At the same time, the group was ever mindful of the danger that their inner dissension, if not checked, might be exploited by Chinese
cellmates
or by prison officials.
Lifton-Robert-Jay-Thought-Reform-and-the-Psychology-of-Totalism
Each of the other foreigners, including the husband, denounced her as a tactical maneuver--but Weber refused to do so, despite the insistence of the husband himself.
In this matter Weber's attitude elicited respect and caused the others shame as well as anger.
Even when the group was functioning smoothly, Weber felt uncomfortable with its policies; but during the turmoil of Ben? t's leadership, the pressures became so unbearable to him that he longed to be transferred to another cell--the only member of the group who at any time preferred to be separated from it prior to release.
My mental suffering was the limit of what I could endure . . . my main suffering came from these foreigners . . . not so much with the inspectors who I felt tried to be human. . . . Whatever I did I was always in the wrong. . . . I felt like a kind of prey in a cage. . . . I often thought it would be a pleasure to be transferred and to get away from this mental pressure. . . . I couldn't trust my friends or myself!
? 1 6 4 THOUGHT REFORM
No one escaped experiencing hostility toward each of the others, nor did anyone fully avoid becoming the target of the others' resentment. Now it was Bauer's aggressive and superior manner, now Kallmann's intransigent "progressivism," now Weber's shift from Kallmann to Bauer for guidance and support--and all these seemed most disrupting during this chaotic time.
But the central focus of group dissension was Ben6t himself. Here everyone had strong feelings, since Benet's character and policies so forcibly affected the minute-to-minute existence of each. The sentiment was mainly negative; most of the other Westerners were highly resentful of his egotism, his instability, and his extreme behavior. They were by no means united, however, in their attitudes toward him. Countering their resentment was their awarenessof his courage in shielding them. Kallmann was the group member who felt this most keenly, and was for some time Benet's closest collaborator and most staunch defender. His affection for him had begun when the two men had been together in a different cell be- fore the formation of the Western group. At that time, when Kail* mann was near-psychotic and overwhelmed by fear after his un- successful attempt at suicide, Ben6t had been compassionate, pa- tient, and very helpful in teaching him how to deal with the officials. Kallmann had become convinced of the validity of Benet's ap- proach, and believed it to be based on a superior understandingof Communism. Moreover, Kallmann's strong fears led him to the conviction that "we must work their mentalities into ourselves and really feel the guilt"--because "only when I get to the stage where I can genuinely feel the guilt can I genuinely convince them. "
For a long time he felt only gratitude toward Benet:
For the first months they could only approach us through him, and he took all of the struggles. If he criticized us, we beat him back. He was like a cushion, pressed from both sides. . . . I cautioned the others that this was a great strain for him. He was the person who best served as a teacher in how to behave with the Communists . . . he shielded us . . . he was kind-hearted, and we took advantage of it. . . . He did as much for us as any comrade could do.
But after a few more months, even Kallmann resisted Benet's "exaggerations," and criticized much of his domineering and ag- gressive behavior. The others in the group were less impressed by
? GROUP REFORM l6|J
Bendt's shielding of them, and more consistent in their resentment. Bauer especially was constantly antagonistic to Benet ("When I look at you, I realize why Martin Luther reformed the Catholic Church"), strongly opposed his policies, and attempted to offset his influence in the group whenever possible. Emile was in conflict with him over statements and attitudes about the Catholic Church, and on several occasions flew into a rage because of Ben&'s be- havior. To Weber, Ben6t was a "proper charlatan. "
The result of this conflict was an intragroup struggle for power and influence, something like the Communist intraparty struggle, rather than a harmonious, mutually-nourishinginterplay. To be sure, even during this period the Europeans made strong attempts to preserve some degree of unity. Kallmann, for instance, recognizing his growing hostilities, pleaded with the group for assistance, and got some, at least temporarily.
I confessed it to my comrades and asked them to help me out of it-- not to allow me to isolate myself . . . and they helped me. . . . Our antagonisms were not easy to overcome.
But the trend was one of disruption. As confusion between, as one man expressed it, "playing the game and reality" mounted, the protection of a united group was lost.
What was behind Father Ben&'s rather strange approach, and where did it lead? This was not the first group with which he had come in conflict. The statements of others who knew him well --both in and out of prison--(and I have to rely on these, since he was the only one of this six-man group I did not have the op- portunity to interview) indicate he had always been a man of great learning, erratic behavior, and seething inner rebellion. Col- leagues who worked with him described him as an opinionated, outspoken person, perpetually involved in disputes. He was always very sensitive to criticism from others, and one friend felt that he had a "weak paranoia. " Despite this, he had had a brilliant and vigorous career as a Jesuit missionary in China.
Originally torn between the French and German cultural in- fluences present in the border area in which he grew up, he found a new cultural home in China: he participated energetically in Chinese life, he learned a great deal about the civilization, and translated many religious works into Chinese. His identification
? l 6 6 THOUGHT REFORM
with his mission-land was so strong that he had, during the course of his work, taken out Chinese citizenship; a tradition had been established for this by earlier missionaries, but it was nonetheless a highly unusual step. Later, under the Communists, he had favored the acceptance of the government-sponsored independent church movement, and refrained from joining it only because of orders from his religioussuperiors.
His colleagues believed that much of his behavior in prison was influenced by his overwhelming desire to remain in China as a missionary. They also cited as another very important influence something that had happened shortly before Ben? t was arrested. Two Chinese brothers whom Benet knew well were imprisoned by the Communists: one of them "confessed" and was released; the other refused to confess and was shot. This was believed to be crucial in his later conviction that "confession is the only way out. " In addition, he had, early in his own imprisonment, experi- enced what a colleague referred to as "a near-complete breakdown"; and one of his Western cellmates attributed his later behavior to "enormous fear," He also developed the concept that it was neces- sary to degrade oneself "to convince the Communists that you are with them--and not in grace in the bourgeois world--so that the Communists would feel that you were so degraded in the bourgeois world that you could not go back. "
Even in prison he had moments which paralleled the brilliance of his missionary career, and evoked admiration from his Western cellmates. "He was so sparkling. . . . he had a strongly French personality--flexible, elastic, extremely 'intellectual' in a formal way . . . like Voltaire. " And there was a certain amount of awe even in their criticisms of him. "He had a satanic, biting humor . . . with his sharp intellect he could criticize everyone, even God. " But his prestige and his power within the group soon declined. His penchant for, even joy in, self-humiliation caused the other West- erners to lose respect for him. Further, his extremism led to dis- trust, both among Westerners and Chinese. It was felt that he was "too convincing"--or, in other words, easily seen through as in- sincere. Other Westerners referred to him as "the foxy philos- opher"; Chinese prisoners called him "the fox. " Although he was technically their study leader for more than a year, his influence on the Europeans gradually waned during the last half of this
? GROUP REFORM l6j
period, and by mutual unspoken consent Benet began to study more and more with the Chinese prisoners. When he was transferred from the cell, after fifteen months with the European group, he was an isolated, bitter, and defeated man:
At the end he didn't want to be with our group, only wanted to study with the Chinese, and went one hundred per cent the Chinese way. . . . When he left he was down and out, fed up with everything, and especially with us--because we wouldn't follow him.
Phase of Adaptation
Father Vechten, the Dutch priest who was the last of the six to join the group, entered the cell while Ben6t was still in charge. Since he too could speak, read, and write Chinese, the other Euro- peans began to turn to him as an intermediary between themselves and the officials or their Chinese cellmates. Father Vechten, both in his translations, and in his general approach, was a much more moderate and reliable guide than Benet. Their willingness to be in- fluenced by him undoubtedly was an important factor in the au- thorities' later decision to make him the official "study leader/'
But even before this, other changes from above helped to create an atmosphere in which he could assume informal leadership. Al- though pressures were still very strong, the extreme struggle atmos- phere which had prevailed during Ben6fs first few months in the cell had gone. The acute assaults required to "raise" the group's political level had given way to longer-term demands for the con- solidation of what had been accomplished, and the grinding out of further, day-to-day "progress. " The vindictive cell chief was replaced by a conscientious but somewhat less zealous person. And during this period, also, the group benefited from the generally moderating effects of the policy change in the Chinese penal system already referred to in Chapter 4. The extreme exhortation, the one-sided atmosphere, the hysteria of the mass campaigns, the unrelenting criticism were all still very much there. But the Westerners were permitted to settle in, and to experience their reform as a more evolutionary, and less explosiveprocedure.
What influence did Father Vechten have on the Western group? His personal qualities were in many ways the direct antitheses of those of the man he replaced: a steady intelligence without bril-
? l68 THOUGHT REFORM
liance, a circumspect and cautious approach, a capacity to instill profound trust in others. Further, he set a high example of personal courage and self-sacrifice, and always backed up his professed prin- ciples with his personal actions.
Before he could begin to make his influence felt, however, he had to be personally broken in, initiated into the group pattern through the "raising" of his own personal level of reform to that of the others. (Although he had been through rather severe con- fession pressures during his previous months of imprisonment, he had not yet experienced a sustained re-education program. ) Dur- ing his first few weeks in the cell, therefore, he was severely strug- gled, largely about issues dealing with the relationship of church activities to "imperialism. "
Nor was his first response to the group completely auspicious. At one point, when he was being treated in a way he considered extremely unjust, he burst into tears in a manner described by a cellmate as "crying with fury/' He had already won the sympathy of the other Westerners, but they were "surprised and shocked" at his lack of control. He weathered this episode, greatly helped by the other Europeans; at the same time they persuaded him that he had to make some concessions in order to get along.
For a while he was quite uncomfortable about making these concessions, and disturbed by the confusion in the group under Benet's leadership. But once he became convinced that the other Westerners genuinely wished to assist him, and that there was a possibility of a co-operative group approach, he became increasingly willing to compromise and fall into step. Interestingly enough, it was Bauer's "good fellowship"--despite definite points of con- flict between the two men--which did most to persuade Vechten. Once he had achieved some harmony with the group, Vechten's authority was quickly established.
For a brief period, there was a certain amount of infighting among the Westerners, a conflict among them over policy, and an inner struggle for control of the group. Bauer and Kallmann were re- sisting Benet's authority, which was declining; Vechten agreed more with them than with Benet, and his own leadership developed aided by their support.
Out of the confusion came a definite group policy which replaced chaos with a fair measure of stability. The approach was not com-
? GROUP REFORM 169
pletely new, nor the exclusive idea of any one man; but it was Vechten, strongly influenced by Bauer, who did more than any- one else to develop it. The policy consisted of a form of acting --or "window dressing"--in which the Westerners made "big self- accusations backed up by small facts": one would accuse himself, for instance, of being "reactionary" and "backward," because of taking too much time in going to the bathroom.
Even more important, this tactic involved continual emphasis upon "playing the game" rather than losing oneself completely in the reform process. Vechten, for example, might criticize another Westerner harshly, but at the same time he would attempt to get across to him some indication that he was merely going through the necessary motions. This could not usually be done overtly, but semantic tricks were exploited by the Westerners to create a communication system which their Chinese cellmates could not penetrate. They sometimes spoke in French or German; when this was prohibited, they interjected single words or concepts from European languages. They also developed special pronuncia- tions to which they ascribed their own connotations. For instance, they distinguished between people in the ordinary meaning and the Communist mystique of "the people," by using an ordinary English pronunciation for the first meaning, and a mock French pronunciation--pee-pul--for the second. Similarly,"horse language" became a euphemism for German, and when Vechten would ad- vise some of the others not to use the "horse language," they would know that he meant it "as a friend and not really from the side of the government. " Vechten maintained at all times the convic- tion that "you must conserve your higher values in confession. . . ? not let them bring you down. "
This new approach was essentially a compromise between the two earlier ones. In its stress upon preservation of individual dignity, it resembled Bauer's method during phase one; but it entailed much more concession to and individual participation in the reform pro- gram. In its insistence upon a strongly "progressive" display, it resembled Benet's approach of phase two; but its crucial difference was the distinction it made between public gestures made to placate the government and the private world of resistance maintained among the Europeans.
The policy was logical enough. The difficulty lay in carrying it
? i y O THOUGHT REFORM
out. The group not only had to satisfy Chinese officials and cell- mates, it also had to sustain courage and cohesion among the group members. And it was here that Vechten's special genius emerged. He demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to deflate hostilities, dissolve conflicts, and preserve group unity. He invariably accom- plished this through a human appeal to the contending or dis- ruptive parties, and always sought to mediate and find something which he could personally share with each of them. Even his re- placement of Benet as the actual leader of the group was accom- plished with surprisingly little hostility/He approached Benet sym- pathetically, and made an effort to avoid animosity despite their differences of policy; and at the same time he adopted, as a per- sonal principle, Benet's concept that it was the duty of a Catholic priest to assist others in so stressful a situation. To the other West- erners, he emphasized Benet's personal sacrifices, and defended him in the face of their sharp criticisms. When Benet finally left the group, Vechten was on closer terms with him than was any other Westerner.
In a similar fashion, when Bauer's Nazi and racist views led to friction--Vechten himself had strong inner resentments on this matter since he had lived through the Nazi occupation of Holland, and also identified closely with the Chinese people--he appealed to Bauer's "corps spirit"; he would mention their personal bond-- Bauer's mother came from an area close to Vechten's birthplace. In the continuous conflict between Weber and the others in the group, he wasa continuous mediator. He sympathized with Weber because of common features in their background, and because both had "rough and good-hearted" characters. He viewed Weber as a man who, because of personal limitations, particularly needed help to get through the experience; and he emphasized this need to the others while at the same time using his influence with Weber to get him to submit to group discipline. With Kallmann, he found common ground in their religious feelings, despite the fact that Kallmann was a Protestant; he also discussed with him what was closest to Kallmann's heart--his wife and family. This sympathy helped Kallmann overcome many of his antagonisms, and also served to dispel occasional differences which arose between Kall- mann and Vechten himself over policy and leadership. When Emile came into conflict with the group because of his intransigence,
? GROUP REFORM iyi
Vechten appealed to him as a fellow priest, emphasizing the good he could do for others by co-operating.
Vechten's path was not always smooth, however, and he ex- perienced his own personal difficulties. When he was caught be- tween strong pressures from above, and resistance to his policies from below, he would sometimes have outbursts of anger, severe headaches, or tremors. He had moments when he felt that the game he was leading, with its concessions to the Communists, was "dirty," and from the standpoint of a priest, wrong. Therefore, when another European would resist his demands with the accus- ing statement, "And you a priest--" he became extremely upset. He was also tortured by the feeling that the others in the group did not really like him or fully trust him. But he did not allow these disruptive emotions to persist, and if he could not overcome them himself, he accepted the help of others in the group. Bauer knew best how to render personal assistance to Vechten--reassuring him of the admiration the others had for him, and gently warning him on one occasion that he was becoming too angry in his dealings with the others and that the sides of his mouth were beginning to turn downward. Bauer also took advantage of his medical standing to do something else for Vechten: he told an official that Vechten's
headaches, if not checked, could develop into a mental breakdown, hoping thereby to ease the pressures on him and to speed up his release. Kallmann by this time was over his own crisis, and he be- came strong enough to lend moral support to Vechten and to the others. All saw Vechten's difficulties as understandable sensitivities for which he deserved their help. Everyone had become, to some extent, a therapist for everyone else.
In this way the group gradually evolved enough of an equilib- rium among its individual members to function as an effective unit. It was a tenuous equilibrium which could be readily threatened; but a certain balance prevailed. Although no individual member was immune to attack, the group as a whole offered protection, solace, and amelioration. It prevented Bauer from being too bold, Kallmann from being too submissive, Vechten from demanding too many concessions. It listened to and prescribed for emotional problems from any source. When the balance seemed to be giving way in the face of internal conflicts, the group invariably found itself reunited by the immediate threat of new assaults from with-
? IJ2 THOUGHT REFORM
out.
At the same time, the group was ever mindful of the danger that their inner dissension, if not checked, might be exploited by Chinese cellmates or by prison officials.
The group pattern and the double life of its members thus be- came a means of resistance. The group had reached its highest point of re-education under Benet, and this reform trend continued to some extent during the early months of Vechten's leadership; but after this, the equilibrium worked toward fending off--although by no means completely escaping--Communist influence.
An important aspect of the equilibrium was the relationship of the group to the Chinese prisoners who lived in the same cell. Here Vechten's influence was particularly important, as his affection for Chinese culture and Chinese people became quickly apparent. He was the most popular of the Westerners among the Chinese, and his personal integrity made a strong impression upon them. This compatibility was more than just a convenience; it played an ex- tremely important part in the group's survival. Chinese prisoners tended to become (or at least appeared to become) more quickly and enthusiastically "progressive" than Westerners, and they were likely to express strong political and personal animosities toward Westerners. Much of this hostile feeling had prevailed with this group of Europeans, particularly during Ben6t's leadership. But Vechten's personal appeal, as well as the improved atmosphere within the Western group, brought about a gradual change in the situation; antagonism from Chinese cellmates gave way to a tol- erant, sometimes even friendly, attitude. The Chinese were ap- parently impressed by much of the Westerners' behavior, and sometimes seemed to be attempting to imitate it themselves. Peri- odically, they still loosed torrents of criticism upon their European cellmates, but these were not necessarily hateful in tone, and they had a lot of performance in them. Even Bauer's attitude of su- periority (which they were aware of, and which he frequently had to confess to) was absorbed. Later on, during the recreation periods afforded by more "lenient treatment/' the Europeans found them- selves teaching their Chinese cellmates various games, and even social dancing. The Western group had, so to speak, secured its flank; every bit of goodwill from its Chinese cellmates created some measure of insulation from reform pressures.
The qualities in Vechten which meant so much to this group
? GROUP R E F O R M 1 7 3
were not emerging for the first time. As a missionary, he had shown unusual ability and leadership. His special talents for bringing men together, for arbitrating between extremes, for pursuing a steady and moderate approach, had long been prominent. Yet it is interesting to note that from early life he had been subject to severe episodes of uncontrolled anger. As a child he experienced such severe temper tantrums when his will was frustrated that "I would turn red, then blue, and stop breathing, and my brother had to beat me to make me again conscious''; during early ado- lescence he suffered from almost daily headaches, caused mainly by inner hostility; as a young man he had outbursts of anger or tears. He had painfully conquered these tendencies, largely through his strong emotional bonds with the Catholic religion; and his skills as a moderator were in part the reflection of his highly-developed personal mechanisms of control. They were much more than this, however, because they depended upon an additional quality which was described by Bauer as "echt" a term by which he suggested purity and authenticity: "He is not an imitation. He doesn't pre- tend to be what he is not . . . he is one of the few people I have met in life who at least realizes what he is. " What Bauer meant by this statement was Vechten's unusual integrity, his ability to live the life to which he claimed to aspire. At moments when Vechten felt himself overwhelmed by anger, guilt, and doubt, he would draw upon an unusual blend of the supernatural and the human: "Praying brings you back to the reality of what you are. Talking with the group of foreigners [Europeans], had a similar effect. "
The full impact of Vechten's prison behavior can only be under- stood through the effect it had on his Western cellmates. His leader- ship, once assumed, was never questioned; his influence increased steadily over the two years he was in the cell, until the eventual breakup of the group through the sentencing and release of the Western prisoners. He was the only person among the Europeans whose stature completely overshadowed the complicated hostilities and weaknesses which thought reform engenders--the one most warmly and unreservedly praised by all of the others. Every one of them felt that it was his influence, more than anything else, that kept the group intact, which in turn preserved the values and stability of each of them. Kallmann perhaps summed up their feelings best:
? 174 THOUGHT REFORM
He made the most impressive showing of all of us--human and spirit- ual. He never really lowered himself . . . he taught us how to do the necessary and still keep our own.
Epilogue
To what extent was the group successful? Did it really protect the psychological health and the private beliefs of its members? We can answer this by taking a brief look at each of the men im- mediately after his release.
The first of the six to arrive in Hong Kong was Father Bene*t. I was not able to interview him (either because of his resistance, or that of his Church colleagues, or both), but I was able to talk with several people very close to him. Benet claimed that his rel- atively early release proved that his policy had been the best one after all; but there was much question about this, since he was re- leased simultaneously with a number of other French priests, ap- parently for political reasons. He had spent almost another year in a different cell after his transfer from the group. At some point, his attitude (or at least his tactics) dramatically changed: not only did he become a good deal less "progressive" himself, but he en- couraged resistance in others; and a Westerner who had known him in both cells described him as "completely different. " When he ar- rived in Hong Kong, his old friends felt that his prison experience had left him "not much changed"--still brilliantly outspoken and erratic as ever. They were struck, however, by his combination of bitter criticism of the Communists and his impression of their immense power, their near-invincibility. Unusually fearful during the post-release period, Benet had apparently undergone a great emotional upset rather than an ideological change. His form of totalism had carried him from his initial stance of the apparent convert to the opposite (and . clearly related) category of the ap- parent resister. Yet like Bishop Barker and others in this latter category, his sharp condemnation of Communism was in part a defensive device for denying the profound reform influences he had clearly absorbed. I will say more about his peculiar form of leader- ship later on.
Dr. Bauer was the next to arrive; and since he had been con- sidered the most reactionary, his belief that the date of a prisoner's
? GROUP REFORM 175
telease had little to do with the extent of his "progress" was con- firmed. He was, as might be expected, the most adamant in his denunciation of the Communists, and the most personally removed from the Communist communication system. Although not with- out fear, he was very quick to regain sufficient composure and de- tachment to launch into a comprehensive analysis of Communist methods. More than any of the others, he emphasized the absolute effectiveness of the group--even to the point of idealization: "We played theatre with them day in and day out. " When discussing the other group members, he spoke in a similar vein, stressing the "comradeship" of each, and carefully controlling his own hostilities wherever they existed--except in the case of his feelings toward Benet, which were admittedly bitter. He was an archetype of the apparent resister, and he exhibited clearly the oppositional atti- tudes, the totalism in his character, and the use of repression and denial to ward off reform influences. Yet he did impress me as be- ing one of the least affected ideologically of all of my Western sub- jects. He had tenaciously held on to his alternative Nazi ideology (although disclaiming of course its excesses); but he emphasized even more his frank devotion to "bourgeois" family life, and always maintained a controlled charm and friendliness with me and with whomever he met in Hong Kong. His identity had stood firm.
Father Emile, whom I met next, was somewhat confused and agitated when he arrived, but he still managed to express himself with a good deal of gaiety and humor, as he had when in prison. He was critical of the Communists, but less interested in discussing ideological matters than in the sequence of his own experiences and their religious implications; he frequently mentioned St. Paul. He referred to the group sympathetically ("Foreigners tried to pro- tect each other") but did not speak of it with especially strong emotion. He had spent just one year in the group, less time than most of the others, and had for the last few months of his im- prisonment been permitted to perform technical work under much less intensive psychological pressure. His colleagues felt that he had greatly matured through his prison experience, that he had attained more self-mastery, and greater inner peace, and that he was not as "overly active" as they felt he had been before.
Mr. Kallmann emerged with a strong need to discuss his experi- ences in great detail as a means of conquering his remaining fear.
? 176 THOUGHT REFORM
Sensitive to psychological currents, he spoke with a striking combina- tion of insight and confusion. He stated that he had "studied hard," learned a great deal, and now wished to "continue his studies" through extensive readings in non-Communist political literature; he felt that he could never become an adherent of the Communist world, but had come to realize the grave shortcomings of the capitalist world. He spoke enthusiastically of his experiences in the group: "They were all marvelous comrades . . . we always felt we were mentally holding our own/' although he also talked of the dif- ficultiesand the painful personal irritabilities. He remained Benet's staunchest defender. While he was certainly among the obviously confused, he believed that he had been protected from Communist indoctrination by the values he had absorbed from the German youth movement: "Erlebnis . . . the value in life of the natural experience . . . the sensation of the eternal beauty of what God creates. " It was to this earlier ideology that he wished to return.
Mr. Weber too had signs of obvious confusion when I met him in Hong Kong. He felt that his condition had been greatly improved by a period of skilled manual labor in which he had par- ticipated after his transfer from the group. Vehemently critical of the Communists, he nonetheless had become convinced during his imprisonment that "evolutionary socialism rather than revolu- tion" was desirable; and he also felt that the technique of self- criticism could be a useful personal device. Concerning the group and its function, he was more critical than any of the others, and emphasized the suffering it caused him and his relief at being separated from it. Yet in the next breath, he would unwittingly praise it, pointing out that "we foreigners used self-criticism in a fair way," in contrast to the cruel and "reckless manner of the Communists. " Moreover, the behavior of Emile and Vechten had so deeply impressed him that he wished to return to his own active Catholic religious practice. He managed his mixed feelings about the group with outward good humor: "I guess we were all a bit crazy in there. " On the whole, he wanted to leave his prison experience behind him and be "through with politics. "
Father Vechten, even after his arrival in Hong Kong, remained the group's leader and guardian. Still speaking as if responsible for it, he gave the most thoughtful and comprehensive picture of its function. He was in fact remarkably balanced in all of his ex-
? GROUP REFORM 177
pressed opinions, and yet he too spoke of feeling confused about many issues. Rather than seeing himself as the hero which the others thought him to be, he was deeply troubled that "maybe I was too progressive. " He seemed mildly depressed, torn by feelings of shame and guilt; and he minimized his own accomplishments at every turn. He did feel that the "corps spirit" of the group had been very helpful to everyone, including himself, and he recognized that he had been "better than the others" in holding the group together; but he also stated that "all of us could have very easily been enemies. . . . except for the fact that we all had a greater enemy. " Deeply aware of the magnitude of individual antagonisms, he tended, if anything, to understate the group's accomplishments, He was critical of Communist theory and practice, and much con- cerned (like Father Luca) about the future of the Catholic Church in China. He felt that he had done his Church a great disservice in making certain confessions about religion. After a few weeks in Hong Kong, his psychological state seemed a bit improved, but he still stressed that he had much to think about in the future.
In assessing these men after their release, it was not easy to make an over-all judgment of the group's effectiveness. One thing is immediately clear: the experience meant something different to each of its members. For Bauer, the experience was a panacea, al- though his reaction must be judged in the light of a tendency to idealize many of his relationships as a way to control disruptive forces within himself; for Weber it was painful and humiliating, and yet even he derived emotional benefits from it; for Ben6t, the group exposure must have been deeply disillusioning; and for the re- maining three men, it was, to varying degrees, a source of strength, despite its emotional pitfalls. Moreover, the man whom the others saw as the unifying spirit (Vechten) seemed much less enthusiastic about the group's effectiveness than at least two of the others (Bauer and Kallmann); and many of the very acts of leadership which the others thought heroic were to him shameful evidences of compro- mise.
I felt, when I interviewed these men in Hong Kong, that the group achievement had been a rather remarkable one. These six men had succeeded in creating a small world of partial independence within the larger threatening universe of the Communist prison. Their independence was never anything like complete, and at
? 178 THOUGHT REFORM
times it seemed about to disappear altogether; but its survival created vital alternatives within an otherwise saturated environment. The intellectual alternative--the standing critique of Communist theory --was impressive enough; but even more important was the emo- tional alternative--the construction through trust and co-operative resistance of a psychological "home" and "family" where each mem- ber could find support and spiritual replenishment, and thereby avoid complete dependence upon the offerings of reform. This amounted to the undermining of thought reform's communica- tion network, an impediment to the milieu control which thought reform seeks always to maintain. These six men were not reformed within a closed system of Communist discourse: rather, by pool- ing their knowledge and the emotions of their individual back- grounds, they created a vital alternative to the Communist system. In the midst of penal thought reform pressures this was no mean accomplishment.
There is little doubt that the group did much to preserve the emotional well-being and the resistance to Communist influence of its individual members. It also, of course, to some extent served as a vehicle for conveying Communist influence to those within it; but it is probably fair to say that, without the group, this influence would have been at least as great and a good deal more painful.
The results of this group achievement were evident in the condi- tion of the five men I interviewed after release. They showed symp- toms and attitudes in many ways typical of all of my subjects, but they were quicker than others to overcome confusion and fear and to begin to reconstruct a sense of identity in the non-Communist environment. As far as indoctrination was concerned, I felt that these men had emerged slightly less affected than my average sub- ject. Their distribution among the response categories was not un- usual (four obviously confused, one apparent resister, and one ap- parent convert turned apparent resister); but they were unusual in their capacities to weigh their reform experience not only against what they found in the non-Communist world, but also against the alternative group ethos they had known during their imprison- ment.
These judgments were, of course, tenuous. So many factors af- fected the way in which a man emerged that it was very difficult, in comparing these people with other subjects, to evaluate the
? GROUP REFORM 179
part which the group had played. And I had to keep in mind the fact that this group contained two men who had made serious suicidal attempts, the only ones among my twenty-five subjects. Indeed, in the followup studies I made three years later (see Chap- ter 10), I encountered a number of surprises, including severe emotional difficulties which I had not been able to predict. I con- cluded then that the group had supplied a good deal of spiritual nourishment and protection during the imprisonment itself, but that this protection could not last sufficiently to avoid profound problems later on. Nonetheless, the psychological and biological strengths which an intimate group structure can evoke were con- vincingly demonstrated.
Styles of Leadership
What did the history of this group reveal about the relationship among leader, milieu demands, and group behavior? The exag- gerated and bizarre quality of the group experience throws into sharp relief principles which are equally operative, if less apparent, in everyday situations.
Three men became official or unofficial leaders of this group of Westerners during the course of its existence, and yet none was the leader during his entire stay with the group. Each of the three men developed a style of leadership which became characteristic for the particular phase which he dominated. What characterized each style, and what produced it?
The first, Bauer's hegemony during the academic phase, was characterized by intellectual leadership and avoidance of participa- tion. The combination which produced this style was: first, a lax milieu, which said, in effect, as long as you keep studying and seem to be reforming, you will not be bothered; second, a previously de- moralized group of three Westerners ready to respond to any show of strength; and third, the sudden appearance of a confident and emotionally intact European (Bauer) psychologically suited to exert strong influence over others. Bauer's intellectual skills were especially useful at a time when independent study and speculation were allowed; his authoritarian emotional traits served well during a period when maximum self-assertion and resistance were per- mitted; his human skills (which were considerable) were especially
? l 8 o THOUGHT R E F O R M
geared to foster individual strength rather than a spirit of compromise in others, which is just what is needed when resistance is possible. The style of academic resistance which developed had something to offer to everyone: to the officials and the cell chief directing the outer environment, a studious display and a certain amount of re- form; to the other Westerners, protection, clear policy, and spell- binding intellectual excursions; to Bauer himself, a means of re- maining emotionally intact and avoiding anxiety by guiding and dominating others, as well as egocentric satisfactions derived by the exercise of his superior intellect. This style of leadership was thus nourishing to all of the Westerners, although perhaps most so to Bauer himself; others in the group (especially Kallmann and Weber) had more of a need to submit, and indeed were sometimes -at odds with Bauer even during this harmonious time. From the
standpoint of group independence, this was the most successful of the three styles of leadership. It was also the easiest of the three to maintain.
The second style (Ben&'s) involved histrionic exhortation and the splitting of identity. The circumstances were very different: the group had not chosen an unofficial leader, but rather had had an official one thrust upon it. And the style of leadership, although predominant, was never fully accepted by the other group members. In terms of the three factors we have been discussing: the environ- ment had suddenly clamped down--no more of this foolery, we mean business, and you had better reform yourselves or else; the four Westerners, who by this time had learned the ropes, were ready to make concessions where necessary, but were still riding a small private wave of resistance; and a newcomer, Ben6t, appeared who was a strange blend of fear, brilliance, exhibitionism, and sadomasochism. Benet behaved as he did partly because he be- lieved that extreme progressivism was necessary, and partly because he was so frightened--primarily because the combination of self- flagellating submissiveness and arrogant, pain-inflicting domination of others was his own long-standing mechanism for dealing with anxiety. Yet this mechanism was especially appropriate for the position into which Ben? t was thrust: any new study leader under these same circumstances would have had to take a good deal of punishment from the officials and cell chief above, and deal in some mutually painful manner with the recalcitrant Westerners
? GROUP REFORM l8l
below.
As with Bauer's, Benet's leadership offered some service to every-
one involved: the officials got their whipping boy, who at the same time effectively conveyed their pressures to the group; Bendt him- self derived an emotional satisfaction from the pain-and-punish- ment pattern; and the other Westerners, through Benet's own absorption of punishment, were afforded some degree of protection from the renewed assaults. But such histrionic and chaotic leader- ship could not be expected to last, and Ben&'s style soon became universally disturbing: the officials could not trust such an exag- gerated performance, especially when they noted his declining influence upon his fellow Europeans; the other Westerners were made hostile and antagonistic to Ben? t and to each other by the loss of their group independence and solidarity, and--worst of all-- by the loss of the capacity to test emotional and intellectual realities; Benet himself began to break down under the strain. All of the Westerners, including Benet, were pressured toward a disintegra- tion of identity and a strong sense of guilt.
On the whole, Benet's style also was more compatible with his own emotional needs than with those of the led. Ben6t, the "marvelous actor," was able to take a histrionic plunge and still land mostly on his feet, as his later attitudes suggest. But the other Westerners, who lacked this talent, could never trust him suf- ficiently to be certain that he was truly identified with them in their struggle to preserve values and group cohesion, rather than with his captors' demands for confession and reform. Under these conditions, one can play no "game": the whole thing becomes "real/' and personal accusations are a true threat to one's sense of self.
Were these circumstances created by the demanding outer milieu, or by Benet's special character traits? We can only say that the small group became a captive audience for both.
The third style of leadership may be termed flexible adaptation and preservation of identity. This was undoubtedly the most re- markable phase of the group's existence. Still subjected to extremely disruptive pressures, its members somehow managed to achieve a restoration of trust. How did this come about?
An emotional demand for a change in style came from all three directions. The group of Westerners' urge for survival made them
? 182 THOUGHT REFORM
cast about for some alternative to the painful confusion of Benet's leadership; the environment slightly toned down its assaults in order to pursue its reform process on a more even keel; and a potential replacement for Benet appeared, a man of unusual humility and integrity--a man who also had the necessary knowledge of Chinese. Vechten brought to his leadership an emphasis upon moderation because this had always been his emphasis; he brought the men to- gether skilfully, emphasizing what they shared, and activating the best in each of them because this had long been his method of deal- ing with conflict--conflict among others and within himself. His was the gift of the creative man: the capacity to make use of inner struggles to evolve a new form which can both express personal emotions and strike deep chords of feeling in others. In human relations, he was a true artist; and like any artist, his own wellbeing depended upon his continuous creativity. He was inwardly impelled as well as outwardly encouraged to take an active role in guiding the fortunes of the group: his own self-control and his sense of clerical identity demanded it.
Again there were satisfactions to be derived from his leadership for all three elements, but this time, in contrast to the previous two stages, there were more satisfactions for the other Westerners than for either the officials or for the leader himself. The resuscitated Europeans had their group independence restored, and found a means of mutual emotional support. The officials seem to have benefited the least, although from their standpoint, Vechten was still an active enough reformer.
For Vechten himself, the benefits of his leadership were most contradictory. He did derive the satisfaction of doing, and doing well, what inner needs and outer demands required of him. His talent for moderation, however, conflicted with the more im- moderate (and totalistic) ideal of martyrdom against which every Catholic priest, when under extreme duress, must in some degree measure himself--a self-judgment likely to be particularly severe in a man for whom complete integrity is essential. In a study leader this conflict is especially intense, because of the continuous com- promises he must make. Further, Vechten's give-and-take approach could not permit him to be conveniently absolute in his judgments
(in the manner of Bauer or Benet), but rather required him to
? GROUP REFORM 183
question continuously his own ideas and to weigh them against the points of view of the others. Finally, the style of deception which he and the other Westerners worked out was more compli- cated than either the academic iconoclasm of Bauer or the all-or- none submersion of Benet. It is no surprise that under these cir- cumstances, earlier problems of feeling unloved, inferior, and over- whelmed by his own anger once more emerged. And any problem for Vechten immediately became a problem for the entire group, which had, after all, never rid itself of its antagonisms. Vechten's preservation of autonomy, both of the group and of the individual, under conditions such as these was one of the most unusual human achievements I met with during the course of this study.
In evaluating these three patterns of leadership (and I have made them, for purposes of clarity, perhaps a bit more sharply defined than they really were), I have tried to make it clear that neither the milieu, the leader, nor the led were solely responsible for producing a particular style of behavior. Rather, each phase is an example of the principle (as valid for psychology as for physics and medicine) of multiple causation. It would be wrong to say, for instance, that Vechten's emergence as a leader was entirely due to his character traits, although it is probable that, because of his outstanding qualities, he would become a leader of most groups in most situations. The point is that he was a particularly appropriate leader of this group at this time. It may well be that Bauer's intel- lectual attainments would have kept him the leader, even if Vechten had been present, during the lax early phase, and that Ben&'s "progressive" histrionics would have made him the most likely leader during the time when political levels had to be "raised. " Also, leadership styles may vary in the same man. Had Bauer experienced stronger personal pressures before he came into the group, his leadership could have been a good deal less firm; had Ben& been less fearful, his leadership might have been less extreme. Leadership leaves a good deal of room for heroism; but this heroism is intimately related to the peculiar demands which prevail in a particular environment at a given time.
Even when the group was functioning smoothly, Weber felt uncomfortable with its policies; but during the turmoil of Ben? t's leadership, the pressures became so unbearable to him that he longed to be transferred to another cell--the only member of the group who at any time preferred to be separated from it prior to release.
My mental suffering was the limit of what I could endure . . . my main suffering came from these foreigners . . . not so much with the inspectors who I felt tried to be human. . . . Whatever I did I was always in the wrong. . . . I felt like a kind of prey in a cage. . . . I often thought it would be a pleasure to be transferred and to get away from this mental pressure. . . . I couldn't trust my friends or myself!
? 1 6 4 THOUGHT REFORM
No one escaped experiencing hostility toward each of the others, nor did anyone fully avoid becoming the target of the others' resentment. Now it was Bauer's aggressive and superior manner, now Kallmann's intransigent "progressivism," now Weber's shift from Kallmann to Bauer for guidance and support--and all these seemed most disrupting during this chaotic time.
But the central focus of group dissension was Ben6t himself. Here everyone had strong feelings, since Benet's character and policies so forcibly affected the minute-to-minute existence of each. The sentiment was mainly negative; most of the other Westerners were highly resentful of his egotism, his instability, and his extreme behavior. They were by no means united, however, in their attitudes toward him. Countering their resentment was their awarenessof his courage in shielding them. Kallmann was the group member who felt this most keenly, and was for some time Benet's closest collaborator and most staunch defender. His affection for him had begun when the two men had been together in a different cell be- fore the formation of the Western group. At that time, when Kail* mann was near-psychotic and overwhelmed by fear after his un- successful attempt at suicide, Ben6t had been compassionate, pa- tient, and very helpful in teaching him how to deal with the officials. Kallmann had become convinced of the validity of Benet's ap- proach, and believed it to be based on a superior understandingof Communism. Moreover, Kallmann's strong fears led him to the conviction that "we must work their mentalities into ourselves and really feel the guilt"--because "only when I get to the stage where I can genuinely feel the guilt can I genuinely convince them. "
For a long time he felt only gratitude toward Benet:
For the first months they could only approach us through him, and he took all of the struggles. If he criticized us, we beat him back. He was like a cushion, pressed from both sides. . . . I cautioned the others that this was a great strain for him. He was the person who best served as a teacher in how to behave with the Communists . . . he shielded us . . . he was kind-hearted, and we took advantage of it. . . . He did as much for us as any comrade could do.
But after a few more months, even Kallmann resisted Benet's "exaggerations," and criticized much of his domineering and ag- gressive behavior. The others in the group were less impressed by
? GROUP REFORM l6|J
Bendt's shielding of them, and more consistent in their resentment. Bauer especially was constantly antagonistic to Benet ("When I look at you, I realize why Martin Luther reformed the Catholic Church"), strongly opposed his policies, and attempted to offset his influence in the group whenever possible. Emile was in conflict with him over statements and attitudes about the Catholic Church, and on several occasions flew into a rage because of Ben&'s be- havior. To Weber, Ben6t was a "proper charlatan. "
The result of this conflict was an intragroup struggle for power and influence, something like the Communist intraparty struggle, rather than a harmonious, mutually-nourishinginterplay. To be sure, even during this period the Europeans made strong attempts to preserve some degree of unity. Kallmann, for instance, recognizing his growing hostilities, pleaded with the group for assistance, and got some, at least temporarily.
I confessed it to my comrades and asked them to help me out of it-- not to allow me to isolate myself . . . and they helped me. . . . Our antagonisms were not easy to overcome.
But the trend was one of disruption. As confusion between, as one man expressed it, "playing the game and reality" mounted, the protection of a united group was lost.
What was behind Father Ben&'s rather strange approach, and where did it lead? This was not the first group with which he had come in conflict. The statements of others who knew him well --both in and out of prison--(and I have to rely on these, since he was the only one of this six-man group I did not have the op- portunity to interview) indicate he had always been a man of great learning, erratic behavior, and seething inner rebellion. Col- leagues who worked with him described him as an opinionated, outspoken person, perpetually involved in disputes. He was always very sensitive to criticism from others, and one friend felt that he had a "weak paranoia. " Despite this, he had had a brilliant and vigorous career as a Jesuit missionary in China.
Originally torn between the French and German cultural in- fluences present in the border area in which he grew up, he found a new cultural home in China: he participated energetically in Chinese life, he learned a great deal about the civilization, and translated many religious works into Chinese. His identification
? l 6 6 THOUGHT REFORM
with his mission-land was so strong that he had, during the course of his work, taken out Chinese citizenship; a tradition had been established for this by earlier missionaries, but it was nonetheless a highly unusual step. Later, under the Communists, he had favored the acceptance of the government-sponsored independent church movement, and refrained from joining it only because of orders from his religioussuperiors.
His colleagues believed that much of his behavior in prison was influenced by his overwhelming desire to remain in China as a missionary. They also cited as another very important influence something that had happened shortly before Ben? t was arrested. Two Chinese brothers whom Benet knew well were imprisoned by the Communists: one of them "confessed" and was released; the other refused to confess and was shot. This was believed to be crucial in his later conviction that "confession is the only way out. " In addition, he had, early in his own imprisonment, experi- enced what a colleague referred to as "a near-complete breakdown"; and one of his Western cellmates attributed his later behavior to "enormous fear," He also developed the concept that it was neces- sary to degrade oneself "to convince the Communists that you are with them--and not in grace in the bourgeois world--so that the Communists would feel that you were so degraded in the bourgeois world that you could not go back. "
Even in prison he had moments which paralleled the brilliance of his missionary career, and evoked admiration from his Western cellmates. "He was so sparkling. . . . he had a strongly French personality--flexible, elastic, extremely 'intellectual' in a formal way . . . like Voltaire. " And there was a certain amount of awe even in their criticisms of him. "He had a satanic, biting humor . . . with his sharp intellect he could criticize everyone, even God. " But his prestige and his power within the group soon declined. His penchant for, even joy in, self-humiliation caused the other West- erners to lose respect for him. Further, his extremism led to dis- trust, both among Westerners and Chinese. It was felt that he was "too convincing"--or, in other words, easily seen through as in- sincere. Other Westerners referred to him as "the foxy philos- opher"; Chinese prisoners called him "the fox. " Although he was technically their study leader for more than a year, his influence on the Europeans gradually waned during the last half of this
? GROUP REFORM l6j
period, and by mutual unspoken consent Benet began to study more and more with the Chinese prisoners. When he was transferred from the cell, after fifteen months with the European group, he was an isolated, bitter, and defeated man:
At the end he didn't want to be with our group, only wanted to study with the Chinese, and went one hundred per cent the Chinese way. . . . When he left he was down and out, fed up with everything, and especially with us--because we wouldn't follow him.
Phase of Adaptation
Father Vechten, the Dutch priest who was the last of the six to join the group, entered the cell while Ben6t was still in charge. Since he too could speak, read, and write Chinese, the other Euro- peans began to turn to him as an intermediary between themselves and the officials or their Chinese cellmates. Father Vechten, both in his translations, and in his general approach, was a much more moderate and reliable guide than Benet. Their willingness to be in- fluenced by him undoubtedly was an important factor in the au- thorities' later decision to make him the official "study leader/'
But even before this, other changes from above helped to create an atmosphere in which he could assume informal leadership. Al- though pressures were still very strong, the extreme struggle atmos- phere which had prevailed during Ben6fs first few months in the cell had gone. The acute assaults required to "raise" the group's political level had given way to longer-term demands for the con- solidation of what had been accomplished, and the grinding out of further, day-to-day "progress. " The vindictive cell chief was replaced by a conscientious but somewhat less zealous person. And during this period, also, the group benefited from the generally moderating effects of the policy change in the Chinese penal system already referred to in Chapter 4. The extreme exhortation, the one-sided atmosphere, the hysteria of the mass campaigns, the unrelenting criticism were all still very much there. But the Westerners were permitted to settle in, and to experience their reform as a more evolutionary, and less explosiveprocedure.
What influence did Father Vechten have on the Western group? His personal qualities were in many ways the direct antitheses of those of the man he replaced: a steady intelligence without bril-
? l68 THOUGHT REFORM
liance, a circumspect and cautious approach, a capacity to instill profound trust in others. Further, he set a high example of personal courage and self-sacrifice, and always backed up his professed prin- ciples with his personal actions.
Before he could begin to make his influence felt, however, he had to be personally broken in, initiated into the group pattern through the "raising" of his own personal level of reform to that of the others. (Although he had been through rather severe con- fession pressures during his previous months of imprisonment, he had not yet experienced a sustained re-education program. ) Dur- ing his first few weeks in the cell, therefore, he was severely strug- gled, largely about issues dealing with the relationship of church activities to "imperialism. "
Nor was his first response to the group completely auspicious. At one point, when he was being treated in a way he considered extremely unjust, he burst into tears in a manner described by a cellmate as "crying with fury/' He had already won the sympathy of the other Westerners, but they were "surprised and shocked" at his lack of control. He weathered this episode, greatly helped by the other Europeans; at the same time they persuaded him that he had to make some concessions in order to get along.
For a while he was quite uncomfortable about making these concessions, and disturbed by the confusion in the group under Benet's leadership. But once he became convinced that the other Westerners genuinely wished to assist him, and that there was a possibility of a co-operative group approach, he became increasingly willing to compromise and fall into step. Interestingly enough, it was Bauer's "good fellowship"--despite definite points of con- flict between the two men--which did most to persuade Vechten. Once he had achieved some harmony with the group, Vechten's authority was quickly established.
For a brief period, there was a certain amount of infighting among the Westerners, a conflict among them over policy, and an inner struggle for control of the group. Bauer and Kallmann were re- sisting Benet's authority, which was declining; Vechten agreed more with them than with Benet, and his own leadership developed aided by their support.
Out of the confusion came a definite group policy which replaced chaos with a fair measure of stability. The approach was not com-
? GROUP REFORM 169
pletely new, nor the exclusive idea of any one man; but it was Vechten, strongly influenced by Bauer, who did more than any- one else to develop it. The policy consisted of a form of acting --or "window dressing"--in which the Westerners made "big self- accusations backed up by small facts": one would accuse himself, for instance, of being "reactionary" and "backward," because of taking too much time in going to the bathroom.
Even more important, this tactic involved continual emphasis upon "playing the game" rather than losing oneself completely in the reform process. Vechten, for example, might criticize another Westerner harshly, but at the same time he would attempt to get across to him some indication that he was merely going through the necessary motions. This could not usually be done overtly, but semantic tricks were exploited by the Westerners to create a communication system which their Chinese cellmates could not penetrate. They sometimes spoke in French or German; when this was prohibited, they interjected single words or concepts from European languages. They also developed special pronuncia- tions to which they ascribed their own connotations. For instance, they distinguished between people in the ordinary meaning and the Communist mystique of "the people," by using an ordinary English pronunciation for the first meaning, and a mock French pronunciation--pee-pul--for the second. Similarly,"horse language" became a euphemism for German, and when Vechten would ad- vise some of the others not to use the "horse language," they would know that he meant it "as a friend and not really from the side of the government. " Vechten maintained at all times the convic- tion that "you must conserve your higher values in confession. . . ? not let them bring you down. "
This new approach was essentially a compromise between the two earlier ones. In its stress upon preservation of individual dignity, it resembled Bauer's method during phase one; but it entailed much more concession to and individual participation in the reform pro- gram. In its insistence upon a strongly "progressive" display, it resembled Benet's approach of phase two; but its crucial difference was the distinction it made between public gestures made to placate the government and the private world of resistance maintained among the Europeans.
The policy was logical enough. The difficulty lay in carrying it
? i y O THOUGHT REFORM
out. The group not only had to satisfy Chinese officials and cell- mates, it also had to sustain courage and cohesion among the group members. And it was here that Vechten's special genius emerged. He demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to deflate hostilities, dissolve conflicts, and preserve group unity. He invariably accom- plished this through a human appeal to the contending or dis- ruptive parties, and always sought to mediate and find something which he could personally share with each of them. Even his re- placement of Benet as the actual leader of the group was accom- plished with surprisingly little hostility/He approached Benet sym- pathetically, and made an effort to avoid animosity despite their differences of policy; and at the same time he adopted, as a per- sonal principle, Benet's concept that it was the duty of a Catholic priest to assist others in so stressful a situation. To the other West- erners, he emphasized Benet's personal sacrifices, and defended him in the face of their sharp criticisms. When Benet finally left the group, Vechten was on closer terms with him than was any other Westerner.
In a similar fashion, when Bauer's Nazi and racist views led to friction--Vechten himself had strong inner resentments on this matter since he had lived through the Nazi occupation of Holland, and also identified closely with the Chinese people--he appealed to Bauer's "corps spirit"; he would mention their personal bond-- Bauer's mother came from an area close to Vechten's birthplace. In the continuous conflict between Weber and the others in the group, he wasa continuous mediator. He sympathized with Weber because of common features in their background, and because both had "rough and good-hearted" characters. He viewed Weber as a man who, because of personal limitations, particularly needed help to get through the experience; and he emphasized this need to the others while at the same time using his influence with Weber to get him to submit to group discipline. With Kallmann, he found common ground in their religious feelings, despite the fact that Kallmann was a Protestant; he also discussed with him what was closest to Kallmann's heart--his wife and family. This sympathy helped Kallmann overcome many of his antagonisms, and also served to dispel occasional differences which arose between Kall- mann and Vechten himself over policy and leadership. When Emile came into conflict with the group because of his intransigence,
? GROUP REFORM iyi
Vechten appealed to him as a fellow priest, emphasizing the good he could do for others by co-operating.
Vechten's path was not always smooth, however, and he ex- perienced his own personal difficulties. When he was caught be- tween strong pressures from above, and resistance to his policies from below, he would sometimes have outbursts of anger, severe headaches, or tremors. He had moments when he felt that the game he was leading, with its concessions to the Communists, was "dirty," and from the standpoint of a priest, wrong. Therefore, when another European would resist his demands with the accus- ing statement, "And you a priest--" he became extremely upset. He was also tortured by the feeling that the others in the group did not really like him or fully trust him. But he did not allow these disruptive emotions to persist, and if he could not overcome them himself, he accepted the help of others in the group. Bauer knew best how to render personal assistance to Vechten--reassuring him of the admiration the others had for him, and gently warning him on one occasion that he was becoming too angry in his dealings with the others and that the sides of his mouth were beginning to turn downward. Bauer also took advantage of his medical standing to do something else for Vechten: he told an official that Vechten's
headaches, if not checked, could develop into a mental breakdown, hoping thereby to ease the pressures on him and to speed up his release. Kallmann by this time was over his own crisis, and he be- came strong enough to lend moral support to Vechten and to the others. All saw Vechten's difficulties as understandable sensitivities for which he deserved their help. Everyone had become, to some extent, a therapist for everyone else.
In this way the group gradually evolved enough of an equilib- rium among its individual members to function as an effective unit. It was a tenuous equilibrium which could be readily threatened; but a certain balance prevailed. Although no individual member was immune to attack, the group as a whole offered protection, solace, and amelioration. It prevented Bauer from being too bold, Kallmann from being too submissive, Vechten from demanding too many concessions. It listened to and prescribed for emotional problems from any source. When the balance seemed to be giving way in the face of internal conflicts, the group invariably found itself reunited by the immediate threat of new assaults from with-
? IJ2 THOUGHT REFORM
out.
At the same time, the group was ever mindful of the danger that their inner dissension, if not checked, might be exploited by Chinese cellmates or by prison officials.
The group pattern and the double life of its members thus be- came a means of resistance. The group had reached its highest point of re-education under Benet, and this reform trend continued to some extent during the early months of Vechten's leadership; but after this, the equilibrium worked toward fending off--although by no means completely escaping--Communist influence.
An important aspect of the equilibrium was the relationship of the group to the Chinese prisoners who lived in the same cell. Here Vechten's influence was particularly important, as his affection for Chinese culture and Chinese people became quickly apparent. He was the most popular of the Westerners among the Chinese, and his personal integrity made a strong impression upon them. This compatibility was more than just a convenience; it played an ex- tremely important part in the group's survival. Chinese prisoners tended to become (or at least appeared to become) more quickly and enthusiastically "progressive" than Westerners, and they were likely to express strong political and personal animosities toward Westerners. Much of this hostile feeling had prevailed with this group of Europeans, particularly during Ben6t's leadership. But Vechten's personal appeal, as well as the improved atmosphere within the Western group, brought about a gradual change in the situation; antagonism from Chinese cellmates gave way to a tol- erant, sometimes even friendly, attitude. The Chinese were ap- parently impressed by much of the Westerners' behavior, and sometimes seemed to be attempting to imitate it themselves. Peri- odically, they still loosed torrents of criticism upon their European cellmates, but these were not necessarily hateful in tone, and they had a lot of performance in them. Even Bauer's attitude of su- periority (which they were aware of, and which he frequently had to confess to) was absorbed. Later on, during the recreation periods afforded by more "lenient treatment/' the Europeans found them- selves teaching their Chinese cellmates various games, and even social dancing. The Western group had, so to speak, secured its flank; every bit of goodwill from its Chinese cellmates created some measure of insulation from reform pressures.
The qualities in Vechten which meant so much to this group
? GROUP R E F O R M 1 7 3
were not emerging for the first time. As a missionary, he had shown unusual ability and leadership. His special talents for bringing men together, for arbitrating between extremes, for pursuing a steady and moderate approach, had long been prominent. Yet it is interesting to note that from early life he had been subject to severe episodes of uncontrolled anger. As a child he experienced such severe temper tantrums when his will was frustrated that "I would turn red, then blue, and stop breathing, and my brother had to beat me to make me again conscious''; during early ado- lescence he suffered from almost daily headaches, caused mainly by inner hostility; as a young man he had outbursts of anger or tears. He had painfully conquered these tendencies, largely through his strong emotional bonds with the Catholic religion; and his skills as a moderator were in part the reflection of his highly-developed personal mechanisms of control. They were much more than this, however, because they depended upon an additional quality which was described by Bauer as "echt" a term by which he suggested purity and authenticity: "He is not an imitation. He doesn't pre- tend to be what he is not . . . he is one of the few people I have met in life who at least realizes what he is. " What Bauer meant by this statement was Vechten's unusual integrity, his ability to live the life to which he claimed to aspire. At moments when Vechten felt himself overwhelmed by anger, guilt, and doubt, he would draw upon an unusual blend of the supernatural and the human: "Praying brings you back to the reality of what you are. Talking with the group of foreigners [Europeans], had a similar effect. "
The full impact of Vechten's prison behavior can only be under- stood through the effect it had on his Western cellmates. His leader- ship, once assumed, was never questioned; his influence increased steadily over the two years he was in the cell, until the eventual breakup of the group through the sentencing and release of the Western prisoners. He was the only person among the Europeans whose stature completely overshadowed the complicated hostilities and weaknesses which thought reform engenders--the one most warmly and unreservedly praised by all of the others. Every one of them felt that it was his influence, more than anything else, that kept the group intact, which in turn preserved the values and stability of each of them. Kallmann perhaps summed up their feelings best:
? 174 THOUGHT REFORM
He made the most impressive showing of all of us--human and spirit- ual. He never really lowered himself . . . he taught us how to do the necessary and still keep our own.
Epilogue
To what extent was the group successful? Did it really protect the psychological health and the private beliefs of its members? We can answer this by taking a brief look at each of the men im- mediately after his release.
The first of the six to arrive in Hong Kong was Father Bene*t. I was not able to interview him (either because of his resistance, or that of his Church colleagues, or both), but I was able to talk with several people very close to him. Benet claimed that his rel- atively early release proved that his policy had been the best one after all; but there was much question about this, since he was re- leased simultaneously with a number of other French priests, ap- parently for political reasons. He had spent almost another year in a different cell after his transfer from the group. At some point, his attitude (or at least his tactics) dramatically changed: not only did he become a good deal less "progressive" himself, but he en- couraged resistance in others; and a Westerner who had known him in both cells described him as "completely different. " When he ar- rived in Hong Kong, his old friends felt that his prison experience had left him "not much changed"--still brilliantly outspoken and erratic as ever. They were struck, however, by his combination of bitter criticism of the Communists and his impression of their immense power, their near-invincibility. Unusually fearful during the post-release period, Benet had apparently undergone a great emotional upset rather than an ideological change. His form of totalism had carried him from his initial stance of the apparent convert to the opposite (and . clearly related) category of the ap- parent resister. Yet like Bishop Barker and others in this latter category, his sharp condemnation of Communism was in part a defensive device for denying the profound reform influences he had clearly absorbed. I will say more about his peculiar form of leader- ship later on.
Dr. Bauer was the next to arrive; and since he had been con- sidered the most reactionary, his belief that the date of a prisoner's
? GROUP REFORM 175
telease had little to do with the extent of his "progress" was con- firmed. He was, as might be expected, the most adamant in his denunciation of the Communists, and the most personally removed from the Communist communication system. Although not with- out fear, he was very quick to regain sufficient composure and de- tachment to launch into a comprehensive analysis of Communist methods. More than any of the others, he emphasized the absolute effectiveness of the group--even to the point of idealization: "We played theatre with them day in and day out. " When discussing the other group members, he spoke in a similar vein, stressing the "comradeship" of each, and carefully controlling his own hostilities wherever they existed--except in the case of his feelings toward Benet, which were admittedly bitter. He was an archetype of the apparent resister, and he exhibited clearly the oppositional atti- tudes, the totalism in his character, and the use of repression and denial to ward off reform influences. Yet he did impress me as be- ing one of the least affected ideologically of all of my Western sub- jects. He had tenaciously held on to his alternative Nazi ideology (although disclaiming of course its excesses); but he emphasized even more his frank devotion to "bourgeois" family life, and always maintained a controlled charm and friendliness with me and with whomever he met in Hong Kong. His identity had stood firm.
Father Emile, whom I met next, was somewhat confused and agitated when he arrived, but he still managed to express himself with a good deal of gaiety and humor, as he had when in prison. He was critical of the Communists, but less interested in discussing ideological matters than in the sequence of his own experiences and their religious implications; he frequently mentioned St. Paul. He referred to the group sympathetically ("Foreigners tried to pro- tect each other") but did not speak of it with especially strong emotion. He had spent just one year in the group, less time than most of the others, and had for the last few months of his im- prisonment been permitted to perform technical work under much less intensive psychological pressure. His colleagues felt that he had greatly matured through his prison experience, that he had attained more self-mastery, and greater inner peace, and that he was not as "overly active" as they felt he had been before.
Mr. Kallmann emerged with a strong need to discuss his experi- ences in great detail as a means of conquering his remaining fear.
? 176 THOUGHT REFORM
Sensitive to psychological currents, he spoke with a striking combina- tion of insight and confusion. He stated that he had "studied hard," learned a great deal, and now wished to "continue his studies" through extensive readings in non-Communist political literature; he felt that he could never become an adherent of the Communist world, but had come to realize the grave shortcomings of the capitalist world. He spoke enthusiastically of his experiences in the group: "They were all marvelous comrades . . . we always felt we were mentally holding our own/' although he also talked of the dif- ficultiesand the painful personal irritabilities. He remained Benet's staunchest defender. While he was certainly among the obviously confused, he believed that he had been protected from Communist indoctrination by the values he had absorbed from the German youth movement: "Erlebnis . . . the value in life of the natural experience . . . the sensation of the eternal beauty of what God creates. " It was to this earlier ideology that he wished to return.
Mr. Weber too had signs of obvious confusion when I met him in Hong Kong. He felt that his condition had been greatly improved by a period of skilled manual labor in which he had par- ticipated after his transfer from the group. Vehemently critical of the Communists, he nonetheless had become convinced during his imprisonment that "evolutionary socialism rather than revolu- tion" was desirable; and he also felt that the technique of self- criticism could be a useful personal device. Concerning the group and its function, he was more critical than any of the others, and emphasized the suffering it caused him and his relief at being separated from it. Yet in the next breath, he would unwittingly praise it, pointing out that "we foreigners used self-criticism in a fair way," in contrast to the cruel and "reckless manner of the Communists. " Moreover, the behavior of Emile and Vechten had so deeply impressed him that he wished to return to his own active Catholic religious practice. He managed his mixed feelings about the group with outward good humor: "I guess we were all a bit crazy in there. " On the whole, he wanted to leave his prison experience behind him and be "through with politics. "
Father Vechten, even after his arrival in Hong Kong, remained the group's leader and guardian. Still speaking as if responsible for it, he gave the most thoughtful and comprehensive picture of its function. He was in fact remarkably balanced in all of his ex-
? GROUP REFORM 177
pressed opinions, and yet he too spoke of feeling confused about many issues. Rather than seeing himself as the hero which the others thought him to be, he was deeply troubled that "maybe I was too progressive. " He seemed mildly depressed, torn by feelings of shame and guilt; and he minimized his own accomplishments at every turn. He did feel that the "corps spirit" of the group had been very helpful to everyone, including himself, and he recognized that he had been "better than the others" in holding the group together; but he also stated that "all of us could have very easily been enemies. . . . except for the fact that we all had a greater enemy. " Deeply aware of the magnitude of individual antagonisms, he tended, if anything, to understate the group's accomplishments, He was critical of Communist theory and practice, and much con- cerned (like Father Luca) about the future of the Catholic Church in China. He felt that he had done his Church a great disservice in making certain confessions about religion. After a few weeks in Hong Kong, his psychological state seemed a bit improved, but he still stressed that he had much to think about in the future.
In assessing these men after their release, it was not easy to make an over-all judgment of the group's effectiveness. One thing is immediately clear: the experience meant something different to each of its members. For Bauer, the experience was a panacea, al- though his reaction must be judged in the light of a tendency to idealize many of his relationships as a way to control disruptive forces within himself; for Weber it was painful and humiliating, and yet even he derived emotional benefits from it; for Ben6t, the group exposure must have been deeply disillusioning; and for the re- maining three men, it was, to varying degrees, a source of strength, despite its emotional pitfalls. Moreover, the man whom the others saw as the unifying spirit (Vechten) seemed much less enthusiastic about the group's effectiveness than at least two of the others (Bauer and Kallmann); and many of the very acts of leadership which the others thought heroic were to him shameful evidences of compro- mise.
I felt, when I interviewed these men in Hong Kong, that the group achievement had been a rather remarkable one. These six men had succeeded in creating a small world of partial independence within the larger threatening universe of the Communist prison. Their independence was never anything like complete, and at
? 178 THOUGHT REFORM
times it seemed about to disappear altogether; but its survival created vital alternatives within an otherwise saturated environment. The intellectual alternative--the standing critique of Communist theory --was impressive enough; but even more important was the emo- tional alternative--the construction through trust and co-operative resistance of a psychological "home" and "family" where each mem- ber could find support and spiritual replenishment, and thereby avoid complete dependence upon the offerings of reform. This amounted to the undermining of thought reform's communica- tion network, an impediment to the milieu control which thought reform seeks always to maintain. These six men were not reformed within a closed system of Communist discourse: rather, by pool- ing their knowledge and the emotions of their individual back- grounds, they created a vital alternative to the Communist system. In the midst of penal thought reform pressures this was no mean accomplishment.
There is little doubt that the group did much to preserve the emotional well-being and the resistance to Communist influence of its individual members. It also, of course, to some extent served as a vehicle for conveying Communist influence to those within it; but it is probably fair to say that, without the group, this influence would have been at least as great and a good deal more painful.
The results of this group achievement were evident in the condi- tion of the five men I interviewed after release. They showed symp- toms and attitudes in many ways typical of all of my subjects, but they were quicker than others to overcome confusion and fear and to begin to reconstruct a sense of identity in the non-Communist environment. As far as indoctrination was concerned, I felt that these men had emerged slightly less affected than my average sub- ject. Their distribution among the response categories was not un- usual (four obviously confused, one apparent resister, and one ap- parent convert turned apparent resister); but they were unusual in their capacities to weigh their reform experience not only against what they found in the non-Communist world, but also against the alternative group ethos they had known during their imprison- ment.
These judgments were, of course, tenuous. So many factors af- fected the way in which a man emerged that it was very difficult, in comparing these people with other subjects, to evaluate the
? GROUP REFORM 179
part which the group had played. And I had to keep in mind the fact that this group contained two men who had made serious suicidal attempts, the only ones among my twenty-five subjects. Indeed, in the followup studies I made three years later (see Chap- ter 10), I encountered a number of surprises, including severe emotional difficulties which I had not been able to predict. I con- cluded then that the group had supplied a good deal of spiritual nourishment and protection during the imprisonment itself, but that this protection could not last sufficiently to avoid profound problems later on. Nonetheless, the psychological and biological strengths which an intimate group structure can evoke were con- vincingly demonstrated.
Styles of Leadership
What did the history of this group reveal about the relationship among leader, milieu demands, and group behavior? The exag- gerated and bizarre quality of the group experience throws into sharp relief principles which are equally operative, if less apparent, in everyday situations.
Three men became official or unofficial leaders of this group of Westerners during the course of its existence, and yet none was the leader during his entire stay with the group. Each of the three men developed a style of leadership which became characteristic for the particular phase which he dominated. What characterized each style, and what produced it?
The first, Bauer's hegemony during the academic phase, was characterized by intellectual leadership and avoidance of participa- tion. The combination which produced this style was: first, a lax milieu, which said, in effect, as long as you keep studying and seem to be reforming, you will not be bothered; second, a previously de- moralized group of three Westerners ready to respond to any show of strength; and third, the sudden appearance of a confident and emotionally intact European (Bauer) psychologically suited to exert strong influence over others. Bauer's intellectual skills were especially useful at a time when independent study and speculation were allowed; his authoritarian emotional traits served well during a period when maximum self-assertion and resistance were per- mitted; his human skills (which were considerable) were especially
? l 8 o THOUGHT R E F O R M
geared to foster individual strength rather than a spirit of compromise in others, which is just what is needed when resistance is possible. The style of academic resistance which developed had something to offer to everyone: to the officials and the cell chief directing the outer environment, a studious display and a certain amount of re- form; to the other Westerners, protection, clear policy, and spell- binding intellectual excursions; to Bauer himself, a means of re- maining emotionally intact and avoiding anxiety by guiding and dominating others, as well as egocentric satisfactions derived by the exercise of his superior intellect. This style of leadership was thus nourishing to all of the Westerners, although perhaps most so to Bauer himself; others in the group (especially Kallmann and Weber) had more of a need to submit, and indeed were sometimes -at odds with Bauer even during this harmonious time. From the
standpoint of group independence, this was the most successful of the three styles of leadership. It was also the easiest of the three to maintain.
The second style (Ben&'s) involved histrionic exhortation and the splitting of identity. The circumstances were very different: the group had not chosen an unofficial leader, but rather had had an official one thrust upon it. And the style of leadership, although predominant, was never fully accepted by the other group members. In terms of the three factors we have been discussing: the environ- ment had suddenly clamped down--no more of this foolery, we mean business, and you had better reform yourselves or else; the four Westerners, who by this time had learned the ropes, were ready to make concessions where necessary, but were still riding a small private wave of resistance; and a newcomer, Ben6t, appeared who was a strange blend of fear, brilliance, exhibitionism, and sadomasochism. Benet behaved as he did partly because he be- lieved that extreme progressivism was necessary, and partly because he was so frightened--primarily because the combination of self- flagellating submissiveness and arrogant, pain-inflicting domination of others was his own long-standing mechanism for dealing with anxiety. Yet this mechanism was especially appropriate for the position into which Ben? t was thrust: any new study leader under these same circumstances would have had to take a good deal of punishment from the officials and cell chief above, and deal in some mutually painful manner with the recalcitrant Westerners
? GROUP REFORM l8l
below.
As with Bauer's, Benet's leadership offered some service to every-
one involved: the officials got their whipping boy, who at the same time effectively conveyed their pressures to the group; Bendt him- self derived an emotional satisfaction from the pain-and-punish- ment pattern; and the other Westerners, through Benet's own absorption of punishment, were afforded some degree of protection from the renewed assaults. But such histrionic and chaotic leader- ship could not be expected to last, and Ben&'s style soon became universally disturbing: the officials could not trust such an exag- gerated performance, especially when they noted his declining influence upon his fellow Europeans; the other Westerners were made hostile and antagonistic to Ben? t and to each other by the loss of their group independence and solidarity, and--worst of all-- by the loss of the capacity to test emotional and intellectual realities; Benet himself began to break down under the strain. All of the Westerners, including Benet, were pressured toward a disintegra- tion of identity and a strong sense of guilt.
On the whole, Benet's style also was more compatible with his own emotional needs than with those of the led. Ben6t, the "marvelous actor," was able to take a histrionic plunge and still land mostly on his feet, as his later attitudes suggest. But the other Westerners, who lacked this talent, could never trust him suf- ficiently to be certain that he was truly identified with them in their struggle to preserve values and group cohesion, rather than with his captors' demands for confession and reform. Under these conditions, one can play no "game": the whole thing becomes "real/' and personal accusations are a true threat to one's sense of self.
Were these circumstances created by the demanding outer milieu, or by Benet's special character traits? We can only say that the small group became a captive audience for both.
The third style of leadership may be termed flexible adaptation and preservation of identity. This was undoubtedly the most re- markable phase of the group's existence. Still subjected to extremely disruptive pressures, its members somehow managed to achieve a restoration of trust. How did this come about?
An emotional demand for a change in style came from all three directions. The group of Westerners' urge for survival made them
? 182 THOUGHT REFORM
cast about for some alternative to the painful confusion of Benet's leadership; the environment slightly toned down its assaults in order to pursue its reform process on a more even keel; and a potential replacement for Benet appeared, a man of unusual humility and integrity--a man who also had the necessary knowledge of Chinese. Vechten brought to his leadership an emphasis upon moderation because this had always been his emphasis; he brought the men to- gether skilfully, emphasizing what they shared, and activating the best in each of them because this had long been his method of deal- ing with conflict--conflict among others and within himself. His was the gift of the creative man: the capacity to make use of inner struggles to evolve a new form which can both express personal emotions and strike deep chords of feeling in others. In human relations, he was a true artist; and like any artist, his own wellbeing depended upon his continuous creativity. He was inwardly impelled as well as outwardly encouraged to take an active role in guiding the fortunes of the group: his own self-control and his sense of clerical identity demanded it.
Again there were satisfactions to be derived from his leadership for all three elements, but this time, in contrast to the previous two stages, there were more satisfactions for the other Westerners than for either the officials or for the leader himself. The resuscitated Europeans had their group independence restored, and found a means of mutual emotional support. The officials seem to have benefited the least, although from their standpoint, Vechten was still an active enough reformer.
For Vechten himself, the benefits of his leadership were most contradictory. He did derive the satisfaction of doing, and doing well, what inner needs and outer demands required of him. His talent for moderation, however, conflicted with the more im- moderate (and totalistic) ideal of martyrdom against which every Catholic priest, when under extreme duress, must in some degree measure himself--a self-judgment likely to be particularly severe in a man for whom complete integrity is essential. In a study leader this conflict is especially intense, because of the continuous com- promises he must make. Further, Vechten's give-and-take approach could not permit him to be conveniently absolute in his judgments
(in the manner of Bauer or Benet), but rather required him to
? GROUP REFORM 183
question continuously his own ideas and to weigh them against the points of view of the others. Finally, the style of deception which he and the other Westerners worked out was more compli- cated than either the academic iconoclasm of Bauer or the all-or- none submersion of Benet. It is no surprise that under these cir- cumstances, earlier problems of feeling unloved, inferior, and over- whelmed by his own anger once more emerged. And any problem for Vechten immediately became a problem for the entire group, which had, after all, never rid itself of its antagonisms. Vechten's preservation of autonomy, both of the group and of the individual, under conditions such as these was one of the most unusual human achievements I met with during the course of this study.
In evaluating these three patterns of leadership (and I have made them, for purposes of clarity, perhaps a bit more sharply defined than they really were), I have tried to make it clear that neither the milieu, the leader, nor the led were solely responsible for producing a particular style of behavior. Rather, each phase is an example of the principle (as valid for psychology as for physics and medicine) of multiple causation. It would be wrong to say, for instance, that Vechten's emergence as a leader was entirely due to his character traits, although it is probable that, because of his outstanding qualities, he would become a leader of most groups in most situations. The point is that he was a particularly appropriate leader of this group at this time. It may well be that Bauer's intel- lectual attainments would have kept him the leader, even if Vechten had been present, during the lax early phase, and that Ben&'s "progressive" histrionics would have made him the most likely leader during the time when political levels had to be "raised. " Also, leadership styles may vary in the same man. Had Bauer experienced stronger personal pressures before he came into the group, his leadership could have been a good deal less firm; had Ben& been less fearful, his leadership might have been less extreme. Leadership leaves a good deal of room for heroism; but this heroism is intimately related to the peculiar demands which prevail in a particular environment at a given time.
