From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 17:38:07 MDT
John B writes (and I also greatly appreciated Brett's and Randall's
further analyses)
> Ramez writes
> > I think a good place to search for past examples of this is in
> > espionage. What little I know of the field leads me to believe that a
> > great many spies have been in \"deep cover\" for years at a time without
> > switching allegiances. Or at least, that's how it is in the spy
> > movies and books. :)
>
> <<< Sorry, gotta disagree. There are SOME similarities, but I have to agree
> with Randall's earlier post that there're some critical differences between a
> trained agent provocateur with a support mechanism, a person in this
> fictional position, and the subjects of brainwashing efforts.
>
> A trained agent is given information about the situation that the other two
> lack...they are generally well-balanced professionals...and are often
> ideologically prepared or selected... for proper ideological structure.
> Even so, there are stories of people 'going native' or cracking under
> the stress of such a prolonged mental and emotional effort.
These are all excellent points, IMO.
> The kids, however, do NOT have a strong motivation other
> than those provided by the staff [and] do NOT have high
> degrees of acting/lying skill. They do NOT have anywhere
> to vent to except by increasing the pressure on others in
> the program.
One feature of the difference that seems more salient than
ever to me now is the inherent differences in ability between
people in terms of acting or portrayal. I think that it was
easy for me from a very young age to control my apparent
reactions (though probably not so well as I imagined). By
the age of these teens, I---like a number of people here and
who I know---would have been easily able to outwardly comply
*without* becoming brainwashed. But I am forcibly reminded
that not all kids are this way.
> They do NOT have a strong core of personal values - they're
> still working on 'em,
Again, that is only for some of them
> and that one 'record-holding' girl is the exception which
> proves the point, and even SHE folded in the end.
Or learned. (And I do mean learn without having truly
changed her feelings and thoughts inside.)
So then we have three classes of kids as I see it:
1A - those with values who can diplomatically or conveniently
pretend otherwise
1B - those with values who can not or will not (that amazing
girl
2 - those---especially who are much younger---without well-
established identities or personalities, or even values.
Now I don't think that the latter type 2 kids ever get sent to
a reform school like Tranquility Bay, except in rare and pathological
cases where the problems really and truly arose only in the parents
(I had better depict this, below, before someone jumps on it).
So we have the 1A kids, who perhaps quickly learn that there is
no ready recourse except to feign obedience (which we may charitably
assume is all that is required in the better camps). One wonders
what would happen if all the readers of this list were sent there
tomorrow, (in young bodies, say) along with dossiers detailing the
very worst behavior. What percentage of us would end up "lying on
our faces" for any extended period of time? The remarkable 1B girl
is still central to my puzzlement.
The kind of parents---really few in number, I think---that I was
thinking of are those who are *never* satisfied with their children's
behavior, and project their own problems onto others (or especially
their kids) at every opportunity. The classic case is the father
who's had a bad day and so kicks the dog. The parents I was speaking
of in that paragraph are those who would be unsatisfied by the behavior
of 99% of actual kids, and would feel a need to do something radical
in every case.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 17:46:13 MDT