The doctor was silent. At this point I noted and referred to reported complaints about Landmark in news reports that directly corresponded with these characteristics.1063 1064 1065 That is, Landmark often emphasized such “breakthroughs,” and Forum leaders have often been described as bullies who intimidate people, pushing participants to experience such predetermined breakthroughs.
We now explored the third listed characteristic, that leaders expressed “an evangelical system of belief” and that their philosophy was seen as the “one single pathway to salvation.”1066 This characteristic appears to be evident in the application of Erhard’s world view, or “getting it” as the ultimate, most effective, and reliable means of resolving personal issues and problems.
I asked the husband whether he felt Landmark Education regarded its philosophy as the only meaningful and truly effective framework for resolving life’s issues or problems. And if this wasn’t the case, what alternative approach did the Forum leader specifically cite or mention that might be seriously considered as equal to the LGAT? The doctor demurred; he couldn’t recall any such alternative the Forum leader specifically discussed during his training.
Finally, we discussed the fourth criterion or warning sign cited in the article. Did the Forum leader and Landmark volunteers appear to be “true believers”? Was the attitude they expressed one that researchers said essentially “sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by ‘blaming the victim’”?1067 He admitted that someone said information posted through the Internet that was critical of Landmark should be disregarded and that a Forum participant who didn’t “get it” or was somehow resistant to the training might be labeled as “uncoachable.”
We then reviewed the three basic building blocks of coercive persuasion, which Edgar Schein historically described.1068 Could these stages of coercive persuasion generally correlate with the process of training Landmark provided? Weren’t Forum participants essentially subjected to a similar three-stage process, which included what Schein described as “unfreezing,” “changing,” and “refreezing”?1069
For example, didn’t Landmark training first go through a kind of confrontational and confessional breaking or thawing phase, as Schein described? Wasn’t this then followed by a period of intense pressure focused on changing participants’ perspectives and perceptions? Did the Forum process end by locking in Erhard’s ideas through group pressure and agreement? Was it probable that this locking down or freezing at times was also further accomplished through a kind of embedding socialization within a kind of Landmark subculture?
This simple, fundamental three-stage structure of classic coercive persuasion, as Schein outlined, correlates to both the eight criteria psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton used to establish the existence of a thought-reform program and the six conditions psychologist Margaret Singer used to describe “the tactics of a thought-reform program.”1070
We examined both the three stages and the detailed correlations Lifton and Singer offered to see how they might potentially parallel Landmark. Singer stated that during the unfreezing phase there is an effort to “destabilize a person’s sense of self” and that the subject is kept largely “unaware of what is going on.”1071 I asked the doctor whether he had precisely and in detail understood before he began the training what would be presented during the Landmark Education weekend seminar, known as the Forum. The doctor responded that he had actually known very little about Landmark before beginning the training other than what his son had said, which included a rather vague general description of the program.
We talked about how a Forum leader typically solicited and facilitated frequently painful confessionals from participants; during this process the leader might be quite demanding, harsh, and judgmental. Singer stated that the purpose of such tactics is to coerce the subject to “drastically reinterpret his or her life’s history and radically alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality and causality.”1072 Singer describes that the net result of this process can be “dependence on the organization” and that a person may then largely become “a deployable agent of the organization.”1073 I asked the doctor whether he had met Landmark enthusiasts who repeated their training and did ongoing volunteer work for the company. Might that behavior be seen as somewhat dependent? Was Landmark using those people? He admitted that someone could perhaps perceive the situation that way but that he didn’t.
We also discussed how the Forum might be compared in some ways to group therapy. Unlike group therapy led by a licensed mental health professional, however, a landmark leader has no specific licensing requirements and corresponding accountability to a licensing board or body. Moreover, a Forum leader, unlike a licensed counseling professional, has no requirement to disclose the exact nature and structure of his or her counseling approach before beginning.
We also talked about some of the liabilities researchers had cited about certain types of potentially problematic encounter groups. For example: “They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.”1074 I pointed out again that he hadn’t been told in advance that Forum training was designed as a vehicle to impart or download Werner Erhard’s philosophy. Had he understood in detail that this was, in fact, the intent of the training? Hade he made a fully informed choice to accept the ultimate goal of the LGAT?
We then discussed another important liability that can be readily recognized in many LGATs such as Landmark. That is, they “lack adequate participant-selection criteria.”1075 We talked about how almost anyone might attend the Forum and potentially be impacted by its training, which again can be stressful, cathartic, and at times quite confrontational. We talked about how some people may be able to cope with such pressure, but for other participants, it might be too difficult, and they could begin to unravel and eventually experience a kind of breakdown. In fact, I pointed out that Landmark has admitted that this is an apparent issue and ongoing liability concern for the company. A Landmark spokesperson claimed that this concern has been effectively addressed by implementing a “screening process.”1076 I told the doctor this was necessary because Landmark Education, formerly known as EST, had a history of breakdowns tied to its training.1077 I shared an article two medical doctors had coauthored about psychiatric disturbances associated with EST.1078
At this juncture we talked about other cited liabilities associated with encounter groups, which might potentially lead to harm done to participants. For example, if they lacked “reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders,”1079 how could Landmark take into consideration and “adequately consider the ‘psychonoxious’ or deleterious effects of group participation”?1080 That is, without proper educational background and licensed supervision, how could a Forum leader or Landmark volunteer recognize when a participant was psychologically or emotionally unraveling or experiencing a breakdown during the training?
The doctor struggled with these citied liabilities. He understood the value of education and proper supervision. He tried to apologize for Landmark by talking about his “breakthroughs.” This included his subjective feeling of clarity and the final epiphany he had experienced, which he believed somehow made better or exonerated any of the negative aspects of the Forum and excused Landmark. The doctor’s only direct response to the specifically cited problems posed by such high-demand training was that maybe Landmark wasn’t for everyone. But he then reiterated that for him it had ultimately been a positive experience. I responded by pointing out yet another one of the cited liabilities of some encounter groups; they “devalue critical thinking in favor of ‘experiencing’ without self-analysis or reflection.”1081
At this point the doctor’s wife once again interjected that for her the net result of her husband’s Landmark training hadn’t been positive. Instead it had been disruptive and at times personally painful for her. She said that in her opinion the training had turned out to
be a negative influence, not a positive one. She repeated emphatically how obsessive her husband had become regarding Landmark and how this obsessiveness had adversely impacted both his personal and professional lives. Most importantly, the wife explained that Landmark‘s undue influence had hurt their relationship. She also stated that her husband’s professional colleagues had begun to question his judgment due to the doctor’s apparent fixation on Landmark and the related jargon he repeated at work. At home she said her husband had become increasingly self-centered, distant, and dismissive regarding her feelings. She also complained that his social life was becoming more centered on Landmark and Landmark graduates than on their mutual old friends.
The doctor continued to dismiss all the accumulating critical information, negative news reports, and accompanying research. He waved his hand and explained that what had been presented wasn’t his experience and was therefore invalid. After running into this persistent, rhetorical roadblock more than once, I tried to reframe the importance of the presented material. Weren’t historical information, research, and relevant studies important parts of a deliberate process of exploration when reviewing options or addressing a particular problem?
At this point the doctor exploded, raising his voice. He exclaimed, “I’m a doctor, dammit!” My response was to point out that there had been a medical doctor present at Jonestown when the cyanide was dispensed. There is no special protection afforded to doctors, I said, that somehow immunizes them to coercive persuasion. We are all equally susceptible to such schemes, especially during a particularly painful or vulnerable time, or when someone we trust introduces us to a new group or leader.
Despite the doctor’s indignant and angry response, I asked him what the basis was for due diligence in the field of medicine. Would a medication or procedure be suggested without proper investigation and meaningful inquiry to establish through facts and research the efficacy and safety of the treatment or procedure under consideration?
Rather than respond to this question, the doctor turned to his wife and asked what was required to end the intervention discussion. At this point the doctor’s wife began crying. He couldn’t understand why she was behaving so emotionally, and he asked her what was wrong. The wife answered that she had no idea how brainwashed he had become.
The doctor asked what he could do to satisfy his wife and end the intervention. She responded that he must completely stop his involvement with Landmark and cease associating with anyone associated with the company other than his son. She added that if he didn’t take these steps, they might be headed for a divorce. The doctor nodded and agreed to her terms. He then looked at me and said we were done. This response concluded our first and final day.
When the doctor’s wife drove me back to the hotel, she explained that her husband must be deeply embarrassed but believed he finally and fully understood her concerns and would end his involvement with Landmark. She assured me that usually the doctor was a cheerful and courteous man, not abrupt or rude. It was his cheerful disposition, sense of humor, spontaneity, and casual and unpretentious manner that had first attracted her to him. It was when these personality traits seemed to suddenly shift and change that she began to suspect something was wrong with Landmark.
Through follow-up calls I subsequently learned that the doctor maintained his commitment and completely ended his involvement with Landmark.
CHAPTER 18
ABUSIVE, CONTROLLING RELATIONSHIPS
Before detailing an intervention about abusive or controlling relationships, it’s beneficial to have a better understanding of such relationships—how to define them, what behavior might be evident—and recount some historical examples.
As noted in a previous chapter, destructive cults can be quite small. All a cult actually requires to exist is a leader and at least one follower. In the book Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, a “cultic relationship” or “one-on-one cult”1082 is described as follows:
The one-on-one cult is a deliberately manipulative and exploitative intimate relationship between two persons, often involving physical abuse of the subordinate partner. In the one-on-one cult, which we call a cultic relationship, there is a significant power imbalance between the two participants. The stronger uses his (or her) influence to control, manipulate, abuse, and exploit the other. In essence the cultic relationship is a one-on-one version of the larger group. It may even be more intense than participation in a group cult since all the attention and abuse is focused on one person, often with more damaging consequences.1083
Like the leaders of destructive cults, the majority of abusive, controlling partners, according to some observers, are apparently men.1084 Some of the warning signs to watch for include pushing the relationship too fast, demanding undivided attention, determining to “be in charge,” and insisting on always winning. There are repeated broken promises. He cannot handle criticism and won’t accept responsibility for his behavior or actions. He also often blames others to avoid taking responsibility. He is extremely jealous and unpredictable, and he has anger issues. He appears to lack respect for the opinions of others. You feel you can never be good enough. His love seems to be highly conditional, and the relationship makes you feel increasingly uneasy.1085
Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that many abusive and controlling partners are grossly insensitive, extremely ego-driven personalities given to self-indulgent behavior and obsessed with their own importance. Such abusive partners also appear to have little, if any, meaningful empathy or sympathy for the feelings of others.
These characteristics could potentially place some abusive or controlling partners in the narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) general profile that typically defines a narcissistic personality. “Prevalence of lifetime NPD was 6.2%, with rates greater for men (7.7%) than for women (4.8%).”1086
The following characteristics are common among those diagnosed with NPD:1087
He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance. For example, the person exaggerates achievements and talents and expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements.
He or she is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
He or she believes he or she is “special” and unique and can be understood only by associating with other special or high-status people (or institutions).
He or she requires excessive admiration.
He or she has a sense of entitlement; in other words, he or she has unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
He or she is interpersonally exploitative; in other words, he or she takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
He or she lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
He or she is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her.
He or she shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, coupled with an insistent need for admiration and a lack of empathy, along with five or more of the warning signs above, is a strong indication of NPD.1088 This can be a daunting realization for someone suffering in an abusive, controlling relationship. This is because someone with a narcissistic personality is unlikely to recognize he or she has a problem and therefore sees any reason to change.
The abused partner in an abusive, controlling relationship can often seem “brainwashed.” As noted in a previous chapter about brainwashing, Candace Waldron, executive director of Help for Abused Women and Their Children in Ipswich, Massachusetts, remarked that such a relationship “becomes almost like a brainwashing environment” because victims most often are isolated and “don’t have a lifeline to the outside.”1089 Research has shown that a “lack of institutional and informal social support, and greater avoidant coping styles were related to lowered self-esteem and more severe depressive symptoms.”1090
Dr. Le
nore Walker, a psychologist and professor at the Center for Psychological Studies at Nova Southwestern University, wrote The Battered Woman.1091 In her book Walker puts forth the theory that some women develop a kind of “learned helplessness” (LH), which explains why they don’t leave an abusive, controlling relationship. Walker summarizes LH as “the understanding that random and negative behavior towards a person can produce the belief that the person’s natural way of fighting such abuse will not succeed in stopping it. Thus, the person stops trying to put an end to the abuse and rather develops coping strategies to live safely with the possibility he or she will continue to be abused.”1092 Walker coined the term “battered woman” and subsequently the “battered women’s syndrome.” She is the foremost authority in this area of research and its application, which initially began in the 1970s.
In many cases the net result of LH seems to be a kind of paralysis, which renders the victim psychologically and emotionally unable to leave the situation, coupled with depression and decreasing self-esteem.
1987—Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg
On November 2, 1987, New York City police responded to an emergency call made by a frantic mother, who said her six-year-old daughter, Lisa, was hurt and not breathing. When police arrived at the Greenwich Village apartment of Hedda Nussbaum and her partner, attorney Joel Steinberg, they found the couple’s adopted daughter bruised and comatose. She never regained consciousness and died.1093
Steinberg was arrested and charged with second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter. The following year he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.
As the story unfolded in press accounts and through the televised trial, the reported abuse shocked the public. Steinberg had not only beaten his daughter to death but also subjected Nussbaum to a decade of horrific abuse. When police took Nussbaum into custody, she had a ruptured spleen, a broken knee, fractured ribs, broken teeth, a cauliflower ear, and scars covering her body.1094 Her nose had been broken five times and ultimately required plastic surgery to repair.1095
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 38