318. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 42 (Luthans, pt. 5)

It feels good to have a day with no appointments! 

I didn't realize last night that most of the rest of the Luthans text is irrelevant to this discussion.  I'd just like to end the discussion on the Luthans text with this one quote from the "Summary:"

"Organizational culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that are taught to new personnel as the correct way to perceive, think, and act on a day-to-day basis." (p. 68)

In the case of the Vienna mission, which was a total institution, these things were expected of the missionary pretty much 24/7 for the 2 year duration (or however long) the missionary was with the mission.  (The usual long-term assignment was 2 years, but one could keep extending that for longer.)  When the missionary left the mission office, their interactions with their neighbors, at church, with their kids' teachers, etc. were all supposed to reflect the mission's culture, because ingrained in that culture were security protocols and the like.

This is why it felt like brainwashing to me.  Really, perceiving, thinking and acting, if applied to one's whole life is a major overhaul, if you ask me.  So then I figure I should retain the right to hold any of these proposed changes in my make-up to Scripture to see if they are appropriate changes or not for a Christian.  (Of course, some would say you can prove anything with Scripture and if I'd said these things point blank to the mission leadership - assuming they didn't deny the existence of their socialization efforts - they very well might have found some way or the other, however obtuse, to support the cultural end-results they (apparently) wanted in me.)   Retaining this right puts Scripture above the mission authority, which is, I believe, how it should be.  To deny that right is to put the human mission leadership above Scripture, and they couldn't stomach anything being above them.

That is, as long as you agree with them it's okay to put Scripture above them, because they're not being challenged anyway.  But as soon as you disagree with them then it's not okay to put Scripture above their authority.  What good is that, though?  The point is you just can't disagree with them, even if there is a Scriptural justification for doing so.  Anyone at the mission who might disagree with them is made to reconcile that issue during the socialization process, so that the new recruit decides that (whatever the particular issue of concern is for that individual) the issue can be seen in a different light, the issue is not so important after all, the mission leadership has good reason for taking the position it does, etc., etc.  In other words, the person must somehow come to peace with the issue that initially s/he though conflicted with Scripture, because the mission wasn't going to let the person proceed in his/her socialization process knowing that there was a significant issue in which it's authority was being questioned and another authority stood in its place, because that was not acceptable to the mission.  (I should say though that I'm talking about the more significant theological issues that are more difficult to just gloss over.  Some issues might have different perspectives and might be more easily reconciled.  But individuals might place different values on different issues, also.)

Part of the problem with me too, was that the mission had trouble getting me to open up and so they probably never felt like they really knew me and they undoubtedly didn't like that.  That's part of why the initial testing was set up, I think, to get me (as with at least some others) to break down and sort of spill my guts to them.  But I never did that.  So they never got that reaction from me, but I did my work that they gave me as well as I could without complaining, even though some of the things I experienced with them were very stressfull.

So the thing is, how can you know that a new worker perceives, thinks and acts correctly?  "Acts" is pretty straight forward, so I won't address that one.  But the other two are mental constructs and cannot be known directly by observation, so the organization would have to find some way to deduce them, to indirectly conclude that the individual has satisfactorily met the thinking and perceiving criteria.

In the Vienna mission context, they would have wanted to know that the new worker met these criteria all the time 24/7 - not just while at the office or even not just while in the presence of other mision workers.  They might not even trust that you would act appropriately outside the office if you didn't have thinking and perception down.

So then it becomes a challenge to find out if the perceptions and thinking have evolved appropriately.  I think that this is one aspect of the mentor's responsibility (formal or otherwise).  The mentor if s/he is clicking well with the new recruit should be able to get to know him or her and be in a good position to determine at least much of these intangible cultural objectives.  In my case, since I didn't feel like my secretary colleagues were a good match for me it would have been hard for them to do this.  And since no one there seemed to have my background it would have been difficult for them to have found any one person who could have played that role with me.

But since I soon learned not to trust the mission, anyway, there wasn't much chance I might be eager to open up with someone there anyway.  So they would have had a bit of a difficult time determining whether I'd met the perceiving and thinking criteria to fit their organizational culture.  In the end, probably the main thing they had to go on was actions.  The problem with trying to ascertain thinking and perception based on actions alone (or even mostly on actions) is that you have to be pretty certain that you are attributing the correct thinking and perceptions to the actions being displayed.  In my case, I think they didn't get everything right on that score, even towards the end of my time with them.  That is, they still didn't really understand what I was thinking when I did what I did.   That's my opinion of them and how I left them.  And I have a feeling that if they'd understood me better I wouldn't have gotten a friendly post card some 6 months after I left the mission from the director and assistant director.

***

I didn't expect that I'd write so much about that one short text, but hopefully it helped eke out some more information about my time with the Vienna mission.  That's the end of this text.

93. Defense & High-Reliability Firms File, Part 17 (Radine, pt. 11)

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

42. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 11 (Torrance, pt. 2) (Was: The Struggle for Men's Minds, Part II)

We jump ahead now in this military manual to a section that deals not with how to communicate with foreign enemies but how Air Force instructors should relate to their Air Force students.

In this first quote we come back to an idea mentioned earlier in the text and discussed in my last post, but this time in this new context. [I use all-caps where there is an underline in the original as I'm not sure how to create underlines here.]

"SLANTING, DISTORTION, AND THE STRATEGY OF THE 'BIG LIE' help destroy an individual's anchor in reality. Decisions and adaptive efforts, based on unrealistic information, decrease rather than increase ability and will to continue to fight. Slanting of test results to make an individual 'look better than he really is' in order to bolster his confidence or 'making him look worse than he is' in order to dissuade him from a choice the counselor considers unwise ultimately can only undermine ability and will to continue the fight. The fact that the counselor's intentions are good does little to help matters. FACING THE FACTS almost always contributes most to strengthen ability and will to continue adapting. Furthermore, students consider this type of pressure as not legitimate and right and there are always chances of boomerang effects of lasting consequences." (p. 65)

It's as if they're saying, in short, that if A is good, then the opposite of A is bad. What I mean is that this method is used destructively with enemies and is to be avoided with our own. Forget the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ((Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31) thing, that's passe. We have a new commandment for you: Do unto others exactly the opposite of what you would have them do unto you"!

With this text (the military text, not the Scriptural one) in mind, it does sort of explain how the missions could actually be sort of two-faced in the deceptiveness of their work. I wonder if they actually got it from the military? I'm sure there are other possible sources too, but it is revealing that even if the military wasn't the original source the practice was in keeping with military protocol (this is an official Air Force publication, after all).

But this text brings up the different contexts - relations with enemy foreigners vs. with new inductees. I assume everyone here has heard of "boot camp", which is the arduous military "socialization" process for new recruits. I'm not sure if the instructions here for relating to students was used in boot camp as well as other training/educational settings in the Air Force, but I'm going to assume that it also applies to boot camp relations.

In Vienna, there was no formal equivalent to boot camp, but there was a socialization process which I believe was tailored somewhat to each individual new recruit. It's clear to me that the mission used the 'big lie' with outsiders regarding their work and the like, but I think they may also have used this technique some with new recruits, new arrivals to Vienna. In this case, they were treating the newcomers as foreigners, or, in the military context of this book, treating them as foreign enemies.

Sometimes being graphic helps explain things, so let's look at this more succinctly:

Military use of the 'big lie'
> with foreign enemies, yes
> with new inductees, no
> with seasoned members, no

Vienna mission use of the 'big lie'
> with outsiders ("enemy" or not), yes
> with new inductees, yes (at least sometimes)
> with seasoned workers, no

As I wrote the above I thought of one possible exception not mentioned in the text, that I know would apply to the mission in Vienna, although I'm not sure about the military. That is, with the segmentation of information/knowledge in the Vienna mission (which I'm sure also exists in the military), I think that in Vienna there may have even some use of the 'big lie' internally as one of the ways that they tried to control security and maintain the divisions of knowledge. I'm not sure if the military would do that or if, as the text seems to suggest, using the 'big lie' could undermine trust which in the long run would be counter-productive. I don't know that such a concern existed in effect in Vienna. They had other means to build trust, involving the faith-related mission of the organization.

***

The next quote is preceded by a discussion of attempts by the North Koreans in the Korean War to disrupt groups that formed in their POW camps.

"Since it is the enemy's objective to cause the prisoner to doubt his own perceptions and change his attitudes, the prisoner's best anchor in reality is the store of information and convictions he brings with him." (p. 69-70)

Ironically, I felt like this in many ways in my relations with some of the leadership at the mission in Vienna. And you can see by my discussions of these texts how even subsequently I've tried to develop a rational understanding of what was going on there. Unfortunately, my knowledge of their tactics, other than a broad knowledge of techniques used by Communist governments with dissidents and believers. Before my arrival in Vienna I hadn't gone into depth like I'm doing now; in fact it was actually several years later that I began this research. Even so, I had studied ethics and politics and had some strong ideas about right and wrong. Also, one thing my parents did in raising all of us kids is give us critical thinking skills. I remember analyzing TV commercials while we sat around watching our favorite shows together. So I did have some strong information and convictions, that helped me deal with what I experienced in Vienna. But outside of keeping me from completely falling apart, it didn't help my relations with the mission in the long haul.

But, wait, I shouldn't be comparing my experiences in Vienna to POW experiences in Korea, should I?

***

This section is part of an examination of efforts U.S. soldiers used while in Korean POW camps.

"One of the most frequent counteractive devices was social isolation of the suspected, or proven informer or collaborator. If such a person had been permitted to remain in the confidence of the group, he would have created suspicion in his every relationship and could have continued to destroy these linkages." (p. 77).

I've discussed this before in the context of social control methods, and isolation is a very common - common in society as a whole - method of protecting social norms and values and showing disapproval to something.

But the second part of this text might not be so common, as it would apply mainly in situations where trust was especially necessary. I suppose gangs, for example, might be another place where the trust issue would be strong. I've already alluded to, if not in any detail, how there was some suspicion of outsiders in the Vienna mission. At the end of my time in Vienna I felt like I was very much not trusted, like an informer in this text being isolated and shunned by his fellow prisoners of war.

***

And thus ends another book... at least what I want to get out of it. we just have one more book to go before moving on to something else, though.

I have a lot to do today and the day is well spent, so I'm going to have to let you go again.

~ Meg

41. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 10 (Torrance, pt. 1) (Was: More Brainwashing...)

I just realized I missed church (after completing my morning stimulator session and having breakfast it was already 10 minutes into the service). So I might as well continue with my entries. After I finish these next 2 books though it'll go slower because I'll have to think more about what I need to cover for each entry.

Here's the reference for this next book:

Torrance, E. Paul. (1960). The Struggle for Men's Minds. Patterson AFB, Ohio: Orientation Group, USAF.

Incidentally, if you are ever looking for a book or other resources like that (audio, visual, newspaper, etc.) the U.S. Library of Congress catalog and Worldcat.org are good places to start, although if a publisher has granted permission to Amazon.com, having access to images of some of the pages in print materials can sometimes be helpful too. I say that because somehow I didn't have the complete reference to this book so I had to look for it; I found it on Worldcat.org. That's the librarian in me coming out; the use of APA citation style (versus other possible styles) is the adult educator background in me.

***

"Men seem to respond most negatively to influence attempts which they see as wrong and or not legitimate. They respond better to what they consider direct influence than to what they regard as indirect influence." (p. 4)

There's a lot here, so I'll have to break this down some.

1) "Men seem to respond most negatively to influence attempts which they see as wrong..."

Does this mean that the overwhelming majority of the people I worked with in Vienna did NOT see the influence attempts of veteran missionaries there as wrong? I suspect that initially they may have, which could have resulted in early internal struggles that eventually caved in to the mission's monolithic and unbending insistence on accepting their ways.

2) "... and or not legitimate."

By virtue of the fact that people at the mission had gone through the admissions process and raised support funds to get there, I doubt that the legitimacy to make demands of them was questioned. So if there was a problem regarding accepting the morality of the attempts, this perceived problem must have eventually been deemed less influential than the legitimacy of it. In other words, the mission had legitimacy and the right to make demands, but whether or not the specific demands were right or wrong was subordinate to the perceived right of the demander to make demands.

3) "They respond better to what they consider direct influence than to what they regard as indirect influence."

As to HOW the demands are made... this could also have led to some initial dissonance for the newly arrived. But the legitimacy of the demander, again, won out in the end.

So, here we have 3 possible areas that could lead to problems in the area of demand-making, namely, the demand itself, the entity making the demand, and how the demand is made. Sounds to me almost like an anatomy of basic communication.

So the next question is, where did I fall in all of this? Initially I probably reacted to the third point, the means of influence. I think I mentioned before that trying to influence me through what I might perceive as force or manipulation doesn't work very well with me. So my response was to ostensibly ignore the apparent indirect pressures/demands and just respond to the direct ones.

As time went on I think I next doubted what I understood to be the actual substance of the demands (although it can be difficult to farrot out indirect demands, though, especially initially when there were so many signals and new stimuli to sort through).

In the end I came to not even see the entity making the demand as legitimate. That is, I saw them more and more as an aberration of what true Christianity should be and as such, they had no spiritual authority over me. As an employee, however, I would do the work that I was explicitly instructed to do (and I did still take initiative within the job descriptions provided). I would not "play their game" though, in as much as I thought there was gamesmanship going on.

***

"Attempts to exercise personal influence may boomerang and appeals to groups seem to be more effective. 'Low-pressure' seems to be more effective than 'high-pressure' or 'no-pressure'. 'High pressure' is least effective, tending actually to produce negative effects and develop feelings of not being respected. Straightforward, objective presentation of information and accountability for behavior proved [in USAF experiments] to be the most effective types of influence." (p. 4)

When they really amped up the pressure about the 5th month of my tenure in Vienna, as I saw that they really meant business and were going to carry out what they said they would, I completely did an about face concerning how I saw the mission itself. I don't really know what their goal was in how they treated me, especially in so soon treating me so extraordinarily badly (that's an understatement, really), but it's hard for me to believe that they had really exhausted all other possibilities of bringing me in line.

First of all, I was not doing anything antagonistic to the mission - it's not like I was a spy or something and my credentials leading up to entering the mission were impeccable, and included close work with some of the top leaders of the field. So I find it almost impossible to believe that they saw me as such a threat that they needed to set me up and treat me so very, very horribly.

And certainly 5 months wasn't that long of a time that after that short time they had given up hope on me to the point of treating me so badly.

... And certainly they mustn't have been completely ignorant (again, we're talking theologians, pastors, military chaplains) of how people respond to 'high pressure' (or call it what you will)? And they certainly knew of corollaries of their treatment of me with Soviet treatment of believers and dissidents?

So was their intention even to induct me? Or was it once and for all to get rid of me? and the only reason I can think of that they might want to do that is because of my dad's work.

I can't tell you yet what they did, and I'm not leading you on just to keep you hanging; it's because I'm talking about a real life - mine - and it's a big personal risk at stake here. So I want you to understand some of the context first. In fact, even then I'm afraid that people might not bother with this background information and take isolated details out of context.

***

"A basic strategy of coercive influence is that of making the subject feel powerless." (p. 8)

I trust you picked up from the reference above that this is a U.S. Air Force publication. My dad was in the Air Force, but some 8 years prior to this being published. Also, it's possible that the military chaplains on our mission staff were functional in this type of military psychology.

In the mission in Vienna it was easy to be made to feel powerless, at least in a lot of cases, because of the new surroundings and language milieu, as well as entering a new job which was more of a family unit than most jobs. So when a person just arrives there they may have some expertise in theology or office skills, but don't necessarily know how to function in the particular context, which is more of an all-inclusive context that your average job entails.

However, it's understandable that the newbie feels powerless in these issues, so if the newbie is open to the influences of the mission, they could possibly experience a loving parent guiding them through the quagmire to success in their new context. If someone isn't so amenable, there could be some of the negative Pavlovian experiences, brought on ostensibly by self in the early path to success.

***

"In dealing with peoples of other countries, we generally insist that they communicate in our language instead of theirs, disregard their customs and traditions, and compel them to think in terms of our institutions and symbols. We assume that their methods, institutions, and the like are inferior to ours and that they can learn only from our methods, institutions, and the like." (p. 9)

This is something my dad and I clashed on, especially after I changed my undergraduate major to European Studies. For example, we had disagreements over which subjects should be required in school and I thought language should be required (it wasn't required any more by the time I was in school - high school or college): I thought it should be because it could be useful and also we're to ethnocentric anyway, but he adamantly didn't think it should be required. Another time he grumbled about the Swedes, regarding his business trips there, that they all knew English, but would sometimes speak Swedish amongst themselves - no one on the Boeing team knew Swedish. Now don't tell me that Boeing couldn't afford to send a couple people to take a crash Berlitz course (or other equivalent) in Swedish, because I won't believe it. Obviously this really stuck with me and I thought (and still think) this is the epitome of ethnocentrism.

But this text here actually even tops my dad's language ethnocentrism. I've been known to go into whole diatribes on this subject, so don't even get me started. However I'll say a couple things here: 1) this text makes the "ugly American" official and 2) I mostly avoided Americans while living in Siberia in the '90s, and when I didn't I almost always saw something mirroring this text.

***

I wasn't going to quote this next text here (because it's redundant from the last quote), except for the last line...

"We cast the individual from other lands in an inferior role (knowing less, having less, etc.). We try to make communication a one-way process rather than the mutual process which it must be."

This text could almost make me believe that activist referrals to the U.S. as "AmeriK.K.K.a" may have more insight than I gave them credit for.

But also, the final admission means that the authors were fully aware that real communication is a "mutual process" (two-way/bidirectional), so that means what they're proposing is something less than real communication. Well, I think it is "real" communication, but certainly not a healthy.

Also, in communication (and linguistics) theory all communication actively involves both the sender and receiver of a (verbal or otherwise) conveyed message, because even if the receiver doesn't appear to respond, for communication to happen, there is some kind of mental processing on the part of the receiver that is also active, despite initial appearances to the contrary. If the intended receiver does NOT receive the message (i.e., can not hear what is said or see the body language), then communication has not happened. If the receiver processes a message with an understanding different from what the sender intended, then it is miscommunication - which is not the same as no communication happening at all, as in the case of not sending a message or the message not being received at all.

Coming back to our text though, it would appear that the authors have a hardened conscious, recommending something shy of what they consciously recognize (good) communication: "Here, let me show you how to do this, it's bad communication, but it's what we do. We want you to learn to do bad communication and we're here to instruct you in it." I don't suppose the people in Vienna ever thought like that, did they?

***

"A third procedure for making others feel powerless is to create as much uncertainty as possible. In the hands of the enemy, this is achieved by such measures as irregular schedules, inconsistent discipline, withholding information about plans or decisions, never allowing relaxation, keeping feelings covered, and the like." (p. 10).

This was used very well in Vienna in their treatment of me, especially towards the end of my time there. I was shuffled around, didn't know who was doing what, people weren't keeping their appointments, etc. It was very hard to deal with. We're going to get into this in another file though, but this is definitely a tool that was in use with me in Vienna.

***

"In the hands of the enemy, the subject is made to see the one in power over him as invulnerable -- as knowing everything about him and having all power over him. Again, the purpose is to convince the subject that it is futile for him to resist and that nothing is to be lost by complying. The enemy may achieve this by obtaining a small bit of information about the subject's private life in some way. From this, he makes clever inferences from known information to exaggerate the amount of information possessed. The enemy magnifies the power he has over the subject and promises improved conditions as reward for following his will." (p. 14)

There were a few instances where I felt (even at the time) like this kind of thing was used against me, but also in a few cases, mostly at the beginning, in the USSR/Russia. The things that I this seemed to be the case concerned information that the individual(s) reasonably could have known something about, and these concern areas I'm not proud of, so I'm not looking forward to those discussions either when that time comes. But if I told you I was perfect would you believe it? (I'm not a poached egg either, though).

In the Vienna context, though, I kept trying to deal with them on the direct, explicit level, although what I perceived as possible or likely innuendos did have an effect on me, even if I tried to ostensibly ignore them.

***

I'll just summarize the discussion on pages 21-22 regarding "personal idiosyncracies which can be exploited," which labels people as either: the servile, the talkative, the frightened, the arrogant, the selfish, or the naive.

In reading through these brief descriptions, I don't think any of them really fit me at the time, although I might have been a little naive about work in the East Bloc. I think using this approach to get to me would have been frustrated, and I don't think I exhibited these qualities. As time went on I did have increasing fear, but I'm not sure it would have been apparent except by my direct admission of it, and there was one such case when Mom came to Vienna at the end of my time there and she has repeated throughout the years (including in the past 6 months, when this whole thing blew up with my brother up north and she started agreeing with me that everything was all my fault, so she wanted to dig up things to throw at me - at least that's how I felt and I think I'm right in that understanding).

***

Here's a no-brainer for you:

"Healthy infludence [sic] and effective communication requires respect." (p. 23)

My respect for the leadership in Vienna started eroding at least by the 5th month, if not sooner. I'm not sure if they recognized that or, if they did, at what point they might have recognized it. I never really felt like they respected me, because I didn't think that respect would have been demonstrated by their means of communication and how I was treated. I think at first I thought they respected me, but I think that also began to change (my belief as to whether they respected me or not) around the same time as my respect for them started eroding.

***

Here's a quote that is so broad that it's hard to comment on without going into a lot of detailed accounts of my time in Vienna, but I'm putting it here to acknowledge that this has been (at least at the time of publication) part of the US Air Force's psychological arsenal and thereby to connect it with the military:

"The strategy of the 'big lie' may range from simple distortions of fact to the creation of 'whole cloth' of a situation to achieve the purpose of the coercive agent. Psychologically, the purposes of this strategy are to destroy the victim's accustomed props, take away his anchors in reality, and make him more dependent upon the coercing authority. This may be accomplished by arousing feelings of doubt concerning perceptions and motivations, making the important unimportant and vice versa, enforcing trivial demands, manipulating perceived consensus of group norm and the like." (p. 25)

I would also like to point out that there are some similarities between what this text presents and ones we've already reviewed concerning brainwashing and certain religious groups and cults. As such, some of the earlier discussions apply here too.

***

This text presents one possible explanation to one aspect of my experiences in Vienna:

"In plying the strategy of ego inflation, the coercive agent plays on the victim's vanity or need for status and then contrives a situation wherein the victim 'loses face' if he does not comply. The purpose is to influence the victim to behave according to the desires of the coercive agent in order to protect his ego -- 'to be important.' In the first stage, he seeks to magnify the victim's value, his intelligence, his understanding of the coercive agent's purpose, his talents and skills, his virtue and goodness. After the victim begins enjoying this appreciation, the agent then threatens to withdraw it unless he proves his intelligence, ability, skill, or the like by complying with his wishes. In other words, the victim is given the 'VIP treatment' and made to enjoy it; then the coercive agent 'moves in for the kill.' He thus takes advantage of man's deep need to be important to someone." (p. 41)

It is possible that the people in Vienna, knowing my preparations and experience for the work there, thought that they could use this on me. Despite my coming as a secretary, suggestions of my being part of ground breaking work in the Soviet Union were verbally given more than once, and I was moved to a better office not long before the big strike came. But while I may have been positive about these offers, I don't think I was overly so, and I don't think it affected my relations with others. They may not have known that I have a history of befriending the less popular that goes way back to elementary school when I would go to the other side of the block to play with a handicapped boy for which his mother was appreciative, and that's not the only example. And my social live in Vienna included all sorts of people, not just hobnobbing with the bigwigs (my boss was second in command there), but also people like the retired woman who came for a few months to help out, taking her out for her birthday - she certainly was not an insider or someone anyone would kowtow in the organization (or any other organization in that line of work either).

Also, even when given demeaning tasks I did them the best I could and I don't think I particularly grumbled, although I certainly wasn't happy about it, and soon got to see that that was part of the manipulativeness of what was going on there.

This ideas in this text very well could have been in play in my experience but, if so, it still isn't clear whether the idea was to break me to become a solid member of the team or break me to get me out of there because of my dad's work.

***

"Legitimate power would be operating if the student believed that the counselor has a legitimate right to prescribe behavior for him." (p. 45)

I discussed this a bit at the beginning of this post, but it's worth coming back to.

This text is ambiguous out of context, but the rest of the paragraph discusses the power of an individual (i.e., the legitimacy of the wielder of power, sender of a message). It also refers to a classic text on power that I believe I have in another file for discussion here).

As I see it this text deals with what the student (in this quote) or counselee or receiver of communication thinks about the legitimacy of the person prescribing behavior as well as the actual (at least socially acceptable) legitimacy. For example, (most of American) society as a whole believes that police have a legitimate right to arrest prostitutes. However, prostitutes may think that they should have a right to their profession just like "everyone else" in other professions and so the police don't have a legitimate right to arrest prostitutes.

I'll stop there and apply it to my situation. I think that the leadership in Vienna, in their designated positions and for the good of the organization had a right to make certain kinds of behavioral demands on us, the workers. But I don't believe that that legitimacy was absolute - that it applied to all aspects of life. I'm not sure what the mission leadership, the mission board (with representatives from all the various missions) or the leadership of the individual missions thought about this. There may have been some diversity of viewpoints, but my knowledge of missions to that part of the world and my experience in Vienna in particular lead me to believe that they probably gave the leadership a lot of latitude, perhaps more than in some other contexts, because of geographical context of the work and because of risk factors of our mission specifically, which I mentioned earlier in another post. I'm not sure they were given a carte blanche to do whatever they want to make sure the mission ran smoothly, but it's possible there were no specific boundaries laid out by the board and member missions as to what they could or could not do vis a vis managing the mission, including socialization processes.

In elevating the perception/opinion/belief of the "student" in this text, the authors seem to be referring to "soft power" which that French and Raven text addresses. It sounds like the authors are saying what really counts is not hard/positional power, but soft power. In the context of coercive efforts, the perceptions of the coerced would be primary, so this makes sense. In this case, then, it seems that part of what the coercer would need to do is lay the ground work and make sure the coerced view him/her as having legitimate power to demand the requested behavior. I think in Vienna the leadership assumed that everyone there would acknowledge the legitimacy to make whatever demands the made. In this framework, Eastern European mission work, sending missions, and sending Evangelical churches are all socially constructed entities. The workers in Vienna had already accepted the legitimacy of the leadership they'd encountered thus far (their home churches and sending missions) and they simply needed to transfer that unquestioning allegiance to the leadership in Vienna.

Fortunately or unfortunately, however, I have always sort of been a thinking person, one not willing to succumb to single (human) sources of authority and I try to think critically. At Bible school, for example, I felt like one of the few women who really wanted to discuss theological issues in an attempt to understand them better. I think it was considered unfeminine to act so though, so I was sort of bucking the system. But no harm was done from it, as far as I'm aware. At least the male students were acting in their accepted roles, which I suppose was good preparation for the pastorate or some similar position. Where would this king of thing lead me, a female, though?

***

We're only half way through with this book, but I need to break now, so I'll post this and come back for the rest of it.

40. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 9 (Hyde, pt. 1) (Was: Brainwashing)

This next item for consideration is a book:

Hyde, Margaret O. (1976). Brainwashing and Other Forms of Mind Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.6

***

This text follows citations of various definitions of brainwashing:

"Not only is it impossible to define the form of mind control known as brainwashing to everyone's satisfaction, it is impossible to understand what happens to a person in the process. Most people agree that the process involves several factors, all operating more or less at the same time. Four phases seem to be involved, generally in the following order, although they may overlap: emotional assault, calculated kindness and leniency, confession, and reeducation." (p. 97-98)

I'm not sure if this is an exact fit, especially the first phase, but it's not completely off either. I think the last three phases could apply to the mission in Vienna.

***

"In order for brainwashing to work on, for example, a prisoner of war, certain conditions must be present. First, s/he must be in a position where it is necessary to make a choice between cooperating or starving, being tortured or not, or even being allowed to live or being killed." (p. 98)

Forget the prisoner of war example, and replace it with things that might have been more likely in a mission, and I think you have a fit. The choice might be to submit or risk not succeeding in your job, risk social isolation, etc.

***

"If the victim continues to resist after first attempts to produce cooperation, living conditions may be made even harsher. Or, on the other hand, if the person cooperates, rewards such as extra food may be provided." (p. 98)

Here is behavioral psychology (Pavlov) again. The carrot and stick were used in my experience, but it was often unclear regarding logical connections or what exactly may have resulted in a carrot or stick treatment. Maybe once you passed through the induction process the connections made more sense. Maybe. But in general I think this was used in Vienna.

***

"Part of the process includes asking the subject to indulge in self-criticism if cooperation is achieved." (p. 98).

This was clearly acted out in Vienna, in private mentoring-type consultations. The onus was on the newly arrived as to any conflicts or problems s/he may have encountered, rather than from the mission or other people in it. This was my experience anyway and what I gleaned from others.

***

"The use of harsh treatment alternated with friendly treatment helps to put the victim in a state of confusion." (p. 98)

Again, I think this was evident in Vienna, but in often in subtle ways or ways involving few people so others might not have known particularly what was going on regarding this kind of thing. Also, I only know of its use involving the newly arrived as part of socialization into the mission collective.

***

"Another aspect of brainwashing technique is the use of isolation. When leaders and friends are removed, certain personality changes take place even in those people who normally enjoy being alone. The absence of friends and leaders who normally supply emotional support make it more difficult to resist indoctrination. The individual becomes more vulnerable to threats and bribes." (p. 99).

I've already discussed this some in other posts, except I don't think the part here about personality change has been brought up before. I think this is very relevant to the situation in Vienna. Bribes per se weren't used, unless you include (often insinuated) promises of succeeding, etc. at the mission. However, threats (mostly insinuated ones) that if needed could be actually carried out, was used. Again, this was my experience. Others there may or may not agree with me.

****

"In actual practice, a combination of factors, including isolation and fostering attitudes of suspicion and distrust, is developed to make the conditioning process of thought control more easily accepted." (p. 100)

Suspicion and distrust was especially strong towards outsiders, and newcomers were not completely trusted either until they passed the initial socialization process. Hindering that process risked your being considered as an outsider and treated similarly. This attitude, I believe, was at least in part due to their working in Eastern Europe and the political aspects of working in that region of the world. I don't want to get too much into specific examples in these discussions of texts, but one example of this suspicious came towards the end of my tenure in Vienna, when I was working as a receptionist there. I was given strict instructions to make sure any non-staff (or family member of staff) walking through the door had to sign a check-in sheet. They wanted to keep close tabs on who came in the building, and then there were similar rules about what to do after the guest signed in.

***

In the next quite, the author responds to accusations that psychologists and psychiatrists use brainwashing.

"...[I]n the case of behavior therapy for alcoholics, the therapist is acting as problem solver and uses a personalized approach for each client. The latter must trust and respect the therapist. This is far different from the brainwashing concept, in which subtle changes in attitudes are brought about without an individual's awareness that changes are being made." (p. 103)

I think that inductees to the mission in Vienna were conscious of at least some behavioral changes being sought, but not all. I think there was a level of socialization efforts that the inductee didn't realize, although this would depend on the individual. If I may, I would like to compare that to setting teaching objectives - I have English as a Second/Foreign Language teaching background (that's another story). I may be primarily and directly teaching the past perfect, but not explain that the exercises, examples and activities chosen were also to reinforce vocabulary. This is pretty benign, of course, and I surmise that teachers do this kind of thing all the time, but in Vienna I felt like it was more insidious and dealt with mores and values that shouldn't be treated so lightly and unconsciously.

***

"After release from captivity, when a person finds himself/herself in new circumstances where the imposed values are not longer rewarded, the effects of brainwashing usually fade away." (p. 106)

I include this statement because I find it interesting and believable regarding the mission workers in Vienna. Theoretically, the need to act in ways deemed necessary because of the work and its context would not continue after leaving the mission. Does that mean that the workers there consciously succumb to the socialization process knowing that the adaptations required will just be temporary (for the duration of their time with the mission)?

To me some of the changes required would probably continue. It's like once you learn that there are times when the ends justifies the means, you may come to accept that premise and it would be easier to apply it again in some other situation. If you hadn't had that indoctrination in Vienna you might not have otherwise considered acting in a manner consistent with pragmatism, but that indoctrination opened up a new door of possibility regarding proper ways to act in the world.

Now here, in juxtaposition with prisoners of war or the like, we are dealing with people who share the same basic theology and it would be elders/respectable leaders in the faith that would be most likely involved in passing these things on. So if they think pragmatism is okay, then it may be something worth taking home to the States (or Canada or wherever).

Certainly a lot of things in the induction process in Vienna would stay in Vienna and not be brought home except as a memory. I find this to be acredible possibility, at any rate.

***

The following text is exerpted from a chapter discussing the recruitment methods of the Moonies. Referring to a meeting of ex-converts in 1976 in Washington, D.C.:

"At the meeting mentioned above, some ex-converts testified that they were taught justification in 'deceiving Satan's children' in a doctrine known as 'heavenly deception.'" (p. 115-116).

This reminds me of workers in Vienna being instructed in methods of how to thwart potential unwanted mission in the mission with things like saying you worked for a "publishing company". I discussed this in an earlier post, about how this is a half truth at best and does not describe the main work of the mission. It would be like saying the local grocery store is a marketing company. Well, yes, they do have a marketing department and that is part of the work of the store, but not really the main work of it.

At least the Moonies have a name for this practice and apparently some theology to back it up; I can't really say as much for the missions in Vienna though.

***

"Every religion and every culture makes use of some of the psychological aspects of group sanctions, guilt, shame, reward, and so on, but these are limited in most cases to allow a balance that enables individuals to retain their freedom and creativity." (p. 123)

I think that in the Vienna context it was more difficult if you were on your own turf, and the mission could almost engineer your social life through these kinds of sanctions and suggestions. Perhaps it wasn't as bad as in some cults, but it wss bad enough, in my opinion. You were more isolated than usual, had a lot to risk by not conforming, and were more dependent on the employer (the mission, I mean) then is normally the case back home. So there were more effective ways social leverage could be used and in areas that in other more familiar contexts would be available to an employer.

Before I continue on this, though, I should say that some of this could also be said of other expat work situations or missions in other places, but this one was different ostensibly because of the Eastern Europe focus and also because, as I was told, since there were so many sending missions represented among our workers anything we did could not only put our mission and believers behind the iron curtain at risk, but also put the other missions at risk. This was ostensibly the reason why they used such means socialization and group control.

***

Well, it's time for me to go to bed. I just have 2 more books in this file that I want to discuss and then we'll move on to something else for a while. I made a lot of headway today, though.

Good night!

~ Meg

37. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 6 (Lynn, pt. 1) (Was: Notes on a Shorter Article)

My temperature is 99.3. Sometimes I don't feel like I have one and am surprised to learn that I do, and other times I feel crumby but end out not having a fever, so since I've been fighting this apparent virus since December I haven't been able to predict when I have a fever or not.

Meanwhile I worked more on laundry, washed the dishes and puttered around in the garden a bit. I have one more definite cucumber on the way (you'd think I was getting ready to give birth or something).

I also think there might be a squash starting on one of my hubbard squash plants. The funny thing about that is that since I have very limited land to work with (just what's on either side of my entryway door), I've built this network of posts and strings for the cucumber and squash plants to grown on. I've been sort of afraid that I might have a squash start to grow 3 feet off the ground or something and then I'd have to figure out a way to support it so that it could grow to maturity. The thing is that hubbard squashes can be 10 to 15 lbs! The one that I think might be starting now is right on top of my window air conditioner unit! I guess there are worse places it could be. I'll have to take some pictures one of these days to show you.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...

***

These next quotes are from this article:

Lynn, R. (1966). Brainwashing techniques in leadership and child rearing. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5(4), p. 270-273.

***

"It used to be thought that brainwashing techniques for manipulating the beliefs of others were the sole prerogative of sinister interrogators behind the iron curtain. This view received something of a jolt from Sargant (1957), who argued that the essentials of the method - which lie in arousing anxiety in the victim and then offering an escape from it - are used by a variety of practitioners in the west, notably policemen, certain religious leaders, and psychoanalysts." (p. 270)

I remember those good ol' naive days, for me they were ante-Vienna, for psychologists it was ante-Sargant. At least the psychologists presumably didn't have to experience it first hand (but they may have been the ones using it, presumably for benevolent ends).

This experience of arousal of anxiety with the concomitant offer of relief sounds a lot like the socialization process in Vienna. The newcomer ends out having problems at work which make her feel inadequate and somehow at fault, although (in my experience) they are verbally assured their worries are unfounded, all while the problems continue. Finally, the person begins to discuss with her boss her feelings of inadequacy and that eventually leads to wise and loving council that helps the newcomer rise up from what Lynn calls "anxiety in the victim" and begin to grow spiritually while becoming all the while more useful to the mission.

In this scenario, according to my experience, the inadequacy/anxiety is artificial and engineered so that that the person can be properly socialized into the group.

***

In talking about Pavlovian classical behavior therapy, Lynn has this to say:

"[Classical behaviour theory] is simply that learning and and performance are greatly facilitated if there is both a drive and a reinforcement. The brainwasher provides both in his dual role: as a threatener he induces the drive (anxiety); as protector and friend he provides the reinforcement (anxiety-reduction)." (p. 271)

I remember first learning about Pavlov and his dogs in junior high and the teacher mentioning that you could actually use it to get something you want from your parents. I don't think I ever consciously used it, but that stuck with me. I wonder if the leadership in Vienna, even some of them, think consciously along these lines? They are an unusually educated bunch (the secretaries were the least educated; I think everyone else had at least a master's degree).

As my time in Vienna wore on I got fewer and fewer of the anxiety-reduction treatment.

***

"At an empirical level a case has been made out for the universality of the brainwashing law: a superior moulds the behaviour of an inferior most effectively by adopting the dual role of threatener and protector, that is to say by using the alternating signals technique of the brainwasher." (p. 272)

I wish I knew what some of the leadership were thinking in the process of how I was treated there. I think that they did use these methods though. They were also versed in techniques of East Bloc police, border patrols, etc. and knew how to effectively deal with them and try to avoid trouble while in East Bloc countries. So maybe this was part of training newbies experientially in this kind of thing. Or that could be part of it anyway.

I don't know that I'm a representative case, but from what I know of what was going on in Vienna, I think they did use both the threatener and protector roles, but the threatener role was used very benignly as long as you were reasonably moving along in the socialization process. If not it would get harsher and more and more predominant vis a vis the protector role.

Since I don't think I ever left the initial socialization stage in Vienna, I don't know so much about relations after that process is basically finished. I do know, however, that they could come together as a unified body in censoring an individual if need be. That would be me (the censored individual) I'm referring to specifically.

***

It really helped me and does still to find literature that could help explain what I was experiencing. It helped me try to find some concrete facts to validate my experience and sort out my thoughts about it. Apart from that the emotional could just take over, so these kinds of theoretical pinnings gave me something to hang my hat from, so to speak. It's hard to describe what a relief that is now and was when I was initially doing this research.

Enjoy the rest of your day...

~ Meg

35. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 4 (Coleman, pt. 1) (Was: Responses to Articles, Cont'd.)

When I've been at the computer today it's just been to write in this blog... at some point I need to check my e-mail too. But for now...

on with the show!

***

This next quote is from an opinion piece in a professional journal:

Coleman, Lee. (1984) New religions and the myth of mind control. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(2), p. 322-325.

"People who conform to behavioral expectations of a group have made a choice to do so. Even when imprisoned (as, for example, during a 'deprogramming') an individual who conforms is demonstrating behavior control, not mind control. Behavior control is not difficult to achieve with a person who is confined and subjected to sufficient pressure to overcome any resistance. When an individual in such circumstances chooses to conform, it is not a free choice; it is coerced, it is unethical, and it may be illegal. But an individual who has been intimidated has not thereby lost his mind." (p. 323)

In this section Coleman differentiates between mind control and behavior control. Although I'm not a professional in the field of psychology, this does seem like a reasonable distinction. However, I would like to add that from my standpoint, as the recipient of this kind of thing, it sure felt like mind control. When I get into the details of what happened in Vienna I have an especially poignant example of this.

I'm not sure exactly what Coleman would include as "behavior" in "behavior control", my understanding is that that that's a pretty broad word in that field. In Vienna attitudes were definitely part of the whole induction process, and I think it's pretty difficult to mask attitudes, unless one is an especially gifted actor, perhaps. But if attitudes are included in the term "behavior" here, then is there a differentiation between apparent attitudes and what's actually going on in the person's head? If the group is able to effectively change apparent attitudes, but not what's actually going on it the person's head, then perhaps that really is "behavioral control". BUT, if it's virtually impossible to differentiate the two or the organization succeeds in molding the actual attitudes, is that "mind control"? Or is that part of the non-free choices made by the individual.

Then, if the individual knows that these are non-free, coerced behavior modifications, does that create a dissonance in the individual's head that might result in his "losing his mind"? I imagine it might be easier for the person who doesn't appreciate what's going on, as they might not have that kind of dissonance and therefore be none the wiser for it, perhaps along the lines of Algernon in the book "Flowers for Algernon" when he understood how people were responding to him when his intelligence temporarily increased then decreased again.

I think if Coleman's position is taken seriously, I can't imagine how mind control is possible, outside of some science fiction notion of it. In the very first sentence of this position paper, Coleman seems to equate brainwasing and mind control ("The controversy about 'cults' centers around the accusation that they use brainwashing or mind control to win converts." p. 322). I'm not sure I agree with him that brainwashing and mind control are the same thing.

Of course I say this as a layperson, not a professional in the field, but my impression of mind control, as Mr. Coleman suggests gives the idea of sort of robotic control or the image of a mad hypnotist sending people off in trances to do dastardly deeds. In contrast, I think of brainwashing as a process that confuses a person and induces new ideas that s/he might not otherwise freely adhere to. In such cases, they might be sent off to do dastardly deeds, but not in a trance, but as part of this process where they made decisions/accepted tenets more or less under duress. I don't think of brainwashing, however as a mundane thing, but one that is pretty well engineered and intentional in somewhat extraordinary, by societal standards, circumstances, such as isolation.

Well, this is all pretty cerebral, but in short, I think that brainwashing is not mind control but does involve behavior control, although I'm not sure exactly about the bounds of "behavior", and that it is unethical. So I partially agree with Coleman.

***

This next article, a book chapter, is only partially relevant to my experiences in Vienna, because that organization wasn't a cult in the standard sense of the word; they just had some cult-like characteristics.

Galanter, M. (1989). Cults: Faith, Healing & Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 6: The Cult as a Social System, pp. 98-116.

"Since an intensive mobilization of a charismatic group's psychological and material resources may be directed at the conversion of new members, they can create deep turmoil in the individual convert. On the one hand, the group is intensely seductive in its attempt to attract new members; on the other,l it demands a disruption of antecedent social ties and a metamorphosis in the convert's world view. Thus, when the full resources of the group are focused on a recruit, the potential for tearing the fabric of that individual's psychological stability is considerable. The result may be psychiatric symptoms in people with no history of mental disorder or psychological instability. The genesis of these symptoms may lie more in the conflict between the convert's needs and the group's demands than in an underlying psychological impairment of the convert... Among the illnesses to be considered from [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association] are dissociative disorders, pathologic adjustment reactions, major depressive disorders, brief reactive psychoses, and paranoid disorders of a psychotic nature. Each can be generated by the charismatic group as its forces are mobilized to implement the transformative function." (p, 99-100)

It's clear that the recruitment part of this quote isn't directly applicable to the mission, but I think that if we substitute it for the socialization of new members, then we'll find a fair amount of relevant information in this text. I think that the socialization practices at the mission in Vienna caused some of these reactions in new inductees (myself included) and it would have been very interesting to have a neutral psychologist study that issue there. Of course, the vast majority of people there had been there quite some time before I arrives and so had presumably long since completed this initiation process.

***

"Suppression of concerns that might detract from the primary task of an intensely committed social system is actually quite common. In time of battle, for example, an army may be mobilitzed to achieve its immediate military objectives, and its primary task is therefore the transformation of all personnel and material into a fighting force. The psychology of the troops is bent to this mission to the exclusion of all else since victory in battle is paramount. Concern for the needs of the wounded may be secondary, since this could detract from the thrust into battle. In a similar way, mobilization for the transformation process in the charismatic sect cannot be deflected by the difficulties experienced by individual converts because the usual constraints on exerting social pressure are suppressed." (p. 103).

I think this is a reasonably good fit for my experiences in Vienna. This is along the lines of what I said in an earlier post about how leaders, even though they may be charismatic, are expendable - the work would continue without the participation of any specific individual in it. So the choice for the newly arrived was to succumb to their way of thinking and doing things, or just become a casualty.

The other thing here that I'd like to point out is right at the end of this quote about usual constraints on social pressure being suppressed. Since the mission was so far away from the potential scrutinizing eyes of supporters back home, and they could easily pull the wool over visitor's eyes about the day-in-day-out operations, so there were few constraints on what they could do regarding the exertion of social pressure on members.

***

"For a social system to regulate its functioning effectively, it must have the capacity to suppress members' deviation from its implicit or explicit goals. In charismatic groups, the penalty for those who deviate from norms is psychological distress; overt coercion usually is not necessary to induce compliance. How is this penalty exacted? We have seen that there is a decrease in psychological well-being among those who felt less closely associated with the group. Furthermore, members who were considering leaving the sect had attitudes most clearly at variance with those of the group, and their scores fell into the clinically depressed range. Indeed, 36% of those who dropped out of the Unification Church reported the emergence of "serious emotional problems" in the period following their departure." (p. 107)

I think this is a good depiction of some of the activities I witnessed and experienced in Vienna. Those most in tune with the group were happier, and enjoyed the privilege of more meaningful work, increased access to privileged knowledge and the good favor of the leadership in general. Unfortunately, I wasn't one of those people.

***

I finished my evening stimulator session and it's time for me to do more chores.

Have a pleasant evening.

~ Meg

34. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 3 (Alper, pt. 3) (Was: Alper, 3rd Installment)

I'm really frustrated right now because none of the doctors offices returned my calls and I can't do anything about the insurance until Monday. I feel like everything is so hard, like pulling teeth. It seems like the exception to the rule when something goes smoothly, and just when you think everything is going smoothly the rug is pulled out from under you. There's nothing I can do now, though, until Monday.

Yesterday I cut up a pineapple I'd bought something like a week prior and froze it on trays and then put them in containers for use in smoothies. I got to thinking that it's a shame to just throw out the hard centers, so I dehydrated them and then ground them up into powder. They weren't quite dehydrated enough the first time, so I ground them up a bit, put the semi-ground pieces on a coffee filter in the dehydrator and dehydrated them further before grinding them again. It worked and I think they'll add nice flavoring to hot cereal, smoothies or baked goods, for example. I got the idea because the other day when I went to BJs I also stopped by an Asian store there and found a packet of coconut powder. The instructions are for mixing it with water to make coconut milk. So that's what gave me the idea for the pineapples. I don't see why it wouldn't work with other things too, but these pineapple centers would have been thrown out otherwise, and not used at all.

So I'm going to work on this a bit more before taking a break to do some housecleaning before dinner. (Yikes! It's already 5:40?! That's how my day goes... nothing's on schedule it seems.)

I had 100 degree temperature a while ago. Next week I see the infectious disease doctor, so I hope she can figure out what's going on.

***

"There is a sense upon returning to the real world, that what has really happened is that one has been swindled... But there is much more than disenchantment, self-flagellation, and recrimination. There is identity diffusion and identity crisis." (pp. 129-130)

I think this pretty succinctly describes, in about as few words is seems justifiably possible, what I felt like after leaving Vienna in 1989. You'll see some of this when I share some of my journal entries from the year after my return home.

***

"...[T]here is no real framework in America within which to acknowledge the battered survivors of cult indoctrination, as there for other kinds of victims..." (p. 132)

At least with real cults there are groups that acknowledge that such indoctrination exists, but for my experience I don't think there are any such support groups, networks or public acknowledgment of the kind of thing I experienced with a mission group. I really turned inward, and although I've since become stronger, I've had enough years with difficult situations that I don't think I'll ever be as free and easy going as I was before Vienna. I think I'm pretty hard to get to know because of all the many layers of unusual experiences I've had that people can't relate to. It's had an effect on me for sure.

***

This book addresses some other examples of "behavioral puppetry" that don't seem very relevant, but book ends with this statement, to which I'd like to respond:

"However appealing, compelling, or magnetic the idea of control may superficially appear to be, it seems to me that it is always worth resisting." (p. 225)

Amen! Preach it, brother!! I'm with you all the way on this one. I think Jesus would be too. I mean, if you really think about it, He was firm in His preaching, but He did NOT force anyone to believe. He did NOT play any power or manipulation games to gain converts. You won't find any social engineering coming from Him. I find that, among other things, very appealing.

***

Here's a short and sweet text from...

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., v. 4. (1994). Encyclopedia Britannica: Chicago, p. 467.

Brainwashing, also called coercive persuasion, systematic effort to persuade nonbelievers to accept a certain allegiance, command, or doctrine. A colloquial term, it is more generally applied to any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action against the desire, will, or knowledge of the individual. By controlling the physical and social environment, an attempt is made to destroy loyalties to any unfavourable groups or individuals, to demonstrate to the individual that his attitudes and patterns of thinking are incorrect and must be changed, and to develop loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the ruling party.

The term is most appropriately used in reference to a program of political or religious indoctrination or ideological remolding. The techniques of brainwashing typically involve isolation from former associates and sources of information; an exacting regimen requiring absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for noncooperation ranging from social ostracism and criticism, deprivation of food, sleep and social contacts, to bondage and torture; and continual reinforcement..."

I think it's obvious that we didn't have deprivation of food and sleep, but when I go into more detail about what happened in Vienna, you'll see that I clearly was ostracized and deprived of social contact, especially towards the end of my time there.

We were cut off from former associates by being geographically distanced and also by the mission's censoring of our prayer letters (that's - censoring - what it amounted to in my opinion). So basically it would be our single little voice versus that of the monolith mission as to who's perspective on things would be heard and believed back home. There were also other extraordinary things that I experienced that I won't go into here just yet.

~ Meg

33. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 2 (Alper, pt. 2) (Was: Alper Citations, Cont'd.)

I'm back! I got a few things done, but I'm stuck at home now because a repairman is coming. I'm also waiting to hear back from a couple doctor's offices. I need to take care of some urgent business (in person), but it will have to wait until Monday now. I do have things to do at home, but it's almost time for lunch anyway. That's how my mornings go:

1) get up, take my first meds/supplements and sit down to coffee and water while I do my 45-minute stimulator session. (That's what I was doing for most of the earlier posting today).

2) get breakfast (which I can't have till some time after I've taken my first round of meds/supplements) and take my regular breakfast meds/supplements.

3) after that I do the regular things people do to get ready for the day like wash up and make the bed and the like.

By the time I've finished these things 2+ hours has lapsed and I'm well into the day, especially if I didn't get to bed until late, which is quite often, and consequently get up after 9:00. This is why I try not to make morning appointments, but if I have to I can manage it.

My one little incipient cucumber is definitely looking more like a baby cucumber today, but the other rosemary plant, the one I hadn't transplanted outside yet, keeled over and I think it gave up the ghost. My impression is that they both were straining so much to get the sunlight coming through the window (although I did try to position them favorably by the window) that they were practically growing horizontal and eventually they just completely fell over.

Now back to what I was writing about earlier...

***

The title of this chapter is titled "Charisma" and is about cult leadership. The mission I was with doesn't exactly fit the type of cult organization described in this book in that it wasn't charismatic leader(s) that started it. Rather, once they were chosen for the positions in the organization charisma was one of the tools used to create unity, bonding and a sense of obligation to the organization. I think cult organizations can develop leaders like this, but we're not talking here (vis a vis the mission in Vienna) along the lines of founding leaders like Sun Myung Moon or the like. The organization in Vienna was found rather intentionally by the joint effort of 5 initial organizations, to which others later were added. I don't know if the charisma part was decided on intentionally, if that's the way things are done in other missions (especially to "closed" countries) and so it was an easy carry over, or if it just developed because of the personalities of those put in leadership positions, or a combination of these things. But however this charisma of leadership things developed, it was there and soundly in place by the time I got to Vienna.

"In its ability to make one feel good, charisma (in the mind of the believer) can seem a high, and part of the addiction of members to a cult is an addiction to the charisma of the cult. It is easy, then, for the initiate to feel that should he leave, he will be unable autonomously to supply the highs to which he has become habituated. Yet sooner or later, the initiate will leave, (almost all do), and when he does, a pattern of behavior may ensue that will be difficult to distinguish from the withdrawal symptoms of a recovering substance addict: disorientation, paranoia, depression, demoralization, and acute identity crisis." (p. 114)

I don't know what the more recent research about this kind of things is, and it probably would be a good idea to find out if I were to pursue this line of my autobiography further, but here I'm just going to respond to what Alper says.

I really can relate to this statement. It was very difficult for me to disentangle myself from the group emotionally and my journal the year afterward conveys a lot of this - I'll share portions of my journal with you later on at some point. It was a kind of a high too, and there was always a carrot hung out regarding rewards to be had by becoming an insider and wholehearted member. On the other hand, the stick of not completely abandoning oneself to the will of the group and the charismatic leadership was to have these elusive and purported rewards withheld, which emotionally was a terrible thing. Part of the socialization, and I am the most familiar with the socialization of secretaries on the staff, is the complete devotion to one's boss, who was especially to be trusted. And since information in the organization was departmentalized for security purposes, it was by far most important to have this devotion to one's boss, which was quite a complex relationship. Only department heads had secretaries, although some departments had secretaries that also served other members, so the power and charisma of the department head was shared with the secretary also. At group meetings the charisma of the leaders, as well as stories that bonded us together, were highlighted and no one, that I knew of, questioned the leaders. They were sort of above that, and in any case, they were thought of as benevolent and also had information to which others weren't privy, so I don't think there was thought to be any reason one wouldn't acquiesce before them, and recognize their charisma and leadership. On the other hand, I'm not aware that there was anyone who was considered unexpendable. So even though the leadership had this unquestioning following, if something ever happened to any one of them someone else would be able to fill their shoes and the same acceptance would presumably be expected towards the new leader(s).

Being part of the group you had an instant mega family that was loving and caring and took care of each other. And at some point I began to see that they also had a hold on people because of the knowledge thing, and that there was some commonality between their use of knowledge and the gnostic religions and organizations, like the Mormons and Masons, where the members are awarded with more and more secret knowledge the deeper one goes into the group. I believe this theme will come up again in some literature on how certain organizations and businesses operate.

Certainly, however, can understand how some of the withdrawal symptoms mentioned by Alper could apply to the Vienna situation. The thing is, though, that if you leave there in their good graces and on good terms you might not really have to go through this so much because you'll keep in touch with the members and may even help out with things like fund-raising and public relations with the churches back home. I think it was somewhat different for me in lieu of the fact that I had put some 7 years into preparations to work in that field, whereas, for examples, the other secretaries hadn't really put in any such preparation, except they had secretarial experience and their Christian faith, of course. Certainly, I was given a harder time than any of the other secretaries. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone else who really got the level of treatment I did, although there were 2 others with a little similarity.

***

The next chapter in this book deals with the seductive personality of cult leaders. I don't know that in the context of the mission in Vienna any of the leadership innately had this quality, but I think it was developed in the organization. I'm not sure how the relationships were handled in other positions in the organization, so mainly I'm just going to describe what seemed to be a modus operandi with the secretaries and their bosses.

"The seductive person does not seem interested in relating for the sake of relating, in wanting to be with the other person in order to experience intimacy; rather, he is intent on gaining something private, narcissistic, and decidedly nonmutual. Seductiveness... implies that if what is desired were openly asked for, it would not be given. It follows that trickery and misdirection are tools of the trade... Getting what he wants is synonymous with corrupting the other person." (p. 117)

In this case, I think the bosses wanted to know they could completely trust their secretaries and that's what they wanted. It could be a carrot, and if that all that was required for the initiate, the new secretary, to become completely trusting and transparent with her boss, then it may have ended there. But if that wasn't enough, as in my case, a stick was also used. These things weren't as explicit as I'm making them seem though.

The corruption part, I think, included getting the initiate to wholeheartedly internalized the logic of why they used the tactics they did and how it was really spiritually justified, etc. I'm talking here about the half-truths, ends-justifies-the-means and other such ethical issues.

***

There is a lot in this chapter that doesn't fit my experience of the mission in Vienna. Here is one sentence that I find helpful, although the surrounding text doesn't fit:

"... [S]eductive behavior is opposed to mutuality, and can be more suitably described as a contest, a game, or a zero-sum power struggle, in which there essentially can be only one winner and one loser." (p. 118)

This was definitely a one-way win-lose relationship. The organization was very hierarchical. I suppose that anyone who easily went along with it would disagree that they "lost" by conceding.

***

"[T]he seductive person tends to view relating as an operational, externalized, step-by-step stragety, and relationships are accordingly judged on the merits of the particular strategy: i.e., a relationship that is failing - a person who is not being successfully seduced = a miscalculation or the application of the wrong strategy." (p. 118)

This is one possible understanding of some of what happened to me in Vienna, but I'm not sure what the leadership (and in a trickle-down way the others also) were thinking at various stages of my time there. I certainly do think that there was an element of deliberateness, though, and also that they misjudged me, although I can't be completely sure at what points they misjudged me, because I'm not sure what they intended for me. There were a lot of ambiguities and seemingly contradictory signals for me.

***

"So potent and persuasive is the seductive power of cults and cult leaders that on occasion it has been likened to brainwashing. Yet the association with the terror and force used to brainwash POWs is tenuous at best. Most cults do not come close to equaling the absolute physical control of their members that can be achieved in prisons and concentration camps. Accordingly, the indoctrination tactics are vastly more psychological, In a cult, the main threat seems to be, in one form or another, expulsion." (p. 126)

Although I did look at some brainwashing literature, and may delve into this later, I agree with this statement. And I need to reiterate here that the mission I was with was not a cult, it was pretty sort of an arm or one expression of mainstream Western evangelical Christianity, and the workers entered it quite willingly, if perhaps not completely knowingly. But then it's not unusual to start work with a new organization and find out it's not what you expected. But I do think that the isolation (away from the home churches) and nature of the ministry somehow led to some cult-like characteristics in the organization. I'm not aware of anyone else besides me who left the mission with such bad relations with them. I'm not saying there never was anyone else, but that I'm not aware of anyone else, and I'm sure I was the only one the 2 years I was there. I did work out my full 2 years (the initial commitment), but it may have been foolish to stay on that long given the circumstances and what was going on. I had a lot at stake though, considering everything I put into preparing for that ministry. I don't know if expulsion or isolation were used as sticks with others or not, but if so, it would have had to have worked to bring him/her in line, at least if it was used with anyone I knew there.

***

"In the cult, the psychological equivalent of 'brainwashing' seems to occur in a fairly orderly sequence of steps. First, there is the concentrated seduction and indoctrination of the potentially new member. Almost simultaneously, there is a universal devaluation of everything in the world outside the cult: society, friends, parents, teachers, culture, religion. Concomitantly, there is a continuous attempt to supply substitute gratifications for what one has been asked to reject in the normal world: new philosophical teachings, pleasure, socializing, sexual partners, creative outlets, a system of reward and recognition -- all are offered, and are supposed not to come only from the inner world of the cult. When this has taken hold in the mind of the disciple, he is hooked, and the ultimate threat, expulsion, will be as devastating to him as enforced physical withdrawal is to the drug addict." (p. 127)

Again, this doesn't exactly apply to my situation in Vienna, but I think there are some helpful aspects of these insights nonetheless. This basically, as I understand it, is the socialization into the mission fold. For those who had no other interests and were like a blank slate in this new country where they knew nothing and nobody, this was an easy and mostly painless process. However, while my secretarial background was limited, I was overqualified otherwise and set about using my free time in ways that, while perhaps harmless, interfered with the mission's attempts to properly socialize me into their fold.

I might have neglected to point this out earlier, but I don't take well to being forced into a mold. (E.g., how as early as in junior high I enjoyed flitting between social groups.) There were several things that seemed illogical to me at the beginning, and a few of them included things like 1) If I completed my job and was free in the evenings or weekends, couldn't I just do as I like, especially if it wasn't contrary to the explicit interests of the mission? 2) If not, did they want to control me 24/7? 3) Did I have to limit my social life and relations to only people in the organization? If so, why?

Now I'm being fairly explicit here, but this was actually played out in the realm of the (mostly) unspoken. I had no idea I was entering such a totalitarian organization, and if I had I might not have gone.

But if I'm right and there were cult-like elements, then I was definitely acting/thinking outside the realm of the {mostly implied or unspoken) acceptable.

***

"An important part of this process, which greatly reinforces it, is the rites of passage. At some point the disciple will be asked to provide proof of commitment by performing a difficult service... On one level, such a rite of passage is meant to represent, in the mind of the disciple, a kind of burning of bridges. On another level, in the mind of the leader of the cult, it is perhaps a test of unconditional love: Will you never abandon me no matter what I demand of you?" (p. 128)

In the context of the mission in Vienna, I think the "rite of passage" is being given the assignment to turn around and be involved in the initiation of a newer arrival to the group. To be able to do that, one has to have internalized the norms and values of the organization to be able to guide someone else in it. There may have been other rites, but that's the one I'm aware of, and I do think it's a pretty strong one. Once you've begun passing these things on to someone else then you have a stake in it too and it would be hard to turn back at that point. Supposedly, if you pass that (and subsequent test then your boss will entrust more and more of the insider knowledge and responsibility to you.

***

I'm not done with this book yet, but I have to go again. The repairman came, but by the time he left it was 2:15 and the person I need to see about this other problem is most reliably caught before 3:00, and I thought by the time I got there it would be hit or miss if I was successful, especially on a Friday. So I have to take care of that Monday as a top priority; it's regarding my health insurance.

I'll continue this later. Bye for now...

~ Meg