Authoritarianism
Authoritarianism and the Suppression of Information and Dissent
This is not the first time that someone has suggested that primal therapy has authoritarian tendencies. There is some evidence that primal training trainees picked up on this in the early seventies, and critics have mentioned this many years before myself. Of course, primal therapy is not as bad as the authoritarian political regimes of the past. That is not what critics such as myself are suggesting. Some readers may be confused by the thought that if primal therapy is anti-establishment and left wing how could it possibly be authoritarian even in a small degree. In fact, these things are not mutually exclusive at all. There is something to be gained about learning about authoritarianism to help understand the primal therapy movement. So, even if you think the suggestion that primal therapy is authoritarian is ridiculous, it is still recommended to learn about what authoritarianism is.
The Basics:
Authoritarian personalities are ones that “kiss above and kick below”, in other words they are loyal to their leaders, but will attack those of lower rank. They also protect their “in-group” and attack the “out-group”. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) personalities on the other hand tend to be those who lead the authoritarians, they are more interested in being on top. Or more accurately the leaders of authoritarian groups are usually “double highs,” both authoritarian and SDO. Today, some social psychologists are working very hard to try to expose and educate about authoritarianism in politics, because they feel it is currently the most dangerous form of authoritarianism (I agree it’s more important than the subject of this website). Most of the material on the subject focuses on this, but it is relevant to how other groups work too. What I want to focus on here is the methods authoritarians use to achieve success, so that the reader can assess whether primal therapy is authoritarian or not.
Authoritarians use words and labels to attack dissenters. An illustration of this is the attack on the character of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan (whose son was killed in Iraq). She was saying something that they didn’t want to hear, or even think about, and instead of arguing the facts, they horribly attacked her personal habits and character. That is how authoritarians suppress dissent. That is the most important indicator to look out for in primal therapy, the attack on character towards somebody who questions the theory or therapy. Or an attack on other approaches and therapies with dismissal, distain (”what a load of crap”) or ridicule. The non-authoritarian way to deal with such challenges is to discuss the central issues, the evidence, and to find new evidence. The authoritarian attacks are very effective because they strike fear into other people who then decide to suppress their own dissent. Would you want to be attacked like Cindy Sheehan was?
If primal therapy is an authoritarian movement, and this website challenges primal theory, you would predict the use of put downs and ridicule towards this website or attacks on the character of the authors. We will see how well this prediction holds out (time of writing June 10, 2007).
Another sign of authoritarian suppression of dissent is “echoes“. These echoes are attacks on dissenters that are echoed throughout the group. They are repeated from one authoritarian to the other, and they get reinforced and internalized as fact. For example, the attack on John Kerry’s character with “Flip-Flop” put downs was echoed by right wing authoritarians in all medias, one voice picking up on it and echoing it. The attack was so effective that even some democrats internalized it. Sometimes in politics, and maybe in primal therapy too, it seems that putting people down on a personal level, rather than focusing on the issues and evidence, can yield a lot of power, money and followers.
There is some debate as to whether it is possible to have a truly left wing authoritarian group, it is often considered a right wing phenomena. I think it can happen on the left wing too, as in the case of China’s Cultural Revolution and Russia’s Marxism (both of which had anti-intellectual components, which sounds familiar). National Public Radio ran a piece on the Chinese Cultural Revolution and interviewed people who were Chinese college students at the beginning of the revolution. They were convinced by the new anti-intellectual belief system. They internalized the aim of overthrowing the intellectuals and the system. They left their studies, which they came to regard as oppressive and intellectual, and joined the red army cult. They burnt books, humiliated and denounced those they labeled intellectual or privileged, or just those that were told on by their neighbor. Being non-intellectual was the thing to be. Everyone lived in fear of being called intellectual. When the cult faded years later, many of those who had vehemently been anti-intellectual realized how brainwashed they have been and they returned to college to continue with their lives where they left off. The way they were thinking while brainwashed made sense within their belief system, they thought they were changing the world for the better.
This is not to say primal therapy is as bad as communism, it is just used here to point out authoritarianism can be left wing, and it can be anti-intellectual.
There seems to be two choices in clinical psychology, to have a statistical and evidence based way, or have an authoritarian and assertive approach. Somebody might say “well lets make primal therapy less authoritarian then”, but that has been tried before (for one famous example see Therapy Gone Mad, by Mithers), there seems to be something about primal theory that always makes it come around to being authoritarian.
Think about how you would answer the following questions:
Could primal therapy survive as a valid treatment method without personally attacking the level of feeling of people outside the cult? Yes or No
Could it survive on only the strength of evidence for the theory? Yes or No
Could it survive on the strength of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of the therapy? Yes or No
Of course Primal Therapy should be allowed to survive under the first amendment’s freedom of religion, and free choice of lifestyle. But should it be allowed to make scientific claims that often go unrefuted? and be considered a valid treatment for real psychological disorders?
I received an email saying “but as I remember it, dissent was allowed in primal therapy, even towards senior therapists”
Yes, that is true at first glance, but that dissent always was met with things like “It’s a feeling, and you have to feel it”, “I’m talking to a feeling, I’m getting nowhere because I’m talking to a feeling”, and even “well there’s the door, you can always leave”. The words were not always as strong as this, but consistently it was “it’s a feeling” at the very least.
Basically the patients must turn their dissent into feelings, and support and social status is withdrawn if they don’t. They are expected to link the feeling to childhood, and feel better about the original complaint. Other patients participate in this, encouraging the person to “just feel the feelings” behind the complaint, or else face disapproval. Note also that although the dissenting patients are told they are free to leave, they are also told there are bad consequences to leaving (such as a loss of all the progress made, a loss of feeling, a possibility of “going dead” (meaning having no feelings), a reduced longevity and a chance of going crazy). (see also section on cults)
In addition, dissent and important information about the negative in primal therapy rarely seems to make it into print. Information on primal therapy on the internet is dominated by the primal center and its followers, and on paper dominated by Dr Janov’s own books. There is so much information hidden, that is only found out by patients after they have already started the therapy, and due to there prior commitment they often don’t to act on it (justification of effort cognitive bias). For example the fact that primal therapy is a dangerous and experimental type of therapy is not emphasized in Janov’s work, and many patients are surprised to find this out after they have given up everything to get to the primal center or institute. Many often find out when they sign the legal papers, which in them say it may be dangerous. Although Janov does state it may be dangerous in untrained hands, the assumption is that the center or institute therapists are trained and thus it is not dangerous. It is dangerous and clinically untested for safety or efficacy. Some patients get worse in primal therapy with Janov-certified therapists.
(also see work of Robert Altemeyer, Anthony G Greenwald, Elliot Aronson and others, for general characteristics of authoritarianism)
Websites:
Narcissistic Authoritarianism in Psychotherapies: http://www.danielshawlcsw.com/narc_auth.htm
