Excerpt for “Political Reeducation in America, Part II”
Entry for September 4, 2007
Total Terror,” “…substitutes for the boundaries of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly together that it is as though their plurality had disappeared into One Man of gigantic dimensions.” (Arendt 1976: 465, 466)
The totalitarian nature of the Dederichist TC is acknowledged by researchers, and is usually justified by attributing uniquely manipulative and amoral characteristics to addicts. Maxwell Jones, an advocate of “Democratic TCs” states that “…the label “totalitarism” [sic] may be directed at [authoritarian, Dederichist] PTCs…”(1986:22) Sugarman states openly that “Privacy is a negative value within the TC.” (1986:70) and that “The hierarchical model emphasizes the self-destructiveness, impulsiveness, and irresponsibility of the addict…” (1986:71) It is not in my opinion excessive to use Dr. Arendt’s term “Total Terror” when describing the initial objectives of the Dederichist TC. The following description of some standard practices exemplifies the psychological terrorism that the Dederichist TC deals in::
“The unfamiliar and intimidating experience of staff and peers shouting
obscenities, etc., at the client for failure to comply to some mandatory behavior can
contribute to ‘splitting’ at an early stage. Other forms of bullying and threatening can be used by the group.(Jones 1986:22)
To be certain, the option of “splitting” exists for all TC clients, except for those of prison TCs. For incarcerated TC clients, there is the option of returning to the general prison population, usually at a higher level of security. But for the majority of non prison-based TC clients, the program has been ordered as the only alternative to a prison sentence. Often, the 18 months of TC treatment seems to be the logical alternative to a long (15-30 years) sentence. With substantial prison time as the only alternative to compliance with the TCs totalitarian micro-state, the psychological brutality and terrorism of the TC is backed by the concrete and physical threat of prison, and all the brutality implicit in that threat. The culture of universal (or at least its supposed to be) informing and fanatically enforced group participation paradoxically is one in which only the more ruthless, self-serving and ultra-individualistic participants can triumph.
“TCs, like other total institutions, are encompassing. They direct the lives of residents while in residence. Conventional friendships, sexual contact, introspection, and association with the outside world are all forbidden.” (Hawkins, Wacker, 1986:153).
I have found that in spite of a kind of equality of rights through removal of rights and an apparent universality of oppression, in this highly regimented micro-state the “Law of the Jungle” is the dominant factor. The boundaries that have been coercively established, and the consequences of negative attention from staff authority are merely treacherous ground that must be navigated, and powerful weapons to use and defend against. In spite of all the written materials available (some of them even written by this author) proclaiming that the pullup system (universal surveillance/informing) is benevolent in intent, when emphasized excessively with aggressive participation demanded of all, “kill or be killed” becomes the essence of day to day existence. One cannot afford friendships in the conventional sense, indeed. The degree to which I myself have avoided, or succumbed to this depersonalization and corruption has in the past directly related to my opinion of those in control. The intentions, mental stability, ability to think, religious prejudices or lack thereof, and political sentiments of staff authority figure heavily in the workings of a traditional TC, and due the rigidity of its structure, dictate not only the rules but the overall morale and atmosphere of the program. De Leon describes in the following what he believes to be inherent to the functioning PTC:
“The TC is managed as an autocracy, with staff serving as rational authorities. Their psychological relationship with the residents is as role models and parental surrogates, who foster the self-help, developmental process through managerial and clinical means. They monitor and evaluate client status, supervise resident groups, assign and supervise resident job functions and oversee house operations. Clinically, staff conduct all therapeutic groups, provide individual counseling, organize social and recreational projects and confer with significant others. They decide matters of resident status, discipline, promotion, transfers, discharges, furloughs, and treatment planning.” (1986:10)
This all-encompassing power is often applied more aggressively by TC staff than the similar power wielded prison staff. The power of the TC is intrusive and at times petty and nitpicking to the point of absurdity. The concept of “Parental Authority,” in these times questionable even when applied to children, can break down into simple brutality, whether psychological or physical just as easily when applied to adults .De Leon defines the legitimate (in his eyes) function of the autocracy:
“TC clients often have had difficulties with authorities, who have not been trusted or perceived as guides and teachers. Thus, they need a successful experience with a rational authority who is credible (recovered), supportive, correcting and protecting, in order to gain authority over themselves. (personal autonomy). Implicit in their role as
rational authorities, staff provide reasons for their decisions and the meaning of consequences. They exercise their powers to train and guide, facilitate and correct, rather than punish, control or exploit.”(1986:12) (emphasis mine)
Unfortunately my personal experiences with this subject, as well as the statements of many other TC survivors indicate to me that the behavior of most TC staff members, if they have been thoroughly indoctrinated in Dederichist ideology, falls far short of De Leon’s standards. A seemingly endless litany of deceptive behaviors, manipulations, broken commitments, words spoken and then forgotten, points to questionable moral character of individual staff members. During my stint as Peer Advocate at ACC-TC I told other clients of staff statements and commitments: “If you don’t have it in writing, it don’t mean shit.” I even demanded written verification of statements and directives given to me in private by the predominantly trustworthy Tania, due to her tendency to forget what she said, and later contradict herself. There is also a mean-spirited refusal by such staff members to help people in measurable, practical ways (job training, renewal of driver’s licenses, college level education, to name a few). One staff member reportedly told a hapless supplicant “We’re here to give you treatment, not to make your life easier when you get out.”
Statements such as the above seem to be based on a belief that “treatment” (itself a very poorly defined term) is an end in itself. The same staff member had told another client that he had “not earned anything,” for all his long hours of participation in the TC. The underlying belief is that treatment in and of itself is a reward. When the TC is examined from the inside, mysticism, not healing or science is visible. What I have seen is primitive, superstitious religiosity, an unwarranted faith that the rituals of “Games” (encounter groups) and endless self-critical writing assignments, when combined with the controlled existence of TC life will bring salvation. Jones when tracing the movement’s pre-Dederich origins to Frank Buckman’s Oxford Movement in the nineteen thirties states that “There seems to be an astonishing continuity of this evangelism from the intense religiosity of the Middle Ages to the present secular ideologies of which the PTC is one example.” (1986:22)
The tendency of Dederichist PTCs to point to rule-following clean-cut sociopaths as
examples of effective treatment which I addressed in part one, seems to have been detected by some researchers:
“Even a successful result may not have eliminated the personality disorder leaving a treatment need”[O’ Brien and Biase, 1981] (Jones 1986:23)
Staff, and high-ranking clients who rise to a position of centralized, entrenched authority, are often shielded from the misery that some of their less humane policies create. The staff are not bound by the rules they make, and do not have to live within the program twenty-four hours a day. Client “leaders” are similarly insulated from the consequences of their decisions by a staff-mandated exercise of authority that remains unchecked due to a generalized lack of due process, or accountability to subordinate peers. From this relative invulnerability, the psychopathology of authoritarianism grows. Through the conformity and subordination of the less aggressive, and the weak, the powerful find a kind of freedom. It is not a tragic and deplorable deviation for this kind of mindset, and its concomitant behaviors to develop. It is in fact the logical result of Dederichism, Dederich himself providing the most dramatic example.
“…Dederich was able to free himself so that he could engage in any irresponsible and illicit behavior. Dederich arbitrarily and abruptly changed the rules of the game in a way in which Nietzsche would have approved. Nietzsche (1844-1900) anticipated a new generation of “supermen” who would be sufficiently powerful to free themselves from the petty and moral restraints which a weak and effete culture has created to stymie the strong.. Nietzsche believed “superman” would rid the culture of the decadence and weakness. Superman would create a culture of strength and power which would rule those who would be unable to transcend their slave mentality. Dederich became vindictive and vituperative in any effort to discourage any over or covert challenge to his assumed power by those he considered to be his moral inferiors. Some, who occupied top managerial positions and formed the inner sanctum of Synanon, agree that Dederich’s downfall started when he refused to permit anyone either to confront him or to challenge his decision. It is possible, in retrospect, to document precisely when the empire of Synanon began to falter, i.e., when the founder became so consumed by power that he elevated himself to the Supreme ruler. Subtly, perhaps, almost imperceptibly initially, Dederich decided he no longer needed to abide by the existing rule and regulations. Dederich issued the ultimatum that no one could confront him about anything he said or did. As soon as Dederich eliminated the checks and balances, his charisma was changed into grandiosity and finally disintegrated into delusional thinking when he believed he, in fact, had aspired to become the “Supreme Being” of Synanon who possessed the power to decide what was right and wrong for his empire.” (Bratter, Bratter, Heimberg 1986:206)
Dederich’s downfall resulting from his own power-psychosis is a relatively extreme example, a road sign saying “This way to Jonestown.” The majority of research materials I have seen downplay this potential, but it’s fairly obvious to anyone who bothers to look:
“The Guyana Mass Suicide was orchestrated by a demonic spiritual leader who demanded to be adulated and obeyed by all…How different are the circumstances, the personalities, the psychopathology between Jonestown and Synanon and Matrix House [a failed prison TC]? The only difference, perhaps, may be the degree of absolute corruption of a malignantly proliferating personal quest for power and the refusal to be accountable to anyone. All the ingredients which produced a mass suicide of staggering proportions in all probability are incubating in every therapeutic community that can be ignited upon the emergence of the autocratic-demonic leader.” (Bratter, Bratter Heimberg 1986:202)
The autocratic leader is the by-product of the authoritarian structure; it is an inherent, systemic design flaw in the Dederichist (traditional, programmatic, “American Self Help”) TC. Bizarre staff behavior is what I have come to expect
INTERNAL POLITICS AND BIZARRE BEHAVIOR
Ms. D. had complete control of the program when I arrived. Barry and Ron had some power with which they could impose restrictions on Ms. D.’s authority but they were part-timers who came all the way up from Pueblo, a drive of nearly two hours. Barry technically outranked Ms. D., and his directives usually remained in effect for twenty-four hours or less after he left the premises. Ms. D. loved to point out that she was in control, that Barry and Ron were not really staff there (untrue) and that when Mr. Clean recovered enough from his most recent heart attack to return to work, that he would be doing administrative duties only. She would also express her displeasure with Barry by interrupting his groups. Barry, regardless of his various faults, conducted interesting groups, allowing a wide range of opinions and lively discussion on whatever the subject was, in essence, the exact opposite of Ms. D.’s narrow, didactic approach and heavily censored discussions. She would at times take center stage in one of Barry’s groups and by her sheer size alone (Barry was only about 5’4, while Ms. D. was both very tall and heavy) take complete control. At least once she threw in a carefully qualified insult, saying:
“Now if I were to say something like ‘Barry’s a complete idiot. He doesn’t know what he’s doing.” She followed this with a lecture on crossing personal boundaries, trying to use this insult as an example, but clearly she had crossed Barry’s personal boundaries. A few days later he retaliated by hiding her car keys from her, shortly before it was time for her to leave for the night. Joe Girardin aggravated the situation by saying “You better go look. I can’t remember if I saw it in the parking lot when I came up.” Of course she went and looked, and was relieved to find that her dirty and battered Japanese compact car was still there. She then turned her wrath on the group, accusing everyone except Barry of somehow being responsible for this. She was clearly distressed, seemingly “having a fit.” When Barry finally confessed to this sadistic prank, she apologized to the group, and Barry publicly apologized to her. What had transpired between them shortly before, behind closed doors, remains a mystery to this day.
Barry’s other power trips displayed a fairly sophisticated understanding of group dynamics, applied to group manipulations. He was a master liar and “mindfucker,” specializing in disinformation. He would give out pacifying information, saying that he was working on our behalf to make some positive changes in the program. He would also make threats against the group indirectly. Strange rumors that never amounted to anything in most cases would suddenly appear. I actually watched Barry plant a rumor once. He came out of his office, whispering in the ear of Tim, a senior program member. Tim immediately spoke to Richard, a known loudmouth and gossipmonger. The word was quickly spread that since the threat of mere restriction to the building was not affecting the community in the positive manner he had hoped it would, Barry was now threatening to confiscate all our electronic devices including fans. At that time, some time in April, it was starting to get hot. Worse than that to me was the possibility of losing my typewriter for some unspecified period of time. I went as far as devising a legal strategy of some kind to combat this threat that included my going back to prison if necessary. I still believe there are some kinds of crap one doesn’t take, except maybe under the threat of death, from authority. Many who have been subjected to lots of TC treatment do not share this belief with me. Probably, many never did, before or after treatment. The overall level of agitation and discomfort in the community rose markedly. All of my peers at that time were prepared to accept this. This threat was made in response to a low pullup count. After I attempted to confront him about this several times, Barry admitted that this threat had been made mostly for effect, and that punishment involving a long period of discomfort and deprivation for the entire house would only be imposed in response to considerably more extreme non-compliance. I still had a hard time seeing any humor in his actions. In yet another conversation behind closed doors, Barry admitted to “dropping lugs,” i.e. the planting of rumors, or making vague accusations with little or no evidentiary grounds for suspicion, just to see how people would react. Sometimes people would confess to infractions that had remained unknown until Barry dropped a lug. Others would protest innocence, making themselves suspects, although Barry didn’t have any real clue as to what people were doing. He created an image of omniscience for himself, or at least he tried to. His lies and manipulations were too complex, overlapping and contradictory, and eventually, holes appeared in the pictures he painted of our reality. Still, one never knew exactly how much he knew, which maintained, as intended, a constant tension in the community’s dynamic.
Ron’s power trips were somewhat less sophisticated. When angered, he usually resorted to crude and thuggish threats of reincarceration and hard time. He would often tell tales of what became of those who had defied him before. Both Ron and Barry would use the tactic of naming some notoriously dangerous prison within CDOC as a possible destination for malcontents, but only Barry would use the threat of arranged celling with a prison rapist. Although he claimed he was “just joking,” when I confronted him about this scare tactic, it sounded genuinely mean-spirited when he said it. It is still my opinion that his words were consciously selected for the explicit purpose of placing the listener in fear of sexual assault
