I wasn't very happy when I wandered into the gift shop. I was eighteen years old, nearing the end of my school years, and suffering from the kind of identity crisis that introspective teenagers can get themselves into. I didn't like who I was but felt stuck with it; I was having trouble making decisions about my future; I was in various degrees of crisis with the people around me. Not thinking very highly of myself I had limited faith in my ability to fix any of my problems, but I knew things couldn't go on like this. Something had to change.
When I picked up the pink leaflet advertising a meditation class, I was reaching for something. I'd tried a bit of meditation from a book and it had given me some kind of peace for a few moments; being an identity-panicked teenager, the fact that alternative lifestyles were in fashion among my peers but that nobody had tried meditation was not an insignificant factor. But it wasn't the casual interest of an experience seeker or a confident woman; it was the desperate grab of a girl who needed something and couldn't think of anything else. Before I ever attended a class, I was committed.
What I didn't know at the time was that the leaflets weren't left there by some visiting advertiser. The shop and the classes were run by the same organisation - the same organisation that ran cafes, a publisher, and numerous other 'right livelhood' business with a turnover of several million pounds a year. I'd walked into a small branch of something bigger, wealthier and more powerful that I could have guessed from that cheap little flier. Since then the organisation has changed its name, and perhaps its practises as well, but in 1995 it was calling itself the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, the FWBO for short. A nicely reassuring, mainstream-sounding name. It was two years before the Guardian article came out that talked of misogyny, sexual abuse and suicide.
At the time it surfaced, I was a regular attendee. Did it make me leave the movement? It did not.
That was just one centre that went a bit wrong, I was told. The woman who told me was a nice person: she'd been kind to me, and indeed was kind to everyone, and she spoke as one who knew and trusted that things weren't like that here. The story didn't seem to match my experience; nobody had sexually abused me. And besides, she was a 'member' of the Western Buddhist Order, an insider with a Buddhist name, while I was just a 'friend', a drop-in - and the Order was pretty clear that just visiting the classes (and paying £3.50 for each), going on retreats (and paying a few hundred pounds for a week, less if it was a 'working' retreat where you repainted the shrine room or dug rocks from the ground to smooth it over for a lawn) and meditating daily (or almost daily, and feeling guilty about the missed days) didn't make you a member. She was, I wasn't. So I assumed she knew what she was talking about. It didn't stop me coming.
Neither did the other discussions I heard rumbling around over the dinner table on retreats. There was talk of how the founders saw men as spiritually superior to women - and since the retreats were single-sex, that meant us, all the women round the table. One woman - a 'mitra', a sort of half-member - said that her revelation was this: enlightenment was so worth having that even putting up with subordination was worthwhile. I wasn't sure I bought this, because it didn't seem to address the point: my discomfort was not with subordinate status (after all, it was a hierarchical place anyway), it was that I simply didn't believe that women were less than men and felt that saying they were was a grave moral failing, one that called a person's spiritual judgement into question.
But I let it go. I'd never met the founder, and in an organisation this size I probably never would. For me, it was about the people at my local centre and the people I met on retreat. These were nice people, kind, thoughtful, dedicated and not at all exploitative, and none of the men treated the women disrespectfully that I could see. It raised some doubts about the founder, but it wasn't about him, or not for me. I stayed.
When I left, it wasn't an abrupt break. It was a gradual drift, largely triggered by reasons that lay me open to charges of being a spiritual shopper, a casual consumer - but which were actually nagging doubts, little breaths of discomfort that, now I had a new life and felt better about myself, I didn't have to suppress to stay on the life raft. I went to university and the Cambridge centre was a long, dark walk away from my room, and I didn't much like the people there. One man - an Order member - asked me how many breaths I could count in a meditation before I lost track, as if we were talking about how much I could bench press. And this was an Order member? This centre didn't seem worth the walk; I liked my new friends better than him. I started writing on arts retreats run by the organisation, and found that this was my real passion - and the fact that the founder's poetry was much studied and admired by followers despite being pretty poor stuff was something I saw much more of than I saw misogyny or sexual abuse. I wanted things that the Order spoke rather sneeringly of: a family, heterosexual relationships, some experience of the world before I gave it up.
Little things. Or big ones, perhaps, glimpsed through little moments. Doubtful values. Claims to be the exclusive source of fulfillment that didn't tally with reality. Pressure to conform with rigid lifestyle mandates.
Writing this article, I wanted to type the words 'They didn't hurt me.' And I think the experience did me more good than harm. I grew in confidence. I deepened my sense of beauty, vitality, being present in the world. I learned I could write. I started to find a self. These are not small things. This place that had hurt other people was, for me, the soil in which a seed of joy started to grow. I'm a happy person, and it was in that cult that I started to become so.
But there were other moments. Crying fits I couldn't explain. Guilt at being unable to sustain perfect 'mindfulness' every waking second. A sense of shallowness because I was who I was: a girl who didn't want a monastic life. Even now, when I hear the word 'Buddhism', I don't feel a sense of peace: I feel constriction, uncertainty. Fear.
And then there's the fact that I gave money to an organisation that, by all accounts, did other people some very serious damage.
Like the Westerner I am, I exercised consumer choice. I took the good and left the bad, as far as I could, on the shelf; I walked away when I found more attractive options. Eventually.
But I know what it is to feel the pressure to choose between believing someone you trust - or want to - and having your emotional lifebelt rupture. I know how easy it is to miss the glaringly obvious when you're looking at it from below. I know what it is about cults, bad religions: the followers are much better people than the leaders. The followers I knew were idealists, aspirers, people seeking a life of morality and integrity and insight. They were lovely people ... and they were the ones I actually spent time around. Their loveliness stood between me and the dark shadow of the movement, and for a long time I couldn't see over it.
I was young and naive, but I was also mobile: university changed my circumstances completely, in a way that often isn't available to people in doubtful movements. I was passionate about the movement, but peripheral to it: no authority figure particularly wanted me for anything, so the pressure on me came solely from the environment and not from direct personal relationships. I was lucky: I wasn't important to them.
I'm in no position to judge anyone for staying in a dark faith.
From the outside, it's obvious: the leader is a bad person saying bad things. Who but a bad person would follow such a teacher? But from the inside...
People talk of the six blind men trying to learn what an elephant is: it's a rope, it's a trunk, it's a wall. It's an image often used for different understandings of the divine. But it's an image for understanding cults, too. It wasn't a cult to me. It was a rope. I held on, and it pulled me to a new place. And then I let go, and landed safely.
I think sometimes of the people I knew back then. I hope they're all right.
When I picked up the pink leaflet advertising a meditation class, I was reaching for something. I'd tried a bit of meditation from a book and it had given me some kind of peace for a few moments; being an identity-panicked teenager, the fact that alternative lifestyles were in fashion among my peers but that nobody had tried meditation was not an insignificant factor. But it wasn't the casual interest of an experience seeker or a confident woman; it was the desperate grab of a girl who needed something and couldn't think of anything else. Before I ever attended a class, I was committed.
What I didn't know at the time was that the leaflets weren't left there by some visiting advertiser. The shop and the classes were run by the same organisation - the same organisation that ran cafes, a publisher, and numerous other 'right livelhood' business with a turnover of several million pounds a year. I'd walked into a small branch of something bigger, wealthier and more powerful that I could have guessed from that cheap little flier. Since then the organisation has changed its name, and perhaps its practises as well, but in 1995 it was calling itself the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, the FWBO for short. A nicely reassuring, mainstream-sounding name. It was two years before the Guardian article came out that talked of misogyny, sexual abuse and suicide.
At the time it surfaced, I was a regular attendee. Did it make me leave the movement? It did not.
That was just one centre that went a bit wrong, I was told. The woman who told me was a nice person: she'd been kind to me, and indeed was kind to everyone, and she spoke as one who knew and trusted that things weren't like that here. The story didn't seem to match my experience; nobody had sexually abused me. And besides, she was a 'member' of the Western Buddhist Order, an insider with a Buddhist name, while I was just a 'friend', a drop-in - and the Order was pretty clear that just visiting the classes (and paying £3.50 for each), going on retreats (and paying a few hundred pounds for a week, less if it was a 'working' retreat where you repainted the shrine room or dug rocks from the ground to smooth it over for a lawn) and meditating daily (or almost daily, and feeling guilty about the missed days) didn't make you a member. She was, I wasn't. So I assumed she knew what she was talking about. It didn't stop me coming.
Neither did the other discussions I heard rumbling around over the dinner table on retreats. There was talk of how the founders saw men as spiritually superior to women - and since the retreats were single-sex, that meant us, all the women round the table. One woman - a 'mitra', a sort of half-member - said that her revelation was this: enlightenment was so worth having that even putting up with subordination was worthwhile. I wasn't sure I bought this, because it didn't seem to address the point: my discomfort was not with subordinate status (after all, it was a hierarchical place anyway), it was that I simply didn't believe that women were less than men and felt that saying they were was a grave moral failing, one that called a person's spiritual judgement into question.
But I let it go. I'd never met the founder, and in an organisation this size I probably never would. For me, it was about the people at my local centre and the people I met on retreat. These were nice people, kind, thoughtful, dedicated and not at all exploitative, and none of the men treated the women disrespectfully that I could see. It raised some doubts about the founder, but it wasn't about him, or not for me. I stayed.
When I left, it wasn't an abrupt break. It was a gradual drift, largely triggered by reasons that lay me open to charges of being a spiritual shopper, a casual consumer - but which were actually nagging doubts, little breaths of discomfort that, now I had a new life and felt better about myself, I didn't have to suppress to stay on the life raft. I went to university and the Cambridge centre was a long, dark walk away from my room, and I didn't much like the people there. One man - an Order member - asked me how many breaths I could count in a meditation before I lost track, as if we were talking about how much I could bench press. And this was an Order member? This centre didn't seem worth the walk; I liked my new friends better than him. I started writing on arts retreats run by the organisation, and found that this was my real passion - and the fact that the founder's poetry was much studied and admired by followers despite being pretty poor stuff was something I saw much more of than I saw misogyny or sexual abuse. I wanted things that the Order spoke rather sneeringly of: a family, heterosexual relationships, some experience of the world before I gave it up.
Little things. Or big ones, perhaps, glimpsed through little moments. Doubtful values. Claims to be the exclusive source of fulfillment that didn't tally with reality. Pressure to conform with rigid lifestyle mandates.
Writing this article, I wanted to type the words 'They didn't hurt me.' And I think the experience did me more good than harm. I grew in confidence. I deepened my sense of beauty, vitality, being present in the world. I learned I could write. I started to find a self. These are not small things. This place that had hurt other people was, for me, the soil in which a seed of joy started to grow. I'm a happy person, and it was in that cult that I started to become so.
But there were other moments. Crying fits I couldn't explain. Guilt at being unable to sustain perfect 'mindfulness' every waking second. A sense of shallowness because I was who I was: a girl who didn't want a monastic life. Even now, when I hear the word 'Buddhism', I don't feel a sense of peace: I feel constriction, uncertainty. Fear.
Like the Westerner I am, I exercised consumer choice. I took the good and left the bad, as far as I could, on the shelf; I walked away when I found more attractive options. Eventually.
But I know what it is to feel the pressure to choose between believing someone you trust - or want to - and having your emotional lifebelt rupture. I know how easy it is to miss the glaringly obvious when you're looking at it from below. I know what it is about cults, bad religions: the followers are much better people than the leaders. The followers I knew were idealists, aspirers, people seeking a life of morality and integrity and insight. They were lovely people ... and they were the ones I actually spent time around. Their loveliness stood between me and the dark shadow of the movement, and for a long time I couldn't see over it.
I was young and naive, but I was also mobile: university changed my circumstances completely, in a way that often isn't available to people in doubtful movements. I was passionate about the movement, but peripheral to it: no authority figure particularly wanted me for anything, so the pressure on me came solely from the environment and not from direct personal relationships. I was lucky: I wasn't important to them.
I'm in no position to judge anyone for staying in a dark faith.
From the outside, it's obvious: the leader is a bad person saying bad things. Who but a bad person would follow such a teacher? But from the inside...
People talk of the six blind men trying to learn what an elephant is: it's a rope, it's a trunk, it's a wall. It's an image often used for different understandings of the divine. But it's an image for understanding cults, too. It wasn't a cult to me. It was a rope. I held on, and it pulled me to a new place. And then I let go, and landed safely.
I think sometimes of the people I knew back then. I hope they're all right.
__________________________________________________________
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
Kind of intimidating to think of commenting on a post by you, Kit.
That said, I'm glad you got good things out of your experience, and were not subjected to any abuse.
Posted by: Laima | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:05 PM
I very much see this as a call to be less judgmental of the "ordinary people" we know who are involved in organizations that we consider "cults." And they may indeed be cults. But on the "ground floor" level most/many of these groups are staffed by ordinary people trying to do good in an ordinary way.
In a way it also makes me feel more judgmental of the "higher ups" who use (and profit by) the ground-level members.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:15 PM
im glad it went ok, in the end. the reason stuff like that's so dangerous is becous its so inviting. i protested with anon against Scientology for a couple of years, and in that time, i saw how inviting it could be. people talked about it, and its just a stress test, after all, and then...
this group sounds less bullying, in some ways, but that might just be a matter of size. and its scary to think that, given the right circumstances, we're probably all vulnerable to that kind of thing. i suspect i could be.
Posted by: pill | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:20 PM
That was right around the time some of my friends got involved with Landmark Education--and tried to get all of the rest of us to go. I went to a few info sessions, really hated the high pressure tactics--which included not letting me leave the room, and opted not to take any of the classes. My friends seemed to get something positive from their experiences, but it just felt wrong to me. I used to think it was a cult, now I'm not so sure. It's probably more complicated than a binary kind of definition.
When I was in college, I minored in comparative religion and that's where I learned my favorite definition of a cult: "A cult is not you." That is, no one within an organization is going to say that they are in a cult, it's a word that is almost always going to be applied by outsiders. It's certainly an interesting thing to think about, at any rate.
Posted by: apis_mellifera | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:25 PM
Wow, Kit. Thank you. We have a local cult here (the Nuwaubians) whose leader (now in jail) is almost a caricature of a cult leader. He was convicted of child molestation and various financial shenanigans. I am ashamed to admit I never tried to picture what it was like from the POV of the rank and file.
Posted by: Lila | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:29 PM
These things exist to meet real needs; the problem is how they choose to meet them. Or maybe it would be better to say that the real problem is that there are so few other ways for many people to get those needs met ... or even that Western culture generally creates the needs without creating healthy ways to meet them. I personally wouldn't give up my autonomy (such as it is), or my freedom to work in a formerly male-dominated job, or my vote, or any of the other good things that modern Western culture allows me ... but I wish the good things didn't so often come with bad things like loneliness and alienation.
Posted by: Tehanu | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:40 PM
Me, I'm too hung up on being irritated at the way "cult" is used in pop culture to say anything coherent about the rest. I know, I know, descriptivist linguistics, it means what it's used to mean, it's become The Term for this. But dammit, it means we don't have a good word that means, and means only, a group dedicated to the worship of a particular deity and the practices and rituals of that group, a cultus in the Roman sense. It makes it difficult to describe a group of that type to not have a single word for it that will convey that meaning.
Now that that's out of my system, Kit, you have my sympathies. I remember flailing wildly for some sort of group I could join at that age. I wound up in NOW, which had its own issues.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who is very tired | Mar 23, 2011 at 09:45 PM
Thanks for this Kit - makes me shiver a bit down my shoulder blades when I think about it. I was involved in a spiritual abuse situation when I was in university and it took me a long time to get over it. I still have issues with some forms of Pentecostalism. I would like to be able to write about it as clearly as you have - to communicate to people when I tell the story of how *ordinary* it seemed when I was there on the inside. (When I talk about it people tend to focus on how awful it must have been, and in retrospect it was, but it didn't seem so at the time.) How the pressure to submit and sit down and shut up and take what you are given - you just get used to it and don't notice it much. Or when you feel uncomfortable you just think you must be the only one, it must just be something wrong with *me*, and that if I just try harder I can learn to fit in...
Ok, I take it back. I'm not ready to write about it. I'm going to go have a chocolate biscuit now and a hot cup of tea...
Posted by: Elizabby | Mar 23, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Thank you, Kit. You get it.
Not that my experience is the only one, but yes, mine was a lot like yours, except I would say my cult hurt me in more obvious ways, given that I was born into it. But when my family left and we started reading up on abusive organizations, over and over it would come up in people's stories that they joined because the group seemed to provide something they needed, and sometimes really truly did. (I've also heard the term "love bombing" for when new converts are given a lot of love and attention until after they join, at which point all this affection slowly peters away and they end up being treated like peons and neglected/more obviously abused.) The good and the evil is intertwined and it can be really hard to pick apart. What happened to me wasn't as bad as what happened to a lot of other people, and I don't want to say that their experiences weren't horrible, or to falsely accuse good people I did know, or to say that I wasn't harmed in my own way when I was...
I think it is a really good point to remember that people in cults are just people. Very, very human--whether the failure mode is in trying to make a good place that becomes too insular and ends up cutting itself off from what could be good outside stimulus, or whether it's in following people who have a Grand Idea to Save The World, and not noticing until too late that they have feet of clay, or whether it's in ignoring abusers and those who take advantage because "we're all good people here, dedicated to the Cause, nobody here is like that..." There but for the mercy of Eru.
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:06 PM
(((hugs Elizabby)))
You don't have to write about it any more than you feel comfortable with. I tend to ramble on, but I'm still figuring some things out about my experiences, and I left 15 years ago. I will say that one of the most healing things for me has been hearing from my peers that I wasn't the only one who felt certain ways. And by "my peers" I mean primarily the kids I grew up with in my own cult, but also I kind of also mean people like Kit and you and all the other people who tell their stories. We weren't crazy.
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM
@MG: I wish there was a better word, too! "Spiritually abusive church/organization" feels more accurate to me to describe my group than "cult" does--but "cult" is shorter and punchier and people get the gist of what you mean right away. (Kind of like how "bi" is shorter than "homoflexible with a much bigger interest in teh ladies right now"...)
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:12 PM
Word for cultus: Perhaps "sect"?
It doesn't help that "cult" and "culture" share the same root...
Posted by: Skyknight | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM
@Elizabby: what Nenya said. Write as many or few words as you feel comfortable with.
Or when you feel uncomfortable you just think you must be the only one, it must just be something wrong with *me*, and that if I just try harder I can learn to fit in...
You might find it interesting to read some of the articles/books written by Noelle-Neumann and others around the phenomenon they called "The Spiral of Silence." Or some of the studies about groupthink and conformity done by Solomon Asch.
People like to "look down on" members of cults and ask "why didn't you break away", "why couldn't you see how silly it was" -- but that type of cognitive conformity (and the difficulty of breaking away from it) has been found in almost every area of life and in all societies. It is found in boardrooms and labour halls and political meetings and art auctions.
We just don't belittle the political analysts and the mistaken art critics the way we do members of minority religions/cults.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Mmm. This was lovely, Kit. Thanks. I need some time to turn this over, I think.
Posted by: Dav | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:41 PM
Isn't this usually true of... basically everything? Cults, businesses, nations, what have you.
As for your actual experience... I dunno. I just don't know. It's weird--I'm used to understanding things intellectually while my emotions trail (far, far) behind. But here I think it's the opposite. What you describe resonates emotionally, but I can't wrap my brain around it.
Posted by: Froborr | Mar 23, 2011 at 11:55 PM
Wow. Thanks for sharing this, Kit. I have actually had a somewhat similar experience, but I'd rather not talk too much about it right now. Two days ago, I started getting serious chest pains, which was quite scary. Fortunately, my worst fears of a heart condition turned out to be unfounded (thank goodness), but apparently I screwed something up seriously in my torso that has thrown everything out of wack and/or I may have a thyroid problem, which would honestly explain a lot of what has been happening to me over the last few years. Which of course, my wonderful military doctors dismissed as a potential problem without even a test OR hell, more than dismissing it when I mentioned the possibility. So tomorrow, I am hoping to get word of something concrete and controllable instead of the constant concern I've been having.
And it's about time for another dose of pain medication. First time in months I've felt normal, without constant low-grade pain. I don't like taking pills, but it does give me hope that eventually I'll feel "normal" all the time.
Posted by: Albanaeon | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:28 AM
'I'm in no position to judge anyone for staying in a dark faith.'
Of course we can judge. There is an interesting discussion concerning the American kill team in Afghanistan at various Internet places, and quite often, various current and former members of the U.S. military say that people without experience of being in a war/in the military are simply not able to judge other people's actions.
Such a position is nonsense - killing people for sport and then taking pictures does not require one to be veteran to be able to judge. Breaking lives, as many sects do (from the large to the small), does place responsibility on those who stay, even more than judging those who have enlisted in the military, especially when the U.S. military has been using stop/loss to keep soldiers fighting long past the point of the term of enlistment.
Judging is easy - acting is difficult. And recognizing the difference between adults and those who are not adult just complicates the picture much further - the American military, for example, is very uninterested at this point in even recruiting soldiers of the age that fought WWII - people in their 20s are much harder to turn into the sort of soldier the current American military prefers. Like pilot rescue team members who 'light up' (what an enlightening expression for gunning down people) a landing zone as SOP - a landing zone which just happened to be filled with Libyans attempting to help the downed pilot.
Judging actions is never hard - but we tend to avoid that, because it makes the world a much less pleasant place.
Posted by: Easier siad than done | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:55 AM
A bit of elaboration about 'judging' - the person who hosed down (another fine term) the place where a pilot was to be rescued, that just happened to be full of people who came to that pilot's aid, was in a difficult situation, and one that I, personally, have never been in.
The reason for that person (apparently a Marine) to be in that position is also not something to be easily judged by someone who doesn't even know it - possibly a hope of a better education, possibly family tradition, possibly economic necessity, and a number of other reasons easily imagined for anyone familiar with the military (including how recruiters lie to meet their quota). Only rarely is it a desire to kill and maim fellow human beings.
But that is exactly what the military does, as effectively as possible, this being the entire reason it actually exists. A fact that is not hard to grasp, even though some effort is made to cover it up, especially in the U.S. today, where pictures of war's inevitable results are considered too disturbing to actually show.
Not knowing what it is like to gun down people while just following one's training, or not knowing why exactly someone is in that position, does not make it impossible to judge the results, or the system that created them.
What is impossible is judging and then taking a neutral position. This is the fundamental problem - we all benefit from people who are willing and able to kill in our names, but if we judge the system we are all part of, then we are all also hypocrites. Everyone commenting on the Internet is part of the system that kills, or threatens to kill, as part of its standard operating procedure to keep valuable resources flowing.
This is the true problem - it is much easier not to judge, much easier to excuse our fellow human beings than confront the reality of certain trite expressions -
'Judge not, that ye be not judged' Or 'For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.'
We pretty much understand, and fear, this to be true, and thus it is much easier to not judge.
Or even more realistically, to be the one behind the gun, and not in front of it. Not that I am in a position to judge, some would undoubtedly say.
And they would be right - judging another with perfect justice may not be possible.
In the U.S., there seems to be an ever growing number of people who consider themselves judges of others. This apparent legion of judges is armored in the blinding moral conviction that since the judge's heart is by self-definition pure, the judge is shielded - but always, somewhere, the reality that this is not actually so gnaws at the judge, leading to ever more excessive protestations of purity.
As for using cult or sect - don't overlook how much the military fits into that framework, though neither word fits well. And since I grew up with many people in the military (several who are still very close friends), I do understand the reality not judging those in a dark profession.
Posted by: Still judging after all these years | Mar 24, 2011 at 02:55 AM
Word for cultus: Perhaps "sect"?
No. Sect has a specific and very different meaning.
It doesn't help that "cult" and "culture" share the same root...
It doesn't help which bit? (The common root, for anyone who might be curious, is the Latin verb colere, to care for.)
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who is very tired | Mar 24, 2011 at 05:11 AM
@mmy, yes, thank you, I usually do just write what I feel comfortable with publishing, but every now and then I *think* I'm ready and start writing, but then it leaps up out of my subconscious and gives me... problems.
You might find it interesting to read some of the articles/books written by Noelle-Neumann and others around the phenomenon they called "The Spiral of Silence." Or some of the studies about groupthink and conformity done by Solomon Asch.... that type of cognitive conformity (and the difficulty of breaking away from it) has been found in almost every area of life and in all societies. It is found in boardrooms and labour halls and political meetings and art auctions.
Yes, definitely. Part of my issue is that it was while I was at University I had another episode of being suppressed and told to "be quiet" for the good of the authority figure in a completely different context. That time it was handled much better, but it opened old wounds that I thought were all healed...
Posted by: Elizabby | Mar 24, 2011 at 05:52 AM
On a completely different topic: how can one tell the difference between a 'concern troll' and someone who is perhaps under-educated for the audience they are addressing, but genuine in their desire to learn/help?
I ask because once on a different board I was accused of being a troll, when I was genuinely trying to offer useful information to the board (but didn't realize someone else had beaten me to it).
Posted by: Elizabby | Mar 24, 2011 at 05:57 AM
Concern trolls are frequently unintentional trolls and genuinely well-meaning, but have the effect of trolling anyway.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who is very tired | Mar 24, 2011 at 06:47 AM
I'm going to take a stab at responding to some of this, but I may have to bow out, because the oversimplification of the military really bothers me personally and because I have things that I have to do away from the computer today.
"To keep valuable resources flowing" is a ridiculous oversimplification of why the US military exists and is engaged in today's conflicts. You may have encountered the phrase "It's (usually) more complicated than that" around here. Well, this is a perfect example. The military certainly isn't engaged in Libya for the sake of Libyan oil, to take the simplest example.
You show some basic familiarity with the complexities of the military, and I appreciate your position that we can and ought to exercise ethical judgment. But you go too far in your caricature of the military as solely about killing and potentially about transforming people into uncaring killing machines.
Posted by: Literata | Mar 24, 2011 at 07:05 AM
So now I've learned about Nuwaubians. That was interesting. It may also explain a few things I've read about Wesley Snipes.
I haven't been involved in a particularly similar situation, although I was part of the Pagan Club in college and one of the leaders had a weird situation in her household that was described in similar terms by people who knew what was going on. There were only a handful of people involved...
And I'm struck by the similarities to being in a sometimes-abusive relationship.
Posted by: Lonespark | Mar 24, 2011 at 07:47 AM
My complexly cynical side says this:
We're not engaged in libya for the sake of libyan oil; we're engaged because the recognized leader of the country is committing gross and inhuman abuses of power that involve the murder of innocent civilians.
And the oil is the reason that we consider a Libya a country full of real people whose lives matter. If they didn't have it, their stufe would be "None of our business; we can't play world police. This is a local matter and should be handled by the people involved without outside intervention".
In the US cultural mindset, you have to be a "Real Person" for your suffering to matter. You can become a "Real Person" in several ways, including:
* Historical convenience. Countries that have become Real People in the past for some other reason tend to stay Real People even if the reason goes away
* Being White.
* Living on top of a resource valuable to the US. That's how Libya got in the club
* Having a certain critical mass of americans visiting on a regular basis
* America owing you money.
Posted by: Ross | Mar 24, 2011 at 08:57 AM
I wasn't very happy when I wandered into the gift shop. I was eighteen years old, nearing the end of my school years, and suffering from the kind of identity crisis that introspective teenagers can get themselves into. I didn't like who I was but felt stuck with it; I was having trouble making decisions about my future; I was in various degrees of crisis with the people around me. Not thinking very highly of myself I had limited faith in my ability to fix any of my problems, but I knew things couldn't go on like this. Something had to change.
I took a Sociology/Religious Studies course (it was cross-listed) in university, called "Cults and New Religious Movements". The prof said that, from a sociological perspective, the word "cult" simply means "new religious movement", and that he'd added the latter phrase to the course title because "cult" has a lot of baggage on it. (We talked about a lot of the common features of a cult/NRM, how they showed up in a lot of modern groups, then looked at how they applied to early Christianity.)
One of the major topics of the course was the question - "Who joins cults?" What you describe jibes with a lot of what we talked about. People who join tend to be young people, tasting freedom for the first time, and maybe having just exhausted the course their family laid out for them. They're not society's castoffs or any such, but they maybe feel like they don't really know where they want to go, and don't really know yet who they're going to be.
It was suggested that in that regard cults replace a lot of... I think the phrase we used was "mediating institutions". Some young people go from the personal and structured (or at least actively supportive) life of home to the wildly impersonal self-direction-needing work-world, without any kind of intermediate steps in between. For some people, cults provide that intermediate step - something that's somewhat personal, and very structured, but is still something you're entering into as a proto-adult, as a stranger, without the involvement of your family.
Like the Westerner I am, I exercised consumer choice. I took the good and left the bad, as far as I could, on the shelf; I walked away when I found more attractive options. Eventually.
This also rings true with what we talked about in my course. Most young people who join wander away within a year or two. There usually isn't any one big dramatic break, they simply arrive at the conclusion that this thing is not for them.
(This is not meant to diminish the experience of people whose experiences with cults aren't mild or mostly-harmless.)
Posted by: Cythraul | Mar 24, 2011 at 08:58 AM
People who join tend to be young people, tasting freedom for the first time, and maybe having just exhausted the course their family laid out for them. They're not society's castoffs or any such, but they maybe feel like they don't really know where they want to go, and don't really know yet who they're going to be.
The interesting thing was that I was much the youngest person at the centre. The next-youngest people were in their mid-twenties, and most new recruits were between 25 and 40.
They seemed to be a mixture of people who'd moved from liberal religions - ex-Quakers were not uncommon - and people who were for one reason or another (a rough childhood, for instance) were a bit fragile and trying to find a stable way of improving themselves. But people as young as I was were a rarity. That was another reason I drifted: it was a bit of a strain to have no peers, and I got a bit tired of people giving me the advice they wished they could give to their younger selves - it felt like they couldn't see anything about me but my age, and I started to feel like I wanted to make some mistakes before renouncing them all or I'd have a rather boring life.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 09:07 AM
Ross, I understand where you're coming from, and I think you're a lot closer to accurate than the judging person up above was, but there are also some historical reasons - not always good ones - about when and where we get involved and when and where we don't. I'm not out to defend the military or, Lord and Lady know, US policy or policy-makers, but I do want people to be better informed in their criticisms. Also, IIRC, the amount of oil coming out of Libya wouldn't make a significant dent in world supply, although (again IIRC) Libya's oil is of a particularly valuable kind because of its properties. We're involved in Libya because of a confluence of nations noticing what's going on in Libya, for a wide variety of, again, not always good reasons.
Posted by: Literata | Mar 24, 2011 at 09:29 AM
They seemed to be a mixture of people who'd moved from liberal religions
I do not understand the mindset that would lead one to do this. More liberal/moderate religious communities provide you with a non-judgmental support group, a second family, and a place where you can discuss issues in your life as well as theology. This is why I will always be a member of some sort of faith community, becuase I need that in my life.
I have never been a member of a fundamentalist church and certainly never been in a cult, but I don't know why anyone would move from that environment to a place that may judge you and demand total conformity. I totally understand converting to a more liberal religion. I do not understand doing the reverse. Some religious groups make you practically a slave to the religious leader. I don't know why one would voluntarily go into that sort of environment.
This is why I feel such a great need to speak out against fundamentalist Christianity. Not only are they are using Christianity to use and abuse people, but since I identify as Christian myself, I feel like its on me to do what I can to stop them or at least let people know its wrong. I just am afraid of being just as judgmental as they are.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 09:32 AM
@Elizabby: Part of my issue is that it was while I was at University I had another episode of being suppressed and told to "be quiet" for the good of the authority figure in a completely different context.
There are many aspects of the hierarchical and both structured AND amorphous power relationship in the academic world that resemble what we think of as "a cult"
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 09:35 AM
I do not understand the mindset that would lead one to do this.
The key thing, I'd say from my own experience, is that there wasn't any one 'mindset'. People came with different reasons.
The other thing is that the FWBO didn't present itself as a cult - and it didn't 'demand total conformity' either, it just made it clear that certain ways of living were more 'spiritual' than others in a way that put a lot of pressure on people. I may blog about this another time if people are interested ... but what it promoted looked very liberal. It was all about meditation and self-improvement.
And I think that's common with cults - or at least, with cults that recruit from outside rather than rely on people being born into them. The kind of person who'd join a cult is somebody who's open-minded enough to try something new, so the cult generally presents itself as a place for open-minded exploration. The shop front is very positive - which is why people who leave after a brief spell can experience postive results. The more authoritarian side comes in gradually.
And not necessarily through a deliberate plan, either. It was more that everyone there believed that meditation was the most important foundation, so we did that, and then those who were interested hung around more, and so got told about some of the teachings, and then maybe went on a retreat, thought about making a more formal commitment some day, and so on. It's just how it pans out.
I don't think people do go voluntarily into an environment that will make them 'a slave to the religious leader'. They go voluntarily into an environment they think will free their mind - and then the religious leader takes advantage of their aspirations.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 09:55 AM
Jason, in 1993 or so my sister joined a very small fundamentalist church in the wake of our mother's death in 1991. Our father was working all the time, I was off at college, and she was lost. And they found her and for a year or so, they gave her some sort of structure in her life. Not a whole lot, but certainly more than she was getting at home. So I can definitely see someone joining a fundamentalist church and finding some degree of comfort and safety in it--because that's what my sister was looking for, even though she wasn't able to articulate it at the time.
Posted by: apis_mellifera | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM
@Kit Whitfield: I don't think people do go voluntarily into an environment that will make them 'a slave to the religious leader'. They go voluntarily into an environment they think will free their mind
Having had family members who chose to join religious communities that
and
I agree with Kit.
Of course, my relatives went into Roman Catholic religious orders. And my aunt who spent the better part of her life working among the immigrant community, on the docks of Canada's largest ports and the homeless certainly would have seen her vocation as a liberal one.
At the same time her "liberty" was quite delimited by those above her in her order. She needed permission from a religious superior in order to visit members of her family. What she wore, what she ate and even how many hours she was allowed to sleep were all subject to the rulings of others.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:10 AM
I use the term "coercive religious group" for what are often referred to as cults. The term "cult" is so pejorative that it can shut down discussion. It's also abused by some (often coercive) Christian groups to refer to pretty much any religious group they disagree with, especially ones they consider to be heresies of Christianity. "Coercive religious group" does not require that the group be new or a minority, but does specify that the group engages in abusive practices rather than just fitting some people's definition of heretical.
Jason: When I was twelve, I became an evangelical despite going to a liberal Christian church. When I was fourteen, my family switched with me to a conservative evangelical church. I was deceived by the apparent obviousness of taking the Bible literally. The forms of worship used in my old liberal church lacked meaning for me, and the liberal church itself appeared to lack vitality or clear, strong moral convictions. In evangelicalism I experienced worship that seemed much more meaningful and vital, and found a clear worldview with a strong sense of morality. I also, at the time of my conversion when I was twelve, had what I thought was an experience of God showing me the essence of evangelical salvation. As well, the Christian camp where I converted practiced "love-bombing"--campers were showered with love and affirmation, but, as I found out when I became a leader in training a few years later, the expectations of staff could be draconian. So, although I never really believed in the liberal church's teachings, that was why I went from a liberal to a conservative church. My parents had been evangelical all along, and the conservative church fit their beliefs better than the liberal one did.
Posted by: kisekileia | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM
@Jason: I do not understand the mindset that would lead one to do this. More liberal/moderate religious communities provide you with a non-judgmental support group, a second family, and a place where you can discuss issues in your life as well as theology. This is why I will always be a member of some sort of faith community, becuase I need that in my life.
My own experience of liberal churches is that while they are supportive, welcoming, and everything else you say, they also tend to expect the new person to take the initiative. They will gladly address your needs, but you have to be willing to verbalize those needs first.
For some people, that's not an easy thing to do. I suspect that a lot of introverts, shy people, and others who don't take that initiative will come and go in those liberal churches, and the regular members may or may not notice. I know that's been my experience.
A lot of cults, on the other hand, are quite good at taking the initiative for new members. They'll go out of their way to not only get to know new members, but will try everything to get new members more involved. I've been to two different UU churches, and people at both welcomed me and told me about upcoming events that I might be interested, but no one came right out and said, "You know, I'd really like you to come to X next Wednesday night. In fact, you can be my invited guest if you'd like." Cult members often do that sort of thing.
And as for coercion and demanding total conformity, cults can be quite subtle at pressuring new members into conformity, as Kit noted earlier. Add this to the fact that cults tend to make you feel so terribly important, wanted, needed, and valued (at least at first), and it's easy to overlook, rationalize, or minimize the sense of being pressured.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:15 AM
@Kit-
it just made it clear that certain ways of living were more 'spiritual' than others in a way that put a lot of pressure on people.
I am currently reading and deconstructing some posts from a fundamentalist blog on my own blog. This is what has struck me the most about it. Literally pretty much everything that does not fall exactly in like with their specific theology, any sort of disagreement about anything at all, is a stumbling block that can lead one to hell. This appears to be a group blog and every post is how some spiritual practice or theologian or religious leader they disagree with is going to lead to eternal damnation if you agree with any of their views.
The "Agree with us or be tortured for all eternity" theme is very disturbing to me. I also get the impression that at least one of the bloggers is not seeking to control others through his beliefs, but geniuinely believes that all these things are evil. I'm talking about stuff as innocuous as prayer labyrinths. In fact, I plan to write about the "prayer labyrinths lead to hell" when I get time.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM
@kisekileia-
I actually had the opposite experience from yours. When I was very young my family went to a more evangelical church. My parents were very unhappy there. I don't know how much of this was the fact that my parents were unhappy and I heard them talking about it and how much was because I really was miserable at that church, but I have nothing but bad memories of attending there. We left that church when I was in first grade and started going to a Methodist church where we were all very happy.
My dad seems to think my dislike of fundamentalist evangelicals is to an unhealthy extreme. I'm not sure if he is correct or not. He partially blames himself for that though because of his and my mother's attitudes towards the church went to when I was very young.
@Jarred-
As an introvert, I will say that a church where no one talks to me as a new member might not be a place where I'm likely to stay, but if everyone is trying to get me involved in everything from the moment I walk in the door, I'd probably be intimidated and leave sooner, because people would not leave my alone.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:27 AM
I do not understand the mindset that would lead one to do this. More liberal/moderate religious communities provide you with a non-judgmental support group, a second family, and a place where you can discuss issues in your life as well as theology.
Jason, I want to also add to what the others have been saying, that there have been times in my life that I did not WANT "non-judgmental support", I did not WANT to "discuss issues [and] theology."
I wanted ANSWERS. I wanted someone to TELL ME WHAT TO DO. More than that, I wanted, desperately, for someone to take off the unbearable burden of choosing for myself.
It's one of the reasons I have always been attracted to traditional monasticism. The vows of poverty and chastity have always seemed to me to be no big deal -- eh, stuff, sex, these are nice, but don't define me or anything core about me.
But ooh, the vow of obedience -- the voluntary "sacrifice of the will" -- how terrifying. How seductive. To finally be able to shrug off the agonizing burden of responsibility for self, for loved ones, for community, for world... to be able to REST, think about my own small tasks and nothing else, knowing that I can end each day as nothing more, and nothing less, than a "good and faithful servant"...
Ohhhhh, yeah. That's MY brand of heroin.
I am not, in the slightest, denigrating anyone who chooses that path. I believe it can be a wise, healthy, and enriching choice for many.
But the very way it calls to me, more sweetly than opium, makes me hyper-sensitive to and extremely wary of anything that even tickles that desire.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM
"Coercive religious group" does not require that the group be new or a minority, but does specify that the group engages in abusive practices rather than just fitting some people's definition of heretical.
A problem with that, though, is that members don't experience themselves as coerced. They may experience themselves as pressured, but a big part of the schtick (in my experience anyway) is that it presents it as a matter of personal choice. You can choose to follow or not to ... the only corollary is that the movement makes it very plain that not following is spiritually inferior, but then religions do declare certain things more spiritual than others, right? I think if you told someone in that situation about 'coercive religious groups', they'd immediately conclude that this wasn't their situation, because the pressure is generally quite subtle.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM
@hapax-
I guess that's a difference of personality and that's why I don't understand.
I'm very much an individual. I do my own thing. If I conform, its because I truly want to do whatever everyone else wants to do (or in very extreme examples nonconformity would make my life miserable...there are societal norms. Not crazy about them but they exist). If I think whatever everyone else is doing isn't for me, I don't do it. If they don't like it, that's their problem. This is why I'm left out of a lot of conversations the day after the Super Bowl, because I usually dont' watch it.
I follow rules when rules have a valid reason for being rules. If I think a rule is stupid and/or pointless, I look for loopholes or ways around it. Being told what to do in most cases is something that makes me feel like I lose a little bit of my identity.
I'm guessing that's why "This is what God said. There's no discussion. No room for interpretation. This is what the book says and you fry if you don't do it. You need to be more like us," is offensive and annoying to me particularly.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM
@Jason: Read The Authoritarians. It's available online as a PDF, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Basically, there's some evidence for the existence of a distinct personality trait, the authoritarian follower, that actively seeks an authoritarian leader and reduction in autonomy. People vary in degree of this trait, from very low to very high.
Posted by: Froborr | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:50 AM
[[hapax: But ooh, the vow of obedience -- the voluntary "sacrifice of the will" -- how terrifying. How seductive. To finally be able to shrug off the agonizing burden of responsibility for self, for loved ones, for community, for world... to be able to REST, think about my own small tasks and nothing else, knowing that I can end each day as nothing more, and nothing less, than a "good and faithful servant"...]]
Huh. See, that's interesting. I've had conversations with people about going into religious orders, and I always think that vows of poverty and chastity I could deal with, but obedience? Hell no. I sorta chafe under authority.
For what it's worth, though, I think that a lot of orders don't just order their members around with no regard for their talents or desires. That was my experience with the Franciscans, at least; if you said, hey, I'd like to go get my PhD in philosophy, or I'd like to work with homeless people, they'd probably let you do that. But sometimes they'll have a need for someone to do something specific (like, for example, taking over the volunteer corps), and if they think you'd be a good person to fill that position, they'd ask you to do that.
Posted by: sarah | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:50 AM
@Jason - the thing is, I stayed in that situation because it talked in terms of becoming an individual, and because it was good at making the hierarchy sound like there were valid rules behind it. And with the big emphasis on meditation and introspection, loopholes really weren't on the menu.
And it actually did give me some individuation. The Order members weren't a bunch of robots: they were diverse, interesting, lively individuals. They were just individuals living communally, working low-paid jobs, forgoing ordinary families and turning their diverse energies into the movement.
It was a non-conformist lifestyle in the context of broader society, and that's something I think a lot of cults emphasise. For the most part, they seemed happy. It was just that the movement had a tendency to separate them - or at least, reward them with approval for separating themselves - from participating in a lot of normal elements of life like career and family.
It wasn't a question of rigid rules rigidly enforced. If it had been, it wouldn't have worked. It was about creating a social environment where the pressure was subtle but constant to make certain choices.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM
I wonder, would it be possible to simply use cultus rather than using a different word? Though perhaps the similarity to cult would make it impossible to avoid the negative associations.
The shop front is very positive - which is why people who leave after a brief spell can experience postive results. The more authoritarian side comes in gradually.
Reading this gave me one of those small mental clicks you get when something becomes clearer.
About three years ago now, I was living with friends from university, but otherwise I had no social circle and had to start from scratch. Somebody at work mentioned a martial art that she had practised before and wanted to take up again, and I ended up going with her and joining the dojo.
What I found was a really strange set up, and one which I've often turned over in my mind in the context of cults and similar things. The Sensei is possibly one of the most charismatic - and intimidating - people I've ever met. The dojo is run on completely authoritarian lines. In some ways it does look like a cult - but I'm sure it isn't one. I think perhaps part of the difference is that there was no attempt to hide the level of authoritarianism. People who disagreed often left, and as far as I could see no attempt was made to persuade them to stay. There was little to no manipulation. There was also a certain amount of humour about it. Everybody, including our Sensei, would joke about the place being a cult - and that served as a way to air collective concerns and meant that the subject wasn't taboo.
I'm still practising the same martial art, and really enjoying it, and I've moved dojos only because I moved house as well.
Comparing that experience to religious groups I am (and have been) involved with, I think there is a similarity between the sort of group that forms when you're doing something challenging for reasons that are not immediately obvious to those who don't share your faith perspective (e.g. pilgrimage). There is a sort of investment in a group when you work together in ways that builds a shared trust, and it's emphasised if the group is small and outsiders 'don't get it'.
I don't know, perhaps I'm fumbling towards saying that those sorts of groups by their very nature emphasise the authoritarian follower parts of anybody's personality, so if you get a malign authoritarian leader thrown into the mix then bad things happen?*
*Authoritarian follower and leader here taken from this fascinating book by Bob Altemeyer which I think Kit first drew my attention to on this very blog!
Posted by: Ruth (formerly alfgifu) (now alfgifu again over at the other place) | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Vow of poverty: If that means I can't have current generation video games and a nice computer, then no. Also I love my food. I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of living on beans and rice, if there's an alternative.
Vow of chastity: I've been involuntarily chaste for my entire life. It sucks. I don't want to continue for 50-70 more years.
Vow of obedience: Again if I think what you are telling me to do is stupid or unreasonable, I get indignant.
I would make a crappy monk.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM
The whole vow of silence thing I could not do also. I need to share, sometimes overshare, what I think. (-:
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 10:59 AM
I don't know, perhaps I'm fumbling towards saying that those sorts of groups by their very nature emphasise the authoritarian follower parts of anybody's personality, so if you get a malign authoritarian leader thrown into the mix then bad things happen?*
I don't think that cult followers are necessarily authoritarian followers in Altemeyer's sense. They aren't necessarily aggressive towards outsiders, for example. Wary of outsiders, perhaps, or at least feeling that the only people with whom they can discuss the most important things are other members, but I don't think it's quite the same thing.
--
Okay, Jason, I'm just going to say this:
If you read the thread, you'll see that other people besides me have been in cults or cult-like, coercive environments. The pressures on you in an environment like that are complex and subtle. I feel that your insistence that this would never, ever happen to you is coming across as you calling us stupid or weak. Please think about it: these are issues that have affected some of the people you're addressing.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Dear Blogger,
Ever wonder what other bloggers are thinking? Curious about how your thoughts compare to other bloggers on topics like politics, parenting, and prestige?
I'm writing from Blogging Common, a research project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. We'd like to ask you to help us by joining a panel of active bloggers. Your involvement in this panel will help us answer important questions about the practices and opinions of bloggers around the globe.
What's in it for you? First access to our results, so you can see how you stack up to bloggers around the world. You'll also have the satisfaction of knowing you're part of an awesome research project at Harvard.
It takes ten minutes to answer our first set of questions. With your permission, we'll send you new short surveys on different topics several times over the next year. We promise not to share your personal information with anyone, and we'll do our best to make this exciting. To complete the survey, please visit the following link:
http://new.qualtrics.com/SE?Q_SS=8iDKmBFfb8aW9eY_4Hp4lVv4k0EMdeI
Questions? You can get in touch with us at info@bloggingcommon.org or check out our FAQ at http://bloggingcommon.org/research.
We hope you'll join us,
The Blogging Common Team
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Posted by: Blogging Common Team | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM
I want to emphasize again that I don't think that all monastic orders (or other orders, such as Dominicans, Jesuits, and Franciscans, let alone the rich monastic traditions in religions other than Christianity) are cults, or even cult-like.
While the vow of obedience CAN be abused, it doesn't have to be, and it is usually employed in a neutral or even healthy way. It isn't about "conformity" or "shut up and follow the rules"; part of becoming a functional adult is learning that you don't always get your own way, and sometimes you do have to do something you don't want to, for the good of the community as a whole--which, in the long run, is for your own good as well.
I was trying to say that I myself would be wary of joining such an order, because I recognize the appeal to an unhealthy tendency in myself, which could also be exploited by a coercive religious group.
BTW, since I'm incapable of NOT recommending books, I strongly urged both my children to read LEAVING FISHERS by Margaret Peterson Haddix. It describes fairly well the subtle appeal of such groups, some of the techniques they use (e.g. "love bombing"), and acknowledged the damage that they can do without being hysterical or condemning of all religion.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM
You know. This is almost exactly word for word the reason a friend of mine gave for why he joined the military.
Posted by: Ross | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:13 AM
[[hapax: I want to emphasize again that I don't think that all monastic orders (or other orders, such as Dominicans, Jesuits, and Franciscans, let alone the rich monastic traditions in religions other than Christianity) are cults, or even cult-like.]]
Oh, I didn't think you were, at all--I just found it interesting that the vow of obedience stuck out for both of us, albeit in very different ways.
Posted by: sarah | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM
@Kit-
I feel that your insistence that this would never, ever happen to you is coming across as you calling us stupid or weak. Please think about it: these are issues that have affected some of the people you're addressing.
That is not what I intended to imply at all. I apologize if I came across that way.
I also personally don't think there is anything wrong with monastic life if one is called to that. I just would hate everything about it and be terribly unhappy. There's many lifestyle choices that I would similiar be miserable in but are good for other people.
I think given the combination of circumstances of my past combined with my general personality, I am less likely to find coercive environments appealing. Had I grown up in a different environment or had some different experiences than the ones I have had, I could see myself being taken in. I could even see that happening to me when I was younger. The "Left Behind" books did not seem like horrible abominations against theology and literature when I was 17 years old. I think that nothing that I chose to read when I was younger bothered my parents more than when I decided i wanted to read those books. If Tim LaHaye had the power to coerce me at age 17, I'm sure others could as well.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM
@hapax: I'm incapable of NOT recommending books
You say that as if there is something wrong about doing that. I do not understand.
A good book to read to get the "inside" of the mind of a well educated and successful woman who decides to join a contemplative religious order is In this house of Brede by Rumer Godden. One of the passages that really stuck with me was Sister Philippa thinking that she would never again have choice about some little like "what cheese will I have with dinner."
And yes the Mistress of Novices in many orders are wary of people who, like hapax, find obedience itself to be addictive/attractive.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM
@Ross-
You know. This is almost exactly word for word the reason a friend of mine gave for why he joined the military.
Yes, I similiarly would be miserable in the military.
I want my own bedroom and bathroom. I don't want to be told when to get up, when to go to bed, when to eat etc.
Military and Monastic life are good choices for those who want that. They just aren't for me.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:23 AM
@Kit-
If you read the thread, you'll see that other people besides me have been in cults or cult-like, coercive environments. The pressures on you in an environment like that are complex and subtle. I feel that your insistence that this would never, ever happen to you is coming across as you calling us stupid or weak. Please think about it: these are issues that have affected some of the people you're addressing.
Also I spent a good 16 years of my life convinced that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck were fine sources of news. Another example of how I easily can be taken in....
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM
@Jason: I think given the combination of circumstances of my past combined with my general personality, I am less likely to find coercive environments appealing. Had I grown up in a different environment or had some different experiences than the ones I have had, I could see myself being taken in.
There is something very judgmental about describing another person joining what you think of as a "coercive" group as being taken in. And there are a hell of a lot of environments that are non-religious and (at least to those on the outside) coercive.
Are you saying that I was "taken in" when I decided to go to graduate school (see the article I posted on the previous page about "graduate schools as cults.)
Are you saying that my father was "taken in" when he decided to join the Army?
Are you saying that Jean Vanier was "taken in" when he decided to devote his life to working with lepers in Africa?
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:29 AM
If I were to be drawn in, I think this is how it would have to work. The idea of total obedience would irritate me - nothing kills my motivation quite like being told to do something when I think it's pointless (bureaucracy burnssss ussssss) but at the same time I do welcome being told how to do something right. I've had a lifelong feeling that other people knew stuff that I had somehow missed out learning, such that when I'm in any kind of unfamiliar situation, I'll ask someone else what to do, and most often, they'll look at me like 'isn't it obvious?' and explain the very simple process to follow. And the process won't surprise me, it'll seem retroactively obvious to me as well, but I will be buoyed by the enormous confidence of this is what we do.
I'm pretty happy to follow orders as long as the one giving the orders is willing and able to explain why those orders are being given, and in a way that also makes the necessity clear to me. So if someone could exploit that - convince me that They Knew Reasons, even if they couldn't explain all of them right away, I can imagine finding that enormously compelling.
Posted by: Will Wildman | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM
@Mmy-
Are you saying that I was "taken in" when I decided to go to graduate school (see the article I posted on the previous page about "graduate schools as cults.)
Are you saying that my father was "taken in" when he decided to join the Army?
Are you saying that Jean Vanier was "taken in" when he decided to devote his life to working with lepers in Africa?
No, because those are all good things...... If you are in any type of environment where there is some sort of a charismatic leadership that is telling you that they know what is best for you and that you should listen to them and that all other paths lead to something lesser, then you probably are not in a good place. Discouraging people from looking at other options or from ever questioning what leadership is telling them leads to abuse of power and discourages any type of critical thinking. That applies to a lot of situations.
Grad school is not one of those.
Neither is humanitarian aid and I certainly hope the military isn't.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM
@Kit: You're probably right that most people in coercive religious groups wouldn't identify with the term because they don't see their groups as coercive. I certainly didn't start to see conservative evangelicalism itself as coercive, as I do now, until well after I left, and it took me years to work out that the camp where I became a Christian was abusive to me in the leaders in training program.
I think my former evangelicalism probably had a lot to do with the motive Will Wildman is describing. I tend to feel like I don't know what's going on and need help figuring it out. My lack of awareness of my immediate physical environment and my social environment is disability-related, but I think I may assume that I'm less competent in other areas than I am. So I ask for help, and if the answer I get seems to make sense to me, I usually accept it. I don't like following orders for the sake of following orders, but if I can be convinced that it's RIGHT, I'm likely to do it.
Posted by: kisekileia | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:40 AM
@Jason: Grad school is not one of those.
I beg to differ. So do lots of other people who have gone to grad school. Some departments centre around charismatic figures who decide what you should and should not study, read and write about.
Neither is humanitarian aid
Again, not simple. What is humanitarian aid from one person's point of view is aiding and abetting the enemy to another person's.
I certainly hope the military isn't
Which military? At what point in time? There have been great charismatic military leaders. There are military leaders who felt (feel) quite comfortable in telling their followers what to eat, what to wear, who to marry and how to worship. There have been military leaders whose decisions are still argued over thousands of years later.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:42 AM
I think my words are being taken to mean things I didn't intend them to and I'm not sure how to fix that, so maybe I should just shut up and just read for a while.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:46 AM
I also think it's worth saying that not all cults use 'love bombing'. It wasn't my experience anyway. There was no direct encouragement to stay. It was more that the Order placed a big emphasis on 'spiritual friendship' and modelled it with each other a great deal, and the regular teachers were very nice people. They worked less by love bombing and more by teaching people meditation - something that could have a big impact on them - then locating it in a social context. People didn't so much get drawn in by flattery: it was more like an amazing group you didn't want to be left out of. And the more literature you read, the more you found that teachers would say that you weren't a 'member' unless you were a fully committed member, which fostered a sense of being left out. They tended to play to loneliness rather than offer direct companionship: rather than a bait and switch, they kept the bait continually dangled out of reach until you'd come far enough forward.
And I don't think that any of it was deliberate strategy, at least on the part of the lower-downs.
More than one way to do anything, I think.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:49 AM
>But ooh, the vow of obedience -- the voluntary "sacrifice of the will" -- how terrifying. How seductive. To finally be able to shrug off the agonizing burden of responsibility for self, for loved ones, for community, for world... to be able to REST, think about my own small tasks and nothing else, knowing that I can end each day as nothing more, and nothing less, than a "good and faithful servant"...
Ohhhhh, yeah. That's MY brand of heroin.<
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing it so eloquently.
I like to have words for things, so I've been keeping an eye out for a word from some sci-fi/fantasy mind-control story I can borrow. For some reason, although many describe it, none name it. For now, I think of it as "false freedom".
As for the other monastic vows:
I'm with Jason on the poverty thing. I suffer computer withdrawal when my laptop is broken and not yet repaired/replaced, and I do love my chocolate. I suppose I could do without such things, but not voluntarily.
Personally, I don't like the idea of a vow of chastity being religious in nature. God, after all, is a loving sort. He would forgive me if I broke my vow. I wouldn't. Thus, I vow not to God, but to myself.
Posted by: Brin (not Meir) | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:52 AM
I think, Jason, that you're talking about this in much more black and white terms than people who've experienced it will describe. 'Good things' and 'good places' are not a simple issue. As the motto says, it's usually more complicated than that.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM
hapax: I share the attraction to turning over authority and just concentrating on doing my tasks well. Leaving the big difficult questions to somebody else and putting my energies into duties that I understand and know I can perform competently is really appealing.
It's one of the reasons I enjoy the work I do every year in preperation for the Edinburgh Fringe. I'm not in charge. It is somebody else's job to make sure I am fed and rested. Somebody else gets to worry about where I'm going to sleep and when I'm going to get up and what work we have to do and when we can stop for the day. My job is to be a good little worker bee - to do what I'm told to do when I'm told to do it, and request the next task when I'm done.
Last year I worked eighty hours of hard physical labour in the first five and a half days (I worked it out when my hip started aching, and decided a doctor would not be very sympathetic), and it felt like a holiday.
Posted by: Froth | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:55 AM
I stayed in that situation because it talked in terms of becoming an individual, and because it was good at making the hierarchy sound like there were valid rules behind it.
I think this is important to note. A good cult can use very "progressive sounding" phrases to their own abusive ends. For example, there have been a number of sexually manipulative and abuse people who have used calls to be "more sexually liberated" and "open-minded" as a way to manipulate and seduce their victims.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I don't think that cult followers are necessarily authoritarian followers in Altemeyer's sense. They aren't necessarily aggressive towards outsiders, for example. Wary of outsiders, perhaps, or at least feeling that the only people with whom they can discuss the most important things are other members, but I don't think it's quite the same thing.
Oh, I definitely agree that cult followers aren't necessarily full authoritarian followers. I wasn't trying to draw an exact parallel at that level.
I don't think I've ever been in a cult, but there have been moments when I've had to ask myself 'is this, or is this not, a cult'. I was thinking more about the sorts of groups that gave rise to that question, where there were perhaps things in place that might make the thing look like a cult to a superficial glance (e.g. the way my Sensei at my last dojo, a single charismatic individual, tended to dominate the group and run it along authoritarian lines). I know this is tricky ground, especially when talking to people who have been involved in full cults, so please do let me know if I'm treading awkwardly.
Altemeyer does say several times that most people in society have some of the characteristics of authoritarian followers, and that those characteristics in themselves are not bad. Willingness to work together, and to believe in people and causes, and to trust what one believes is expert advice - that sort of thing.
So what I am wondering is whether there is a sort of group that is more likely to become a cult than most. These potentially cultic situations would be groups with certain qualities - small; bound together by a common faith, ideal or cause; requiring a certain level of investment from members whether that is regular fitness training or a spiritual discipline such as fasting or meditation.
Such groups could be entirely benign, or, under an unfortunate set of circumstances, could become manipulative and controlling and be open to abuse - in short, become cults.
And I was further wondering if one of the features of a group of this sort might be to bring out and strengthen an underlying level of authoritarian follower tendencies that most people have to some degree. Even in a benign group, there's a tendency to give more weight to opinions from another insider than to opinions from outside the group. Within the group context, some of one's natural suspicion of authority and control is relaxed because the other in-groupers are by definition friendly.
Does that make any sense? Am I re-inventing the wheel?
Posted by: Ruth (formerly alfgifu) (now alfgifu again over at the other place) | Mar 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Discouraging people from looking at other options or from ever questioning what leadership is telling them leads to abuse of power and discourages any type of critical thinking. That applies to a lot of situations.
Grad school is not one of those.
Neither is humanitarian aid and I certainly hope the military isn't.
This makes me feel fairly certain that you have never been involved with any of these groups.
Honestly, Jason, your confidence that you will never be "taken in" makes me worry about you, a bit.
There are plenty of times in ordinary life that it is appropriate and healthy to "do what you're told" and NOT to "look at other options." A fire alarm is one obvious occasion. So is my director telling me "the Board wants us to spend two thousand dollars on Spanish language materials." So is my spouse telling me, "Wow, that feels really good."
But, to be honest, with most groups -- healthy and otherwise -- the kind of pressure people are talking about here isn't usually apparent AS "pressure." It is a natural human desire to want to be liked, to fit in, to make things run more smoothly. It is a natural human desire to try to emulate people you admire, who seem to be happier, wiser, and more successful than you.
And these are all GOOD things. A person who stubbornly insists "I'm not going to wear shoes to work because that's just SUCCUMBING TO THE MAN!" better be either a lifeguard or seventeen years old (or both).
But, as Lewis points out in the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, the Devil, despite thousands of years of research, has never managed to create one single pleasure. All temptation needs to succeed is to put a slight twist on something normally healthy and good.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM
For example, there have been a number of sexually manipulative and abuse people who have used calls to be "more sexually liberated" and "open-minded" as a way to manipulate and seduce their victims.
Yep. The abuses in this situation rested on Order members 'seducing' young men by telling them they needed to overcome their prejudices against homosexuality.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM
@Jason: I'll try to explain what (I at least) was responding to in what you wrote. Take these two quotes:
Also I spent a good 16 years of my life convinced that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck were fine sources of news. Another example of how I easily can be taken in....
I think given the combination of circumstances of my past combined with my general personality, I am less likely to find coercive environments appealing. Had I grown up in a different environment or had some different experiences than the ones I have had, I could see myself being taken in. [emphases added for clarity]
The phrase "taken in" generally means that one is naive, a sucker, credulous, foolish, silly, simple, susceptible, an easy mark and things similar.
So to characterize those of us who have been involved in certain groups as "taken in" is to characterize us as being credulous, foolish, silly, etc. It doesn't take the sting out of the characterization to include yourself within the group "those who have been taken in."
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM
There are plenty of times in ordinary life that it is appropriate and healthy to "do what you're told" and NOT to "look at other options." A fire alarm is one obvious occasion. So is my director telling me "the Board wants us to spend two thousand dollars on Spanish language materials." So is my spouse telling me, "Wow, that feels really good."
well yeah, if someone is telling me to do something that MAKES SENSE then I do it. I have respect for and follow authority figures. Authority figures are a good and necessary thing. I follow fire alarms. I sometimes wear clothing other than what I would prefer to wear. Rules are necessary in a lot of situations. I'm not saying "Fight the man" and never ever do as you're told.
However if there is a rule that causes me great inconvenience and I can't think of a single good reason for it, I'm going to ask why the hell that rule is in effect. If someone's set of "rules" is harming people then I'm going to point that out and when you're church is asking you to destroy any literature or entertainment you have that is secular and insulate yourself from society, that is harmful. That is not good in any way, shape or form. "Authority" and "Authoritarian" are not the same thing and I never meant to imply that they were.
I generally have respect for authority figures and I generally follow the rules, because usually the rules make sense and don't unnecessarily restrict my freedom to do what I enjoy and be myself. Usually if a law restricts me from doing something that I want to do, its because my doing that would infringe on someone else's rights. I'm ok with that.
I'm not ok with rules and laws that seek to silence any opposition to or questioning of those in charge. I'm not ok with rules that restrict people unnecessarily.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:11 PM
@mmy-
So to characterize those of us who have been involved in certain groups as "taken in" is to characterize us as being credulous, foolish, silly, etc. It doesn't take the sting out of the characterization to include yourself within the group "those who have been taken in."
Well, I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Jason, do you realise you sound like you're boasting?
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:14 PM
well, I don't intend to come off that way.
I'm sorry. I'm not doing it intentionally and I certainly don't want to sound that way.
I am apparently incapable of making the point I'm trying to make without coming off like an ass.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Ruth - no, you're not quite reinventing the wheel. You're drawing together a lot of approaches to studying these kinds of groups, and putting them in context of your own words and experiences and attitudes. And I think you're right, and Kit's right, that such groups can be good in some ways and bad in others, good for some people at some times while simultaneously abusing other people, and so on. I know I've mentioned the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame here before, but I'm going to again, because it's a relatively easy-to-use tool that you can apply to lots and lots of situations in order to assess how concerned you should be about a situation. It doesn't give a "this is a good group" or "this is a cult, run!" answer - it's a way to organize and review the evidence.
Posted by: Literata | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Reading some of these replies to Kit's excellent and enlightening post, I am struck by the memories of two times in my life.
The first was when I joined the military. I DID want order, I DID want direction. I was an authoritarian follower back then and I wanted to do something that had structure, purpose, and probably some level of empowerment. I wanted to belong to something greater than myself, and my exposure to the military before then had been through my father, a decorated Korean War veteran. Maybe I wanted to prove something, too, that I wasn't a wimp or a pushover, or whatever.
As it turned out, I did my active time and got out, and later after the 2004 elections resigned my commission for a lot of reasons, the main one I told myself at the time being that my mother was dying of cancer. This actually leads to the second moment that struck me.
First, let me say right off that I am in no way at all trying to make my experiences even remotely similar to that of joining a 'cult' or coercive religious group I'm sure tech humorists would find a thousand ways to disagree, and feel free to chuckle or laugh; I am just stressing that it is nothing like what Kit or others who entered actual coercive religious groups at delicate times in their lives.
The year my parents died, I was looking for work, and I was, frankly, still struggling with what happened. I was 'dealing with it' and slogging through things. I suppose in a sense what I got into was better than if certain coercive religious groups had gotten their hands on me, but at the time I was rather 'Gnostic antitheist.' ("The Demiurge is neither omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient; the world is made of corrupt matter that inevitably decays, even protons; and HE put us her, damn him." Things like that.) Anyway, I got a job with Apple Computers.
Again, Apple was NOT a cult. But... the retail training they gave us was very empowering, focussing on communication. They made us new hires feel very, very welcome, very valued, and very worthwhile. I felt comfortable. The managers were human beings and understanding and helpful. Even the people who came from corporate seemed to have a personal interest in us and our welfare and how well things went. It was, even looking back at it now, the best job I ever had... even with the inevitable 8% of customers whose sole purpose in life, it seemed, was to make everyone around them miserable.
I left Apple, because in the end that 8% was making my life as a retail technician a living hell, to the point where I was starting to hurt myself. And after getting out I've managed to see that Apple is Not A Nice Company. The threats of litigation against HTC, the iTunes DRM, the anti-consumer collusion with AT&T, the tacit approval of the conditions at Foxconn, and now the tacit approval of an Exodus Ministries app on the App Store (which is being petitioned against, but heavens know if anything will come of it.) There are companies that really are trying to do the right thing, but Apple passed that point a long time ago. But even now -- as silly as it sounds -- even working in one of the coolest environments in desktop support I can think of, even at a place where I feel like I get smarter just for parking my car at work, where I learn some new bit of information about the world almost every day, where I can talk to a client who's actually been quoted favorably here several times on Slacktiverse (and there are more than one, I think) -- I still am not entirely certain I wouldn't jump ship and go back to work for Apple. (At least, if I didn't have to deal with customers directly anymore. I've managed to keep that in mind, at least.)
Again, I'm not trying to correlate working for Apple with being in a coercive religious group, many of which are actively emotionally and physically harmful, and which (if I may be permitted to within this subject descend into humor for a moment) don't even give comparable health coverage. I'm merely illustrating how easy it can be for groups such as these to draw in and keep people who are to some degree emotionally fragile and vulnerable.
Augh, I really hope this came out right. :(
Posted by: Mink | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM
@Jason: I'm sorry. I'm not doing it [boasting] intentionally and I certainly don't want to sound that way.
However if there is a rule that causes me great inconvenience and I can't think of a single good reason for it, I'm going to ask why the hell that rule is in effect
You sound as if you are quite confident that you always have the background, skills, training, experience and personality to make a sound judgment as to who should be in authority and whether that authority figure's rules are "right" and "good."
You have already demonstrated on this thread that you are willing to make judgments about areas of life that you know little about [grad school, the military]. It makes the reader wonder in how many other situations in which you felt "things didn't make sense" it was due to you not having the knowledge or background to have an informed opinion on the rule.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:29 PM
I guess I feel like certain religious groups discourage any sort of questioning or critical thought. They want obedience and they want blind obedience. Questioning is labelled as a "lack of faith" or being less spiritual than those who do not question. These types of religious groups also tend to often endorse behavior and views that I personally find objectionable. Also in this country a large number of those types of groups tend to be Christian churches.
I feel that is wrong for me to be silent about them, but I'm also afraid that I can't speak out against them without occasionally looking just as bad as the leadership of those groups look....
...and this conversation is making me wonder if that's not the case.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:30 PM
the tacit approval of an Exodus Ministries app on the App Store (which is being petitioned against, but heavens know if anything will come of it.)
They've withdrawn it. Here's the Change.org e-mail:
Amazing! After more than 150,000 petition signatures from Change.org members and saturation media coverage, news outlets worldwide are reporting that Apple has pulled an iPhone application launched by Exodus International that claimed to help "cure" gay and lesbian people.
This is a huge, public victory against the dangerous myth that gay young people can and should be "turned straight" -- a falsehood that contributes to the plague of depression and suicide afflicting these kids and young adults. Our friends at Truth Wins Out, the organization that started the petition on Change.org, are absolutely thrilled.
Apple did the right thing because an incredible 151,125 Change.org members -- including you -- stood together to demand it. We spread the word on Facebook more than 55,000 times. And together we attracted the attention of media around the globe, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, and hundreds of newspapers and blogs.
It's simply amazing. Thank you for making this victory possible.
- Eden and the Change.org team
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM
@Mmy-
You sound as if you are quite confident that you always have the background, skills, training, experience and personality to make a sound judgment as to who should be in authority and whether that authority figure's rules are "right" and "good."
Considering that in 2008, I thought Sarah Palin would make a good President, I obviously do not have the background, skills, training, experience etc. to do that.
You have already demonstrated on this thread that you are willing to make judgments about areas of life that you know little about [grad school, the military]. It makes the reader wonder in how many other situations in which you felt "things didn't make sense" it was due to you not having the knowledge or background to have an informed opinion on the rule.
Point taken and I apologize. I haven't been to grad school, because I couldn't afford it and in my particular profession, grad school is for people who want to spend every waking hour on school, which is not something I wish to do.
I have no interest in joining the military, because I'm pretty sure I would hate it and be a burden rather than an asset.
I have the utmost respect for both the military and those disciplined enough to complete grad school. They just aren't for me.
I guess I'm falling into the "things I have respect for = good" and "things that cause warning bells to go off in my head = bad" trap and I apologize.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM
I guess I feel like certain religious groups discourage any sort of questioning or critical thought. They want obedience and they want blind obedience. Questioning is labelled as a "lack of faith" or being less spiritual than those who do not question. These types of religious groups also tend to often endorse behavior and views that I personally find objectionable. Also in this country a large number of those types of groups tend to be Christian churches.
Maybe so, but here's the thing: that description you've got there? It's a stereotype. It's a preconception. It's therefore liable to be simplistic when it comes to people's actual experience.
So when people are talking about their actual experiences of coercive or questionable religious groups, it'd be more cooperative to listen to the ambiguities or ask questions or share your own experiences that you think are comparable than to talk about how these things wouldn't affect you when your knowledge of these things is liable to be less than the people who've encountered them in their own lives.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I watched a documentary....I can't remember the name of it.....but anyway, it was about all kinds of "ministries" that seek to cure people of being gay. The amount of emotional abuse was appalling.
One I specifically remember would force gay men to play football and lesbians to have makeovers.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:39 PM
That makes sense, Kit. I'm sorry.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM
[[Jason: One I specifically remember would force gay men to play football and lesbians to have makeovers.]]
Because...gay men intrinsically don't like to play football and lesbians intrinsically don't like to wear makeup? My God.
Posted by: sarah | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM
..and apparently straight men intrinsically like to play football, which as a straight man I can say is news to me.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM
@Jason: I watched a documentary....I can't remember the name of it.....but anyway, it was about all kinds of "ministries" that seek to cure people of being gay. The amount of emotional abuse was appalling.
One I specifically remember would force gay men to play football and lesbians to have makeovers.
There's a wonderful site (though it hasn't been updated in ages, since the group has moved to a closed community) called Beyond Ex-Gay (or bXg for short). It's about the experience of people who were ex-gay at one point and have since left "the movement" and embraced their QUILTBAG identity.
The interesting thing is that the experiences can vary wildly. Some bXg members went to residency programs. Some went through personal therapy. Some went to retreats or joined group therapy sessions. Some simply read ex-gay books. Some simply tried to "pray away the gay" in their own personal lives without external support. Some did a combination of the above. (Me, I'm a former ex-gay of the "read some books and pray" sort.)
Even there, it's important to note that while most of the people involved with bXg will tell you that they found their experience in the ex-gay movement to be harmful, the nature and extent of that harm can vary wildly, even when involved in the various programs. Some may not go so far as to make all guys play football. (Though the one book I can think of made it clear that I needed to at least learn enough about various sports so that I'd have something to talk about with other heterosexual men I was supposed to form "normal friendships" with.) Some of the local programs can actually seem benign and are run by well-meaning people, often people who are ex-gay themselves.
I'm sure the documentary you watched was pretty accurate in what it showed. But bear in mind that it also probably focused on the "worst of the worst."
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Though the one book I can think of made it clear that I needed to at least learn enough about various sports so that I'd have something to talk about with other heterosexual men I was supposed to form "normal friendships" with.
This part is particularly amusing to me. I generally do not know enough about sports to have an intelligent conversation with the other heterosexual men that I have formed "normal friendships" with. They all just learn eventually that I am not interested in sports and we talk about other stuff.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:59 PM
I've been finding this thread very interesting, even though I have no experience with *voluntarily* joining a nonfamily group that was authoritarian or coercive in nature. I've been fascinated by authoritarianism ever since I read Altmeyer's book (for obvious reasons). I think I'm naturally very low on the authoritarian scale. But living in my family, I learned how to mimic being a high authoritarian follower, although I never understood it from the inside out. So in the last few years I've been reading a lot about power, authority, and hierarchies, trying to reach a visceral understanding.
I recently realized that my gut level squick about hierarchies seems to stem from my childhood experiences where the power structure was Lawful, but all the authorities were Lawful Evil. So to me, "submitting to authority" invariably calls to mind situations where I was faced with groveling to people who meant to harm me if I did not appease them enough. Iow, for me it is never morally neutral, and it always invokes panic and triggers my PTSD. Even the word "submission" grosses me out.
I've recently been trying to reconceptualize the idea of hierarchies as morally neutral, and/or run (at least in some cases) by authorities who are Lawful Good. I'm finding it rather challenging.
Posted by: Laima | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:59 PM
Oh gods yes so much: How to make friends. How to express that you like a person (romantically or platonically). How to behave at a large social gathering. How to greet someone that you have encountered, maybe even spoken to before, but don't really know that well. ANY NON-PRE-SCRIPTED SOCIAL INTERACTION WITH ANY LEVEL OF AMBIGUITY WHATSOEVER ARGHH!
And on the rare occasion I *do* work up the courage to ask someone what I'm supposed to do, the answers are ENRAGING. "Just do what comes naturally." Nothing comes naturally, that's why I'm asking! Worst of all? "Just be yourself." What the arglblarglflargl does that mean? People behave differently in different contexts! There's work mode, family mode, hanging-with-friends-I've-known-for-years mode. I don't HAVE a casual-social-interaction mode!
Sorry, I didn't intend for that to be quite so ranty when I started. Point is, I know where you're coming from.
Very much this, as well. The inverse is true as well--if you can't explain to me why doing something is a good idea, I will not do it.
I can definitely understand the ENORMOUS temptation of having a script for dealing with people--the kind of cult where you're supposed to be totally open and trusting with insiders, and have a literal script for talking to outsiders? No ambiguous middle regions? Oh yeah, there are days I could go for that like a shot.
Posted by: Froborr | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:02 PM
A few months ago, my sister a lot recommended Landmark Education Forum to me, as a way to get out of a rut, and kickstart new opportunities to succeed. It has worked for her tremendously. But then she started the hard sell which made me uncomfortable, so I looked into it further, and found out it is a weird sort of outgrowth of EST from the 70s. Which apparently works by inducing a trancelike experience in participants--they are kept cooped up in a room for 13 hours straight, for 2 to 3 consecutive days; not allowed to go in the bathroom, or to eat (much;, and called up to a microphone to talk about their own experiences, but they are also (while at the microphone) harangued into admitting their faults, and then tearfully promising to do better. They are also strongly encouraged to call people during the breaks and encourage those people to join Landmark. Somehow this entire experience creates that bonding experience that occurs when people all suffer through something traumatic and enlightening.
I decided Landmark was not for me. (which is good because it ain't cheap.)
Posted by: Laima | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:02 PM
"sister a lot" should be sister in law. (I need to remember to carefully preview posts made by dictating.)
Posted by: Laima | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:08 PM
@Froborr: It might be worth your while to get assessed for Asperger's. I have it (mildly) and I can identify a lot with what you wrote.
Posted by: kisekileia | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Seriously. Though I'd certainly rather be playing a sport than watching it, if those are the only options.
I think "normal friendships," at least for American men, mean activities in which you can talk but can't look directly at each other. Traditionally that meant sitting side-by-side at a bar or back-to-back fishing, in the last couple of generations watching sports on TV got added, and I think our generation has added playing video games to the list.
I've followed a similar path, though in my case it came from growing up in a toxically Chaotic family that left me both craving order and finding it horrifically alien.
And I have come to the inclusion that hierarchy and authority are intrinsically evil... but sometimes they're the lesser evil. Also, it's important to distinguish between authority ("Listen to me because of who I am,") and expertise ("Listen to me on this particular subject because I know a lot about this subject.") Expertise is good, though it's still important to exercise judgment in evaluating claims to expertise.
Posted by: Froborr | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:10 PM
..and apparently straight men intrinsically like to play football, which as a straight man I can say is news to me.
One of the things that you will find about ex-gay thinking is that it is often deeply attached to gender stereotypes. That and antiquated notions about the cause of non-heterosexual orientations. You know, the old saws about sexual abuse, distant fathers, and overbearing mothers (is there a teen alive that doesn't find their mother overbearing at some point?), and all that jazz.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:10 PM
I will follow orders from people I trust to give good orders, even if I do not understand the reasons behind them.
This isn't some decision I've made, it's just a fact. But I do resent it when people talk as if it made me inferior to them. Because from my point of view, I am a useful assistant who will do as directed, and demanding detailed explanations of every instruction is disruptive and unhelpful. The ability to rely on someone else's judgement is a positive ability.
This is particularly relevant in creative endeavours. The person with the image of the finished object in his head says he needs me to glue and screw this piece of wood in this place, and that in the other. Fine. I'll do as instructed. I trust him to give the right instructions to get us to the finished object, and I don't need to be able to picture it myself. Or I'm backstage at the theatre, and the stage manager wants the green table to be brought out now rather than later. Fine - they're the stage manager, it's their job to know these things. My job is to fetch the table, and backstage is a terrible place to have discussions.
Short version: I resent the implication that my willingness to follow mysterious orders from trusted people is a fault - because dammit, I am a good little worker bee. I am a really useful engine.
Posted by: Froth | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Just be yourself." What the arglblarglflargl does that mean?
"Assume you are acceptable to others, and insofar as it's compatible with good manners, be honest about your opinions and passions in a relaxed manner that implies that you won't take it personally if others don't agree with or share them."
Which takes a lot longer to say than "Just be yourself."
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:13 PM
Froborr: "I have come to the inclusion that hierarchy and authority are intrinsically evil... but sometimes they're the lesser evil."
I don't think we're likely to find common ground on this one.
Posted by: Froth | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:14 PM
And on the rare occasion I *do* work up the courage to ask someone what I'm supposed to do, the answers are ENRAGING. "Just do what comes naturally." Nothing comes naturally, that's why I'm asking! Worst of all? "Just be yourself." What the arglblarglflargl does that mean? People behave differently in different contexts! There's work mode, family mode, hanging-with-friends-I've-known-for-years mode. I don't HAVE a casual-social-interaction mode!
Ohhhh yes.
I hate that response, for the same reasons. I just want to hold up a big sign saying "I'm crap at small talk, can we skip to the interesting bits?" until people start doing that.
Posted by: Deird, who has no skillz | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:15 PM
@Kit: That explanation is really helpful.
Posted by: kisekileia | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Something I'd say is that 'following orders' isn't necessarily how cults do things. Sometimes, I'm sure. But there's also the implied order: the lecture or sermon or seminar or book that talks in the abstract about how a truly spiritual/committed/righteous/healthy/individual/clear-sighted person will do such-and-such. Since nobody wants to think of themselves as spiritless, shallow, wicked, sick, conformist or stupid, that will have plenty of influence without ever having to give an order - especially if you expose people to a lot of such talks, books etc.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 24, 2011 at 01:16 PM