I still can't find the MIA articles.
I enjoyed a walk earlier in the day than usual today because it was overcast and cooler, although my Weather Bug reading says it's currently 89.5F.
***
Chapter 7: Military Prisons and Rehabilitation
***
"Unlike inmates in the [United States Disciplinary Barracks(USDB)], soldiers who pass through the [Correctional Training Facility (CTF)] are fully expected to return to active duty, and the CTF are fully expected to reintegrate them into the rest of the Army. It does this (and maintains social control internally) by manipulating the convicted GI's self-image and his 'definition of the situation.' CTF principles may well be an anticipation of future trends in Army corrections." (p. 221)
I felt like I was experiencing some of this for the 6 months I was in the States (including time spent working at the U.S. office). I guess I was eventually deemed "reformed" enough (take that as you wish) to return to my original post, at least for a while. I never did fully conform, though, and I think they knew that, although they didn't know what I was thinking, because I never gave them any opportunity to know. But I was intentional about that too.
There are some other things I could say here, but it would be difficult without going into the narration of what exactly happened, so I'll just have to hold off and hope that I remember my train of thinking.
***
"A legal clerk, whose responsibility it was to interview stockade prisoners prior to their trials gave me his impression of stockade conditions at a large midwesern Army post:
... Once you come in, you're assigned to a barracks and you go to the barracks on the first night and that's invariably when the beating takes place... [and if] the guy says anything at all they put him in the box ["administrative segregation"] and continue to beat him, [and leave] him in the box for a couple of days... Then that subdues him... and they let him out of the box. By then they're pretty well beaten into the system... You can't get these guys who were beaten in pre-trial to testify to anything because they know they're going to be convicted and that they're going to go back." (p. 225; brackets in the original in this case)
That's a lot how I felt. Being sent to a mental hospital was like getting beat up and tossed down the stairs (this is in the original text) and scared out of my pants. The text tells about a guy with a cast on who comes to his trial and he's asked how he got the cast, to which he answers that he fell down the stairs. Then he's asked if he was beat up and he denies it. Then he's asked if anyone pushed him and he denies that too. This is how you learn to lie. This is how you learn to say "I work for an international publishing company." I know, I know, it's a partial truth. But another part of the truth is that the publishing end is NOT in Vienna. The closest thing Vienna has to the publishing end is (or was) people involved in the writing of the textbooks - authors, if you will. Just for clarification purposes I would like to explain here that authors are not the same as publishers. I know this can be confusing to certain people who've been taught to say otherwise, but I think you'll find that Webster's and Collegiate and Oxford and whatever English language dictionary source you choose will bear this out.
And yes, I was pushed down the stairs (figuratively, I mean).
***
Oh, here's a good one.
"In 1954, according to the provost marshal general of the Army, each new prisoner at the USDB was given an indoctrination session concerning the purpose of the prison and an orientation interview by the commandant or one of his representatives, where he would be assured that 'he is part of an institution where the entire staff from the top officer down through the enlisted ranks has a warm interest in her personal problems and needs and his future welfare.' Later on he would be given what GIs call an 'attitude check' to see how well he had responded to the 'warm' concern. He was also interviewed by a social worker who elicited information on previous problems with school authorities, pastors, relatives, and employers, which was then worked up into a report of the psychiatry and neurology division... Thus, the main functions of psychiatrists and social workers were in screening and classifying. Psychiatrists kept a close watch on each soldier-prisoner to determine when he had 'improved' himself sufficiently to be released before his full term had been completed. A chaplain was involved in this setting, although only in an advisory capacity to the classification board. He was to ascertain the influence of religion in the prisoner's life... Rehabilitation in 1954, then, was officially a combination of some indoctrination, vocational training programs, and several 'open doors' back to duty or out to civilian life... From the recent prison experiences of Dr. Howard Levy, the basic principles of the USDB seem relatively unchanged." (p. 227-228)
The author goes on to describe some modernizations (as of the late 70's), but I'm going to stop here for now.
The attitude check is something that was informally in place in Vienna. I don't think I ever had a problem with that - like I said, I wasn't a complainer or anything. I think my taking everything in stride might have made me more of an enigma and it would have been easier for them to deal with me if I had complained or raised a fuss.
I am not sure whether I thought about this so explicitly, but I think I felt that I didn't understand enough of what was going on to make a fuss; I was still trying to figure out the rules. So I left there not really ever understanding them. But since I didn't understand them I didn't know what kind of response I'd get anyway if I, for example, complained too much about not having enough work to do. Most of the time I was in Vienna I felt like my time and the money of my supporters was wasted because even though I did my best, including outside efforts, I was just doing grunt work which a lot of the time didn't really need to be done. But there was something else going on, I think, and these things were intentional, so I just smiled and did my job the best I could. I was friendly and sociable and took initiative in social activities several times. So I passed the attitude check.
That having been said, though, I'm not sure what kind of a change they might have expected or wanted from sending me home. I probably was somewhat subdued by that experience, but I certainly wasn't overcome by it. The last six months or so I think it was starting to get to me more so I was starting to cave in to pressures, such as attending the English speaking church (instead of the Austrian one I was going to), even though it wasn't really what I wanted. But that was about a year after I was sent back to the States, so it wasn't a direct consequence to that action they took against me (that's how I perceived it and still do).
***
"Psychology (and psychiatry) in the last few decades has taken the place of religion in maintaining mass discipline. Like religion, it operates by trying to convince the individual that it is trying to help him and has his interests at heart, all the while fairly self-consciously going about its role in creating and maintaining social order. Psychology not only provides techniques of control, such as various types of therapy and consultative assistance to those in authority, but it also parallels religion in providing an ideology. This ideology is one of 'cooperation,' 'communication,' 'normalcy,' and a distinct view of reality. In addition, psychology has a normative function, creating in individuals a sense of guilt, such as the anxiety that comes from feeling that one is not normal or socially acceptable. Instead of being sinful, today one is 'sick.' Like religion, psychology ministers to the guilt and anxiety that it was instrumental in creating." (p. 230)
This sounds a lot like Vienna: We care a lot about you and want you to succeed here, this is what you need to be able to succeed. I think the head of h.r., a military chaplain, even said something like this. Of course, under the circumstances I wasn't sure that I believed him, but that seemed to be what they wanted me to believe, and in this I don't think I was alone. It's just that I got worse treatment than others, so maybe he had to come out and say that before breaking the news, with the journal article on culture shock that they thought I was having culture shock and should go home for treatment. If taken at face value, this kind of approach cold be disarming, I think. I think I signed the papers to go not really believing it was actually going to happen. Maybe I was in shock or denial that this could be happening. And the thing was I was only having problems because of the mission, not in my Austrian activities and functioning. I'll go more in to this in the chronological narration though.
The army ideology of cooperation, communication, etc., has a counterpart in the Vienna mission, that's not exactly the same. I have a whole file on organizational behavior that touches on this too.
***
"... Another correctional therapist said that the character and behavior disorder (a category that includes most soldiers who get in trouble with the Army) must 'be made to see that there is something wrong with him and not with society.'" (p. 231)
I really feel like a fish swimming upstream here. I have a strong enough sense of who I am and my values that I'm able to get by and stick by what I believe even if I'm the only one. This might not be as bad as what the Nazis did, but Bonhoeffer is a good role model for me in standing up to what I believe is wrong. I don't always do it right, but I do the best I can in whatever given situation I'm in.
A textbook of mine from an apologetics class in Bible school has gotten a lot of use throughout the years: it describes various logical fallacies.
Here's a description of "Appeal to the People" a/k/a argumentum ad populum:
"As Immanuel Kant said, 'seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of the few and number not voices, but weigh them.
As C.S. Lewis was fond of saying, counting noses may be a great method of running a government (even there it has limitations), but it is no necessary criterion for truth. Another name for ad populum could be 'Misuse of Democracy.' If the majority thinks something is true, it must be true. If the majority is doing something, it should be done. The majority is reading this book, therefore it must be a good book. Non sequitor!
Nietzche quipped that 'public opinion is nothing but private laziness.' Ad populum is a lazy way of thinking, a device to bypass independent reasoning. Let the people do your thinking for you. Just drift along with the popular current." (Hoover, A. J. (1982). Poking Holes in Faulty Logic: Don't You Believe It! Chicago: Moody Press).
You will note that in my chronology Bible school came before Vienna, so I had that text with me in Vienna too and had long since studied it for class. Just because you're different doesn't make you wrong or bad.
***
"Since World War II, psychiatrists have been expanding their role in corrections. They have had a greater hand in designing corrections programs, and their participation as therapists rather than screening agents has increased somewhat. But this increased involvement has not come without costs to psychiatry. Psychiatrists have increasingly been compromising their techniques of therapy with military techniques of control.
In particular, the practice of therapy becomes much more oriented to social control of the individual by the small group or team, which is characteristic of military organization in general. I have suggested that the offenders who must see therapists do not view themselves as ill... This new role for therapists, that of forcefully attempting to transform soldiers' minds, results in a shift in the therapists' role." (p. 238-239)
My knee jerk reaction to these texts at this point in time is: Does Guantanamo and water-boarding ring a bell? How about those mental health workers involved?
Okay, that's another subject, but the Guantanamo situation didn't get where it was in a vacuum, and what this text describes sounds like it's the kind of setting that could eventually lead to the Guantanamo participation of psychologists.
Although military chaplains aren't mentioned in this text, it seems that they must at the very least be aware of this kind of thing going on in a field not so completely detached from their own. How would this be affecting them? Is it possible that the military chaplains in Vienna understood this reformative use of psychiatry? I'm not sure I want to go farther with this or not... There's a part of me that says do it, and another part that is more hesitant, but I'll just lay it out since I've been trying to be open and not have to deal with this horrible secrecy stuff that I just have grown to hate. Is it possible that the military chaplains / human resource staff at the Vienna mission intended this (mental "transformation," "personality changes") to be the end result of my going to the states for counseling?
***
"Some of these young men may be able to lead fuller, more developed lives with the benefit of some kind of therapy. But the value of personal freedom, it seems to me, requires that these people should have the choice of whether they want to undergo such personality changes. The only real alternative they have to undergoing therapy is being sent to a harsher prison." (p. 239)
In Vienna they would call this kind of thing "spiritual growth", which has a decidedly chaplain-y ring to it. I hate to say this, but over the years, including some things even after Vienna, I have come to approach pastoral leading more critically.
***
I'll just put this here for further documentation, but I've already commented on the substance of it:
"The most important function of the interview, which each prisoner went through when he arrived at the stockade, was to lay the groundwork for the rest of the program... The prisoner was shown that lack of social conformity had been of little value to him." (p. 242)
***
In another Army correctional facility the soldier-prisoners basically have to go through a repeat of basic training, perhaps with closer supervision. This process is intended to be "useful in helping to restore the offenders to duty (but this time with an acceptable attitude)." (p. 242)
Attitude was really important in Vienna too, mostly expressed indirectly, and this was part of what made my experience there feel like brain washing.
***
"The chaplain branch of the [Army's Correctional Training Facility (CTF)] appears to be quite active, offering a series of day-long retreats, formal instruction in 'Life Issues Series' classes, and group counseling sessions that stress 'freedom of expression on appropriate issues' and understanding the rights of others... In a manner consistent with my earlier commentary about psychology supplanting religion, the chaplains brought two California psychologists to the facility to present a series of lectures and conferences on gestalt psychology and transactional analysis to selected CTF cadremen." (p. 245)
I know there had to be a stronger connection between the chaplains and psychiatry! So here we have it. I wonder if either of the chaplains in Vienna had ever worked at this particular Army prison. Also, however, I don't think the chaplain/HR director in Vienna was working alone, so it's not completely fair to just single him/them (I didn't have much contact with the other one), when probably other leaders of the mission were involved in that decision. How exactly that transpired (the decision to send me back to the States) is something that we may never know.
***
"What is the best explanation for deviance? I have suggested that some correctional psychiatrists and social workers argue that deviance resides in the sick individual. Yet, oddly, psychiatry does not come into the military setting with a notion of what the diseases are that it should be curing. Psychiatry's definition of the individual as ill is based on the Army's response to that person's behavior." (p. 246).
If I may, I would like to insert a quotation from another source (I'm finding all these things in search of the 2 MIA articles):
"Security professionals must strive to be extra vigilant about their own ethics. It is too easy to say, 'everyone is doing it' and look the other way from such behavior or even join in... The bottom line is this: If your professional code of ethics conflicts with company policy and management's behavioral standards, you may have to stop being a part of the management team and uphold your professional ethics... you will be expected to make ethical decisions that may conflict with administration or corporate policy. Making these decisions won't be easy, but it is the only way to live up to - and with - your professional ethics." (Simonsen, Clifford E. (1992). what value to ethics have in the corporate world? Security Management, 36(9), 224-226)
What we have here is a clear case of the Army co-opting (not the rank and file soldiers but) professionals. How could they not have a pre-existing definition of such a basic part of their work?
Be this as it may, I submit that whether or not I was considered ill in Vienna was purely and simply seen as a matter of how I related to the mission, similar to how the Army viewed it in their soldiers.
Maybe we should send a few security professionals to Vienna (or the Army) to teach ethics to certain professionals there. Just don't send send any evangelical protestants to Vienna, please; they won't be at all objective.
***
"The result of allowing the military to define psychiatrists' problems is that the therapists dutifully adapt their definitions of syndromes to match the criminal act. Specifically, in terms of labeling the deviant, one finds circular, ex post facto clinical terms of personality and character disorders. A passive-aggressive personality is really someone who resists in a covert way. A disorder of the 'immature' category is a soldier who impulsively reacts against domination.
There are other explanations for the character of deviance. Some sociologists have asserted that there is nothing inherently deviant about any act, either in terms of individual pathology or societal needs. Deviance is something that is created 'by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.' Thus, persons in the social system take actions that define or confer on certain behavior the label as deviant. If the definition of deviance is located in the reaction rather than in the act or the actor, then there is little necessarily in common in terms of clinical characteristics among individuals who perform the same deviant behavior.
Looking at deviance as residing in the labelers might result in psychiatrists' examining their own preconceptions and affiliations. But this analysis is avoided as a consequence of focusing exclusively on the characteristics of the deviants themselves." (p. 246-247)
I like this discussion about deviance. I don't know if you follow it or not, but it's basically saying that a norm-setting group decides if someone is not following their norms and the person who is not following their norms is deviating in relation to their norms.
One thing that this does is makes deviation a very relative "truth": It only has meaning in reference to something normative. For example, lying in some cultures might be perfectly acceptable, but in other cultures it's not and the act of lying would be considered deviant in reference to their norms, but not to the norms of the other culture. So deviance is not a static thing in and of itself. It only has meaning in relationship to a particular set of norms.
On a certain level I was "deviant" in Vienna in not fully and completely 100% submitting to their norms. It felt like that's what was required to succeed there, and, like I said earlier it felt like brainwashing.
***
"Deviance is something that is created 'by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders... Thus, persons in the social system take actions that define or confer on certain behavior the label of deviant...
As I have emphasized, the self-image can be manipulated. One continues on as a soldier or an offender mostly on the basis of pressures of the small group and other reference persons. So managing the definition of the situation becomes very important for the rationalized co-optive style of corrections." (p. 247-248).
The Army sets the rules and makes the definitions, take it or leave it. Not a very forgiving (or democratic) approach to things, but you almost expect that in the Army (not that that makes it right).
But should this also be so in missions? In some ways, such as the theology, you might expect this to be reasonable. But should it be as totalitarian as an Army correctional facility? I don't think so, but the mission leaders might take issue with this either by asserting that they do have the right to do this, or by denying that they do it (the totalitarian aspects I mean).
I think this kind of thing could be true in the Army too, although I don't really know that, but sometimes I wondered how much of the social pressures were intended and sort of masterminded in a top-down way (like my feeling like I was being pitted against another gal for a certain position towards the end). Was this just sort of common office politics, or was it intentional. There were enough things going on that I wasn't always sure, and still am not. Since there was such a high level of secrecy, I think it's possible that some of these things were intentional, for whatever reason. I mention this in this context because that would also be part of the mission leadership controlling things and defining the issues and norms. I think that once you control the knowledge base you can do a lot with that by withholding something or strategically revealing something else, and in that context I don't think it would have been beneath them to have used disinformation (intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately).
***
It's late again, and I've got to start getting ready for bed. We finished this chapter and it's also the end of the book.
Good night.
~ Meg
