Kramer, Joel & Alsted, Diana. (1993) The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power. Berkeley, California : North Atlantic Books/Frog.
***
"What makes a process authoritarian is not always obvious because it is hidden in the values, traditions, rights, and prerogatives people take for granted." (p. 7)
I mainly include this here because I don't think most people at the mission I worked with in Vienna would, at least upon first being confronted with the possibility, think that the mission was authoritarian. My personal experience of it was such, but I'm also not sure my experience was typical.
***
"Webster's dictionary defines authoritarian as 'characterized by unquestioning obedience to authority.' When the word is used in reference to a political system, it involves using force to control people without there being any recourse. We broaden the meaning to include belief systems that are unchallengeable, and the idea that someone or something other than the individual necessarily knows what's best, or right, or proper for a given person. So ideologies and belief systems can be intrinsically authoritarian if there is no way to take issue with their basic suppositions." (p. 9)
My experience with the mission in Vienna confirms that this definition describes the mission. The ostensible "belief system" of the organization was the brand of Christianity espoused by the workers and participating missions. I don't know that that was so much an issue, because everyone had gotten to Vienna at least in part by virtue of agreeing with the theology, and I don't think there were any surprise or anything unusual on that front.
But there was another layer of beliefs regarding the work at hand. Perhaps those in the higher echelons or who had reached a certain level of trust within the organization could have some input, but I wouldn't be surprised if any questioning of the the most central beliefs and corresponding practices about the work would have been pretty rare. After we finish this book and I continue with the chronology of my life it won't be long before I'll explain a relevant experience I had with missions to this part of the world that happened actually before my time in Vienna.
I think that direct questioning of the mission, especially early on when the inductee was supposed to learn trust and become trusted, might be used in the socialization process as a sign of lack of trust... or a sign that the person my be too prone to independent and critical thinking. So in any case you had to be in the right position to express certain questions and probably had to do so in an acceptable manner.
***
"The corruptions of power occur when maintaining power becomes central and more important than its effect on others." (p. 12)
I don't think anyone at the mission was out for power for power's sake, but I think that individual's potential influence was limited because of the nature of the work itself. And even though knowledge was departmentalized, there were people in certain positions who had a broader inside knowledge of the mission and insider's with that much knowledge had more authoritarian-like power because other's didn't have the requisite knowledge to question him (all the main leaders were men). Under such circumstances it would have been difficult to question anything of substance.
***
"What this boils down to is whether a hierarchy is essentially power-driven or task-driven. In determining this and in judging whether a hierarchy is essentially authoritarian or not, one faces the following considerations:
1. What is its purpose?
2. Who decides if its purpose is being fulfilled and how is this decided?
3. How free are the members of the hierarchy to enter and leave it? That is, how much coercion is involved in getting people to belong and stay?
4. How responsive is it to change from within or without, and how open is it do internal and external feedback? This includes who determines what is even considered relevant feedback.
5. In what direction does the power flow? Does it only flow from top to bottom, or are there mechanisms within the structure of hierarchy that give the lower rungs a say in who the higher rungs are and what they do?
Determining whether a hierarchy is basically task- or power-driven is obscured because power-driven hierarchies most always present themselves as performing tasks - often ones with the highest sounding ideals. The key question in determining the real nature of a hierarchy is "In whose interest is the task?" When the main task of a hierarchy is really either the perpetuation of power or the aggrandizement of those on top, it is power-driven. The Crusades had the task of converting the infidel for their own good and for the glory of God. What this task was really about was increasing the power of the church by extending its reach, and also by getting rid of some troublesome nobles. The Crusades were power-driven, as were the hierarchies involved in building the Egyptian pyramids. Neither the infidels nor the Egyptian laborers were consulted about their well-being." (p. 17-18)
According to these criteria I think the most troublesome, most authoritarian-like in the mission in Vienna are the control of information and the mostly unidirectional communication channels. At any rate, if you contrasted the organization with a democratic group, the Vienna mission would look very authoritarian like; it definitely wasn't democratic.
***
"Surrendering control usually means shifting from internal control to being controlled externally, whether by a person or ideology. But this shift is not clear-cut, for one must internalize the ideology to follow it, and the willingness to obey another is also internal. What one lets go of is only a level of self-control." (p. 48)
I think this is reasonably applicable to the Vienna mission. Since the newcomer, especially, didn't have the knowledge needed (and a lot of the knowledge was secret to one degree or another), it was imperative that the newcomer develop a trust that entailed willingness to give up some personal self-control, for the good of the group.
***
"Surrender is so potent precisely because it shifts control to an arena that is free, or more free, from one's inner dramas and the conflicts involved in personal decisions. If I surrender my heart to you, then being with you becomes central in my life." (p. 49)
Bingo! Very good, very good. This is an excellent fit for what was going on at the Vienna mission. However, I would add that the "you" in the last sentence is potentially both the organization and the mentor or boss (for the secretaries, the relationship with their boss was like this). In the Vienna context, the "being with you" is more a kind of sense of faithfulness and wanting to please than necessarily physical proximity as such.
***
"Surrendering to a guru brings instant intimacy with all who share the same values. In a world where traditional values are crumbling, bringing brittle, hedonistic ways of relating, many feel alone and disconnected. Acceptance by and identification with the group induce a loosening of personal boundaries. This opening consequently increases the emotional content of one's life, bringing purpose, meaning, and hope. It is no wonder that those who join such groups rave about how much better they feel than previously. But this quick, one-dimensional bonding is based solely upon a shared ideology. No matter how intense and secure it feels, should one leave the fold, it evaporates as quickly as it formed." (p. 55)
Let's recognize upfront (again) that I don't believe the mission in Vienna is a cult, although I did discuss in earlier posts that there were some cult-like qualities to it (in my opinion). So we have to get past the word "guru" here.
In the Vienna context, once one had gone through initial socialization struggles and decided to trust the group (and its leaders), thereby resulting in the group trusting you more in turn, you really did have this wonderful world of social contacts and new friends. It was very nice (at least it was while it lasted like that for me). In my case it is unclear who abandoned whom first, me or the mission. I can't say exactly when I completely abandoned hope, but at some point I decided I couldn't stay beyond the promised 2 years, but that might not have been an option anyway from the mission's standpoint either. At any rate, in the months before I physically left there I became more and more shunned, so the social benefit was not there for me from that point on. For all practical purpose, I felt like the mission had decided they didn't trust me either (as I didn't trust them).
I can't say we ever shared ideology, I mean ideology about the work and how it was done, not the theology. I don't know if they ever realized that about me, that I didn't accept their modus operandi and the logic behind it. I don't remember ever being explicit about it, but then I didn't have the information I do now to understand more clearly what was going on and so express myself with some level of certainty and clarity.
***
In discussing the benefits one feels in submitting to an authority, the author says this:
"[T]hey feel more powerful through believing that the guru and the group are destined to greatly influence the world. Feeling totally cared for and accepted, at the universe's center, powerful, and seemingly unafraid of the future are all achieved at the price of giving one's power to another, thus remaining essentially a child." (p. 56)
Again, forget the cult hyperbole here...
The work in Vienna was considered sort of a pinnacle for work in that part of the world. We were the only ones with so many missions cooperating on one project and there were a lot of us (relatively speaking) in one office and living "in-country" too. So we were unique and also had the sense that it was through our work that the indigenous believers were going to reach their own people and we were equipping and providing them the tools to do so. Plus, you can't forget that this was still significantly before the fall of Communism, so there was still a lot of Red Scare hype going on, which all fed in to a sense of pride and importance of our work. And since it was so important and unique, the secrecy and requisite trust and submission were justified. And if the actual threats to our work weren't enough, the Western press made sure that people knew that this was a region fraught with horrors not to be played with.
Now where was I... oh, yes, forget the cult hyperbole.
We did indeed feel totally cared for, and we were always there for each other whether it was to celebrate birthdays or take care of us when we were sick. In fact, that sounds pretty tempting right now. My family doesn't even acknowledge I'm sick half the time. In such instances it's nice that they're so far away. But before I went to Vienna I had a very full social life and lots of friends, even in other countries as well as around the USA. But I don't think anyone at the Vienna mission came from social vacuums, not like maybe some people who join cults. It was nice to have the social aspect, but outside of some people who were lost living in the new country, none of us really "needed" the social aspects in the sense of having been social outcasts prior to coming to the mission. The reason we were there was for the work, and the social glue was a nice add-on, and perhaps helped the leadership with organizational management too, especially considering security issues related to the work.
***
"Any of the following are strong indications of belonging to an authoritarian group:
1. No deviation from the party line is allowed. Anyone who has thoughts or feelings contrary to the accepted perspective is made to feel wrong or bad for having them.
2. Whatever the authority does is regarded as perfect or right. Thus behaviors that would be questioned in others are made to seem different and proper.
3. One trusts that the leader or others in the group know what's best.
4. It is difficult to communicate with anyone not in the group.
5. One finds oneself defending actions of the leader (or other members) without having firsthand knowledge of what occurred.
6. At times one is confused and fearful without knowing why. This is a sign that doubts are being repressed." (p. 57)
Uh-oh. It looks like there's no turning back now. There's one word here that really is the clincher - it's the very first word: "Any".
From Merriam-Webster.com:
"Main Entry: any
Pronunciation: \ˈe-nē\
Function: adjective 1 : one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a : one or another taken at random
Does this mean what I think it does... that only ONE of these 6 points have to fit the Vienna mission for it to be considered an "authoritarian group"?
I hate to be the one having to come to these conclusions, but since I'm the one that was there and this is (so far) a one-way conversation, I guess it has to be me. The Vienna mission was (during the time I was there) an authoritarian group. There I said it. Phew.
So which one(s) of these 6 allows me to come to this conclusion.
"1. No deviation from the party line" - the "party line" would regard modus operandi and philosophy of ministry. I can't say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deviation, as described here, was allowed, and if someone can give me an example of where it was allowed/tolerated, I'll step down on this one. But I think this one was an unquestionable given.
The second one is a toughy because 1) everyone, as individuals, in the mission was expendable (I think), 2) how things were done was bigger than even the leadership so they couldn't exactly be credited with it, although they were the leaders in maintaining it and overseeing any changes (which may or may not have been initiated by our on-site leadership). I think basically, though, there was a pretty high pride in the work which probably translated to believing that how the leaders set things up was right and effective and therefore not to be questioned. Besides, if you didn't have a lot of "secret" knowledge, on what basis could you question things, unless there was an obvious failure of actually getting things done of effectiveness of the ministry, which there wasn't, at least not that I ever knew about. If there were any problems it could have been handled in such a way as to not be generally known. I might have been the biggest problem the whole time I was there, though, for all I know.
The third one about trusting that the leaders know what's best has to be true because they're the only ones with enough information to be able to make the big decisions. So to work there at all you had to trust them. I don't see how this can not help but be true.
Number 4 is only correct in light of the mission's censoring of our prayer letters. That made honest communication with outsiders difficult, at least for me, as there are a lot of things I would like to have said that I couldn't.
Hmm. I'm not sure how to address number 5. I could never defend the leaders for the types of things they might need to be defended for because I don't agree with them. So I would side with the detractors. But I'm not aware of anything like this coming up, so I can't say this particularly fits as far as I'm aware.
Starting around the 5th month I was in Vienna I began to feel this. The fear came first at the shock of how they were treating me. But towards the end of my time there the confusion was very difficult, and I think it was deliberately maneuvered, as I'll explain later.
***
I'm going to end with that for now to do other things, and it's a chapter break. I will say, though, that a lot in this book does not fit my Vienna experience. But I think we've seen that there are some clear indications that it could well have been considered an authoritarian organization. Sorry you weren't there; I bet you are too. ;)
~ Meg
