I'm sorry I may come across sarcastic or light-hearted about this all. While I was going through it, though, it was no laughing matter. It still isn't really, but it makes it more palatable (at least for me if not for the reader) to be able to insert a little levity. It was a horrible experience, my time in Vienna and the year afterward. I could try to just explain it as a narrative without all this other stuff, but I'm not sure it would be any clearer doing it that way than it was for me actually experiencing it. Hopefully giving you this kind of background information, most of which I didn't have at the time, it might make more sense to you when I get to the narration.
I'm going to try to finish this book now. Tomorrow I have a fairly busy day.
***
This next chapter is called "Guru Ploys" and, as the title expresses, is about tactics used by authoritarian-type leaders.
"Aside from the more tangible rewards, they reinforce devotion with attention and approval, and punish its lack by withdrawing from them. Though some gurus say that doubts are healthy, they subtly punish them. Doubt is not the way to get into the inner circle. Believing surrender is essential for transmitting their teachings, some gurus could be aware they are manipulating people to surrender, but think they are doing so 'for their own good.' (If this were in fact true, it would mean that deep truths are only accessible via an authoritarian mode.)" (p. 62)
From my personal experience, and I have reason to believe that this was the norm at least for secretary-boss relations at the Vienna mission, this really rings a bell. Certainly believing and surrender was a necessary, if not the only, prerequisite to gaining access to the inner circle and the knowledge that went with it. I think that the bosses in Vienna were fully aware of what they were doing. I'm not sure if they thought it was for the good of the individual (the secretary, for example), but they undoubtedly believed it was for the good of the organization.
***
This next quote is so descriptive of my Vienna experience that it makes me wonder if they really more cult-like than I gave them credit for:
"In the initial seduction phase, the potential disciple becomes the focus of the guru's or group's attention and is made to feel very important. Then enticements are dangled in the form of testimonials, promises of extraordinary experiences, and offers of unqualified friendship and care - heady stuff. A convincing persuasion is that devotees not only claim to feel so much better now than before, but to those who have known them previously, they do in fact appear happier." (p. 62.)
The only things I would change here to improve the fit with my Vienna experience are:
1) change "seduction phase" to "orientation/initial socialization phase"
I guess that's the only thing I'd change.
In the Vienna context, "testimonials" would be sharing of mission trips and other success stories related to the work, especially current or very recent stories.
Other than that it seems this text pretty much speaks for itself and can be applied directly to the Vienna situation.
***
I think this next text fits Vienna, but I wasn't there long enough to see new people, especially those I'd be the closest to, namely secretaries and/or singles in the work, who went through the initial socialization process to be able to speak with great certainty about it. However, I think it's true for Vienna (with a few minor changes to account for the context):
"A conversion experience often brings tremendous release and intense emotion, as it involves letting go of one's identity and taking on a new one. The past is automatically reinterpreted in the light of whatever value system and worldview one has converted to. People use these powerful feelings to validate their new beliefs." (p. 64)
In the context of the Vienna mission "conversion experience" would be the point of sort of letting go and deciding to submit to this new regimen. I think the leadership would say that it's when the newcomer finally overcomes culture shock, however. But I think, and you'll see this later, that this "culture shock" is artificially induced as part of the orientation process, and has nothing to do with being physically in a foreign country, which the term "culture shock" implies.
The past is not reinterpreted, as the mission's "organizational culture" or "worldview" or whatever you want to call it is not concerned about the past, just how you related to the mission and how that affects you while with the mission, and possibly afterward too to some extent if contact continues, such as for p.r. work back home, after serving with them.
***
"Hierarchies of power... are based on a hierarchy of value where the leader is considered better, purer, or essentially different. Next comes the heir-apparent or inner circle. This creates separation between those at different levels, and also between the group as a whole and those outside the hierarchy." (p. 65)
In the Vienna context the hierarchy was "hard power" based on real positions and a person's actual position within the mission largely determines what kind of and how much information you'll have access too. Knowledge, I believe, was a major player in Vienna as far as the power structure was concerned. But those in top positions mostly did have some professional credentials and perhaps visibility outside the mission as well. I don't know how most of them got to be leaders, but there was a definite hierarchy, although that was largely downplayed in social situations. There were the top 3, 2 in Vienna and one who headed the other office, and then the department heads under them. Those were the top layers that I was aware of.
The leaders were generally considered more knowledgeable or experienced or the like, and the top 3 especially set the tones of meetings and the like.
***
I'm not sure what to make of the following quote, but here it is:
"People whose power is based on the surrender of others develop a repertoire of techniques for deflecting and undermining anything that questions or challenges their status, behavior, or beliefs. They ridicule or try to confuse people who ask challenging questions." (p. 66)
I don't think I ever directly confronted the leadership, but I wonder if there's something here that helps explain how I was treated at the end. It's possible, but I'm not sure how likely it is. This is the kind of thing I'd just put in the back of my mind and if I remember something later that deals with this I can come back to it.
[4/6/2011 comment: I think that when the mission felt I hadn't "submitted" enough it initiated things that made it harder for me to understand what was going on, and it did things like keep me in demeaning work that would have kept me from having any influence. I don't know of anyone (me included) who directly confronted the mission, however, on any of these things. I was scared to death to do that, but I don't know why others didn't or mightn't have.]
***
"Another ploy is calling whatever seems to be problematic a 'test of faith.' As these tests become more extreme, the release that passing the test brings is also more intense. This is why it is possible for the leader to get his increasingly bizarre behaviors accepted. Anything can be looked upon as a test of faith. Once reason has been undermined, there's no way logically to refute this system - that's why people who are ordinarily considered highly intelligent can become involved in believing, doing, and justifying just about anything." (p. 67)
If there were tests of faith besides the initial socialization into the group, it might have been as a kind of prerequisite to a change of position, but this is speculation, although I would find it a reasonable possibility.
However, the thing that struck me was the last sentence. I've already expressed astonishment in an earlier posting about how such a group of highly educated people - and in a field that has a lot to say about ethics too - could all justify some of the techniques they do from a biblical and theological perspective. Maybe this text suggests one possibility, basically the slippery slope that starts with the initial orientation process.
***
The next chapter is called "The Assault on Reason"
"Sanity involves the capacity to respond to information, internal and external, in a way that contains the possibility of change. Interfering with this process is one of the most subtle and basic abuses of authority - that is the denial of, or even assault on, the followers' basic experiences and discriminatory capacities." (p. 75)
The thing the clicks for me here is "discriminatory capacities." I feel/felt like the leadership in Vienna was asking me (not directly though) to put aside judgments and trust them.
I had qualms about the tactics? > Trust us, we know what we're doing.
I had qualms about the socialization process? > What socialization process? You mean, culture shock? Trust us, we'll help you through it.
I had qualms about the seemingly extensive use of indirect communication? > What indirect communication? Trust us, we're being straight with you.
So the response always (not in so many words, you understand) involved the requirement to trust them (or the person at hand).
I definitely felt like the kind of trust required to work there involved suspending personal judgment. I don't let people make those kinds of requirements of me. EVER, not in Vienna, not in Russia, NEVER!
***
Again talking about cults:
"The structure of the organization that disciples must fit into is always pyramidal... Everyone on the hierarchy gets their feelings of power and specialness from where they are positioned... A hierarchy is a way of organizing power..." (p. 85)
The mission in Vienna was definitely hierarchical and placement within it delineated probably most of the power and knowledge available to the person.
***
"The higher up one is in the organization, the more one's power and even livelihood are hooked into it and the guru. This makes it very difficult not to accept, rationalize, or deny any incongruent, greedy, or corrupt behavior on the part of the guru or the organization as a whole." (p. 87)
It seems possible that if I saw things that disturbed me after not being there (in Vienna) very long, then someone who's been their longer and has access to more information and experience could conceivably come to recognize even more trouble spots than what I saw. But such an individual might also face some of the temptations to cover up any such concerns. I don't know that this actually existed in the organization, but I can see how theoretically it could have happened.
***
"Especially in situations involving power, it is most important to pay more attention to what people do than what they say." (p. 90)
I think this was part of the ambiguity I encountered toward the end of my time in Vienna, namely, a mismatch between words and actions. But from early on there were some instances of body language or other actions that raised red flags.
***
"It would be most difficult to have absolute faith in the pronouncements of a teacher one suspected of having unconscious motivations." (p. 104)
In the text "unconscious motivations" is referring to self-interest on the part of the guru. If I instead use "unconscious motivations" to mean something more like "unspoken/secret motivations", then this is a pretty good summary of how I felt early on when I felt like I was being tested and the purpose of the testing wasn't clear or didn't make sense. I just put my hackles, so to speak, in the face of such uncertain objectives. Despite warm fuzzies of being hugely welcomed, my actual work was a bomb there and certain communications were so loaded with innuendo that I wasn't at all certain I could trust them, despite their wonderful credentials.
***
"...[A]ttitudes toward control differ from abhorring it to associating it with care." (p. 283)
I'm at the abhorring end of that spectrum.
***
The end.
My next entries will go back to my (more or less) chronological accounts of my life.
Good night.
~ Meg
