Corecrash,
I object to the whole behavior modification thing simply because I feel the subject is being manipulated into changing rather than consciously (willingly) deciding to change. I think this violates a person's right to self-determination. We posted about self-determination before, but in this context I am not referring to an individual's actions regarding limits, I am referring to the individual's thought processes. How about, "You have the right to make your son behave, but you no right to force him to like (believe in) it?" Does that make any sense? I think it does because you said...
I also believe that if a parent feels that Christianity is an acceptable solution then they can teach it. The child will untimely decide whether to adhere to it.
I think you meant to type 'ultimately.' The point is that you allow the child the choice of accepting or rejecting belief.
On that note, I would like to address the issue of brainwashing. Some posters have made the assertion that your son is a 'brainwashed Stepford kid." You have said he is not and present his independence and success as evidence. He does not behave like a zombie. Here is my take on the subject.
The word brainwashed does not describe the subject's current frame of mind, rather it describes the process used to achieve that frame of mind.
Brainwashed people do not act not like zombies and are not under the direct control of their brainwashers. They are not robots responding to the commands of their masters.
I like the term coercive persuasion better than brainwashing. It is more descriptive. To qualify as having been brainwashed, I think three criteria must be met:
1. Coercion. The subject is forced to change and does not undergo the change willingly. In programs, kids are forced into programs (taken by escorts), held against their will and forced through the process. They are coerced.
2. Persuasion. Real change takes place. Your son has radically altered his behavior (for example). The subject renounces his former self and actions and embraces his new self. The subject's world view has [been] changed.
3. The illusion of choice. The subject feels that his new world view is a result of a conscious choice. In other words, the subject is not aware he was 'brainwashed.'
Programs are good at manipulating language to achieve this illusion. I call this no-choice choices. They present the idea that the teenager's poor choices led them into the program. This is not strictly true. The parents placed the teen there. Yes, the child's behavior influenced the parents' actions, but that does not make the child responsible for the parents' actions. The parents had other choices. The child has none. Further, programs state that progress through the program is determined by the teen's choices. They can 'choose' to work the program or not. They are awarded points or privileges for compliance and punished for disobedience. Once again, this is a no-choice choice. Yes, the child can resist the program, but the program ensures this decision will result in torment severe enough that it is not a viable option. Also, the child cannot leave until they embrace the program. Thus I contend that the whole choice thing is an illusion and part of the mind control game being played.
Because the behavior changes in the teen are arrived at through manipulation and coercion, these changes are not properly internalized and are in some sense 'false.'
Once the child reaches the teen years, they have ideas of right and wrong and can truly think on their own. Some are very intelligent and critical thinkers. Some teens will flirt with the edge of their known bounds just to see what happens, maybe not intentionally. Just because they are a teenager or just because they become a young adult, in my opinion, those bounds do not go away. I live within bounds still to this day and if I go outside of them continually, I'll be forced to stay inbounds. That is how our society works.
I'd like to elaborate on this. Once the child reaches the teen years, and begin to think on their own, they also begin to challenge (question) the authority of parents and society. They question things that in their childhood were self evident truths ('because my Mom said so'). They begin to 'devalue' their parents and see them as fallible humans. They look to sources beyond the home for guidance and answers. The opinions of peers become important. In the end, most teens will come to accept a set of values very similar to those of their parents, but because these values have stood up to the test of challenges and rebuttals, the teen has internalized them and made them his own.
The short coming of coercive persuasion is that this process is not permitted. The teen in a program is not permitted this stage of challenge, rebuttal and acceptance. This is a process of free will and choice. The program does not accept dissension. Thus the values the program teaches are unchallenged. Once the teen leaves the program and is confronted with alternate and opposing views, they cannot defend their programmed views well. This is why brainwashing doesn't really work.
I suggest there are five possible outcomes for a teenager forced through a coercive persuasion program:
1. FAILURES: These kids fail the program. They successfully resist the manipulations and stubbornly refuse to work the program. They see through the curtain of loaded language and no-choice choices and will have none of it. They are pulled from the program by parents who see the same thing. They escape, they turn 18 and leave. Rarely do they graduate. This group is in the most danger of suffering the most severe abuse. As their conflicts with the program escalate, the TRUE CONVERTS will resort to increasing levels of force in an attempt to break these strong spirited 'rebels.' These kids already know what they believe in and they ain't changin'. They don't want to be saved. (These people post on Fornits).
2. SUCCESSES: These kids graduate but they are not brainwashed. They understood the need for change and accepted the program as a means to achieve that change. They are likely to make statements like, "I don't agree with all the program's methods and it was tough, but I am better for it." My objection here is that these kids likely would have either out grown their behaviors or responded well to less traumatic interventions. These kids move on with their lives and you won't find them on Fornits for very long. They don't care.
3. TRUE CONVERTS: These kids are like pendulums. They swing from one extreme (the behavior that got them into the program) and another (true believers). These kids were looking for something, anything, to give them purpose and direction in life. They found it. The program is their religion and they will defend it at all costs. Further, they become evangelical about it and insist that everyone else must be saved as well. These kids become staff members and program directors. They think in black and white terms and when they can't defend their program ideology with logic and reason, they will resort to vicious attacks, lies, and circular logic. They will never give in. They are the most likely to be abusive towards resisters. Without the program, they would be dead or in jail. The program saved their lives. On Forrnits, they are denounced as trolls. The brainwashing worked and it is this group that the programs depend on to perpetuate their existence. They are members of the cult.
4. FALSE CONVERTS: Kids who appear to be helped, but were not. This requires subcategories:
4.1 The mentally ill. The program can change their behavior, but fails to address the underlying issues causing that behavior. These kids really need qualified, professional help and not tough-love schemes. These kids may need medication. Programs actually advertise to get these kids by claiming to be a solution for ADHD, depression, bi-polar and other disorders. These kids are in real danger of being seriously harmed by a program. The recidivism rate is high because they simply cannot control their behavior. I would argue that just forcing them through a program constitutes abuse.
4.2 Fakers. These kids simply fake their way through. I suppose they could go into Group 1.
4.3 Scared Straight. These kids change their behavior due to the fear and intimidation of the program. They will do anything to get out and anything to stay out. They behave okay, but not because they want to behave. They behave because they feel they have to. Once they feel safe, look out. These kids are most likely to say that programs are a form of psychological abuse. I agree with them. Being forced to live in fear is abuse.
4.4 Situational Adaptation (Stockholm Syndrome) This is the most complex outcome. These kids buy into the program only because they need something and no alternative exists. These kids are vulnerable, probably because they have not gone through the process of establishing a strong sense of self, yet. They bought into and worked the program, but it doesn't stick. Once out, they question their experience and begin to see what happened to them in a new light. These kids may go in any direction. Their outcome is the least certain. Because of their destabilized psychology, therapy is in order.
5. DEATH: Through medical neglect, staff restraint, or suicide.
I would add that one person may overlap into more than one category. It's a complicated issue.
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-01-20 03:50 ]