with surprising, and often frightening, emergent behaviors.

Last Update: July 19, 2025

References:

Bain, Alastair (2016). Social Defenses Against Organizational Learning. Human Relations, 51(3), 413-429. DOI: 10.1177/001872679805100309
(Return to Main Text)

Bion, W.R. (1952). Group Dynamics: A Re-View. International Journal of Analysts, 33:235-247.
(Return to Main Text)

Jacques, Elliott (1957/2013). Social Systems as a Defence Against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety. In New Directions in Psychoanalysis: the Significance of Infant Conflict in the Pattern of Adult Behaviour. Editors: Paula Heimann, Melanie Klein, and, R. E. Money-Kyrle. Routledge; 1st edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Meadows, Donnella H. (2008). Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing; Illustrated edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Menzies-Lyth, Isabel (1989). The Dynamics of the Social: Selected Essays Vol.2. Free Association Books; First Edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Menzies-Lyth, Isabel (1960/1990). Social Systems as a Defense Against Anxiety: An Empirical Study of the Nursing Service of a General Hospital. In E. Trist, H. Murray & B. Trist (Ed.), The Social Engagement of Social Science, a Tavistock Anthology, Volume 1: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-Psychological Perspective (pp. 439-462). University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI: 10.9783/9781512819748-023
(Return to Main Text)

Mnguni, Peliwe (2010). Anxiety and defense in sustainability. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 15(2), 117-135. DOI: 10.1057/pcs.2009.33
(Return to Main Text)

Murphy, T. Franklin (2023). General Systems Theory. Psychology Fanatic. Published: 6-27-2023; Accessed: 12-7-2023.
(Return to Main Text)

Ramvi, Ellen. (2008). What Characterizes Social Defense Systems?
(Return to Main Text)

Additional Reading:

Mnguni, Peliwe (2012). Deploying culture as a defence against incompetence: The unconscious dynamics of public service work. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v38i2.1000