A anonymous Mankind Project member mailed me what was labeled a handbook for leaders of Integration groups. Integration groups follow up the New Warriors Training Adventure. According to the manual, these exercises are
for the use of I-Groups that have reached a proficient level of self-facilitation. The value in many of them will be realized only by a deep commitment on behalf of the group to process the feelings evoked.
There are some which seem innocuous enough such as writing oneself a letter, volunteering for charities and staffing a NW training.
Others seem more provocative and sound a lot like Gestalt inspired group therapy techniques. Here is one that would likely be close to Richard Cohen’s heart.
I.2. Fathering
One of the powerful scenes we set up on the weekend is based on being held in the arms of the good father. Have men on their own write the things they wanted to hear from their fathers but never did. Have men bring the letters to the next meeting. If at all possible arrange to have elders or men from your community show up the next week to hold these men and read the letters to them. If men from outside the I-Group are not available use the men from the group. This basically is a re-play of the set up we use on the weekend. The difference is that men may have more difficulty dropping into a similar place not having just completed a piece of work. Try not to put weekend expectations on this process but simply see it for what is presented in the moment. Work with men to increase their awareness of body response. Resistance, grief or passive acceptance are all felt in the body. Another option is to have men choose the man they want to role-play from the community at large, then bring him along to the I-Group. This also has the potential to identify the men in the community most admired for their fathering abilities.
I suppose if I allowed myself to be held, I might experience a sense of dependency. However, I submit this could happen to almost anyone, whether the man had fathering issues or not. The situation makes it more likely that such feelings would be elicited. It is more likely that I would feel tense and uncomfortable. A person trained to look for these reactions as a defense might then say I was defensive and thus clearly had father issues that need resolved. Only those in the NMTA can speak to this. I have been around the therapy world long enough to know counselors who look at all client reactions as theory-guided indications of pathology.
Here are a couple of others that would be a bit more intimate:
I.3. Massage
Pair up the men in the group and announce that this evening we will give massages. After the first half of the men have received a massage tell the men no more massages will be given. Lead a feeling check, first with the men who gave the massage and then with the men who received.
1. Would you have given knowing you would not receive?
2. Is there a sense of betrayal, and with whom?
3. The men who received. Do you feel you got away with something? Or do you feel like you are beholden to the man you received from? If so why?
4. Let this check in progress wherever it goes. How does this reflect our expectations when we offer some gift of service?
I.4. Changing Clothes
This exercise may also belong in the play section, but it’s definitely a stretch when it comes to intimacy. The set up goes like this. Have all the men remove their clothing and then have each man choose someone else’s clothes and put them on. Once everyone is dressed assume the characteristics of the man whose clothes you wear. Check in with one another and decide on an exercise that will give an opportunity for interaction with one another. Stay in role through the entire evening. Leave time at the end to process the feelings that have come up.
1. How accurate was the role-playing?
2. Did men see a different side of themselves as a result of seeing other men portray them?
Don’t neglect the hurt feelings. Exaggeration will cause a certain amount of misunderstanding. Give one another feedback on projection and shadow, how it appeared and how it was dealt with.
I suppose there is no law against people getting together and doing this sort of thing, but these exercises sound like they would be at home in a Gestalt and/or Jungian psychodrama paradigm. The creators of these exercises probably feel they are eliciting something buried or hidden in each man. However, I wonder if the demand characteristics set up by the exercises cannot help but bring predictable reactions.
As a probably weak illustration, consider this picture. If you had to tell a story about it, what feelings would you say it would elicit?
I would not be at all surprised if a depressing story was told in response to this adaptation of a picture from the Thematic Apperception Test. Would this mean the story teller was a depressed person? Perhaps, but there is no way to know since the stimulus here naturally elicits depression. Similarly, I think the I-group exercises may elicit a variety of emotions and reactions which may or may not be reflective of underlying issues or problems. My thinking here is influenced by the classic social psychology experiments such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram studies on obedience. At this point, I am not making a solidified judgment, rather I am clumsily attempting to articulate a social psychological perspective on the NWTA and related activities.
I have not even started on the Jungian shadow thing; more to come on that topic.
Keep the dialogue going…
Jag,
We all know how Beethoven gets the gay juices flowing…
This is definitely the funniest thing I’ve heard all day – Thanks 😉
Jayhuck –
Let me give you some of my favorite rules:
For men:
“Clean business-like haircuts must be worn at all
times. Hair must be long enough to be pinched between two fingers.”
“Men may not wear any jewelry (other than a watch and a wedding band) unless approved through a C.O.C. In addition to a watch and wedding band, women may also wear a pair of simple earrings (one earring per ear.) The clients may not wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Calvin Klein brand clothing, undergarments, or accessories.
Men: Shirts are to be worn at all times, even while sleeping. T-shirts without sleeves are not permitted at any time,
whether worn as an outer garment or an undergarment. This includes ³muscle shirts² or other tank-tops. Bikini-style underwear is prohibited.”
Women: Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Thong-style underwear is prohibited.
No athletic or excessively baggy shorts may be worn on campus at any time. No hats, jackets, or overcoats are to be
worn on campus
Women: In addition to these guidelines, women may also wear skirts which fall at or below the knee. Women may wear
tank-tops only if they are worn with an over-blouse. Women may wear open-toed shoes or women¹s dress sandals
without socks. Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Sports bras may only be worn while working out.
No sleeveless blouses may be worn. ”
All I have to say is thank God for these rules. I think there is nothing more scientific than linking the exposure of women’s (or men’s) arms with arousal somehow, taking away my right to wear a thong that no one else will see anyway, and restricting my brand choices.
Very arbitrary. I think this was to protect the counselors from arousal? I’m not sure…or maybe make the residents as unattractive as possible?
Also photos?
“. All photographs will be taken for the purpose of sobering re-evaluation. Clients may request to have pictures returned to them via C.O.C.”
Personally, I think it would make me sad to see the old photos…when I was able to dress well, and not be wearing my k-mart issued underwear. Maybe it is to show me that I “looked gay” before? All stylish and dashing…
Then there is the “media policy:”
“No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client¹s and the parent¹s/guardian¹s control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie.”
We all know how Beethoven gets the gay juices flowing…
I woke up from a nap thinking “I know it wasn’t ‘Hilfiger'”…Thanks, Timothy. Calvin Klein underwear was definitely on their list. I’ve always had an issue with wearing anything that featured the brand name prominently…why am I paying them to be their billboard? Anyway, the result is that I tend to mix all the names together in my mind. Or, my other quip was that fashion has never been kind to me, why should I do them any favors? No designer clothes for this ‘generic’ body.
Eddy,
Per the reports from when “Zach” was forced to go, Calvin Klein underwear was forbidden at LIA and department store brands were encouraged. Clearly whoever made up that rule had never worried about finding a brand with adequate support.
I really don’t know all the specifics…the dress code drew attention because it actually listed certain clothing brands you couldn’t wear. The brands were brands that were popular in the local gay community…I’m thinking Tommy Hilfiger but didn’t think that brand was around for the first live-in program. I’m drawing a blank on the other brands.
The modesty rules were closely connected. If what you were wearing was ‘too revealing’, you could be sent back to your room to find something more appropriate. I think there was more of a tolerance for muscle shirts than there was for the ‘open to the navel’ look. Shorts couldn’t be too short and pants couldn’t be too tight. Other than that, you were expected to cover up after showering and lounging around in your underwear was discouraged. (Although I haven’t heard the specifics, I’m guessing that bikini underwear and thongs would likely have been taboo altogether.)
Eddy,
As to full disclosure, even LOVE IN ACTION advised those joining the live-in program about their dress code, modesty rules and house rules.
I’m just curious – what were the modesty and house rules? Do you happen to know? I’m also curious about this “dress code”? I’ve heard about some very odd dress and modesty codes from these groups, I just wonder how many are true.
Eddy,
Please don’t ever retire from blogging here 🙂
Mike
You wondered: Are there ex-gay groups that use similar tactics — isolation, peer pressure, therapy-like processes led by unlicensed laypersons, and involuntary attendance?
Are there ex-gay groups that similarly decline to provide full disclosure in advance?
Are there ex-gay groups that make participants sign away their rights?
To my knowledge, most of the ex-gay groups do not have events that use similar tactics. LOVE IN ACTION was the rare live-in program and they had several offshoots. Most of the ex-gay ministries offered one on one counseling, a weekly men’s group, and occasional weekend retreats. Isolation wasn’t a factor since they got to go back to their world after their one to one (usually, the only required one to one was the one that screened for appropriateness to join the men’s group). Before and after group meetings, people had their own worlds. Peer Pressure existed in a similar degree to the Peer Pressure in AA. The group did have a common stated goal and would encourage you towards that goal and admonish you, if needed, when you wavered.
The therapy-like processes led by unlicensed likely exist in several ministries. I was always more concerned about practices that were therapeutic but that were unlike conventional practices. In my day, there were various Christian ‘specialists’ in ‘inner healing’ and ‘deliverance’, in particular. Some of the practicioners ‘raised my hackles’ a bit. Involuntary attendance was not–and I believe–is not a major issue. For many ministries, weekly group attendance wasn’t a must but fairly regular attendance was encouraged. In a group discussing personal issues of sexuality and identity, it would be important to have people who felt committed to one another. Spotty attendance weakens that bond but, if it’s for good reason, group members are usually forgiving.
Most ‘weekend retreats’, by the way were a mix of seminars and group recreation (clothed)…not therapy games but things like snow or water tubing, volleyball, hiking, etc.
As to full disclosure, even LOVE IN ACTION advised those joining the live-in program about their dress code, modesty rules and house rules.
I’ve never heard of any making participants sign away their rights but we’re all familiar with the story of the teenage boy who was forcefully enrolled by his parents.
LOL! I wrote Alan Chambers an e-mail about a month ago telling him I’d retired from blogging here. This sounds like a good time to let him know I’m back and also to ask him to weigh in on these questions if things are different than what I’m surmising from the past.
I think ex-gay watch would probably be one place to find out this info –
Mike – I agree with you. In fact, inasmuch as ex-gay groups refer to these programs and do the same things, they deserve the same scrutiny and questions.
I would be curious about these practices that remain in any ex-gay programs and welcome commenters to provide evidence if indeed there are such programs.
What can be learned by ex-gay groups from the apparent mistakes of the NWTA?
Are there ex-gay groups that use similar tactics — isolation, peer pressure, therapy-like processes led by unlicensed laypersons, and involuntary attendance?
Are there ex-gay groups that similarly decline to provide full disclosure in advance?
Are there ex-gay groups that make participants sign away their rights?
It seems to me that Love In Action was guilty of all of these, though that may have changed in the past two years. I’m curious to know to what extent specific ex-gay groups might still use some of these approaches.
I went through an NWTA weekend and it was the worst thing I ever spent money for. From the minute I arrived I was uncomfortable. Grown men dressed in black with their faces painted treating me poorly was how I was greeted. I was told that violence would not be tolerated so I was confused by the bulleying tactics used by the men who claimed to be helping me. That was only the beginning, the rest of the weekend was filled with cold showers, bad food and the same jackass men acting as if they had all the answers. The problem is they didn’t even know the questions. They really don’t care much about helping people, they just want your money. By the end of the weekend they were nice enough, rewarding our efforts by allowing us to eat the food we brought ourselves. Complimenting us for our hard work as they try to recrute us into the next step of their recovery program, the I-group. The I-group is their follow up to the NWTA which also comes at a premium expense. Then there is all the workshops which also come at an expense. Someone in this scam is getting rich and alot of people seeking help are wasting money. People have died after attending MKP functions. I think MKP is a cult. I think cults are illegal, at least immoral. They preach integrity, and claim to build character. I can’t believe that their own mothers are proud of the scam artists they have become. Shame on MKP. The end of this group can’t come soon enough for me.
Doug
I.6. Watch movies about gladiators
I.3. Massage
I.4. Changing Clothes
ROFL. That is so homoerotic. (fanning self)
I.5. Group viewing of 300 in a sauna?
Boo,
LOL
As a probably weak illustration, consider this picture. If you had to tell a story about it, what feelings would you say it would elicit?
“Sob! Ever since he came back from New Warriors Training Adventure, he just lies there muttering ‘The Cock… The Cock…'”
Jayhuck – 67951
LOL
Warren,
I’m not trying to be glib here, but I’d think an environment like that would be the perfect place to hone acting skills.
Not even near the edge of that trap, Ken. This is no acting workshop. The members are supposed to learn something about their own emotions and I suppose to stop acting, not learn to act better. Actors hone the craft of being someone else. So the purpose is far different for NW.
Warren said (in regards to wearing others clothes and role-playing):
I suppose there is no law against people getting together and doing this sort of thing, but these exercises sound like they would be at home in a Gestalt and/or Jungian psychodrama paradigm.
Just as in interesting side note, if I had heard about a workshop where participants wore other peoples clothes and role-play how the other people behave, I would think it was an acting workshop.
Granted given the other descriptions of what goes on it would change that opinion. I just wanted to caution against falling into the trap of assuming everything is done as some form of psychological treatment.