Day two
Day two, event
one
At the beginning
of this session 3 of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported that
participants were very intent about getting to their chairs on time.
Everyone was more obedient and serious about all the ground rules.
Those few who are late get "processed" in front of the entire group
and/or are ejected from the training.
Three of 3 "behavior"
subjects (100%) recall the trainer lecturing on "personal growth"
during the early moments of session two. A large chart outlines
what participants come to recognize as the Vitality doctrine. at
the top of the chart is "You are at cause"; at the bottom of the
chart is "You are at effect." When individuals are at the "top"
of the chart they make things 'happen" or problems "vanish." When
individuals are at the 'bottom," things happen to you, problems
remain "stuck" to you. Participants are told that the top is where
results ire in life. However. change only comes when individuals
do not resist events, because "what you resist, you become." One's
belief system keeps one trapped in the past, unable to truly experience
in the "now."
[COMMENT: This
philosophical position is also a metaphor regarding the status hierarchy
of the training. The message is that the trainer is in control,
and participants are not to criticize or refuse to obey him (i.e.,
"resist"). Participants are "on top" (i.e., philosophically correct
and socially approved of) when they do not "resist" the trainer's
demands.]
Day two, event
two:
The trainer
then leads the group into a guided imagery exercise, a walk in a
meadow. Participants are encouraged to notice how they "resist"
the naturalness of the meadow. At the end of the exercise, they
are instructed to learn how they resist by noticing how they behave
in the training.
[COMMENT: Again,
as in day one, 3 of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported that disagreeing
with or questioning the trainer is reframed as demonstrating unenlightened.
poor form. It resulted in social punishments such as ridicule or
embarrassment. Interestingly. the training is identified with all
that is good and natural: resisting the relaxing and beautiful meadow
is the same as resisting the authoritarianism of the training. Critical
thinking is identified with the very behavior that is causing participants
trouble in their daily life and what they paid Vitality so much
money to teach them not to do. In this way the preferred doctrine
(the value of "surrendering'' to the "now") is a metaphor for the
preferred behavior (surrendering to the authoritarianism of the
training-).]
Day two, event
three:
Three of 3 "behavior"
subjects (100%) described a dyadic exercise referred to as the "parent
posture" exercise. Participant A acts like his or her father and
mother; then they switch, and Participant B acts. Participants are
instructed to get in touch with their feelings, even exaggerate.
They are encouraged to notice what they held back from their parents,
how they stopped being "real" with them and with the world. The
resulting subject matter is quite sensitive and emotional. This
is the first of a series of exercises dealing with the participants'
parents. These exercises are successively regressive. They encourage
the participant to confuse the past with the present, to relive
intense emotions and conflicts. As the exercises progress the regression
becomes increasingly more infantalizing and falsely gratifying,
since the exercises become increasingly intense and graphic. As
a result, subjects reported a great many emotional sounds in the
training room. Participants begin crying out loud, moaning, screaming.
At times the din becomes overwhelming. One "experience" subject
reported becoming so upset she vomited. Bags are provided for this
purpose by the staff).
In this first
parent exercise. participants are encouraged to let their feelings
"bubble up"; they must look at how they resist, because what they
resist they are "stuck'' with. They are cold repeatedly that the
training is a "safe place." If participants have a difficult time
remembering or feeling, they are told they are resisting. They will
be asked "What is in the way of 'surrendering' to the process?,"
or "How does this particular resistance get in the way of your everyday
life?."
[COMMENT: Once
again, psychological resistance is considered to be identical with
behavioral resistance to the training. Psychological resistance
is considered to be a manifestation of the participants' basic flaws,
which cause the major problems in their lives. Therefore, the psychological
resistance (symbolized by resistance to the training) must be eradicated
so participants can be set free.]
One of 3 "behavior"
subjects (33%) reported that the trainer chose someone to be "processed."
This meant he worked intensively with a participant in front of
the entire group. Three of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported
that at some point in the training this happened at least once.
Fifteen of 15 "experience" subjects (100%) concurred. This processing
did not usually focus on the content the participant was attempting
to confront (e.g., the participant's relationship with his or her
father, a decision they have to make, etc.). Instead, the trainer
usually reframes the problem as an inability to "let go," to trust
the group, to "surrender" to the training. Therefore, the trainer
works to get the participant to emote, to have a seeming cathartic
experience by getting the participant to take a risk, often a physical
risk like falling into the arms of several other participants. The
lights go down low, special "trust" music is played on the sound
system, the participants cradle and rock the participant and the
trainer touches and massages the participant, murmering softly to
him or her. As the participant sobs, everyone gathers around, encouraging
the participant. Fifteen of 15 "experience" subjects (100%) reported
that some participants cry and they themselves were deeply touched
by these emotional displays.
Three of 3 "behavior"
subjects (100%) and 15 of 15 to experience" subjects (100%) reported
incidents that indicate that the behavioral modeling accomplished
at these dramatic moments is quite significant.
[COMMENT: The
psychological merging with the participant in question produces
a vicarious thrill and emotional release that is evidently quite
powerful. Also, participants who have been protective and sceptical
are usually quite shaken by this demonstration. They question their
emotionally removed behavior, they see the euphoria felt by the
participants, perhaps they long to be taken care of and attended
to in the same way. Usually a raw, emotional demonstration like
this appeared to "prove" the effectiveness of the training and the
competence of the trainer. It answers the questions of the sceptical
and assures the fearful.]
Ten of 15 "experience"
subjects (67%) reported feeling very jealous of the participant
who is getting all the attention. One "experience" subject reported
thinking "What's wrong with me that I can't loosen up like that?
I'm not doing it right["
[COMMENT: Subjects
who criticize themselves by comparing themselves to others appeared
to put more and more pressure on themselves in an attempt to force
a catharsis, boost their self-esteem, and catch the attention of
the trainer.]
Day two, event
four:
Two of 3 "behavior"
subjects (67%) reported another dyad exercise in which participants
are instructed to tell each other a story in which they were made
to do something they didn't want to do. Participants must close
their eyes and find the pain in their bodies that expresses this
experience, intensify it, purposely make it worse. Then they are
instructed to let it go. Afterwards they can share in front of the
whole group.
Day two, event
five:
[COMMENT: A
crucially important lecture and exercise follows the above exercise;
it sets the stage for the rest of the night's exercises and in a
way the entire training. Building on the painful public disclosure
of the last exercise, in which participants exaggerated the pain
of "having to," they will now be told why it was painful. In effect,
the lecture argues that children learn to do or feel things in order
to get rewarded by their parents.]
The lecture
continues with dyad work in which participants remember a childhood
scene in which they were made to do something they didn't want to
do. They are instructed to make it into the formulaic expression
"I have to do (X), if I don't I'll feel (Y)." Subjects reported
that the trainer really begins to push them at this point. Three
of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) subjects noticed at this point the
room became very emotional as participants confronted painful and
angry feelings they felt because they realized they had done hateful
things in order to be loved or accepted. The trainer argues that
the feeling that is experienced when people "play this game" is
a "grungy." It is a "pay off." However, he lectures, people aren't
really coerced into this. The truth is "everything is choice!''
[COMMENT: It
is informative to note the implicit message of this exercise. Although
the field of psychology has done important work on the issue of
secondary gain (i.e., psychological rewards from painful circumstances
that are not immediately apparent), Vitality's absolutist emphasis
on the belief that all pain or frustration caused by external forces
is secondary gain (i.e., a "grungy") in effect invalidates the potency
of any situational cause. The logical conclusion drawn from this
lecture is that upset or disappointment caused by the outside world
is really not a pure or valid feeling. It is instead a "grungy,"
a "pay off," a manifestation of "game playing." One implication
of this doctrine is that real feelings are never caused by external
events. People always choose what is best for them in the moment.
Bad feelings ("grungies") are simply ways we protect our beliefs
or old strategies. These grungies never indicate that the external
world has caused us pain, since that situation never really occurs.
Individuals are the cause of everything that they experience. Anger
or resistance in the face of external oppression, (e.g., the authoritarian
structure of the training), is considered to be invalid. It too
is a "grungy." The result of this doctrine appears obvious. The
degree that participants consider their response to the structure
of the training to be a grungy is the degree to which they invalidate
the implications of those feelings. In effect this doctrine deprives
subjects of using their responses to the external world as an indication
of their needs in a given situation, and subsequently, as an aid
in decision making. Therefore, their emotional response to the training
is not an indication that the training is bad for them, it is evaluated
as an indication that they are getting some psychological pay off
from feeling that way. In other words if they feel bad it is not
the training's fault, it is their fault.]
Day two, event
six:
Three of 3 "behavior"
subjects (100%) reported that a long exercise follows this lecture
that turns the "grungy" concept into a way of discussing medical
or emotional symptoms. In small group "sharings," participants explore
the idea that "grungies are masks, not reality." Participants are
encouraged to get in touch with an important "grungy" of theirs,
exaggerate it, and act it out.
A closed eye
process helps participants translate this idea into the realm of
medicine. They are told (again) that the way to eliminate pain is
to fully experience it. They are instructed to become aware of a
physical or emotional symptom (i.e., a "grungy"), identify where
they hold it in their body, and really feel it, intensify it, and
exaggerate the feeling. Then they should bring it out in front of
them. Participants are told to visualize it.and call out what size
and shape it is, what it weighs, what it feels, smells, tastes,
and sounds like. It has color and a liquid-like consistency. Participants
are encouraged to ask it questions and have a dialogue with. it.
They are to ask it questions (e.g., What are you a payoff for?").
The trainer
then explains when participants figure out what the payoff is they
can more directly get what they want. Then they can "disappear"
the symptom because they don't need it anymore. The participants
are instructed to call out their pain level. With a show of hands
they are to indicate that they were able to disappear or reduce
their symptom. The trainer emphasizes that the more willingly the
participants look at the symptom's payoff the more they'll be able
to let go of it.
One "experience"
subject reported being very impressed at all the headaches and stomach
aches that were disappearing. Unfortunately, she had a weight problem
and she couldn't disappear her fat! She felt exposed, ashamed, frustrated,
and jealous.
The trainer
usually asks for a show of hands for those who now believe they
can create their own headaches, colds, and so forth. He asks increasingly
more extreme questions, until finally, he asks if they believe they
can cure their own cancer? All this is done publicly. Three of 3
"behavior" subjects reported that self -presentation concerns are
very strong at this time: if participants don't conform to the group
norm by this point in the training they chose to hide it and feel
embarrassed or at fault. Although 12 of 15 subjects (80%) reported
they didn't go along with the doctrine all the way, they also didn't
really think the trainer was actually being literal about it, even
though he said he was.
Day two, event
seven
The last series
of exercises is one 3 of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) and 15 of
15 "experience" (100%) subjects remembered and talked about: "victim
accountable." Participants are instructed to tell a story in which
"they" did it to "you" (i.e., stories in which the story tellers
perceive themselves to be the victim of the story). First partners
try to top one another by telling victim stories in the big group.
Then they break up into dyads and tell their story. Each partner
must convince his or her partner that they were indeed victimized.
Then they must tell the story again, as if they caused the result.
It is especially important to tell the partner "what you were pretending
not to know." Partners must continue telling the story and explaining
until their partners are convinced that they really do believe they
are "at cause."
Afterwards,
they share in the large group. One "behavior" subject remembered
a woman who learned from the exercise that she was not a rape "victim.."
She got in touch with the fact that she had set up the whole thing,
that she wanted it to turn out the way it did. She was eight years
old at the time of the rape.
The trainer
sometimes writes an the board some of the good things that come
from the concept that individuals set up every occurrence in their
lives. Three of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) and 15 of 15 "experience"
subjects (100%) remembered the trainer being very powerful and forceful
about this viewpoint. He argued that when individuals come from
being the "victim" they feel one down, but "why feel one down about
something that's your own choice?" The trainer proclaims. "I set
up everything!" including his "choice" of parents, his death, and
so forth. "There are no accidents, and there are no miracles."
[COMMENT: The Vitality
doctrine is becoming clearer by this point in the training. The pseudocognitivism
(see Chapter I. section E: Theoretical Framework, p. 134) is here
quite apparent. The outside world is seen almost as a hallucination:
it is unimportant and actually has no effect on an individual's experience
of life. This approach blames the victim and nullifies dissent. It
is a convenient philosophy for a restrictive group.]