POWER AND AUTONOMY OF RC MEMBERS

by Jerry Maxwell

I was in RC about 17 years, 2 as an enthusiastic member and 3 as a teacher; during the remaining 12 years, I gradually became a confused and disenchanted skeptic on the fringes, who continued to counsel and attend non-leadership workshops but had little direct involvement with the organization.

A FRUITFUL BEGINNING

At first, I seemed to experience phenomenal growth in RC. Much shallow distress and some quite deep patterns melted away and I became more and more sure of myself and less fearful. I dealt with tragedies and long standing situations in my life which would have been overwhelming before RC. And I believe the growth was genuine. I think the co counseling method is very effective and continue to use it.

GROWING DISILLUSIONMENT

I became disaffected, however, as I saw how RC actually operates and the extreme incongruity of its practices compared to its stated ideals, 'theories' and what would be expected to result from its application.

I had various concerns (see the epilogue for a detailed discussion). RC was structured and operated as an autocratic hierarchy. Its leaders were an elite group and those who aspired to join them toadied vigorously. Its founder, Harvey Jackins, acted in ways which appeared to be abusive and oppressive. He also made all the important decisions. Communications were censored. The claim that RC had one goal seemed a fabrication. RC was less than frank about what membership meant. Oppressed groups seemed to be pitted against each other and I saw the usual amount of competition as people sought to climb to higher positions. The leadership used people's class patterns to run its hierarchy. Harvey castigated what he called 'middle class patterns,' yet they served a most vital function in his organization and seemed to dominate many activities.

These behaviors were contrary to what I would expect from RC's teachings and literature and interfered with what I was trying to achieve when counseling on power, commitment and autonomy. I aimed to counsel away the patterns which permitted domination, and thus be free of those persons and groups who sought to control me. I hoped to become part of a partnership with RC in which we would attack our distresses and all grow, or at least to access a service which would support my battle against the distress - not to add yet another player who was trying to control me.

MY SOMEWHAT NAIVE ATTEMPTS TO ALERT RC

I wrote 3 letters to Harvey and Present Time about classism in RC. I presented my opinions as an attempt to help RC and avoided condemnation, wording the messages carefully so Harvey would hear them. I said classism existed in society and had infiltrated into RC and was causing problems there, particularly in recruiting and retaining blue collar people and achieving an effective organization, since workers recognized classism immediately and left.

Harvey agreed with me and said most people weren't ready to work on classism but I should broadcast the message "from the rooftops" and contradict classism whenever I saw it in RC. He even printed a short portion of one letter in Present Time. But he didn't change his methods or his leadership or the structure of RC. In one letter, I hinted vaguely that some unspecified RC leaders were detrimental to the organization because they continued to run their classist patterns. In my last letter, I intimated that the things which were going on in RC had caused other revolutionary movements to fail. His reply was somewhat brusque; I interpreted it as a brush off and didn't send any more.

I concluded he ran RC the way he did as a deliberate strategy, in spite of the fact that he knew the mode of operation was completely opposite to what he taught.

ENLIGHTENMENT IN LIBERATERC AND CCOUNSEL

The articles I first read on LiberateRC shocked me. I saw the truth in what was written. They served to pull together the whole story. Everything fit!

I joined the CCounsel email discussion group and gained new knowledge about other RC aberrations - such as details of the alleged sexual abuses, the way the whole organization was dominated by Harvey, the number of people who had been misused by RC and more information of how folks were told to either go along with what RC did or leave or be expelled. The extreme contrast between what RC does and says came into even sharper focus.

In my first letter to CCounsel, I said I didn't think RC could be reformed (or if it could, it would be so damaged that it would be severely hampered); the culture seemed too strong; the habits too ingrained. I stated I remained committed to co counseling (not RC) and would work toward developing a new non-autocratic co counseling organization.

I resigned from RC shortly thereafter (in 1997). I did not want to belong; even more, I did not want to support and lend my name to such an organization.

DEEPER INSIGHTS

My introduction to LiberateRC and involvement with the email list broadened my view beyond analyzing the autocratic and hypocritical behaviors of RC; I began to see the effect RC had on its people more clearly.

An article on this web ("How I was Disempowered by Re-evaluation Counselling" by Andrew Rushton, especially the '...back to myself...' section) points out how RC attacks its members' thinking. RC thinking is contorted here. On the one hand it says "think for yourself," "trust your own thinking," "no limits!" and "all humans are enormously intelligent." On the other hand it sets itself up as the only source of wisdom and guidance, disallows independent or conflicting ideas (implying they come from distress) and prevents any open discussion or informal association.

RC acts to prevent people from using their intrinsic power in (and sometimes out of) RC and to 'empower' them from outside to carry out its agenda - not their own. (Examples of this behavior were clearly seen in workshops, with all the attention and praise accorded those who were teaching RC, starting new RC areas, leading in RC, promoting RC in the outside world, etc. I also saw it in my own life when an RRP put pressure on me to teach fundamentals when I was already doing work - dealing with classism - which would support the stated aims of RC. RC wanted new recruits, and nothing else would do). [In a private communication, a critic of RC wrote "it's important to highlight the extreme internal contradiction within RC - a disempowering organizational structure and process that encourages people to empower themselves to challenge institutions and belief systems outside of RC. One has to twist one's brain a bit to even think the thought! This might even be the core of (the) critique of RC"].

RC wants followers to be good, 'powerful,' loyal, expendable soldiers, but with the same latitude as soldiers everywhere who carry out the generals' orders. To 'buy into' the organization and stand behind it no matter what it does or the people it hurts or how much one hurts others as he acts in its interests. Members' power and associations are to serve the organization - not their fellows, humanity, themselves or their own goals. Accomplishments which are not done RC's way or in support of RC and its agenda are trivialized, even though they may be supportive of the same goals RC advocates.

In RC, the good soldier is an extension of RC, not his or her 'own person.' He is dependant on RC for part of his identity.

THE RC EXPERIENCE SUMMARIZED

Discounting a person's thinking and accomplishments, stifling his or her independent thinking and acting, deterring him from using his power to carry out his own agenda and forcing him to always unthinkingly toe the line and unquestioningly support the leaders seems to be a rather common experience in RC. This is done in an somewhat secretive, authoritarian hierarchy - all the while concealing RC's inner activities and workings and internal inconsistencies and telling the folks they are part of the most reemerged sector of humanity and it is all done because the leader loves them and it is for their own good.

RC IMPACT ON HEALING, WELLNESS AND 'REEMERGENCE'

I think a huge portion of the distress which most of us possess involves our individual (intrinsic) autonomy and power. The distress was formed when we were in powerless, helpless, dependent positions. Every form of oppression and abuse pounds in how powerless we are. As previously mentioned, if we are to achieve 'reemergence,' then we must act to contradict the distress. In fact, contradicting such distress is absolutely critical at some point in our growth. We must break the 'hold' other people and groups have on us to become whole, get beyond blind loyalty and obedience to external entities and be our own masters. We must live without limits - in RC as well as other areas of our lives.

I also think that owning myself, thinking for myself, acting myself and being myself are the core of my being, my identity, my power. Autonomy is essential if I am to be free. RC undermines it.

Curtailed autonomy and power would be expected to have a vital personal impact in many areas - including our effectiveness, confidence, self image and happiness and how we live our lives.

I've detected RC's effects in these areas in myself and others and present my own experiences as an example of the points I am making. After I counseled away many of the readily available hurts in RC, I reached a sort of 'stuck place,' where I continued to deal with the same old stuff but with diminished effect. I had reached a point where I recognized that I needed to deal with autonomy and power. I did a lot on my own and was able to see dimly what was happening. However, the organization which was to support and guide me was actually reinforcing the distresses in the area, rather than contradicting them. The RC treatment confused my awareness of how powerful I was and eroded the confidence I needed to act powerfully on my own.

Leaving RC (but continuing to co counsel) was a great benefit to my personal growth. I have contradicted loads of powerlessness distress by acting powerfully in my own behalf doing my own projects. I at least see the way I will come into my own as the owner of myself and captain of my destiny.

I am absolutely certain I would not have come as far had I continued in RC.

Jerry Maxwell

EPILOGUE

POST RC

I had a panic attack when I first resigned from RC (at some level, I had evidently bought into the idea that it was essential to my survival and well being); it was brief and the fears soon went away. I continue to co counsel and participate in the CCounsel email list, but have not participated in any RC activity since leaving.

I carried out my plan to form a non-autocratic co counseling organization and support a similar movement, acting powerfully and autonomously in doing so.

And that is how I think it should be.

A FEW REMARKS

The opinions expressed are my own and should be taken for what they are worth. I only hope folks will read them carefully and make up their own minds as to the validity.

RC experiences vary widely from community to community, from person to person, according to how deeply involved folks become. These are my observations and experiences and those of the folks with whom I discuss things outside of RC. Some folks had much more destructive experiences in RC than I; others not as painful; still others say they are barely touched. I looked for commonalities in the RC treatments but in no way propose them to be universal.

I don't condemn any person in RC or reproach the leaders (or members) as a whole; I met a great many fine people in RC and continue to co counsel 3 or 4 times a month with one ex-leader.

I use RC jargon in this article for two reasons. It is effective to get the ideas across, since I presume most folks know what the words mean. And use of RC jargon highlights the discrepancies between what is taught by RC and what is reality.

DETAILS OF MY 'GROWING DISILLUSIONMENT'

Some RC practices which concerned me when I was in it were:

-- How RC was structured and run - as an autocratic hierarchy, similar in form to US industrial corporations. A participatory or consensus, rather than an autocratic, structure seems more in line with RC's goals and teachings.

-- The behavior of the leaders. The apparent (to me) elitism of its leaders and vigorous toadying of those who aspired to join them. Some leaders, particularly Harvey, evoked a massive amount of fawning and admiration.

-- Harvey's actions - his seeming preoccupation with young, Caucasian, 'attractive' (by society's standards) women, the way he seemed to distance himself to some degree from handicapped folks, elders, obese people, Caucasian men, parents, and members of various other groups. He seemed to revel in acting like a drill sergeant and sometimes appeared cruel and supportive of violence.

-- All important decisions for the whole organization appeared to be made by Harvey. Ordinary members often had little, or no, input into what directly affected them.

-- All official communications were censored and only what was complimentary to RC, or that which parroted the official line, was printed. Things which were obviously very important (such as whole areas being ejected or resigning or Harvey being sued for sexual abuse) were not even mentioned in RC magazines or workshops; and members were directed not to discuss such matters. (I heard rumors of such happenings a few times, but had no evidence and naively assumed there was nothing to them or that matters had been taken care of).

-- The statement that RC had one goal (essentially individual reemergence through discharge) seemed a fabrication. It was obvious to me that Harvey planned to change the world and RC was a tool which he thought would further that. (Nothing wrong with world changing - it certainly needs it - but one should be forthright about it. As an aside, I don't think I'd like the world after Harvey got through with it anyway, given the autocracy, deceptions and abuses in RC - but that's another story).

-- RC was less than frank about what membership meant. It wanted fervent participants who put their hearts, minds and souls into RC; yet made no real commitment to its followers. Within RC, the common 'soldiers' made no decisions of import and carried out the agendas of their appointed leaders; they were expendable and faced expulsion if they deviated. (As far as I know, RC is a privately owned and operated corporation and its run-of-the-mill members have no vested interest or written rights). This is not the impression RC promulgates; its lack of commitment to its members was one of my major disappointments.

-- Oppressed groups seemed to be pitted against each other for the attention of the leader, despite the official condemnation of competition. Also the amount of competition, as people sought to climb the hierarchy, seemed about the same as in the companies I worked for.

-- The leadership used people's class patterns to run its hierarchy. The roles and mechanisms were similar to those in the army and industrial firms. (RC has analogous power relationships and its own reward / penalty system; it has the same approaches, practices and problems in 'motivating' people and holding their loyalty - as would be expected). Harvey castigated what he called 'middle class patterns,' yet they served a most vital function in his organization.

Jerry Maxwell

Nov, 1999