This next article in general only very tenuously applies to the situation I experienced in Vienna, but there are a couple illuminating points that I could relate to in my attempt to better make sense of what was going on there.
Kent, Stephen A. (1994) Misattribution and social control in the Children of God. Journal of Religion and Health, 33(1), p. 29-43.
I'm citing the abstract here as background to the sections I want to comment on:
"ABSTRACT: This article argues that deviant religions use supposedly godly justifications for their punishment systems by establishing theologies in which members misattribute divine authority to leaders whom they relate to emotionally as to demanding parents. These misattributing theologies 'sanctify' the harsh suffering that members often experience. Illustrations of the theoretical points come from texts published by the Children of God in its early period (the 1970s), supplementd by accounts given by two women who have left the group." (p. 29).
***
"After people accepted the attribution system that Berg [a leader in the movement] provided through his interpretation of Christianity, they would be operating within a social psychology in which all good things - immediate and compensatory rewards - came to them through Berg's revelations of God's intentions, and all bad things - immediate and compensatory punishments - occurred through the workings of their own egos." (p. 34)
This does seem to fit what I experienced in Vienna, that the leadership or specifically one's boss was that bearer of all things good, but we brought with us qualities and beliefs that hindered us in the work we had to do and kept us from receiving the good things offered. In this respect, as was brought out in another earlier article, this was very much a win-lose relationship and also one-directional, where there was no room for things to flow in the opposite direction, at least not regarding anything of consequence. [4/6/2011 clarification: This was my experience, but I don't know that others would have had the same treatment as I did.]
***
"Numerous accounts show how members criticized themselves either for harboring doubts about Berg or his Mo Letters, or for engaging in what they concluded was self-interested, selfish, or self-centered behavior." (p. 34)
In other words, they couldn't be independent in any way, which is what my father's explanation was for my experiences in Vienna, that I was "too independent." You'll see later (I'm sorry to have so many things "later" but I can't cover everything at once) in my post-Vienna journal entries that I expressed a fair amount of this self-flagellation, especially at the beginning of my entries. But I was also ambivalent, and also in one way or another blamed the Vienna leadership and even staff as a whole as I was pretty universally cut off at the end of my time in Vienna.
***
"In other words, COG members, and especially their leaders, were required to obey God, through Berg, in a manner like that of children who obey their parents blindly or forcibly." (p. 40).
I think the likening my experience in Vienna with this description is plausible. The knowledge structure, secrecy and position of dependence of the novice and those privileged to less inside knowledge gave those over the initiate little option but to obey like children. Everything that the novice had done to actually get them to Vienna (minimally, the process of getting accepted by a mission and raising funds) made one very vulnerable, since you couldn't just walk out and look for another job if you disagreed with the leadership, and the leadership also wasn't terribly open, especially coming from people below a certain level, to have a say in anything. And besides, so much information was a secret that you had to just trust anyway, without having the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision. So, in practice, it was like the parent-child relationship in many ways.
***
"Since one implication of the misattribution system that this study describes involves the disempowerment of people by both childlike self-images and group-sanctioned immediate and compensatory punishment (especially against members who doubt or challenge leadership)." (p. 40).
I agree with this two-pronged concept of disempowerment, but I would also add that in the Vienna context there was also a sense of empowerment as the opportunities to get involved in hands-on or meaningful ministry increased as one accepted the group norms, value systems and modus operandi. I don't know what psychologists would call that empowerment, but I think it should be acknowledged in the Vienna context along with the individual disempowerment and almost stripping of self to accept the group as one's surrogate... parent? id? superego? I'm not sure what to call it, but I felt that there was this stripping of (at least part of) self and replacing it with the group and the group's will.
***
And if psychology and social psychology are not your thing, don't worry, we'll get to other topics eventually. If it feels like a lot now, just imagine what it felt like for me... for 2 years!
And, as the saying goes, you ain't seen nothin' yet...
Until next time...
~ Meg
