Post by: Ursus on April 08, 2007, 01:17:40 PM
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=183847&start=0 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=183847&start=0)
I also went to Hyde School 30 years ago and am somewhat amazed to come across this forum. I can't think of a more disingenuous and destructive place for an adolescent. While the basic premises of character building and tough love seem worthy, and may even work for some who went to Hyde, the overall environment that was created was unhealthy, not to say bizarre.
After 1972 the school became increasingly strident and hysterical. Joe Gauld threw the most outrageous tantrums, shrieking and ranting accompanied by a Hitleresque waving of arms, which in any sane place would have been viewed as unacceptable and aberrant. At Hyde these were perceived as justified and that the recipient must have provoked them by a lack of willingness to accept some deep truth about themselves. I have since learned such behavior is always a cheap, manipulative power play.
The over-emotionalism at Hyde was particularly unhealthy. Manufactured crises, whether of individuals or over the school's direction, was always accompanied by wailing and crying as people confessed their supposed shortcomings and confronted others. There was an incredible lack of privacy, with every aspect of a student's life scrutinized by both faculty and peers. The term "brother's keeper" was twisted to mean betrayal and students were acclaimed for confronting and making public others' "negative attitudes," which really meant maintaining a capacity for independent and critical thinking.
Seminars, now evidently called discovery groups, started out as helpful and supportive, but evolved into a hysterical feeding frenzy as students were confronted over anything from poor athletic performances, which necessarily demonstrated a lack of commitment to themselves, or an inability to "give" and open up their true feelings. After 1972, these frequently degenerated into screaming and wailing sessions.
When you are involved in this environment on a daily basis, one's own sense of reality becomes perverted. Because we were basically isolated on campus with parents coerced into supporting the Hyde Way, hysteria and tantrums became normal, even commendable. There was an illusion created that had no basis in reality. This reality was to be perpetuated by students who were willing to make a lifetime commitment to Hyde. Some of these are evidently still there today.
In 1976, one student who couldn't handle the pressure tried to burn down the Mansion in the middle of the night. As this was the main building at the time, which served as a dormitory, dining area and housed all classrooms, it was a highly dangerous act. While there was considerable damage, there were no injuries.
But perhaps the sickest incident I witnessed occurred in the winter of 1974 and involved the confrontation of a faculty member who will remain nameless. This teacher was a definite Poindexter type, socially challenged but a perfectly decent individual. Evidently he proved unable or unwilling to truly "give" of himself in the faculty seminar (discovery group). Early one afternoon, then headmaster Ed Legg announced an emergency school meeting and this teacher was hauled in front of students, faculty and staff and confronted.
What followed was a scene right out of Lord of the Flies. Ed Legg set the tone, offering up a damning appraisal of the teacher's character and deep-seated problem connecting with the school. He then opened the floor to other students and faculty and 240 people set upon the teacher, screaming and crying for two hours, confronting him with how he was not only betraying himself, but the entire school. "I can't feel anything you're saying," screamed one student. "I'm so disappointed in you, how could you let us down like this," sobbed another.
After this incredible emotional purging he was given an opportunity to "give" something of himself. Obviously in a state of considerable distress, he admitted to an affair he had during the Vietnam War with his best friend's wife. "And the damn woman seduced me," he admitted, choking back tears. This was deemed by faculty and students to be insufficiently giving and the teacher was judged to not truly be in touch with his feelings. Joe Gauld then closed the meeting saying, "But the person I feel most bad for is your son." The teacher had a two-month old baby.
It was all very hysterical, tawdry and pathetic. I remember being shocked and frightened at the time by the emotional intensity of it all. It was a manipulated mob run amuck. As with all of Hyde, the experience had no positive educational value. The only lesson learned was that frightened people in a group feed off each other, and are to be avoided.
To those who feel that people critical of Hyde need to toughen up, my response is there is a difference between toughness and manipulated hysteria and false truth. I had a great deal of unlearning to do as a consequence of my experience at Hyde, which took a number of years. After time past, my parents felt deeply guilty about sending me there. The fact that the same philosophy still exists at the school, and some of the same people, or their offspring, remain in charge is disturbing. To those considering Hyde as an educational alternative, take note of some of the more sober posts in this forum and consider other alternatives.
Frederick W. Burnside
Post by: Anonymous on April 08, 2007, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: ""Ursus""
I am reposting this piece, originally posted about a year ago. It captures, for me at least, the essence of many issues that appear to be endemic to Hyde's take on "preparation for life."
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=183847&start=0 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=183847&start=0)
I also went to Hyde School 30 years ago and am somewhat amazed to come across this forum. I can't think of a more disingenuous and destructive place for an adolescent. While the basic premises of character building and tough love seem worthy, and may even work for some who went to Hyde, the overall environment that was created was unhealthy, not to say bizarre.
After 1972 the school became increasingly strident and hysterical. Joe Gauld threw the most outrageous tantrums, shrieking and ranting accompanied by a Hitleresque waving of arms, which in any sane place would have been viewed as unacceptable and aberrant. At Hyde these were perceived as justified and that the recipient must have provoked them by a lack of willingness to accept some deep truth about themselves. I have since learned such behavior is always a cheap, manipulative power play.
The over-emotionalism at Hyde was particularly unhealthy. Manufactured crises, whether of individuals or over the school's direction, was always accompanied by wailing and crying as people confessed their supposed shortcomings and confronted others. There was an incredible lack of privacy, with every aspect of a student's life scrutinized by both faculty and peers. The term "brother's keeper" was twisted to mean betrayal and students were acclaimed for confronting and making public others' "negative attitudes," which really meant maintaining a capacity for independent and critical thinking.
Seminars, now evidently called discovery groups, started out as helpful and supportive, but evolved into a hysterical feeding frenzy as students were confronted over anything from poor athletic performances, which necessarily demonstrated a lack of commitment to themselves, or an inability to "give" and open up their true feelings. After 1972, these frequently degenerated into screaming and wailing sessions.
When you are involved in this environment on a daily basis, one's own sense of reality becomes perverted. Because we were basically isolated on campus with parents coerced into supporting the Hyde Way, hysteria and tantrums became normal, even commendable. There was an illusion created that had no basis in reality. This reality was to be perpetuated by students who were willing to make a lifetime commitment to Hyde. Some of these are evidently still there today.
In 1976, one student who couldn't handle the pressure tried to burn down the Mansion in the middle of the night. As this was the main building at the time, which served as a dormitory, dining area and housed all classrooms, it was a highly dangerous act. While there was considerable damage, there were no injuries.
But perhaps the sickest incident I witnessed occurred in the winter of 1974 and involved the confrontation of a faculty member who will remain nameless. This teacher was a definite Poindexter type, socially challenged but a perfectly decent individual. Evidently he proved unable or unwilling to truly "give" of himself in the faculty seminar (discovery group). Early one afternoon, then headmaster Ed Legg announced an emergency school meeting and this teacher was hauled in front of students, faculty and staff and confronted.
What followed was a scene right out of Lord of the Flies. Ed Legg set the tone, offering up a damning appraisal of the teacher's character and deep-seated problem connecting with the school. He then opened the floor to other students and faculty and 240 people set upon the teacher, screaming and crying for two hours, confronting him with how he was not only betraying himself, but the entire school. "I can't feel anything you're saying," screamed one student. "I'm so disappointed in you, how could you let us down like this," sobbed another.
After this incredible emotional purging he was given an opportunity to "give" something of himself. Obviously in a state of considerable distress, he admitted to an affair he had during the Vietnam War with his best friend's wife. "And the damn woman seduced me," he admitted, choking back tears. This was deemed by faculty and students to be insufficiently giving and the teacher was judged to not truly be in touch with his feelings. Joe Gauld then closed the meeting saying, "But the person I feel most bad for is your son." The teacher had a two-month old baby.
It was all very hysterical, tawdry and pathetic. I remember being shocked and frightened at the time by the emotional intensity of it all. It was a manipulated mob run amuck. As with all of Hyde, the experience had no positive educational value. The only lesson learned was that frightened people in a group feed off each other, and are to be avoided.
To those who feel that people critical of Hyde need to toughen up, my response is there is a difference between toughness and manipulated hysteria and false truth. I had a great deal of unlearning to do as a consequence of my experience at Hyde, which took a number of years. After time past, my parents felt deeply guilty about sending me there. The fact that the same philosophy still exists at the school, and some of the same people, or their offspring, remain in charge is disturbing. To those considering Hyde as an educational alternative, take note of some of the more sober posts in this forum and consider other alternatives.
Frederick W. Burnside
Wow, I could not have said it better. Gary, this is a piece you could use for your article. It is quite profound and completely accurate of the Hyde today. One of the many traumatic incidences I had at Hyde was similar to what Mr Burnside is describing. I felt embarrassed and humiliated when parents spoke about such horrific things in their lives in front of some of the family of students. I don't know that the public or Ed Consultants are aware that Hyde exposes 14 year old siblings to stories about incest, rape, suicide, and worse when conducting these so called "family seminars." I don't think any licensed Psychologist will agree that young people should be exposed to this. It is bad enough that the students have to expose embarrassing things to their peers, but to have to admit traumatic events in your life in front of strangers and their kids is humiliating in the worst way. I don't think anyone who represents Hyde will say this is untrue. This is part of the way, (destructive I might add) Hyde operates on a daily basis. Even you Billy have to admit this is true and that nothing about this has changed since the 70's. There is no subject that isn't allowed in these seminars.
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 08, 2007, 05:25:58 PM
There must be a syndrome name for the scapegoating purges. Hyde is not the only organization in which I have had the displeasure of witnessing this behaviour. It kind of roils around in cycles. I think you could come up with some differential equation model to predict it. They can't possibly still be doing that ... can they?
I was always waiting for Jesus to come and "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone" Unfortunately Hyde is closer to Life of Brian ... with out the humor.
"No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!"
Emil
Post by: lucy on April 08, 2007, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: ""JoeSoulBro""
Does Hyde still operate that way?
There must be a syndrome name for the scapegoating purges. Hyde is not the only organization in which I have had the displeasure of witnessing this behaviour. It kind of roils around in cycles. I think you could come up with some differential equation model to predict it. They can't possibly still be doing that ... can they?
I was always waiting for Jesus to come and "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone" Unfortunately Hyde is closer to Life of Brian ... with out the humor.
"No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!"
Yes Soulbro, Hyde is exactly as Mr Burnside describes in his paper! No changes from my experience in the late 1990's.
Emil
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 08, 2007, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: ""lucy""
Quote from: ""JoeSoulBro""Does Hyde still operate that way?
There must be a syndrome name for the scapegoating purges. Hyde is not the only organization in which I have had the displeasure of witnessing this behaviour. It kind of roils around in cycles. I think you could come up with some differential equation model to predict it. They can't possibly still be doing that ... can they?
I was always waiting for Jesus to come and "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone" Unfortunately Hyde is closer to Life of Brian ... with out the humor.
"No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!"
Yes Soulbro, Hyde is exactly as Mr Burnside describes in his paper! No changes from my experience in the late 1990's.
Emil
Geezum Crow! (Mainah talk)
There is a certain comfort in knowing that other people see the things you see. On the whole I would be just as happy if it were a bad dream.
Emil
Post by: Ursus on April 09, 2007, 12:55:12 AM
They never liked Mr. W; he was a dork, a dweeb, a geek... the kind of guy who uses pocket protectors for his pens and usually has a couple pairs of pants that are too short. The kind of guy whose guileless good intentions were impossible to pervert completely. He went along with their show because he really believed he was doing the right thing: confronting kids re. their attitudes, etc. to help them grow, albeit on a wimpier scale than probably was expected of him. Somehow, said judgments never quite had the "heat" or castration quotient they might have had coming from someone else. His heart just wasn't into that part of the program.
And he paid for it, dearly, a la Lord of the Flies style. In retrospect, knowing what we now know of the predatory nature of Gauld's take on vulnerable women and Legg's misogynistic attitude towards same, the hypocrisy of these penny ante leaders of the stone-throwing contingent is more than absolutely disgusting. In another time they may have been the town elders revving up the townspeople in a witch-hunting dunk fest. "And the crowd erupted with shrieks of blood-thirsty cheers as the body finally sunk lifelessly below the surface, a trailing ribbon from her bonnet being the last stubborn vestige seen..."
I hope Mr. W finds this site, and reads that his experience evoked reactions of outrage amongst normal thinking people. It will be hopelessly small consolation for what was undoubtedly a seminal low point in his life, but I hope it will be some comfort anyway. He deserved better, and some of us are haunted by this.
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 09, 2007, 07:08:48 AM
Quote
he was a dork, a dweeb, a geek... the kind of guy who uses pocket protectors for his pens
Hey. I have a pocket protector for my rotoring fountain pen and drafting pencil. It is not dorky. It is cool. It is hip to be technically astute. Math is very sexy.
Emil
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 09, 2007, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: ""JoeSoulBro""
Quote
he was a dork, a dweeb, a geek... the kind of guy who uses pocket protectors for his pens
Hey. I have a pocket protector for my rotoring fountain pen and drafting pencil. It is not dorky. It is cool. It is hip to be technically astute. Math is very sexy.
Emil
tell me this is not cool:
Emil
Post by: Ursus on April 09, 2007, 10:32:26 AM
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 09, 2007, 10:37:14 AM
Emil
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2007, 11:00:48 AM
Quote from: ""JoeSoulBro""
Back to the original point of the first post. Those purges were vicious. It is not a lesson I want to teach my kids, or have anyones kids learn. IF they are still doing those public stoning, shame on them. They should know better,
Emil
Public stoning is part of the process now. Never did go away. Those poor kids! I remember one girl who broke down in front of everyone as she was forced to talk about a date rape. In the same room was a 13 year old sibling of another who was obviously traumatized listening to this. I believe this is a form of child abuse. It was all done by an aumni parent who was a wannabe psychologist. He had absolutely no credentials other than being a Hyde parent. God only knows what happened to the poor girl who was forced to tell all in front of everyone. I feel sorry for her.
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2007, 02:02:20 PM
Post by: Jesus H Christ on April 09, 2007, 02:42:34 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
A Penny for the Old Guy, Hollow Man?
Dear Mr The limb bone is connected to the thigh bone,
Jack Straw could use a penny, but in Malkuth it may not matter.
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2007, 08:13:26 PM
Mr W took a bunch of us, maybe 5 or 6, I dont remember, up Mt. Washington one winter. It was organized by DeJong I think, Mr W agreed to be chaperone because he loved that sort of thing. Totally different scene than the dory trips in the smmer, where you had to row till your arms screamed because otherwise you werent pushing yourself hard enough. This was purely for the love of the outdoors.
We hiked in 4 miles to base camp during the night. Snow everywhere, all was silent. Pace was slowed to accomadate the slower ones. Spent the night in the base camp shelter (floor, 3 walls, roof, thats it). Next day up the back face. Lunch was eaten sitting on top of the tree line (2 ft tall), salami and cheese sandwiches. Up that last hump, cant remember the name of it, but its steeper at the bottom, so when you're near the top, you look back and you can see maybe 10 ft of ice and rock and then nothing... for a good long bit, and then the meadow in the far off distance below. We used crampons and ice picks, don't remember about the ropes.
At the summit, we crawled in through the window of the hut which is always supposed to be open for travelers (door was locked). Hot Tang never tasted so good! And then back down to base camp, and the next day back out to the road. I'll never forget him for that special memory. One of the best times I ever had. Maybe it was best because it had nothing to do with Hyde, just a bunch of guys enjoying the winter outdoors.
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2007, 09:51:38 PM
Post by: Ursus on April 12, 2007, 03:28:35 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
The best things about Hyde had nothing to do with Hyde other than the banality of the program bullshit made them seem more intense. Kind of like a sip of water after two hours in the wrestling room. It was the things in between, that happen by themselves that were good.
Could not have said it better myself! :tup: :tup:
Post by: Ursus on April 16, 2007, 08:39:00 AM
Quote
This paper presents an overview of a Lifespring Basic Training workshop from a psychoanalytic perspective. Basing our conclusions on a participant-observation study, we argue that the impact of the training was essentially pathological. First, in the early period of the training, ego functions were systematically undermined and regression was promoted. Second, the ideational or interpretive framework of the training was based upon regressive modes of reasoning. Third, the structure and content of the training tended to stimulate early narcissistic conflicts, and defenses, which accounted for the elation and sense of heightened well-being achieved by many participants.
A major contemporary force in developing popular conceptions of the self has been the human potential movement, grounded in the premises and practice of "Third Force" psychology--humanistic psychology--which emerged in the 1950s and found increasingly widespread expression in the next two decades. The growth of the human potential movement has been both exponential and chaotic. In the realm of education and therapy it has created numerous gurus and schools and provided an array of techniques and procedures for the enhancement of personal growth. In the 1970s an effort was made by several persons, and groups to consolidate various practices into cohesive packages as training programs. These widely marketed programs, designed and organized to effect significant and positive changes in the lives of participants were first successfully initiated by Werner Erhard with est, and are now dominated by est and Lifespring. The investigation presented here focuses on the structure and processes of a Lifespring training program.
Quote
The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood--the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child's immediate needs and the external world.
Regression, however, does not inevitably imply pathology. From a psychoanalytic perspective, many healthy and adaptive forms of human activity, such as falling in love (Grunberger 1979 pp5-6) and artistic achievement (Kris 1964 p28), require the capacity to regress. When falling in love, one must be able to experience temporary states of psychological merger with another person and artistic achievement often involves access to impulses and irrational of primitive fantasies. In addition, the ability to work in groups or to engage in collective forms of social action requires the capacity to merge with the group ideals and group interests. The critical distinction in determining pathology in group members concerns the extent of regression--i.e., the dominance of primitive fantasies or impulses and the level of ego control maintained. By ego control, we mean the capacity for reality testing, for mobilizing adaptive defenses, for distinguishing between internal and external events, and for bringing affective states under rational control.
Many of the encounter groups of the human potential movement have been described as regressive because of their disinhibitive effects and their tendency to stress abandonment to strong emotions while disparaging reasoning and intellect (Back 1972 p79, Schur 1976 pp48-53). The emphasis upon "getting in touch with your feelings" and "getting out of your head" may be of therapeutic value in encouraging participants to gain access to previously warded off impulses, a process which often occurs in successful forms of psychodynamic therapy. However, without an interpretive framework which reconciles affective states with objective reality and logical thought processes, such group cathartic experiences offer little opportunity for sustained therapeutic change and may, in fact, be psychologically damaging (Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles 1973 pp167-209).
From the section on "DIMINISHED EGO FUNCTIONS AND REGRESSION":
Quote
The trainer began the workshop by discussing the purpose of Lifespring, writing "personal growth" and "personal awareness" in bold letters on the board. Awareness was defined as "understanding things as they are." The trainer emphasized that the answers were already within us--it was just a matter of discovering them. "Everything has always been available to you. It's a matter of noticing it, of awareness." This nativistic approach to knowledge was dramatized by a banner across the front of the room which "grew" in size each day. The enigmatic phrase, which spanned twenty feet by the fifth day, was "What am I pretending not to know?"
Following the introduction by the trainer, the group discussed the various motives for coming to Lifespring and how to achieve "full value" from the training. The key phrases, which described the vehicle to personal growth, were "submission," "100 percent commitment," and "spontaneity."
This emphasis upon submission and total involvement required some attention to resistances--the doubts, and reservations which participants inevitably would experience. The trainer moved to a discussion of "how we avoid," drawing from the audience examples of avoidance behaviors such as forgetting, sickness, and daydreaming. The question was posed, "What stands in the way of creating maximum value for yourself?" By the end of the first evening, the trainer had explained emphatically the major contingency for achieving the expected transformation: complete submission to the Lifespring experience. By the device of identifying resistances as "ways of avoiding," participants' questions, doubts and concerns were labeled as obstacles to personal growth.
A variety of rules for "playing the Lifespring game" were then reviewed and participants were asked to stand to indicate agreement with them. While all groups, are guided by implicit or explicit rules, the Lifespring rules were notable for their emphasis upon obedience to the instructions of the trainer and their arbitrariness or lack of an apparent rationale. The effect of a prolonged discussion of the rules, which included some challenging questions by participants, was to fortify the position of the trainer as a legitimate authority who was in control and to diminish the participants' control.
Audience responses were managed in a way which reduced the ability of participants to think critically and simultaneously inflated their self-esteem. In order to speak, participants had to stand, be acknowledged by the leader and speak into a microphone. The audience was to applaud after the person finished speaking, presumably indicating support for the "risk of sharing." The experience of having to speak before a large group, hearing one's voice amplified and being rewarded with applause was undoubtedly useful for those who were fearful of public speaking. However, since the applause was mandatory, it was not an indication of the quality or coherence of participants' comments. The trainer acknowledged as valid only those audience responses which confirmed or illustrated a point being made. Over the five days, responses came increasingly to mirror the idiom of the trainer, and the applause became increasingly enthusiastic. This essentially distorted and magnified the import of what was being said, undermining reality testing. For example, midway through the training, one participant stood and announced elatedly, "I've got it!" Considerable applause followed even though there was no explanation about what he had 'gotten'.
What was rewarded by the trainer was compliance or pseudocompliance. Participants who offered critical comments or who suggested a different way of conceptualizing a problem had their statements dismissed, were subjected to ridicule, or were confused with paradoxical logic. The "dissenter" was generally maneuvered into some form of compliance before being permitted to sit down and receive the applause.
Quote
The trainer used a variety of techniques to neutralize comments which challenged or qualified the point being made and maintained sufficient control over audience responses to assure that defiance and critical thinking were not publicly rewarded. The use of confusing "double talk" was particularly effective in disarming those who threatened to de-legitimize the trainer's position. Statements such as "What you think isn't is, and what you think is isn't," or "Well, what is the answer?" were perplexing enough to cause the participant to falter in uncertainty. The suggestion that the participant was disturbed, confused, "avoiding," or "game-playing" were other tactics used to discredit objecting participants.
As the training progressed, participants became increasingly reliant upon the trainer to interpret reality. Defenses and the capacity for critical reasoning were undermined by both the structure of the training and the responses of the leader. Typically, a didactic session followed each experiential exercise, providing an interpretive framework for the feelings evoked. The trainer provided attributions for the heightened arousal which was generated by the exercise.
From the section on "IDEATIONAL THEMES AND REGRESSION":
Quote
On the second evening during the didactic session, the ideational content of the Lifespring message was reviewed elaborately with the use of diagrams. The trainer began with a discussion of "how we respond to events." He argued that by "resisting events" or "attempting to change them," people merely rely on prior belief systems or "automatic" ways of interpreting the world. This way of responding is a reactive one which ties people to the experience of the past and to unrealistic expectations for the future. The trainer emphasized that "coming from a position of change never works." On the other hand, "submission" to events and acceptance of things as they are results in "creative choice," "awareness," "joy" and "growth." The paradox of this implicitly conservative message was that personal control was promoted through submission or surrender to the existing reality of the trainer.
The following interchange took place as one of the researchers attempted to challenge the logic of the presentation, using the language and categories provided by the trainer.
JANICE: Part of what you're saying matches my experience and part of it doesn't. I can see how in some situations conflict is made worse by reacting on the basis of rigid, unrealistic expectations. Yet, in other situations--like the women's movement or other social movements--those who resist are the ones who create change. For those who submit and back away from conflict, no change takes place. Also, beliefs can limit us but they can also sustain us at times. The belief in justice or equality, for example, can provide hope for another way of cooperating in the world. There needs to be some distinction between rational and irrational or infantile beliefs here.
TRAINER: Your problem is that you're stuck on the level of analyzing and beliefs. You're hung up on having to analyze everything.
JANICE: I thought that this was the time for that--the didactic period. Isn't that what you're doing on the board? Am I wrong? (Some audience laughter)
After the audience laughter the trainer removed his chart, displaying some irritation, and began a new chart entitled "Levels of Awareness." He started with "belief," stating that this was a low level of human awareness: he then discussed "analyzing" and "experimenting." He distinguished these three low levels of awareness, which presumably maintain the "illusion of certainty," from "experiencing and observing," which are unfettered by belief and lead to "natural knowing." By stressing that "all beliefs are arbitrary," the trainer promoted a radical devaluation of the external world. This solipsistic view of the world, which presupposes a presocial self, contributed to the general tendency of Lifespring to cultivate regressive modes of reasoning.
Although there was often an element of truth in the trainer's arguments, the extensive use of all-or-nothing categories, absolutist logic and magical thinking distorted what would otherwise have been reasonable points. Ideas were not presented as problematic beliefs which were open to scrutiny but as transcendent truth--"natural knowing." The critical eye of the participant was turned away from tile content of the training and toward him/herself as the source of all knowledge.
From the section on "INFANTILE OMNIPOTENCE AND IDENTIFICATION WITH THE LEADER":
Quote
After participating in a variety of regressive exercises, participants came increasingly to identify with the trainer and to share his power during the third and fourth days of training. Shifting from the emphasis upon submission and trust, the trainer suggested that we were totally responsible for all events in our lives--"100 percent accountable"--including the selection of our parents. An exercise designed to illustrate the theme of "taking full responsibility" involved the use of pairs. Partners were to tell each other of an occasion when each had been victimized. Several people told stories about having been beaten by a parent as a child. We were then instructed to retell the story from a position of 100 percent accountability--in other words, how we "set things up to be that way."
This exercise transformed the infantile helplessness which participants had experienced earlier into infantile omnipotence. Many participants reported feelings of elation and expansiveness following this exercise. The level of insight gained was akin to the reasoning of a small child who has not yet cognitively overcome an egocentric view of the world--the conviction that all events emanate from the self. The subjective experience of liberation which accompanied this exercise seemed to stem from the sense of omnipotent control generated among the participants. The group was particularly vulnerable to this type of primitive reasoning because of the effects of the earlier training. The lowering of inhibitions, the extensive structuring of the environment and the undermining of critical thought combined to elicit archaic defenses such as omnipotence.
Identification with the powerful position of the trainer as a defense against infantile helplessness and dependency was made evident by the increasing reliance upon his language over the five days of training. The language of the human potential movement, which provided the "official" lexicon of Lifespring, seemed to exhaust and encompass all of human experience, e.g., "getting off automatic," "going for it," "taking risks," "taking responsibility," and "creating your own reality." These phrases took on an almost magical communicative power within the group.
As the training progressed and the trainer's words were repeated by group members, the trainer became softer in his style and more accessible to the group. His occasionally stepping down from the podium and mingling with the group allowed a greater sense of psychological merger with him. Our collective seduction was dramatically enacted on the fourth day as participants took the position of the leader on the podium and "shared" the growth which they had achieved thus far. Laura, an attractive and articulate woman of about thirty, who had been the first participant to object to a rule on the first evening, approached the microphone. Her voice trembling, she began to explain how socially isolated she had become and spoke of the barriers which she had erected to keep people at a distance. The trainer then asked if she would be willing to try an exercise in "trust." The lights were dimmed and the woman stood on a chair ready to fall backward into the arms of six men selected from the audience. As sensual music played, the trainer stood close to her, murmuring in intimate tones. Finally she allowed herself to fall, and the men began to rock her back and forth to the music. The trainer remained close to the woman, who was now sobbing, massaging her stomach and speaking softly to her. The exercise was quite poignant, moving many participants to tears. Although the surface meaning of the exercise concerned trust, it was compelling in its libidinal and religious undertones. There had been a series of testimonials followed by the "baptismal" of a formerly recalcitrant participant. She had fully immersed herself in the experience and had finally yielded to the trainer.
The desire for merger, which is reminiscent of the security and total dependency of early childhood, has been identified in various psychological phenomena, e.g., falling in love, religious experiences, and intoxicated states. However, what we found particularly troublesome in the various trust exercises presented in Lifespring was the implied indiscriminate nature of trust. The desire for intimacy was gratified instantaneously. It appeared to matter little whether or not the object of desire was trustworthy. The emphasis was upon abandonment to an undifferentiated, unknowable other who existed as an extension of one's own needs.
An essentially solipsistic view of the world was supported by the experiential and ideational content of tile training throughout the five days. While reactions to others always contain projective themes, at Lifespring the boundary between inner and outer reality, between self and other, was constantly being obliterated by the structure of the training. This contributed to the sense of expansiveness and boundless power experienced by participants. The idea of "mirroring" was used in several exercises as a metaphor for projected reality. "What you see in others," we were told, "is a mirror of yourself."
Exercises which mobilized narcissistic defenses, i.e., feelings of inflated well-being and exaggerated personal power, were alternated with attacking exercises, which were narcissistically injurious. The latter evoked feelings of shame and worthlessness and made the group vulnerable to the judgments of the leader. One example involved a game called "Red and Black," which required the group to divide into two teams and develop strategies, based upon a set of rules, for achieving the greatest number of points. Neither team was able to recognize that the main contingency for getting the maximum number of points was that both teams succeed. Essentially, if one team lost, both lost. And both teams did lose. This exercise could have been an occasion for discussing the cultural context of competition and aspects of our society which make it difficult to identify cooperative contingencies. Instead, the trainer castigated participants, finally stating with disgust, "You all make me sick." Since the exercise was at the close of the evening, we were to go home and reflect upon what we had learned. Many participants were silent and tearful as we closed the evening session.
By assuming the position of a harsh and rejecting parent, the trainer was able to mobilize infantile feelings of badness. This experience made it more likely that participants would attempt to defend against feelings of being a bad and powerless child in subsequent exercises by identifying more strongly with the leader. The tendency to identify with him in order to share in his power was particularly evident on the morning following the Red and Black exercise as 8 or 10 participants lined up enthusiastically on the stage to give testimonials. This was the first time in the training that participants were invited to join the leader in his elevated position on the stage.
During the final two days of the training, there was a great deal of hugging and other indications of affection among participants. However, these expressions of "love for everyone" seemed to be narcissistically motivated. They were an extension of the expansive mood and feelings of power experienced by many of the participants rather than an expression of mutuality or attachment. Another group exercise, based on an assembly line model of human relations, illustrates the indiscriminate nature of intimate overtures. Participants assembled in two concentric circles, facing each other. Each facing pair was to simultaneously indicate one of four possible gestures of intimacy: no contact; a handshake; holding hands; or an embrace. After completing this brief, silent interaction, the lines shifted and new pairs were formed, repeating the procedure. Most pairs embraced so that by the conclusion of the exercise, close contact had been made among the majority of participants.
While this exercise may have been helpful for those who fear physical contact, providing a form of desensitization, it stripped such interactions of the relational context which generally gives them meaning. Instead, it became a rather compulsive, counterphobic reaching out which provided little information concerning problems of intimacy. These fleeting physical contacts were experienced as if they had profound human implications.
From the section on "PSEUDO SELF-AWARENESS AND REALITY TESTING":
Quote
The events of the fifth and final day of the training provided an opportunity for participants to use what they had learned in responding to an unanticipated crisis. Following the morning break, one of the more actively involved participants, Patrick, leaped up and took the position of the trainer on the podium. Initially it appeared that Patrick was acting out against the trainer by mocking him and by ignoring rules. However, it soon became apparent that he had decompensated--his speech was incoherent, he was out of contact with reality, and he appeared to be hallucinating. The trainer approached him and told him to stop "game playing." His "other choice" was to "go to a place where they allow people to play crazy games." Patrick merely gazed vacantly at the trainer and continued to mutter Lifespring phrases. Various participants responded by encouraging Patrick to "go for it" and "let it all out." They did not understand that he had already "let too much out." His apparently fragile defenses had been repeatedly challenged by the trainer, who had often accused him of "bullshitting."
When it became clear that Patrick was unable to pull himself together, the other participants were asked to leave the room. We gathered outside, initially stunned by what had transpired. Then the group coalesced into a "circle of love," initiated by several members, out of the desire to "send Patrick our energy." The group was clearly attempting to provide comfort to its members in an upsetting situation. What was remarkable was the level of denial and misinterpretation of what had occurred. The group transformed Patrick's psychotic episode into a positive experience by using the categories of reasoning provided by the training. Drawing upon the infantile omnipotence encouraged by earlier sessions, some of the participants declared that "we are going to heal Patrick--he'll feel our energy." Others commented cheerfully that "he is getting in touch with his feelings" and "whatever he chooses is right for him, it's the very best for him." After Patrick had been spirited away, the group reconvened to continue the training. What could have been an occasion for discussing what had happened, including the impact of the training on Patrick, instead stimulated an outpouring of testimonials.
Since the group's idealization of the trainer was potentially undermined by this incident, decisive defensive operations were necessary to prevent the eruption of hostility in the group. The group felt impelled to reaffirm the goodness of Lifespring and to externalize and redirect the bad feelings evoked, which were potentially directed toward the trainer. Hostility was deflected from the trainer, who received the uncontaminated affection of the group, onto one of the participants who had remained outside the "circle of love." This participant, one of the researchers, had been a symbol of resistance throughout the training by asking questions and at times disagreeing with the trainer. During one group exercise, he had been selected by half of the participants as the "least attractive" person in the group. He was offensive to many participants for being "too analytical," "rigid," and "not feeling enough."
In the wake of the morning's events, affective states were intensified and a mood of hysteria was palpable. While loving feelings were directed toward Lifespring, the hostile component of what had been evoked was now directed more intensively toward the participant-researcher. One participant stood and stated, "I've got something to say to Dick. You know, I really hate Dick!" Another participant charged, "You don't give your love, Dick. All I want, Dick, is for you to love. And you hold back your love!" When Dick explained his reactions to the events of the morning, various participants shouted out angrily, "You're coming from your head, stop analyzing, come from your heart!"
Within the narcissistic framework constructed by the training, the use of infantile splitting--dividing the relational world into "all good" and "all bad" objects emerged as a dominant defense against anxiety in the group. In order for the Lifespring experience to be taken in, it needed to be idealized as an all-good object. The trainer could not be questioned nor the content of the training challenged. Participants whose opinions deviated from the trainer's were seen as a threat to the feelings of elation and well-being enjoyed by participants. Such threats had to be actively defended against in order to preserve the fantasy of omnipotence cultivated within the training.
From the "CONCLUSION":
Quote
We have argued that while many participants experienced a sense of enhanced well-being as a consequence of the training, these experiences were essentially pathological. First, ego functions were systematically undermined and regression was promoted by environmental structuring, infantilizing of participants and repeated emphasis on submission and surrender. Second, the ideational or interpretive framework provided in the training was also based upon regressive modes of reasoning--the use of all-or-nothing categories, absolutist logic and magical thinking, all of which are consistent with the egocentric thinking of young children. Third, the content of the training stimulated early narcissistic conflicts and defenses, which accounts for the elation and sense of heightened well-being achieved by many participants. The devaluation of objective constraints upon a person's action promoted grandiose fantasies of unlimited power. A corollary to this devaluation of the external world was that interactions with others lacked substance. People appeared to be interchangeable so that ephemeral, indiscriminate emotional contacts were experienced as profound and meaningful. Identification with Lifespring necessitated considerable idealization so that any threat to this experience was aggressively defended against.
Download: Download entire pdf here (http://http://isaccorp.org/lifespring/lifespringpathology.pdf)
link to copy here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifespring/lifespring4.html)
Post by: Anonymous on April 17, 2007, 06:48:37 AM
Since the group's idealization of the trainer was potentially undermined by this incident, decisive defensive operations were necessary to prevent the eruption of hostility in the group. The group felt impelled to reaffirm the goodness of Lifespring and to externalize and redirect the bad feelings evoked, which were potentially directed toward the trainer. Hostility was deflected from the trainer, who received the uncontaminated affection of the group, onto one of the participants who had remained outside the "circle of love." This participant, one of the researchers, had been a symbol of resistance throughout the training by asking questions and at times disagreeing with the trainer. During one group exercise, he had been selected by half of the participants as the "least attractive" person in the group. He was offensive to many participants for being "too analytical," "rigid," and "not feeling enough."
In the wake of the morning's events, affective states were intensified and a mood of hysteria was palpable. While loving feelings were directed toward Lifespring, the hostile component of what had been evoked was now directed more intensively toward the participant-researcher. One participant stood and stated, "I've got something to say to Dick. You know, I really hate Dick!" Another participant charged, "You don't give your love, Dick. All I want, Dick, is for you to love. And you hold back your love!" When Dick explained his reactions to the events of the morning, various participants shouted out angrily, "You're coming from your head, stop analyzing, come from your heart!"