Mystical manipulation is a process whereby a group leader, often with a charismatic personality, is apparently ‘directed from above’ (Lifton, 1981), endeavours to turn group members into ‘pawns’ (ibid) through installing his/her particular, preferred thoughts, behaviours and emotional responses in them in such a way that it seems to have occurred spontaneously. These behavioural and emotional changes will appear to have been brought about, not through indoctrination and personal manipulation by the leader, but in a mystical or spiritual way, through participation in a group which shares a special and superior knowledge or awareness.
Such group leaders are not just interested in exerting power over others; they are also motivated by feelings of having a ‘higher purpose’ which obliges them to share their method of social advancement and they place themselves at the forefront of this development. The aims of their organization become shrouded in mysticism and ostensibly group members are chosen by God, or another higher authority, to carry out the ‘mystical imperative’, a mission which becomes more important than individual human welfare. Any questioning of the leader or group’s higher purpose is discouraged through labeling such thoughts or behaviours as ‘backward, selfish, and petty’ and declaring them to be motivated by a ‘lower purpose’ (ibid).
When this process is at work, members are hyper-alert to all kinds of cues in their environmentand become skilled at anticipating and responding to the expectations of the leader and their group. This often involves them in acts of self-betrayal and the betrayal of others.
In my opinion, mystical manipulation is operative to lesser and greater degrees within IDAP;
- in place of ‘charismatic group leader’ or ‘Guru’ substitute ‘group facilitators’
- for ‘superior knowledge and awareness’ substitute ‘radical feminist ideology’
- for ‘being directed from above, God or a higher authority’ substitute the judicial system and the dominant position that radical feminist ideology enjoys in the UK, USA and elsewhere.
Reducing domestic abuse is the IDAP facilitators’ ‘higher purpose’. The means to understand and address this issue and the preferred thoughts, behaviours and actions which they wish to install in their male group members are informed and driven by radical feminist political beliefs which stereotype them in a negative way, as ‘patriarchal terrorists’ (Johnson, 1995). Disseminating these beliefs has priority over the psychological and emotional welfare of individual IDAP group members; their critique of radical feminist ideology or expressions of a different point of view attract negative labels such as ‘sexist, disruptive, not engaging, having authority issues or being controlling’.
My research has not shown that men have experienced IDAP as a spiritual or mystical process; however, while the programme does not have divine authority I would argue that it does have ideological authority which gives its group facilitators a licence to refute and re-interpret men’s’ version of reality, motives, behaviours and other experiences.
IDAP participants whom I have worked with and interviewed spoke of feeling ‘mystified’, ‘preached to’, dissuaded from asking questions or expressing criticism and more generally of being deprived of the opportunity to exercise self-expression and independent action. They often described being in a state of hyper-vigilance and searching for cues which is characteristic of mystical manipulation and told me how they ‘sussed out’ what was expected from them in the group, how they took their lead from group facilitators and others in the group and how they contrived to give the impression that those expectations were being spontaneously met.
Michael told me he found it very difficult to take on board the radical feminist ideas presented and he often asked questions such as
- “surely women can be manipulative too?” or
- “if all violence is wrong, does that mean I can’t defend myself?”
He expressed opinions such as
- “perhaps my relationship history or childhood experiences had a bearing on the incident which caused me to be a participant on IDAP”
- “I think my wife’s behavior contributed to the situation”
Michael reports having been taken to one side in a tea break and told that if he continued to be disruptive and not engage in the programme he would have to go back to court (which may have resulted in a custodial sentence).
Michael remembers making a difficult decision in response to this experience which involved betraying himself; he decided to submit to the programme. He told me
- “after that, quite simply, I lied; I told the group that I had frequently abused my wife [to this point he had repeatedly told the facilitators that the incident was a ‘one off’ event which had been triggered by particular unusual and provocative circumstances]
- “I told the group that I was the whole problem” [previously he had asserted that he did not hold himself wholly responsible for the event, that he had been attacked in the first instance so his partner must bear some of the responsibility]
He went on to say
- I treated the course as ‘academic’ and got through the weekly sessions by presenting a false self.
This all impressed his facilitators he said who told him
- “you’re really making progress now”
References
Johnson MP, 1995, A Typology of Domestic Violence:Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence, North Eastern University Press
Lifton RJ, 1989, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China, The University of North Carolina Press
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
