Liftons - "Demand for Purity" Criteria applied To The Jehovahs Witnesses.
In the book " Thought Reform and the psychology of Totalism" (1961) Robert Lifton lists one of the criteria or manifestations within the Brainwashing scenario as "The Demand for purity". He explains what this demand on the part of the mind controllers entails on page 423 of the book:
Quote..In the Thought Reform milieu, as in all situations of ideological totalism, the experiential world is sharply divided into the pure and the impure, into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The good and the pure, of course, are those ideas, feelings, and actions which are consistent with the totalist ideology. Anything else is apt to be relegated to the bad and the impure. Nothing human is immune from the flood of stern moral judgements
I have already, to a degree, demonstrated the extreme polarization of language used by the Watchtower when describing things of the world.
Those things external to itself.
The language used is, almost invariably, negative/ black language. Nothing useful to the improvement of mans lot is ever listed by the Watchtower as being out in the worldly milieu.
When speaking of themselves however, the Watchtowers tendancy is very much to speak of their own organization in glowing utopian terms. Certainly the channel thru which God communicates with the sheeplike masses, the Organizational heirachy, admits to no error on its own part, in any matter.
This extreme, and of course, IMPOSSIBLE, polarization between the black wickedness of everything external to the organization, offset against the state of utopian perfection portrayed as existing within the organization, is proof sufficient, in and of itself, that we are dealing with a Totalist organization when we speak of the Watchtower.
However, in this segment I am concerned with the demand for purity not in terms of information presentation, but in terms of demands for impossible, and unattainable, purity of THOUGHT and ACTION. Lifton continues:
Quote....The philosophical assumption underlying the demand is that absolute purity is attainableIn actual practise, however, noone is really expected to achieve such perfection..
I might criticize Liftons choice of phrase in that passage, perhaps in the REAL world noone would expect anyone to attain to perfection of action and total purity of thought, but I suggest that in the Watchtower organization there are very many people who feel that they must strive to attain this perfection. Not only must they themselves strive for it, but I suspect, many of these same ones believe that there are others within the organization that are actually LIVING this level of purity and perfection. This demand for purity , which very definitely exists within the Watchtower organization, is a root cause of the extremist maintaining of appearances , the projection, in company, of completely correct behaviour, the appearance of absolute orthodoxy of thought, when conversing, that is so apparent to long term observers of the WT Orgs memberships public behaviour. Everyone projects the image that they are in compliance with the purity level. Lifton continues:
Quote.... By defining and manipulating the criteria of purity, and then by conducting an all out war upon impurity, the totalists create a narrow world of shame and guilt. This is perpetuated by an ethos of continual reform, a demand that one strive permanently, and painfully for something which not only doesnt exist, but is in fact alien to the human condition..
Not only this, but within the controlled milieu, everyone is going round APPEARING as though they are well on the way to attaining this perfection of thought and behaviour. The only reference the individual has to compare reality with appearances is his/ her own experience. Now of course the real individual is not living up to this perfection. His thoughts are not pure, and his actions are not pure enough, the consequence is, not a reassessment of the practical accuracy of the truth, but a feeling of GUILT and SHAME on the part of the individual as to his own thoughts and feelings. Lifton explains:
Quote... At the level of the relationship between the individual and the environment, the demand for purity creates what we may term a guilty milieu and a shaming milieu. Since each mans impurities are deemed sinful and potentially harmfull to himself and others, he is expected to expect punishment.He must also look upon his impurities as originating from outside influences- that is from the ever threatening external world beyond the closed totalist ken.Therefore, one of the best ways to relieve himself of some of his burden of guilt is to denounce, continuously and hostilely, these outside influences. The more guilty he feels, the greater his hatred..
Which brings us full circle, The wicked external world which LURES and TEMPTS us into sin, and into impurity of thought, must be cut off , avoided and condemned more and more vehemently, even as we are the more drawn to it. Perhaps this impossible demand for purity is nowhere more obviously apparent than in the Watchtowers attitude to matters of sex.But for the sake of brevity I will examine just one passage from a WT, picked at random, it is talking on the subject of drinking alcohol.
From the Watchtower of February 1, 1973 Article-" Are you living for what you can get out of life NOW?". Some passages to contemplate:
Quote.... 7 To make sure we are not misled or caught as if in a snare, we have to ask ourselves searching questions to test out our deeper motives, our secret desires, our hidden affections. For what are we living? It is one thing to say we are living with a view to life in God's new order, but it is another thing to be actuallyliving in harmony with God's requirements every day. Christians cannot let the subtle Epicurean philosophy of this world deceive them and, before they know it, begin to live for the pleasures of today, for fear that tomorrow they might die.....
Notice how the magazine seeks to penetrate into the inner thoughts of each individual reader, asking each reader to ask searching questions of himself.Questioning his own thoughts, levels of purity. The Watchtower may SAY out of one side of its mouth, that drinking is a matter of personal choice, but what of the message coming out the other side of its mouth, the message hidden inside the black terminology used to describe drinking, its consequences and the possibility of stumbling someone by our own choice to drink. Is drinking still a matter of personal choice?
Quote.... Millions of modern-day Epicureans have gone beyond drinking in moderation to the point of drunkenness. They have tasted the effects of excessive amounts of alcohol, and these are what they want regardless of the costs or hazards to health , employment and family . Inhibitions and frustrations vanish , to bring a strange freedom from care . Harsh reality gives way to a world of dreams . Cares vanish. Nagging is nullified; responsibility is shelved . One, in effect, goes on a "trip," a vacation away from the burdensome cares of life. But, is this really living? Considering the stupor one has been in, the shameful conduct and speech one may have been guilty of , the terrible ache of the body in sobering up and the damage to one's relationships with others,. 9 It is only reasonable that God would prohibit drunkenness. In a drunken condition the mind does not function right and one often does disgraceful things . .While drinking is a personal matter as long as one does not become intoxicated, yet there is the possibility that alcohol will become a psychological crutch on which to lean, a seeming necessity one cannot do without. Moreover , there is the possibility of stumbling others by indiscreet use of alcohol. When friends stop by for an evening, do you insist they share a drink with you, even though they may prefer not to do so? This can be mistaken hospitality and may be, deep down, an attempt to have others join you in indulging a weakness . .
Can there be any doubt that the Watchtower, in this passage, is uttering black propaganda against the concept of drinking per se? What of those who might exercise their personal choice to drink? Might they well feel guilt at their choice to drink? Might they well deem it best not to let any of the brothers see them drinking for fear of stumbling a brother? It is certainly possible isnt it.
Edited by - refiners fire on 29 December 2002 17:48:1