416. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 34 (Bickley & G'Segner, pt. 1)

This next article is going to be a less involved one.  Some of these in this file, when they get into a lot of theology or philosophy or emotionally-loaded (for me at least) subject area can take a lot of time and I can't deal with that today.  And I have to spread those out a bit because it does take a bit out of me to do those sometimes.  It's almost like reliving a bit of what happened when I was with the mission, especially when I hit upon someting that really validates my experience.

And then I realized this morning that I forgot that needed to portion out my meds and supplements for the week, so I'm scrambling to get that done now on top of the other things I had planned.  Yesterday got a bit messed up by unplanned things, which happens.

So this articles is:

Bickley, Hugh J. & G'Segner, Ford F. (1975, Fall). Games and values clarification: aids in human self-development. Military Chaplains' Review, 43-51.

 ***

"Throughout the last three decades chaplaincy has given serious attention to human self-development.  Though given different names -- Character Guidance, Our Moral Heritage, and the Human Self-De velopment Program -- the intent has been to involve soldiers in a process of moral and ethical self-development." (p. 43)

I just hope that it was a better program of self-development than what the Vienna mission had.  Since the Vienna mission was a total institutions and my experience of it, as explained elsewhere throughout this blog, was not totally unlike how Christians experienced their treatment at the hands of Communists, I'd like to suggest what it might have been like under the Vienna mission total institution:

"The lack of individual responsibility is a product of decades of living under limited freedom. People get used to oppression. This has always happened with totalitarian regimes. I remember, I was greatly surprised to meet people with a similar mentality in East Germany, a country that has always been very different from Russia. This happened during the unification of the East and West Germany. I saw fright in the eyes of the East Germans, the same reaction as I see here in Russia – people do not know what to do. There is a psychological term for this – the acquired helplessness syndrome. The syndrome is usually manifested in social pessimism and lack of self-confidence. The acquired helplessness syndrome is the main feature of Soviet mentality and unfortunately it is prevalent among senior citizens."

This describes the acquired helplessness syndrome of the "Soviet man".  And lest you think I'm over-exaggerating, just remember that the whole time I was with the mission they continually took away one by one a whole chunk of my external supports and relations until I was more and more cornered in and reliant on them... helpless, if you please.

Fortunately for me, however, I had an easier way out than the hapless Soviet citizens and my commitment to the mission was limited to 2 years of my life so that there remained a remnant of my former self that wasn't helpless and I did retain some external connections that helped me buoy above the tragedy and find a way to rise again.  But I could very easily have vanished only to have never been heard of again... a mere shell of my former self, broken by the mission and it's treatment of me.  And no one would have ever believed me that it was their fault at all; they would have assumed I was just emotionally weak.

Actually, though, I think the opposite is true and it was amazing that I was able to do what I did because no one ever was able to do what I did, and that alone is testament enough to the strength of my character.  Everyone else was to weak or scared or didn't have enough knowledge early on, which is when it would have been needed, to even attempt what I did.  So, yes, on one level I was weak, but on another level I was incredibly strong and clever and did what no one else was able to do.

***

"Educational journals, management magazines, adult education reports, continuing education briefs, sociological and psychological articls, and religious writings and books tell us that contemporary persons share the following characteristis.  They (we) are non-authoritarian, dialogical, interdependent, and participative. (p. 44)

Did I tell you that I have an M.A. in Adult Education and 60 credits towards a doctorate in the same and that I've published articles and given numerous conference presentations on adult education related subjects? So I'm sort of in my league here.

The thing is that the Vienna mission knew this stuff as far as how it taught its classes in Eastern Europe; it just sort of forgot it all it seems to me when it came to socialization of new members.  Oh sure, the mentoring process was on the surface like this, but in the end it was not because the mission was a total institution and it was not about dialogue with its members, at least not according to my experience.  Dialogue was not an option.  The only thing it wanted was obedience and childlike submission, like for the Soviet man above.  And better not to ask any questions, of course, because of the security issue.  Security could be an answer to everything, like a broken record.  Like, as soon as you raise your hand in class you don't even have to ask the question, the teacher will just automatically answer, "Security," and move on. So security quelched everything and trumped everything.

But at some point there has to be some accountability and the individual has to be treated like and adult and if there are unethical things going on behind the facade of "security" some members might like to know.

This is true with government, too, right?  Think of Washington, D.C. (my country's capital); there have been times when they classify documents that shouldn't be classified.  These are documents that pose absolutely no security risk to the country at all.  So some media outlet or nonprofit watchdog group gets a whiff of an incidence like this and exposes it and it turns out documents were classified only because they embarrassed the current administration - made them look bad and they didn't want people to know about it.  That's not why documents are supposed to be classified!  And when missionaries come to the Vienna mission and tacitly (or otherwise) agree to suspend judgement for the sake of security, they are most likely thinking of security issues involving logistics and the like.  But if the mission is hiding information like cooperation with a government, that's a whole other ball of wax and some missionaries might not feel so comfortable with that, especially if it's something like the military or CIA or something.  But then by the time they learn of such things they're already in the thick of things, so they really needed to know about this kind of thing up front or earlier on, but that's the psychology of the mission (the leadership) and they understand how that works.  They're not stupid.

So the mission leads a double life, where they know these truths, as given in this text, but they don't really live them internally inside the mission.  So this is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

***

"All persons -- young and old -- face some confusions about the important things in their lives.  They are surrounded by a glittering array of choices, like a child at a candy counter.  Youth feel this confusion intensely and reflect it readily.  Older people also tend to be confused; though their confusion is less noticeable, it is not less acute.

In almost every area of human endeavor and involvement one observes values and value conflicts operating:

... Within the milieu of modern living conflicts arise, problems emerbe, and values clash.  Chaplains -- as pastors, teachers, and leaders -- are aware of these conflicts." (p. 45)

Ever since my Vienna mission experience I have been very interested in the ethical issues for Christians in various fields.  Most professional level fields have ethical statements from their professional association they can turn to, but that isn't always adequate for the Christian.

Anyway, it's clear that Christians are going to experience these kinds of conflicts because the world's values don't mesh with the Bible's instructions for us.  So we should be masters of dealing with conflict and be able to readily recognize conflict, but we can't always, or for some reason we might be able to recognize it but we don't respond as we should.   It's not easy being the minority and standing out as being different.  I know because I feel like I've spend a lot of my life in that position, although it wasn't always that way.  The Vienna mission changed that, because after that I began taking stands that weren't even popular in Christian circles.  I've already paid a heavy price for taking stands for what I believe in, and while I didn't really necessarily want to, I felt I had to because there was no way I could give in in those situations.  So now I'm less willing to just go along with the flow if I really don't agree with something or think something is wrong enough to not be able to go along with it.

***

Next the author suggests 4 ways the chaplain can "provide guidance in values training:

1. MORALIZING: This direct approach assumes that the chaplain's experiences and resulting values system is right for those whom he teaches... moralizing usually influences only one's vocabulary and little else.

2. A LAISSEZ-FAIRE ATTITUDE: This approach says, "Think and do and be the way you want, and in the long run, everything will turn out okay."... In daily life... everything does not "turn out okay," regardless of the values one cherishes.

3. MODELING: ...The multiplication of models make it difficult, if not impossible, for one to know which is right for him or her.

4. VALUES CLARIFICATION: This is a process which allows persons to bild and to discover their own values systems... To use values clarification exercises, however, it is essential to recognize that process is far more important than content." (p. 45-46)

The thing here is that the values were taught especially during the socialization process at the Vienna mission, rather than in the seminary classes.  As I've said before, although it bears repeating here, socialization was a very individualistic affair in the mission for several reasons, I think.  For one thing, new missionaries came trickling in so you couldn't really have classes of cohorts training.  Also, the positions varied as did the personals and the issues they might have needed focusing on.  I think it may also have depending on who was doing the socializaing, because different socializers might have been more or less comfortable with different tactics of socilalization. So I'm going to go through these discussing them as things that might have been used with some people (or not).

Moralizing.  I think this was used some, but probably mostly in the guise of sharing one's testimony to the effect of "This worked for me, you should try it too."

Laissez-Faire.  I think this only would have been used if the mission wanted to watch the individual, but I think it would have been the rarest of them all, because the mission was basically more controlling.

Modeling.  They did use mentoring, probably pretty much across the board with most if not all new missionaries, so part of the mentoring process would have included modeling.  But I don't think that modeling would have been used as a stand alone method apart from mentoring.  However, the new missionary would have been watching to learn from others, but a lot of times the one they were watching might have been unaware that they were modeling.

Values Clarification.  I think this happened, but only by those who were well able to explain clearly what the mission's values were, so that would have been limited to just a select few members of the mission, very likely not the mentor of the mission.  If a person had to have a serious sit-down values clarification, I expect by that point that something seriously was wrong and the person might be in trouble, like I was.

***

"Values clarification exercises, whatever their form, are essentially connected to this process of valuing: choosing, prizing, and acting." (p. 47)

The Vienna mission uses a variety of means to try to make new missionaries choose their values, the values that don't show up on their annual report, in their brochures, etc.  The values that have to do with security and whatever else lies behind that veil of secrecy.  In fact, I learned that they'll pretty much do whatever they have to to get you to choose their values (and norms), such as:

1. trying to lure you in with their love and familial acceptance
2. threats of going crazy (backed by stressors, sending you for counseling, etc.), which I think is a kind of use of force
3. humiliation, such as demotions and shunning
4. cutting off outside relations 
5. etc.

I'm not sure what they'll do to make you prize it, because I never got that far.  Prizing it, I think might include actually internalizing it.  I think you can choose it, but not really internalize it, but I can't imagine prizing it and not at the same time also inernalizing it.  The mission wanted it's values and norms internalized, so it would have not been satisfied with just choosing.

***

So that's the end of that article. 

77. Defense & High-Reliability Firms File, Part 3 (Kurt, pt. 1)

This next text is a book chapter:

Lang, Kurt. (1965) Mlitary organizations. In March, J. G. (Ed.). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, p. 838ff.

***

"What remains distinctive to the armed forces is their basic orientation toward an image of the battlefield... It is from this orientation that the armed forces have their specific military character and the military establishment its distinctive forms." (p. 839)

I am going to apply this to the Vienna mission situation (and probably also, by extension, to (many) other missions to 'closed' countries) in comparison to missions in other types of situation. It's a special type of adversarial perspective that might be exemplified by things like the article in my candidates' course manual comparing the economic standards of the East (i.e., Communist countries) and West.

I don't have any indication that I can remember that dad thought along these lines, but there were probably those in U.S. military work that would have seen Christian missions as at least in a supportive role, intentionally or not, to other efforts to thwart or win over the big red enemy. I have already pointed out people I knew in this type of mission work with military background, including our two human resource staff in Vienna who were chaplains in the military reserves at the same time they were working with us.

This attitude toward the target country was probably a major basis for approaching missions differently than other missions not working in 'closed' countries. Also, in our case it was not just the fact that these were 'closed' countries, but that these countries were also seen as political enemies by society at large, which wouldn't have necessarily been true regarding other 'closed' countries. Nowadays, working in Muslim countries would probably be the counterpart to the then Communist countries. And because of this public opinion about the Communist countries the churches and supporters back home might have been more lenient in their demands for accountability, also.

Even when I was living in Russia, was mostly the years after the fall of Communism there, how few missionaries I met who knew the language - even missionaries living there. My understanding was that missions usually sent their new missionaries to language school either before getting to the field where s/he'd be working or at the beginning during a time when other mission responsibilities would be at most minimal until the language was learned. A gal I went to Bible school had almost 2 years of language training for a mission to Africa, so that she could learn French (a national language) and also the local language. The only mission I came in to contact with during my 6 1/2 years in Russia who knew Russian were a German church planting team in Krasnoyarsk. I understood this lack to be a carry over from the how missions in that part of the world were treated differently than other missions, even though at that point there was little need to continue in that way.

Maybe part of my problem was that I never really got into that way of thinking, even from way before my Vienna days. I wasn't drawn to that ministry because of the political nature of the area, but because of my heritage and my interest in the people. It's not that I didn't think about political issues, but that I wasn't so absorbed with it as others and the mission seemed to be.

This "orientation toward the image of the battlefield" not only affected interpersonal relations in the Vienna mission, but how the ministry was actually carried out also.

***

Under the heading of "'Communal' Character of Military Life":

"The milieu of the military organization differs most clearly from that of the 'civilian' occupation in the degree to which organizational control extends to many phases of personal life normally left untouched....

Goffman's concept of the category of total institution as 'a place of residence and work where a large number of like situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life'...

Unless there is a strong identification with military goals, the curtailment of freedom to regulate one's own off-duty activities can be felt as a deprivation." (p. 848-849)

"Total institutions" include things like prisons and the like, but even the military, in which, certainly, members may physically leave the base, for example, to go to a civilian church or for school or whatever. As such, I think I would classify the Vienna mission as a total institution similar to how the military is also identified as such.

Also, the last quote is especially true of me regarding identifying with the institution. That is, I did identify strongly enough with the general goals of the ministry, but I didn't identify with a lot of the values and how they did things. Going back to our pragmatic ends and means discussion, I accepted the missions ends but not the means they took to try to get there. The broad brush means, of course, I knew about before coming and explained to others countless times during deputation. The saying about the devil being in the details was where I got hung up once I arrived in Vienna. If you can imagine this, or maybe you have some experience of this too, it's like the public p.r. image an organization portrays even when those inside the organization know that it's not a completely accurate picture, not in the sense of an incomplete picture but a misleading picture. Something can be incomplete but not misleading.

Since I never reached that kind of identification with the details of how they operated in Vienna, I did indeed feel like efforts (direct or otherwise) to curtail my freedom was not only a deprivation, but also unwarranted and unnecessary.

***

I'm going to just sort of summarize the section titled "Authoritarian Ideology," because it's a bit involved.

The author in this section discusses, at least in part, several studies where a test was administered over time to new recruits to the military to identify whether any changes about authoritarian leadership had occurred. When this test was administered over a longer time frame (3 to 4 months) there were changes in which the new recruits viewed authoritarian leadership as less authoritarian.

In Vienna this might play out this way: A new recruit arrives in Vienna and is pretty soon confronted with a total institution and authoritarian (top-down) structure. Upon realization and initial experience of this she might identify all or most of the usual traits of authoritarianism, but a few months later might only recognize a few of such traits as being authoritarianism.

It's as if the new recruit had become acclimatized to it and did not think of her situation as being particularly authoritarian. Another context: a Western woman moves to a strict Muslim country or village and has to start wearing the burka. At first she might balk at this and think of it as demeaning and insulting, but eventually she gets used to it and thinks it's not so bad after all. That might not be a perfect example, either, but I hope you get the idea anyway.

I think this adjustment to authoritarian ideology happened in Vienna. It didn't happen to me, but as part of a total system I paid a heavy price for not conceding.

***

That's all for that article. Now I'm going to go get lunch...

~ Meg

***

Later addition: I found a few pages that got separated from the main text, so I'll address them now just to keep the comments on one text all together.

We're jumping ahead now to the summary statements:

"... Some measure of identification with the collectivity and some sense of generalized obligation and readiness to acknowledge the legitimacy of its demands in numerous particular situations must exist..." (p. 872)

My problems with the situation in Vienna included my hesitation in completely identifying with the collectivity and in acknowledging the legitimacy of some of the apparent demands being made on me.

As far as the identification was concerned, I didn't think they had the right to even demand what I saw as complete identification with them. When I got on the plane and crossed the "big puddle" (The Atlantic) I didn't leave my brains back home and I wasn't going to identify in such a way as to abrogate my ability to think for myself and disagree with them if I really disagreed with them.

I guess I covered legitimacy and identification in one fell swoop there. So now this is really and truly it for this article and we're moving on.

~ Meg

44. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 13 (Kramer & Alsted, pt. 2) (Was: Guru Papers Cont'd)

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

43. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 12 (Kramer & Alsted, pt. 1) (Was: Authoritarian Power)

This next source, the last in this folder, is another book:

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