Group members had other, more personal criticisms of Bauer: of his overbearing manner and need to be all-knowing ("I couldn't understand why, because if I knew as much as he knew, I wouldn't worry about not knowing something occasionally"); of his
attitude
of superiority, especially on a racial (Nazi) basis toward the Chinese
("He has a brilliant brain, but in regard to tactfulness there is space for improvement"); of his demand for special privileges--extra blankets and added space in the cell, officially condoned because of the "cardiac condition" which his medical knowledge enabled him to feign.
("He has a brilliant brain, but in regard to tactfulness there is space for improvement"); of his demand for special privileges--extra blankets and added space in the cell, officially condoned because of the "cardiac condition" which his medical knowledge enabled him to feign.
Lifton-Robert-Jay-Thought-Reform-and-the-Psychology-of-Totalism
In his explanation, he undoubtedly oversimpli- fied the importance of this understanding, but it was important nonetheless.
Each of my subjects formulated his own psychological, theological, or philosophical concepts to explain the experience to himself, even while he was going through it.
These theories offered protection: they gave each prisoner a capacity to predict what was coming next, a sense of anticipation;2 and they provided him one of the rewards of knowledge, a sense of control.
This understanding, always partial at best, cannot offer complete immunization; but as
? 146 THOUGHT REFORM
Bishop Barker and many others demonstrated, a grasp of the techniques being used and the emotions being called forth helps to dispel the terrifying fear of the unknown and the sense of complete helplessness--two great stimulators of human anxiety upon which thought reform depends. The prisoner is thus enabled to mobilize his defenses and bring into play the other methods of resistance.
The second important resistance technique is the avoidance of emotional participation; in other words, the prisoner remains as much as possible outside the communication system of thought reform. Bishop Barker was doing this when he emphasized his dif- ficulties in sight and hearing, and his limited knowledge of written Chinese. Others, who had lived for shorter periods of time in China, managed to resist learning even spoken Chinese while in prison; still others, at their own request, were allowed to study Marxist writings or Russian, and thereby avoided more intense personal involvement in confession and re-education. Bishop Barker went even further. In his human relationships he steered clear of the kind of intimacy which would have drawn him more deeply into the group structure of the cell and integrated him more firmly into the prison world. This in turn enabled him to do what was most important of all--to maintain a private inner world of values, judgments, and symbols, and thereby keep3a measure of inde- pendence from the ever-pressing environment.
Since a prisoner could never fully avoid participation, the next best form of resistance was to adopt a neutralizing attitude, one which deflated rather than contested, and which thereby took the sting out of the assaults. Hostile rejoinders gained a prisoner little, and in fact brought about even more devastating pressures. But humor or humane stoicism (both of which Bishop Barker demon- strated) put officials and cellmates in a difficult psychological posi- tion.
A show of humor had the effect of breaking the general tension and dissipating the anxiety and guilt which hung heavy in the en- vironment. As one subject expressed it, "Since the judge is a tragedian before you, if you keep a smile this protects you, because the impressiveness of the tragedy is avoided. " This was not often possible, as the same subject was quick to add. But when it was possible to use it, humor was a way to express a tone contrary to
? APP ARENT RESISTERS 147
thought reform's self-righteousness, an implication that the intense doings of the moment could be made fun of because they were merely a speck on the great human canvas. Since humor is a shared emotion, it can create a bond of sympathy (as it did for Bishop Barker) independent of and frequently antithetical to the world of reform.
Humane stoicism, the turning of the other cheek in the face of abuse, is, as Bishop Barker made clear, an attitude extremely dif- ficult to maintain in the prison environment. It is a form of passive resistance in the Gandhian tradition; but a prisoner can never flaunt the resistance, and even his passivity, or lack of enthusiasm in any direction, is highly suspect. Moreover, it requires unusual dedi- cation to a supernatural or humanitarian ideal. Yet it may produce startling effects, even to the extent of so dominating the cell for a moment that harsh behavior suddenly seems shameful in everyone's eyes. It is not long, of course, before there is a return to the usual prison standards; but the impact of this stoicism outlasts the brief moment of its effectiveness. It reaffirms--in the eyes of the stoic prisoner and his cellmates--a moral position superior to the grandiose moral claims of thought reform.
The steadfastness of humane stoicism is related to the fourth and generally most important resistance technique, that of identity reinforcement. Bishop Barker's major way of resisting thought re- form was to make it a Catholic theological struggle, rather than a Communist remolding. He sought always to maintain himself as a priest struggling against his selfishness, rather than as a stubborn imperialist spy. To do this, he needed a continuous awareness of his own world of prayer, Catholic ritual, missionary experience and Western cultural heritage; with nothing around him to encourage it, this awareness could come only from within. His behavior re- sembled Father Luca's conscious recollection of the people and places which had special meaning for him. This kind of identity reinforcement was for any prisoner the essence of self-protection, both against reform influence and against always-threatening psy- chological disintegration.
One priest expressed this very succinctly:
To resist . . . you must affirm your personality whenever there is the opportunity. . . . When I was obliged to speak my views about the
? 148 THOUGHT REFORM
government, I would each time begin, "I am a priest. I believe in religion. " I said it strongly every time.
This statement was perhaps a retrospective exaggeration of his self- assertion, but there was no doubt that so personal a reminder served him well.
A European professor used a more creative approach. He some- how managed during moments when pressures were relatively re- laxed to make a series of drawings representing precious moments in his past: a mother and baby, a boy before a Christmas tree, a university city, a young man on a romantic stroll with his fiancee. He also wrote a brief, idealized account of the incident in his life each drawing represented. He worked on both the drawings and the essays during moments when he was off by himself in a corner of the cell or with other Westerners; and they became so precious to him that he smuggled them out of the prison at great risk and proudly displayed them to me during OUT interviews. They re- established for him the world in which he wished to exist: "I could escape the horrible world around me and move in a world whose values I agreed with. "
The first four methods of resistance depend upon strength--ego strength, strength of character, strength of identity. Another aspect of Bishop Barker's response may be termed pseudo strength, and this method of resistance is a potential psychological danger. I am referring to his inability to come to conscious terms with thought reform influences, and his need instead to make use of the psycho- logical mechanisms of denial and repression in order to keep from himself the recognition of undue "weakness. " In this pattern he differed, not only from the obviously confused, but also from the apparent converts (although both of these groups of prisoners, especially the latter, had much of their own to hide from them- selves). Bishop Barker shared with other apparent resisters a sig- nificant attraction to the reform program; his repeated protesta- tions of resistance and his strong condemnations of Communism expressed his attempts to cast off this attraction. The potential danger of this pseudo strength lies in the effects of a highly unac- ceptable, and at the same time completely unresolved, set of emotions.
Thus, when Bishop Barker advocated "war now" with the Com-
? APPARENT RESISTERS 149
munists--at the same time justifying his view by Communist theory--he was attempting to eradicate these compelling thought reform influences (his new demons) which so deeply threatened his sense of who he was and what he believed. He was, in effect, saying: "If we can destroy all of the demons in the world, it will eliminate those within me without my having to recognize that they have been there/'
The apparent resisters characteristically combine these real and pseudo strengths. Their form of totalism, along with their habitual use of denial and repression, create a paradoxical situation in which those who have been least influenced by thought reform uncon- sciously feel themselves to be most in danger of being overwhelmed by its influence. They struggle continually against a breakthrough of despair.
Survival and Influence
We have been discussing in this, and in the previous two chapters, problems of indvidual thought reform experiences, and especially the problems of survival and influence. The two are closely related: for a prisoner to survive--hold on to physical and psychic life--he must avoid being totally overwhelmed by environ- mental influence. From the standpoint of identity, survival and resistance to influence converge, at least in an absolute sense: one cannot have his deepest feelings about who and what he is totally replaced, and still survive in a nonpsychotic state.
But one can go quite far in permitting his identity to give way to outside influence, and still function adequately, both physically and psychologically. Indeed, in thought reform, a prisoner had to submit to some degree of environmental influence as the price of survival. 4 This was especially clear in the cases of Professor Castorp and Miss Darrow, both of whom were aware that they had bartered the acceptance of reform views for survival. This bargain was also struck by prisoners like Bishop Barker, even though more of the bartering occurred outside of awareness. To survive thought reform and retain absolutely no trace of its influences was an ideal impos- sible to achieve--whether the ideal was held by the prisoner him- self, his colleagues, or the shocked onlookers of the outside world.
This paradoxical relationship between survival and influence al-
? 150 THOUGHT REFORM
lows a better understanding of the Westerners' performances during imprisonment. As far as survival is concerned, these men and women, when put under extreme forms of stress, were able to sum- mon an impressive store of strength and ingenuity. Bishop Barker's use of humor, Dr. Vincent's characterological shift from isolation to "togetherness/' even Father Luca's delusions all were methods of survival, as were the confessions and the "reformed" patterns of behavior elicited during imprisonment from every prisoner.
Thought reform succeeded with all Westerners in the first of its aims, the extraction of an incriminating personal confession, because it made this confession a requirement for survival. It fell far short of its more ambitious goal of converting Westerners into enthusiastic Communist adherents; for although none could avoid being profoundly influenced, virtually all prisoners showed a gen- eral tendency to revert to what they had been before prison, or at least to a modified version of their previous identity. The barter of influence for survival which Western prisoners made with their reformers turned out to be reasonable enough; only the unreason- able demands of their inner voice of conscience made some of these Westerners feel that their bargain had been a Faustian one.
One very important question remains: granted the variations in external reform pressures, what factors in individual character structure are responsible for the differing susceptibilities to thought reform influence? I found that it is not so much the specific type of character structure which is important, as is the degree of balance and integration; not so much who one is as how well one is put together. To speak, for instance, of "hysterical" or "obses- sive" character types does not help us, since these characterological tendencies appear among people in all three categories. Distinguish- ing "authoritarian" from "liberal" character traits5 is a bit more useful; but it does not explain why one apparent convert (Miss Darrow) falls into the liberal category, and another (Father Simon, discussed in Chapter 11) into the authoritarian.
Rather, each tended to be influenced to the degree that his iden- tity, whatever it may have been, could be undermined through the self-deprecating effects of guilt and shame. This susceptibility in turn depended largely upon his balance between flexibility and totalism, and their special significance for his character structure. Apparent converts shared with apparent resisters a significant amount of
? APPARENT RESISTERS 1J1
totalism; hence both extreme responses. 6 But apparent resisters (Bishop Barker) possessed great strength of identity in contrast to the apparent converts (Miss Darrow) who tended to show identity diffusion. Those among the obviously confused were able to be more flexible in experimenting with identity alternatives, without feeling the need to totally accept or reject the new influence. This is not to say that they were without elements of totalism, any more than the apparent resisters were completely devoid of flexibility; every character structure has both. It was more a question of degree
and of lifelong pattern. 7 Some individual cases (Dr. Vincent) defy even these broad patterns: his totalism was predominant throughout his life and during reform itself, but his idiosyncratic identity strength and flexibility were responsible for his ending up in the most moderate of the three categories.
Each of the three styles of response had its own psychological advantages and disadvantages, as well as its variations. None held a monopoly on human limitation, strength, or courage.
? CHAPTER 9
GROUP REFORM: DOUBLE-EDGED
LEADERSHIP
A consistent feature of all the cases discussed so far
has been the isolation of the Western prisoner. Even when physically part of a cell group, he was completely re- moved from it--emotionally, culturally, and ideologically--until he "changed" and adopted its standards. Never did the group sup- port him as an individual, or help him to resist the onslaughts of thought reform; rather, the group was the agent of thought reform, the conveyor of its message.
There was just one exception to this pattern among my Western subjects. One all-European group was permitted to reform itself; it developed in the process a remarkable series of resistance ploys, and at the same time an incomplete immunity to the reform effects of these ploys. This group showed a poignant combination of solidarity and antagonism, of tortured and tender behavior; its story is one of a struggle to maintain group autonomy-in an environ- ment specifically geared to prevent the appearance of any such autonomy,
This unusual Western group functioned for two-and-one-half years, and conducted its thought reform in English. The six men
15*
? GROUP REFORM 1 5 3
who were its members for most of its existence averaged close to two years of this form of re-education; and each spent at least one year with all five of the others. There were several manipulations and changes in personnel, so that four additional Westerners spent short periods of time in the group; but these men did not play as important roles in the group. The Europeans never constituted an entire cell by themselves, but were always a subgroup within a larger cell which also contained eight Chinese prisoners. A Chinese cell chief was always in charge of both subgroups. All the prisoners involved--Western and Chinese--were completely occupied during these two-and-a-half years with their re-education. Before each Westerner joined the group, he had been in prison for at least a few months; each had already made some concession to the govern- ment's demands, some form of incriminating personal confession.
The Europeans were brought into the cell one by one, for the apparent purpose of "helping" each other with their confessions and reform. The early pattern was essentially as follows. One European who had achieved some degree of adaptation to his en- vironment by making a satisfactory confession and taking part in the criticism of others would be joined by a second Westerner who was still in acute conflict over how much to submit. The influence of the adjusted upon the conflicted European would inevitably be in the direction of confession and reform, but his motivations for this "progressive" influence were complex and uncertain. Always present, in combinations only partially understood by himself, were a genuine desire to help a fellow Westerner to accept the inevitable; an attempt to demonstrate his own "progressiveness" to the authori- ties in order to gain "merits" toward release; and the need to justify his own self-surrender through bringing a person similar to himself into the sphere of those who have already surrendered-- a way to share guilt, shame, and weakness. All this "helping" pre- ceded the existence of a true group structure, and served as a pre- liminary softening up for the group re-education process. It also set much of the pattern for the complicated personal relationships which were later maintained within the group.
The particular people involved in this group brought to it ad- ditional sources of friction of a very formidable nature. The group eventually included a German physician with ardent Nazi sym- pathies, a highly-trained French Jesuit philosopher, a Dutch priest
? 154 THOUGHT REFORM
of lowly origin, a successful North German merchant, an adventur- ous South German businessman, and a French Jesuit science teacher. Among such a group, personal, cultural, intellectual, na- tional, political, and religious conflicts were always potentially dis- ruptive, and were particularly apt to emerge at times when things were not going well. The potential conflicts included the German versus the Frenchman, the Nazi versus the anti-Nazi, the priest versus the layman, the Catholic versus the Protestant, the Jesuit priest versus the non-Jesuit, the crude peasant versus the middle- class gentleman, the North German versus the Bavarian, the uni- versity graduate versus the man of limited education, the profes- sional man versus the merchant.
As though this were not enough, these men also had conflicts with each other which had existed before imprisonment--some personal and social, some ideological--for instance, disagreements among priests about whether to stand firm against all Communist pressure, or to adapt flexibly to it and accept the Communist- sponsored "independent church" movement in China. Members of these separate families within the group (priests, Germans, pro- fessional men, and so on) tended to support each other on manyis- sues, but also found themselves in the most severe personality clashes; these were sometimes so extreme that the mildest statement or action on the part of one automatically became the cause for overwhelming resentment on the part of another, and group mem- bers often quoted the maxim: "No one is the other man's devil like one priest together with another. "
Could any cohesion at all develop among such contending and unwilling guests? One might easily doubt it. Yet somehow leaders did emerge, along with a rather remarkable esprit de corps. In fact, the story of this group is really a study in leadership under stress1 --leadership not absolute or static, but active and changing. It is also a study of group, rather than individual, resistance patterns. These patterns reveal much about the group process specifically produced by thought reform, as well as something about group process in general; they also tell us something about the interplay among the personal qualities of a leader, the special demands of a milieu, and the behavior of a group.
This group experience can be divided into three phases, each identified by a particular atmosphere, and by the domination of
? GROUP REFORM 1 J J
one man. To be sure, what happened in one phase also occurred to some extent in the others; but the following descriptions record what was most characteristic of each phase.
The Academic Phase
When Dr. Bauer, the German physician, arrived in the cell, he found there three other Westerners, each struggling to recover from severe personal pressures, and all living in an atmosphere of great fear.
The first, Mr. Weber, the businessman from Bavaria, had just a short time before made an attempt to kill himself, and had also experienced delusions and hallucinations; with the help of the other two, he was in the process of recovering his faculties. A man of extremes, he had lived a life of great heroism and of alcoholic excess, always in conflict between his very demanding internal ethics, and his intense need to act out his rebellion. In prison, this pattern continued: he was at times absolutely unyielding in his resistance, at other moments unduly "progressive. " Inclined to be petulant and moody, he was leaning heavily upon the other two men.
The second, Mr. Kallmann, the North German merchant, had also attempted to take his own life a few months before in the midst of a severe depression with psychotic features. He had been given more time and opportunity to recover, and he had learned a "progressive" stance which he tried to convey to Mr. Weber. Mr. Kallmann possessed what the others described as "typically Ger- man" traits--loyalty, reliability, sentimentality, irascibility. At this point, his great fear was expressed in an attitude of extreme submis- siveness: "I was so submissive that when going to the water closet, they told me I was bending my head too much, and that I might run into something. "
The third, Father Emile, the French Jesuit scientist, had been a great comfort to both of the other two men. He impressed them with his outward calm and with his religious devotion, and had exerted a particularly strong influence upon Mr. Weber in reviv- ing within him the will to live. Father Emile was slow, deliberate, and was regarded by the others as "the most sober of us mentally. " He managed to remain cheerful, even to interject an occasional humorous monologue or bawdy story. But he did not possess either
? 1 5 6 THOUGHT REFORM
great intellectual breadth or quick tactical responses; and he was still under great personal pressure because much in his case was considered to be "unsolved. "
Dr. Bauer's arrival heralded a change in fortune for this oppressed trio. Having been subjected to relatively minor pressures, his at- titude was still one of confidence, and his entry was an injection of strength. As Mr. Weber expressed it: "He arrived like a breath of fresh air . . . He still had guts. "
Very soon after his arrival the four men were instructed to study together in English, since none of them had an extensive knowledge of spoken or written Chinese. They were to follow the usual procedure--reading from Communist documents, criticism, and analytic self-criticism--under the general direction of the Eng- lish-speaking Chinese cell chief. Thus the Westerners' group re- education began.
For the first three months, the pressures from above were relatively mild. The prison officials had apparently not yet fully worked out a system for the foreigners to follow, and the cell chief himself was notably easygoing, almost friendly. Although he met daily with prison officials, he did not seem to be greatly pressed about the behavior of the Europeans. Thus he demanded of them only that they maintain an attitude of study--without exercising any great control over what it was they were studying.
The four Westerners took advantage of this situation, and began to organize their resistance. ("It was then that our group opinion formed. ") They went through the motions of reading and dis- cussing Communist material for just a few minutes at the beginning of each study period. Then, still maintaining a strict outer decorum, they made use of their varied intellectual backgrounds to discuss principles of philosophy, religion, science, and business practice. Further, they pooled their knowledge to evolve a critique of the Communist position. As Dr. Bauer explained: "We developed the concept that modern science completely disproved Marxist materialism, and that modern science was forced to recognize a divine being. "
No one among the four Westerners had any official status as leader, but Dr. Bauer soon assumed unofficial hegemony. His in- tact emotional state was a big factor in his doing so, but his intel- lectual and psychological equipment specifically suited him for
? GROUP REFORM 157
this role. He was by far the most knowledgeable of the group, pos- sessing a great fund of information in the natural and social sciences which far transcended his medical training. He put his extraordinary memory to good use in bringing facts and principles to the group discussions. His unusual didactic skill enabled him to command the interest of the other group members over prolonged periods of time. Further, he was happiest when dominating and teaching others, since this helped him to reinforce his tight control over his own anxiety, and over his repressed moral conflicts and self-doubts. His general psychological integration, and hard core of personal and national identity (includingthe exaggerated German nationalism of the expatriate) enabled him to articulate his firm convictions with great persuasive force. His tendency toward romantic nostalgia frequently led to enjoyable group discussions of childhood memories and idealized past experience. During most of his life, he had been quick to view anyone who disagreed with him as a personal "enemy"; in prison he was much more flexible in adapting himself to other Westerners against the "common enemy/'
His influence largely shaped most of the group practices--and his influence was overwhelmingly in the direction of resistance. Throughout the group's existence he was considered the most "re- actionary" of the Western prisoners. He repeatedly expressed to the group his opinions that the imprisonment was essentially a "police action" in which the Communists sought to obtain maxi- mum information from everyone, that the officials were not un- realistic enough to expect genuine conversions from Westerners, and that their release would have nothing to do with their "prog- ress" in reform. He illustrated his point of view by drawing a carrot- and-donkey cartoon in which the Communist rider holds out on a stick the promise of release (carrot) before the ever-struggling prisoner (donkey). He agreed with the others that it was neces- sary to tell everything about one's self that could be politically incriminating, and to make only statements acceptable to the Com- munist point of view when on public display. But he insisted that the small group of Westerners counteract the reform process by continually discussing with each other their true beliefs and their tactical maneuvers. "After following the correct platform for a while, taking notes, admitting our faults, and so on, we would say, 'Enough, boys/ and then talk frankly. "
? 158 THOUGHT REFORM
Dr. Bauer's influence in the group did not go completely un- resisted. The others were fearful that the group might be broken up, and each Westerner individually forced to confess to the decep- tion--a gamble which Dr. Bauer felt was worth taking. Mr. Kall- mann feared that "they might use drugs or special treatments to get out from us what was really in our hearts"; he tended to be more cautious and "progressive/7 even when he was with other Westerners, and he was critical of Dr. Bauer because "he did not understand the fundamental need to submit/' Mr. Weber also had doubts, feeling it was necessary to "put your cards on the table," and was at times unwilling, and other times unable, to maintain the subterfuge. Father Emile, although willing to go along, was at times slow to grasp the method.
Group members had other, more personal criticisms of Bauer: of his overbearing manner and need to be all-knowing ("I couldn't understand why, because if I knew as much as he knew, I wouldn't worry about not knowing something occasionally"); of his attitude of superiority, especially on a racial (Nazi) basis toward the Chinese
("He has a brilliant brain, but in regard to tactfulness there is space for improvement"); of his demand for special privileges--extra blankets and added space in the cell, officially condoned because of the "cardiac condition" which his medical knowledge enabled him to feign. His Western fellow-prisoners, from whom he also kept this subterfuge, could not object to the situation, but they did resent the arrogant fashion in which he demanded these rights. Of even more concern to the other three Westerners was Bauer's "care- lessness" and "rascal spirit"; his tendency to take what were, in their eyes, unnecessary chances out of sheer bravado. They exerted great pressure upon him to change his ways, and they succeeded in con- vincing him to behave more moderately for the sake of the group.
Despite his shortcomings, they found Bauer to be a very "good comrade," unusually patient and skillful in aiding them individually, and "a man whom you can rely on in very difficult circumstances. " They admired his intellect, and they greatly valued the calming and strengthening effect which they all acknowledged he had upon their previously beleaguered group. This first phase was by far the most untroubled and unthreatening. The group was under no great pressure from without; and the potential sources of friction within did not often materialize because all recognized the importance
? GROUP REFORM 159
of mating small personal concessions in order to maintain the group structure which they had come to treasure.
Bauer's controversial but effective presence had made this co- hesion possible; and he in turn drew much of his personal strength from his alternative mystique of Nazism. He was a strong leader, if not always for the right reasons. In the light of what followed, the Westerners looked back over these three "academic" months as near-idyllic.
Phase of Reform
The dramatic entrance of Father Benet, the Jesuit philosopher, ushered in a new and disturbing series of events. He had been trans- ferred from another cell, in what was for him a demotion, as he had previously been a cell chief. He was under fire partly for dis- ciplinary violations, which were always dealt with firmly, as well as for an offense considered much more serious. A Chinese Catholic prisoner had tricked Benet into hearing a religious confession in the cell, and then had denounced him, since this form of religious practice was strictly prohibited in the prison. The struggle to which he was subjected upon reaching the new cell was aimed at making him do what for a Catholic priest is unthinkable--reveal the details of this religious confession. Chinese prisoners led the attack, but the Westerners had to take part. Bauer describes the scene which followed:
They manhandled him . . . pulled his beard, and kicked him in the chest. He screamed to the man who accused him, "You know I am not allowed to tell. You tell it yourself. " But the other man was silent. . . . It was difficult for us, too. We were in a rage. Kallmann was close to tears. Emile clenched his fists. I was the same.
A way out was finally achieved when Father Ben? t, after much insisting, succeeded in obtaining a release from the Chinese pris- oner to reveal the contents of the confession. But after this incident the Westerners never returned to the relative calm of their academic phase. Life in their cell had changed.
Pressures from above dictated a more intense program of per- sonal reform, and a new cell chief, much more observant and vin- dictive than his predecessor (he had a great deal in the way of "re-
? l 6 o THOUGHT REFORM
actionary" past affiliations to live down himself), was brought in to enforce this policy change. Father Benet was put through a series of severe struggles and "thought examinations" during the next few weeks; at the same time he was made "study leader" of the small Western group--a post for which he qualified because of his fluency in written and spoken Chinese, and his previous standing as a leading Western "progressive. " Now the foreigners "studied" sometimes as a separate five-man group, sometimes with their eight Chinese cellmates. In either case/ the new cell chief kept a close eye on their activities. Benet assumed a position of great responsibility, interpreting all of the study materials from Chinese to English for his Western fellow-prisoners, and answering to the authorities for what went on among them.
He brought to this task a form of leadership completely dif- ferent from Bauer's approach, startling in its demands and its performance. He expressed to the other Westerners his firm con- viction that the only way for them to earn their release was to throw themselves energetically into the reform process. This meant stop- ping at nothing to convince the officials of the extent of personal reform. He set an impressive example with his own behavior--his- trionic gestures and expressions of guilt, repentance, and self-dep- recation. He went to such extremes as describing intimate details of his own sexual life, including self-stimulation and affairs with women. His Western cellmates were themselves unsure of the truth of these sexual "confessions"; some suspected that Benet derived a good deal of satisfaction in their telling, and all were aware of the effect they had of damaging his relationship to the Catholic priest- hood. At times, however, his lurid stories of personal misbehavior were clearly fabricated, intended--as were his expressions of opinions he knew to be "incorrect"--to supply more sins to repent, additional material for his demonstrative confessions. As one of the other Westerners said:
He confessed everything, exaggerated everything. He admitted all blame with an empty heart. He was very submissive, fully and deeply recog- nizing faults, showing himself a repentant sinner. He had a lively face, lots of grimaces. He was a marvelous actor.
He expected similar behavior from the Westerners under his direction, and exerted great pressure upon them in the form of
? GROUP REFORM l6 l
criticisms and sharply-worded rebukes. Not only did he insist upon the prerogatives of his official position, but he also felt that as a priest it was his duty to do everything possible to help others in the cell. With religious procedures strictly forbidden, this help had to take other forms--and the ironic situation arose in which a Jesuit saw as his priestly duty the need to "help" others along the path to Communist reform. To be sure, Ben? t initially presented his approach as a technique, a means of obtaining early release and thereby preserving values. But his extreme behavior--and particu- larly his insistence that the Westerners maintain their "progres- sive" enthusiasms and pro-Communist sentiments even among themselves--obscured this original purpose. The distinction be- tween real and make-believe was soon lost--certainly to the other Westerners in the group, and apparently to Benet himself.
Despite this "progressive" approach, Ben? t was severely treated by the cell chief, and constantly accused of "shielding" his fellow Westerners. And indeed, according to the Europeans, he did on many occasions absorb great punishment himself rather than ex- pose them. But their admiration for his courage in protecting them was offset by their gradual realization that he seemed to make little effort to avoid difficulties with the authorities, and even appeared to court them. He derived a certain amount of pleasure from his own humiliation; or, as one of his European cellmates explained, "He asked for trouble, got beatings, and was then satisfied. " Ben? t also had a penchant for bringing up highly controversial subjects when he need not have done so--for instance, the possible recon- ciliation of Catholicism with Communist materialism. He enjoyed these flirtations with danger and the opportunities they afforded for displaying his intellectual brilliance and his extensive knowl- edge of Communist theory--a practice they called "skating on thin ice. "
An even more serious problem was his tendency to be domineer- ing, and he was frequently told by his Western cellmates that he would have made a "good Prussian corporal. " What particularly disturbed them was the vehemence with which he denounced fel- low-prisoners:
He fell too easily into beating on one . . , making a man afraid . . . scolding him for hours . . . if he won't come out with something . . . forcing him to dig deeper . . . he rather enjoyed doing such things.
? l62 THOUGHT REFORM
After being pressured from above, he invariably increased his demands upon the other Europeans; wary of his approach, they frequently offered resistance, but they could not avoid completely the effects of his powerful influence.
Gradually the group moved in a "progressive" direction. Under Benet's direction, it studied Communist theory and practice, legal codes and policy documents, and particularly case histories--of "big criminals" who had been successfully re-educated, treated leniently, and accepted into Communist society, and of lesser of- fenders whose unwillingness to confess and reform resulted in their being shot. In his zeal, Benet was far from precise in his transla- tions, and frequently slanted them in the direction of his own point of view: "Sometimes he did not translate at all, but just told us what he wanted us to hear/' The net result was a feeling, on the part of both the officials and the prisoners themselves, that the Westerners had "raised" their (Communist-style) "political level. "
But such "progress" had to be at the expense of group solidarity. No longer pulling together in a protective effort, the Westerners' potential sources of friction became open antagonisms. Differences of opinion about how to behave were inextricably merged with the irritations of close confinement, as each of the men experienced his own special set of resentments.
Kallmann (the "typical German") describes this from his own experience:
Lots of antagonism developed between us. I myself suffered particularly. I developed a hatred at times against more or less all of them . . . hun- dreds of minor ridiculous things.
Kallmann sometimes viewed these differences as petty irritations, such as his impatience with Weber's voice ("loud and like a trum- pet"). At other times he interpreted them through the idiom of the environment, seeing in Bauer's egotism "a typical example of an imperialist. " He could, however, recognize that much of the trouble came from within himself: "I developed a horrible psychosis. . . . I knew my irritabilities were particularly great. "
Emile (the scientist-priest) and Weber (the businessman-ad- venturer), were still close to each other, and had a common prob- lem. Neither of them as intellectually quick as the others, both of them stubborn, they were frequently made the "scapegoats" (so-
? GROUP REFORM 163
called by themselves and the others) of the group controversies. Emile (his humor and goodwill notwithstanding) was resented for his unwillingness to compromise when the group thought it necessary. Weber's position was much more painful. Impetuous and outspoken, he had immense difficulty in adjusting to group dis- cipline, both to the general prison discipline and to the particular discipline imposed by the other Westerners. He was frequently guilty of such offenses as breaking dishes (a very serious matter), for which he was severely criticized by both the Chinese and West- erners.
More important, Weber insisted upon maintaining a separate, personal approach, an attitude of "absolute sincerity"; he deeply resented attempts by anyone to "force me to act differently from what I felt. " He neither accepted nor fully understood the tactics used by the other Westerners. They in turn criticized him sharply, feeling this criticism to be necessary from the standpoint of group survival. But he remained convinced that the others were picking on him in order to rid themselves of their own tensions.
Weber also was the center of an especially bizarre and disturb- ing situation. The group of foreigners was required to denounce the wife of one of its members, who was being held in the woman's sec- tion of the same prison. The denunciation became a very important issue, because refusal to participate meant questioning the infal- libility of the government. 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.
? 146 THOUGHT REFORM
Bishop Barker and many others demonstrated, a grasp of the techniques being used and the emotions being called forth helps to dispel the terrifying fear of the unknown and the sense of complete helplessness--two great stimulators of human anxiety upon which thought reform depends. The prisoner is thus enabled to mobilize his defenses and bring into play the other methods of resistance.
The second important resistance technique is the avoidance of emotional participation; in other words, the prisoner remains as much as possible outside the communication system of thought reform. Bishop Barker was doing this when he emphasized his dif- ficulties in sight and hearing, and his limited knowledge of written Chinese. Others, who had lived for shorter periods of time in China, managed to resist learning even spoken Chinese while in prison; still others, at their own request, were allowed to study Marxist writings or Russian, and thereby avoided more intense personal involvement in confession and re-education. Bishop Barker went even further. In his human relationships he steered clear of the kind of intimacy which would have drawn him more deeply into the group structure of the cell and integrated him more firmly into the prison world. This in turn enabled him to do what was most important of all--to maintain a private inner world of values, judgments, and symbols, and thereby keep3a measure of inde- pendence from the ever-pressing environment.
Since a prisoner could never fully avoid participation, the next best form of resistance was to adopt a neutralizing attitude, one which deflated rather than contested, and which thereby took the sting out of the assaults. Hostile rejoinders gained a prisoner little, and in fact brought about even more devastating pressures. But humor or humane stoicism (both of which Bishop Barker demon- strated) put officials and cellmates in a difficult psychological posi- tion.
A show of humor had the effect of breaking the general tension and dissipating the anxiety and guilt which hung heavy in the en- vironment. As one subject expressed it, "Since the judge is a tragedian before you, if you keep a smile this protects you, because the impressiveness of the tragedy is avoided. " This was not often possible, as the same subject was quick to add. But when it was possible to use it, humor was a way to express a tone contrary to
? APP ARENT RESISTERS 147
thought reform's self-righteousness, an implication that the intense doings of the moment could be made fun of because they were merely a speck on the great human canvas. Since humor is a shared emotion, it can create a bond of sympathy (as it did for Bishop Barker) independent of and frequently antithetical to the world of reform.
Humane stoicism, the turning of the other cheek in the face of abuse, is, as Bishop Barker made clear, an attitude extremely dif- ficult to maintain in the prison environment. It is a form of passive resistance in the Gandhian tradition; but a prisoner can never flaunt the resistance, and even his passivity, or lack of enthusiasm in any direction, is highly suspect. Moreover, it requires unusual dedi- cation to a supernatural or humanitarian ideal. Yet it may produce startling effects, even to the extent of so dominating the cell for a moment that harsh behavior suddenly seems shameful in everyone's eyes. It is not long, of course, before there is a return to the usual prison standards; but the impact of this stoicism outlasts the brief moment of its effectiveness. It reaffirms--in the eyes of the stoic prisoner and his cellmates--a moral position superior to the grandiose moral claims of thought reform.
The steadfastness of humane stoicism is related to the fourth and generally most important resistance technique, that of identity reinforcement. Bishop Barker's major way of resisting thought re- form was to make it a Catholic theological struggle, rather than a Communist remolding. He sought always to maintain himself as a priest struggling against his selfishness, rather than as a stubborn imperialist spy. To do this, he needed a continuous awareness of his own world of prayer, Catholic ritual, missionary experience and Western cultural heritage; with nothing around him to encourage it, this awareness could come only from within. His behavior re- sembled Father Luca's conscious recollection of the people and places which had special meaning for him. This kind of identity reinforcement was for any prisoner the essence of self-protection, both against reform influence and against always-threatening psy- chological disintegration.
One priest expressed this very succinctly:
To resist . . . you must affirm your personality whenever there is the opportunity. . . . When I was obliged to speak my views about the
? 148 THOUGHT REFORM
government, I would each time begin, "I am a priest. I believe in religion. " I said it strongly every time.
This statement was perhaps a retrospective exaggeration of his self- assertion, but there was no doubt that so personal a reminder served him well.
A European professor used a more creative approach. He some- how managed during moments when pressures were relatively re- laxed to make a series of drawings representing precious moments in his past: a mother and baby, a boy before a Christmas tree, a university city, a young man on a romantic stroll with his fiancee. He also wrote a brief, idealized account of the incident in his life each drawing represented. He worked on both the drawings and the essays during moments when he was off by himself in a corner of the cell or with other Westerners; and they became so precious to him that he smuggled them out of the prison at great risk and proudly displayed them to me during OUT interviews. They re- established for him the world in which he wished to exist: "I could escape the horrible world around me and move in a world whose values I agreed with. "
The first four methods of resistance depend upon strength--ego strength, strength of character, strength of identity. Another aspect of Bishop Barker's response may be termed pseudo strength, and this method of resistance is a potential psychological danger. I am referring to his inability to come to conscious terms with thought reform influences, and his need instead to make use of the psycho- logical mechanisms of denial and repression in order to keep from himself the recognition of undue "weakness. " In this pattern he differed, not only from the obviously confused, but also from the apparent converts (although both of these groups of prisoners, especially the latter, had much of their own to hide from them- selves). Bishop Barker shared with other apparent resisters a sig- nificant attraction to the reform program; his repeated protesta- tions of resistance and his strong condemnations of Communism expressed his attempts to cast off this attraction. The potential danger of this pseudo strength lies in the effects of a highly unac- ceptable, and at the same time completely unresolved, set of emotions.
Thus, when Bishop Barker advocated "war now" with the Com-
? APPARENT RESISTERS 149
munists--at the same time justifying his view by Communist theory--he was attempting to eradicate these compelling thought reform influences (his new demons) which so deeply threatened his sense of who he was and what he believed. He was, in effect, saying: "If we can destroy all of the demons in the world, it will eliminate those within me without my having to recognize that they have been there/'
The apparent resisters characteristically combine these real and pseudo strengths. Their form of totalism, along with their habitual use of denial and repression, create a paradoxical situation in which those who have been least influenced by thought reform uncon- sciously feel themselves to be most in danger of being overwhelmed by its influence. They struggle continually against a breakthrough of despair.
Survival and Influence
We have been discussing in this, and in the previous two chapters, problems of indvidual thought reform experiences, and especially the problems of survival and influence. The two are closely related: for a prisoner to survive--hold on to physical and psychic life--he must avoid being totally overwhelmed by environ- mental influence. From the standpoint of identity, survival and resistance to influence converge, at least in an absolute sense: one cannot have his deepest feelings about who and what he is totally replaced, and still survive in a nonpsychotic state.
But one can go quite far in permitting his identity to give way to outside influence, and still function adequately, both physically and psychologically. Indeed, in thought reform, a prisoner had to submit to some degree of environmental influence as the price of survival. 4 This was especially clear in the cases of Professor Castorp and Miss Darrow, both of whom were aware that they had bartered the acceptance of reform views for survival. This bargain was also struck by prisoners like Bishop Barker, even though more of the bartering occurred outside of awareness. To survive thought reform and retain absolutely no trace of its influences was an ideal impos- sible to achieve--whether the ideal was held by the prisoner him- self, his colleagues, or the shocked onlookers of the outside world.
This paradoxical relationship between survival and influence al-
? 150 THOUGHT REFORM
lows a better understanding of the Westerners' performances during imprisonment. As far as survival is concerned, these men and women, when put under extreme forms of stress, were able to sum- mon an impressive store of strength and ingenuity. Bishop Barker's use of humor, Dr. Vincent's characterological shift from isolation to "togetherness/' even Father Luca's delusions all were methods of survival, as were the confessions and the "reformed" patterns of behavior elicited during imprisonment from every prisoner.
Thought reform succeeded with all Westerners in the first of its aims, the extraction of an incriminating personal confession, because it made this confession a requirement for survival. It fell far short of its more ambitious goal of converting Westerners into enthusiastic Communist adherents; for although none could avoid being profoundly influenced, virtually all prisoners showed a gen- eral tendency to revert to what they had been before prison, or at least to a modified version of their previous identity. The barter of influence for survival which Western prisoners made with their reformers turned out to be reasonable enough; only the unreason- able demands of their inner voice of conscience made some of these Westerners feel that their bargain had been a Faustian one.
One very important question remains: granted the variations in external reform pressures, what factors in individual character structure are responsible for the differing susceptibilities to thought reform influence? I found that it is not so much the specific type of character structure which is important, as is the degree of balance and integration; not so much who one is as how well one is put together. To speak, for instance, of "hysterical" or "obses- sive" character types does not help us, since these characterological tendencies appear among people in all three categories. Distinguish- ing "authoritarian" from "liberal" character traits5 is a bit more useful; but it does not explain why one apparent convert (Miss Darrow) falls into the liberal category, and another (Father Simon, discussed in Chapter 11) into the authoritarian.
Rather, each tended to be influenced to the degree that his iden- tity, whatever it may have been, could be undermined through the self-deprecating effects of guilt and shame. This susceptibility in turn depended largely upon his balance between flexibility and totalism, and their special significance for his character structure. Apparent converts shared with apparent resisters a significant amount of
? APPARENT RESISTERS 1J1
totalism; hence both extreme responses. 6 But apparent resisters (Bishop Barker) possessed great strength of identity in contrast to the apparent converts (Miss Darrow) who tended to show identity diffusion. Those among the obviously confused were able to be more flexible in experimenting with identity alternatives, without feeling the need to totally accept or reject the new influence. This is not to say that they were without elements of totalism, any more than the apparent resisters were completely devoid of flexibility; every character structure has both. It was more a question of degree
and of lifelong pattern. 7 Some individual cases (Dr. Vincent) defy even these broad patterns: his totalism was predominant throughout his life and during reform itself, but his idiosyncratic identity strength and flexibility were responsible for his ending up in the most moderate of the three categories.
Each of the three styles of response had its own psychological advantages and disadvantages, as well as its variations. None held a monopoly on human limitation, strength, or courage.
? CHAPTER 9
GROUP REFORM: DOUBLE-EDGED
LEADERSHIP
A consistent feature of all the cases discussed so far
has been the isolation of the Western prisoner. Even when physically part of a cell group, he was completely re- moved from it--emotionally, culturally, and ideologically--until he "changed" and adopted its standards. Never did the group sup- port him as an individual, or help him to resist the onslaughts of thought reform; rather, the group was the agent of thought reform, the conveyor of its message.
There was just one exception to this pattern among my Western subjects. One all-European group was permitted to reform itself; it developed in the process a remarkable series of resistance ploys, and at the same time an incomplete immunity to the reform effects of these ploys. This group showed a poignant combination of solidarity and antagonism, of tortured and tender behavior; its story is one of a struggle to maintain group autonomy-in an environ- ment specifically geared to prevent the appearance of any such autonomy,
This unusual Western group functioned for two-and-one-half years, and conducted its thought reform in English. The six men
15*
? GROUP REFORM 1 5 3
who were its members for most of its existence averaged close to two years of this form of re-education; and each spent at least one year with all five of the others. There were several manipulations and changes in personnel, so that four additional Westerners spent short periods of time in the group; but these men did not play as important roles in the group. The Europeans never constituted an entire cell by themselves, but were always a subgroup within a larger cell which also contained eight Chinese prisoners. A Chinese cell chief was always in charge of both subgroups. All the prisoners involved--Western and Chinese--were completely occupied during these two-and-a-half years with their re-education. Before each Westerner joined the group, he had been in prison for at least a few months; each had already made some concession to the govern- ment's demands, some form of incriminating personal confession.
The Europeans were brought into the cell one by one, for the apparent purpose of "helping" each other with their confessions and reform. The early pattern was essentially as follows. One European who had achieved some degree of adaptation to his en- vironment by making a satisfactory confession and taking part in the criticism of others would be joined by a second Westerner who was still in acute conflict over how much to submit. The influence of the adjusted upon the conflicted European would inevitably be in the direction of confession and reform, but his motivations for this "progressive" influence were complex and uncertain. Always present, in combinations only partially understood by himself, were a genuine desire to help a fellow Westerner to accept the inevitable; an attempt to demonstrate his own "progressiveness" to the authori- ties in order to gain "merits" toward release; and the need to justify his own self-surrender through bringing a person similar to himself into the sphere of those who have already surrendered-- a way to share guilt, shame, and weakness. All this "helping" pre- ceded the existence of a true group structure, and served as a pre- liminary softening up for the group re-education process. It also set much of the pattern for the complicated personal relationships which were later maintained within the group.
The particular people involved in this group brought to it ad- ditional sources of friction of a very formidable nature. The group eventually included a German physician with ardent Nazi sym- pathies, a highly-trained French Jesuit philosopher, a Dutch priest
? 154 THOUGHT REFORM
of lowly origin, a successful North German merchant, an adventur- ous South German businessman, and a French Jesuit science teacher. Among such a group, personal, cultural, intellectual, na- tional, political, and religious conflicts were always potentially dis- ruptive, and were particularly apt to emerge at times when things were not going well. The potential conflicts included the German versus the Frenchman, the Nazi versus the anti-Nazi, the priest versus the layman, the Catholic versus the Protestant, the Jesuit priest versus the non-Jesuit, the crude peasant versus the middle- class gentleman, the North German versus the Bavarian, the uni- versity graduate versus the man of limited education, the profes- sional man versus the merchant.
As though this were not enough, these men also had conflicts with each other which had existed before imprisonment--some personal and social, some ideological--for instance, disagreements among priests about whether to stand firm against all Communist pressure, or to adapt flexibly to it and accept the Communist- sponsored "independent church" movement in China. Members of these separate families within the group (priests, Germans, pro- fessional men, and so on) tended to support each other on manyis- sues, but also found themselves in the most severe personality clashes; these were sometimes so extreme that the mildest statement or action on the part of one automatically became the cause for overwhelming resentment on the part of another, and group mem- bers often quoted the maxim: "No one is the other man's devil like one priest together with another. "
Could any cohesion at all develop among such contending and unwilling guests? One might easily doubt it. Yet somehow leaders did emerge, along with a rather remarkable esprit de corps. In fact, the story of this group is really a study in leadership under stress1 --leadership not absolute or static, but active and changing. It is also a study of group, rather than individual, resistance patterns. These patterns reveal much about the group process specifically produced by thought reform, as well as something about group process in general; they also tell us something about the interplay among the personal qualities of a leader, the special demands of a milieu, and the behavior of a group.
This group experience can be divided into three phases, each identified by a particular atmosphere, and by the domination of
? GROUP REFORM 1 J J
one man. To be sure, what happened in one phase also occurred to some extent in the others; but the following descriptions record what was most characteristic of each phase.
The Academic Phase
When Dr. Bauer, the German physician, arrived in the cell, he found there three other Westerners, each struggling to recover from severe personal pressures, and all living in an atmosphere of great fear.
The first, Mr. Weber, the businessman from Bavaria, had just a short time before made an attempt to kill himself, and had also experienced delusions and hallucinations; with the help of the other two, he was in the process of recovering his faculties. A man of extremes, he had lived a life of great heroism and of alcoholic excess, always in conflict between his very demanding internal ethics, and his intense need to act out his rebellion. In prison, this pattern continued: he was at times absolutely unyielding in his resistance, at other moments unduly "progressive. " Inclined to be petulant and moody, he was leaning heavily upon the other two men.
The second, Mr. Kallmann, the North German merchant, had also attempted to take his own life a few months before in the midst of a severe depression with psychotic features. He had been given more time and opportunity to recover, and he had learned a "progressive" stance which he tried to convey to Mr. Weber. Mr. Kallmann possessed what the others described as "typically Ger- man" traits--loyalty, reliability, sentimentality, irascibility. At this point, his great fear was expressed in an attitude of extreme submis- siveness: "I was so submissive that when going to the water closet, they told me I was bending my head too much, and that I might run into something. "
The third, Father Emile, the French Jesuit scientist, had been a great comfort to both of the other two men. He impressed them with his outward calm and with his religious devotion, and had exerted a particularly strong influence upon Mr. Weber in reviv- ing within him the will to live. Father Emile was slow, deliberate, and was regarded by the others as "the most sober of us mentally. " He managed to remain cheerful, even to interject an occasional humorous monologue or bawdy story. But he did not possess either
? 1 5 6 THOUGHT REFORM
great intellectual breadth or quick tactical responses; and he was still under great personal pressure because much in his case was considered to be "unsolved. "
Dr. Bauer's arrival heralded a change in fortune for this oppressed trio. Having been subjected to relatively minor pressures, his at- titude was still one of confidence, and his entry was an injection of strength. As Mr. Weber expressed it: "He arrived like a breath of fresh air . . . He still had guts. "
Very soon after his arrival the four men were instructed to study together in English, since none of them had an extensive knowledge of spoken or written Chinese. They were to follow the usual procedure--reading from Communist documents, criticism, and analytic self-criticism--under the general direction of the Eng- lish-speaking Chinese cell chief. Thus the Westerners' group re- education began.
For the first three months, the pressures from above were relatively mild. The prison officials had apparently not yet fully worked out a system for the foreigners to follow, and the cell chief himself was notably easygoing, almost friendly. Although he met daily with prison officials, he did not seem to be greatly pressed about the behavior of the Europeans. Thus he demanded of them only that they maintain an attitude of study--without exercising any great control over what it was they were studying.
The four Westerners took advantage of this situation, and began to organize their resistance. ("It was then that our group opinion formed. ") They went through the motions of reading and dis- cussing Communist material for just a few minutes at the beginning of each study period. Then, still maintaining a strict outer decorum, they made use of their varied intellectual backgrounds to discuss principles of philosophy, religion, science, and business practice. Further, they pooled their knowledge to evolve a critique of the Communist position. As Dr. Bauer explained: "We developed the concept that modern science completely disproved Marxist materialism, and that modern science was forced to recognize a divine being. "
No one among the four Westerners had any official status as leader, but Dr. Bauer soon assumed unofficial hegemony. His in- tact emotional state was a big factor in his doing so, but his intel- lectual and psychological equipment specifically suited him for
? GROUP REFORM 157
this role. He was by far the most knowledgeable of the group, pos- sessing a great fund of information in the natural and social sciences which far transcended his medical training. He put his extraordinary memory to good use in bringing facts and principles to the group discussions. His unusual didactic skill enabled him to command the interest of the other group members over prolonged periods of time. Further, he was happiest when dominating and teaching others, since this helped him to reinforce his tight control over his own anxiety, and over his repressed moral conflicts and self-doubts. His general psychological integration, and hard core of personal and national identity (includingthe exaggerated German nationalism of the expatriate) enabled him to articulate his firm convictions with great persuasive force. His tendency toward romantic nostalgia frequently led to enjoyable group discussions of childhood memories and idealized past experience. During most of his life, he had been quick to view anyone who disagreed with him as a personal "enemy"; in prison he was much more flexible in adapting himself to other Westerners against the "common enemy/'
His influence largely shaped most of the group practices--and his influence was overwhelmingly in the direction of resistance. Throughout the group's existence he was considered the most "re- actionary" of the Western prisoners. He repeatedly expressed to the group his opinions that the imprisonment was essentially a "police action" in which the Communists sought to obtain maxi- mum information from everyone, that the officials were not un- realistic enough to expect genuine conversions from Westerners, and that their release would have nothing to do with their "prog- ress" in reform. He illustrated his point of view by drawing a carrot- and-donkey cartoon in which the Communist rider holds out on a stick the promise of release (carrot) before the ever-struggling prisoner (donkey). He agreed with the others that it was neces- sary to tell everything about one's self that could be politically incriminating, and to make only statements acceptable to the Com- munist point of view when on public display. But he insisted that the small group of Westerners counteract the reform process by continually discussing with each other their true beliefs and their tactical maneuvers. "After following the correct platform for a while, taking notes, admitting our faults, and so on, we would say, 'Enough, boys/ and then talk frankly. "
? 158 THOUGHT REFORM
Dr. Bauer's influence in the group did not go completely un- resisted. The others were fearful that the group might be broken up, and each Westerner individually forced to confess to the decep- tion--a gamble which Dr. Bauer felt was worth taking. Mr. Kall- mann feared that "they might use drugs or special treatments to get out from us what was really in our hearts"; he tended to be more cautious and "progressive/7 even when he was with other Westerners, and he was critical of Dr. Bauer because "he did not understand the fundamental need to submit/' Mr. Weber also had doubts, feeling it was necessary to "put your cards on the table," and was at times unwilling, and other times unable, to maintain the subterfuge. Father Emile, although willing to go along, was at times slow to grasp the method.
Group members had other, more personal criticisms of Bauer: of his overbearing manner and need to be all-knowing ("I couldn't understand why, because if I knew as much as he knew, I wouldn't worry about not knowing something occasionally"); of his attitude of superiority, especially on a racial (Nazi) basis toward the Chinese
("He has a brilliant brain, but in regard to tactfulness there is space for improvement"); of his demand for special privileges--extra blankets and added space in the cell, officially condoned because of the "cardiac condition" which his medical knowledge enabled him to feign. His Western fellow-prisoners, from whom he also kept this subterfuge, could not object to the situation, but they did resent the arrogant fashion in which he demanded these rights. Of even more concern to the other three Westerners was Bauer's "care- lessness" and "rascal spirit"; his tendency to take what were, in their eyes, unnecessary chances out of sheer bravado. They exerted great pressure upon him to change his ways, and they succeeded in con- vincing him to behave more moderately for the sake of the group.
Despite his shortcomings, they found Bauer to be a very "good comrade," unusually patient and skillful in aiding them individually, and "a man whom you can rely on in very difficult circumstances. " They admired his intellect, and they greatly valued the calming and strengthening effect which they all acknowledged he had upon their previously beleaguered group. This first phase was by far the most untroubled and unthreatening. The group was under no great pressure from without; and the potential sources of friction within did not often materialize because all recognized the importance
? GROUP REFORM 159
of mating small personal concessions in order to maintain the group structure which they had come to treasure.
Bauer's controversial but effective presence had made this co- hesion possible; and he in turn drew much of his personal strength from his alternative mystique of Nazism. He was a strong leader, if not always for the right reasons. In the light of what followed, the Westerners looked back over these three "academic" months as near-idyllic.
Phase of Reform
The dramatic entrance of Father Benet, the Jesuit philosopher, ushered in a new and disturbing series of events. He had been trans- ferred from another cell, in what was for him a demotion, as he had previously been a cell chief. He was under fire partly for dis- ciplinary violations, which were always dealt with firmly, as well as for an offense considered much more serious. A Chinese Catholic prisoner had tricked Benet into hearing a religious confession in the cell, and then had denounced him, since this form of religious practice was strictly prohibited in the prison. The struggle to which he was subjected upon reaching the new cell was aimed at making him do what for a Catholic priest is unthinkable--reveal the details of this religious confession. Chinese prisoners led the attack, but the Westerners had to take part. Bauer describes the scene which followed:
They manhandled him . . . pulled his beard, and kicked him in the chest. He screamed to the man who accused him, "You know I am not allowed to tell. You tell it yourself. " But the other man was silent. . . . It was difficult for us, too. We were in a rage. Kallmann was close to tears. Emile clenched his fists. I was the same.
A way out was finally achieved when Father Ben? t, after much insisting, succeeded in obtaining a release from the Chinese pris- oner to reveal the contents of the confession. But after this incident the Westerners never returned to the relative calm of their academic phase. Life in their cell had changed.
Pressures from above dictated a more intense program of per- sonal reform, and a new cell chief, much more observant and vin- dictive than his predecessor (he had a great deal in the way of "re-
? l 6 o THOUGHT REFORM
actionary" past affiliations to live down himself), was brought in to enforce this policy change. Father Benet was put through a series of severe struggles and "thought examinations" during the next few weeks; at the same time he was made "study leader" of the small Western group--a post for which he qualified because of his fluency in written and spoken Chinese, and his previous standing as a leading Western "progressive. " Now the foreigners "studied" sometimes as a separate five-man group, sometimes with their eight Chinese cellmates. In either case/ the new cell chief kept a close eye on their activities. Benet assumed a position of great responsibility, interpreting all of the study materials from Chinese to English for his Western fellow-prisoners, and answering to the authorities for what went on among them.
He brought to this task a form of leadership completely dif- ferent from Bauer's approach, startling in its demands and its performance. He expressed to the other Westerners his firm con- viction that the only way for them to earn their release was to throw themselves energetically into the reform process. This meant stop- ping at nothing to convince the officials of the extent of personal reform. He set an impressive example with his own behavior--his- trionic gestures and expressions of guilt, repentance, and self-dep- recation. He went to such extremes as describing intimate details of his own sexual life, including self-stimulation and affairs with women. His Western cellmates were themselves unsure of the truth of these sexual "confessions"; some suspected that Benet derived a good deal of satisfaction in their telling, and all were aware of the effect they had of damaging his relationship to the Catholic priest- hood. At times, however, his lurid stories of personal misbehavior were clearly fabricated, intended--as were his expressions of opinions he knew to be "incorrect"--to supply more sins to repent, additional material for his demonstrative confessions. As one of the other Westerners said:
He confessed everything, exaggerated everything. He admitted all blame with an empty heart. He was very submissive, fully and deeply recog- nizing faults, showing himself a repentant sinner. He had a lively face, lots of grimaces. He was a marvelous actor.
He expected similar behavior from the Westerners under his direction, and exerted great pressure upon them in the form of
? GROUP REFORM l6 l
criticisms and sharply-worded rebukes. Not only did he insist upon the prerogatives of his official position, but he also felt that as a priest it was his duty to do everything possible to help others in the cell. With religious procedures strictly forbidden, this help had to take other forms--and the ironic situation arose in which a Jesuit saw as his priestly duty the need to "help" others along the path to Communist reform. To be sure, Ben? t initially presented his approach as a technique, a means of obtaining early release and thereby preserving values. But his extreme behavior--and particu- larly his insistence that the Westerners maintain their "progres- sive" enthusiasms and pro-Communist sentiments even among themselves--obscured this original purpose. The distinction be- tween real and make-believe was soon lost--certainly to the other Westerners in the group, and apparently to Benet himself.
Despite this "progressive" approach, Ben? t was severely treated by the cell chief, and constantly accused of "shielding" his fellow Westerners. And indeed, according to the Europeans, he did on many occasions absorb great punishment himself rather than ex- pose them. But their admiration for his courage in protecting them was offset by their gradual realization that he seemed to make little effort to avoid difficulties with the authorities, and even appeared to court them. He derived a certain amount of pleasure from his own humiliation; or, as one of his European cellmates explained, "He asked for trouble, got beatings, and was then satisfied. " Ben? t also had a penchant for bringing up highly controversial subjects when he need not have done so--for instance, the possible recon- ciliation of Catholicism with Communist materialism. He enjoyed these flirtations with danger and the opportunities they afforded for displaying his intellectual brilliance and his extensive knowl- edge of Communist theory--a practice they called "skating on thin ice. "
An even more serious problem was his tendency to be domineer- ing, and he was frequently told by his Western cellmates that he would have made a "good Prussian corporal. " What particularly disturbed them was the vehemence with which he denounced fel- low-prisoners:
He fell too easily into beating on one . . , making a man afraid . . . scolding him for hours . . . if he won't come out with something . . . forcing him to dig deeper . . . he rather enjoyed doing such things.
? l62 THOUGHT REFORM
After being pressured from above, he invariably increased his demands upon the other Europeans; wary of his approach, they frequently offered resistance, but they could not avoid completely the effects of his powerful influence.
Gradually the group moved in a "progressive" direction. Under Benet's direction, it studied Communist theory and practice, legal codes and policy documents, and particularly case histories--of "big criminals" who had been successfully re-educated, treated leniently, and accepted into Communist society, and of lesser of- fenders whose unwillingness to confess and reform resulted in their being shot. In his zeal, Benet was far from precise in his transla- tions, and frequently slanted them in the direction of his own point of view: "Sometimes he did not translate at all, but just told us what he wanted us to hear/' The net result was a feeling, on the part of both the officials and the prisoners themselves, that the Westerners had "raised" their (Communist-style) "political level. "
But such "progress" had to be at the expense of group solidarity. No longer pulling together in a protective effort, the Westerners' potential sources of friction became open antagonisms. Differences of opinion about how to behave were inextricably merged with the irritations of close confinement, as each of the men experienced his own special set of resentments.
Kallmann (the "typical German") describes this from his own experience:
Lots of antagonism developed between us. I myself suffered particularly. I developed a hatred at times against more or less all of them . . . hun- dreds of minor ridiculous things.
Kallmann sometimes viewed these differences as petty irritations, such as his impatience with Weber's voice ("loud and like a trum- pet"). At other times he interpreted them through the idiom of the environment, seeing in Bauer's egotism "a typical example of an imperialist. " He could, however, recognize that much of the trouble came from within himself: "I developed a horrible psychosis. . . . I knew my irritabilities were particularly great. "
Emile (the scientist-priest) and Weber (the businessman-ad- venturer), were still close to each other, and had a common prob- lem. Neither of them as intellectually quick as the others, both of them stubborn, they were frequently made the "scapegoats" (so-
? GROUP REFORM 163
called by themselves and the others) of the group controversies. Emile (his humor and goodwill notwithstanding) was resented for his unwillingness to compromise when the group thought it necessary. Weber's position was much more painful. Impetuous and outspoken, he had immense difficulty in adjusting to group dis- cipline, both to the general prison discipline and to the particular discipline imposed by the other Westerners. He was frequently guilty of such offenses as breaking dishes (a very serious matter), for which he was severely criticized by both the Chinese and West- erners.
More important, Weber insisted upon maintaining a separate, personal approach, an attitude of "absolute sincerity"; he deeply resented attempts by anyone to "force me to act differently from what I felt. " He neither accepted nor fully understood the tactics used by the other Westerners. They in turn criticized him sharply, feeling this criticism to be necessary from the standpoint of group survival. But he remained convinced that the others were picking on him in order to rid themselves of their own tensions.
Weber also was the center of an especially bizarre and disturb- ing situation. The group of foreigners was required to denounce the wife of one of its members, who was being held in the woman's sec- tion of the same prison. The denunciation became a very important issue, because refusal to participate meant questioning the infal- libility of the government. 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.
