To place oneself in the service of either a political or religious doctrine is to risk slavery of the mind. Over the few years of my political activity, I've noticed the pervasiveness of such slavery not only in the most obvious places (the Moonies, the Scientologists, the US Labor Party, Seventies psychotherapy, the Krishnas, sectarian Left-wing political groups, and others), but to a lesser extent in the mainstream Left. I believe that such dogmatic belief-systems and social forms debilitate both individuals and movements by transforming relatively free actors into vehicles for the mechanical advancement of doctrine. In doing so, they limit radical change by foreclosing on many options for evolutionary development.

What worries me is not what beliefs people have, but how those beliefs are held, whether they are open to change. The world would be much poorer without spiritual and transcendental dimensions; only a one-dimensional, totalistic subordination of oneself to such dimensions is at issue.

To be sure, there are a number of pitfalls inherent in any attempt to outline these cognitive and motivational lobster traps. There is probably no nondogmatic definition of dogma, so my analysis should be regarded as only a heuristic for self-examination and the dislodging of entrenched habits. (A fully universalized, rationalized version of this would probably look a lot like the dogmas it criticizes.) Last, my own position has its own, equally metaphysical, (relativist) assumptions as do beliefs in the Absolute.

Both the structure of the rigidified system and its reinforcing, perpetuating social milieu are responsible for its persistence. While many areas of human activity and belief such as science, art, design, education, mainstream political action, and medicine have their own inflexible, tradition-oriented norms, the more extreme examples of religious cults and political sects better illuminate the salient characteristics of that end of the spectrum. In political sects and religious cults, the central doctrine of the group provides an identity for its "true believers" by supplying a cognitive, moral, and social framework which specifies "correct" thought and action. The organization allows the true believer to immerse him/herself totally in a cause larger than him/herself by supplying him/her with a new, fully rationalized, determined identity freed of personal responsibility and failure.'

The structure of the doctrine itself plays a crucial role in both its own propagation and in the perpetuation of the organization. The ideological or religions "line" taken by the organization holds it together by providing a common, continually reinforced identity to its members. Unity is all important because it reaffirms group identity; differing positions are "divisive" because they undermine uncritical acceptance of the group "line." Because the doctrine is responsible for both socialization into the group and group "solidarity", doctrinal issues are paramount. This may be why Left sectarians, coming out of such a context and entering into a nonsectarian coalition, first attempt to get agreement on fairly specific positions. Within their worldview, doctrinal purity is the only way of achieving solidarity; solidarity the only means for single, unified action; unified action the only means of acting on a "correct" set of assumptions.2 Remember, there is only one true path.

The doctrine itself must be sufficiently insulated from external challenge, sufficiently mystified to prevent internal challenge, and sufficiently rich to interpret the entire world within its framework. By its form the doctrine inhibits the true believer from simultaneously considering other beliefs along with his/her own, "as if" they were true, undermining the true believer's capacity for understanding and identifying with other nonbelieving people, and isolating him/her as a result. Empathy is diminished; the glassy-eyed believer loses many "human" qualities. True believers also seem to have a difficult time separating themselves from their situation enough to examine it from without.' Possiblity for self-criticism and self-reflection, a major liberating escape route, is shut off.

CAN YOU RECOGNIZE THE FIVE WARNING SIGNS OF RIGIDIFED THOUGHT?

Five major characteristics seem to be commonplace in these selfstabilizing, self-justifying systems of belief:'

1 The Belief System is a Deterministic, All Encompassing Set of Beliefs Claiming Exclusive Truth and Objectivity and Denying the Possible Relevance or Validity of Other Systems Based on Other Assumptions or Outlooks.

The doctrine provides an account of all that is relevant within its own terms, while asserting its own eternal, exclusive truth. It defines the cognitive world of its beholder, reshaping it into its own categories while extinguishing other, previous modes of understanding. The doctrine gives the believer the power to explain everything, to assert the absolute "correctness" and veracity of his/her beliefs, and to act without doubt on those beliefs. Such unbounded certainty with total disrespect for other traditions and viewpoints allows the true believer to ruthlessly trample them without remorse. Actions such as the firebombings of abortion clinics, the shouting down of Right wing speakers by Leftists, the Nazi march on Skokie, takeover of political organizations by sectarian groups, and terrorization of the Black community are all contemporary examples. Where the religion/ideology specifies a determinate progression of events leading up to the final, harmonious end of the world (e.g. Utopia, 'Kingdom of God, Classless Society, The Best of All Possible Worlds), personal responsibility is removed completely from the believer.

Social change in such a system is viewed as the process of moulding an essentially passive society into one's own image, just as converts are moulded by the image of the religion into new people. Because one does not generally "see" the validity of the religion/ideology before conversion, it follows that the individual simply didn't perceive the Truth until conversion. This same sequence is replicated in the true believer's conception of social change: once society is "converted" by a restructuring specified by the religion/ideology, then people will be content with the change and, in retrospect, grateful for it. These beliefs, sincerely held, legitimize openly manipulative methods of arriving at conversion; the Ends are so firmly established (and inevitable) that any means of arriving at them is justified. The resulting insensitivity to other systems. of thought/action results in propaganda rather than dialogue, manipulation rather than cooperation, and isolation rather than understanding.

2 In its Assumptions the Belief System Contains the Refutations and Rationalization for all Competing Theories.

Competing worldviews become a result of distortion ("You are misguided"), naivete ("when your ideas become more highly developed you'll think like me''), blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy (knowing, intentional dissent), "idealism"(you are not in touch with Reality, as defined by the religion/ideology), subjectivism (your beliefs are merely a consequence of your individual history or position in society), and willful deceit (you yourself area propagandist).

This rationalization of other viewpoints coupled with extreme conviction in one's own results in very patriarchal attitudes towards other traditions. Open discourse on equal terms becomes difficult because the believer, smug in his/her certainty, won't take other positions seriously. Mass demonstrations, with their orchestrated control over what viewpoints are acceptable (only the "correct ones") embody this idea that organizers know what's best for the crowd, and that presenting opposing viewpoints only confuses them.' In their formats they replicate the teacher/student, leader/follower, expert/layman distinctions in which participants become passive spectators to be moulded.' It comes as no surpise that often those most eager to speak are true believers; a one way conversation to thousands of people is a rather expedient means of disseminating the truth.

3 Broad, Widely Held "Universal" Moral Generalities Are Used To Justify the Acceptance of the Doctrine and Action in its Behalf.

It is much easier to gain converts, carry out one's program without interference, and to neutralize active opposition if one can justify one's action in commonly accepted moral terms. Anything from acting in behalf of Cod, Country, the Family, or All Things Decent to liberating oppressed peoples, saving the human race from extinction, or forestalling Certain Death, gives the believer a just cause to which s/he can devote an entire waking existence. Criticism is muffled because most people share the general goals of the true believer's doctrine; to argue against someone sincerely attempting to realize those goals appears to subvert their attainment.

Such moral generalities are even apparent in what Chomsky calls the State Religion version of American foreign policy:

According to the State Religion, the US is unique among the nations of past history in that its policies are governed by abstract moral principles such as the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination, human rights, economic welfare, and so on, not by the material interests of groups that actually have domestic power, as is the case in other societies. (BR#4, p.19)

Colonial wars, international economic manipulations, and occasional scandals such as the CIA involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup are dismissed as mistakes, temporary deviations from the true purpose of the US. Likewise, the same rhetoric is used in behalf of the Soviet Union by its de fenders both here and abroad.

4 The World is Dichotomized into GoodlEvil, Redeemable/Nonredeemable, AllylEnemy, Correct/Incorrect, along "Objective" Lines. Noncooperation, Disinterest, Or Apathy is a Sign of Enmity.

Behaviors are considered either revolutionary or reactionary, virtuous or sinful, correct or misguided, beneficial or detrimental, and are rewarded or punished accordingly by one's like minded peer group. Actions are judged by their "objective" ef fects, not by the intention of the actor, since intentions are not a part of the "objective" situation. For this reason nonbelievers as well as atheists are considered part of the damned. The delegitimation of the subjective thus forces the believer back to the doctrine of his/her analysis of the situation, further limiting the opportunities for doctrine-independent action.

The use of guilt is quite common within these settings, serving to raise the psychological price of breaking with the group, thereby restraining the development of ""incorrect" deviant paths. Constant baring of souls within the peer group allows many opportunties for doctrine-independent action.

The use of guilt is quite within these settings, serving to raise the psychological price of breaking with the group, thereby restraining the de- velopment of "incorrect" deviant paths. Constant baring of souls within the peer group allows many opportunities for previously nonconforming parties to do penance by admitting past sins and taking positive action by doing group-approved "good deeds."

Coupled with isolation that arises from the individual's desire to shield him/herself from "bad influences," the escalating price of deviance gives the peer group increasing monopoly over guilt production and absolution. Barrington Moore in Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt calls this the expropriation of guilt:

"Over the centuries the Catholic Church has had considerable success in expropriating guilt. It has achieved this by helping to create the sense of guilt and then providing the bureaucratic mechanisms for alleviating it. As an economist might put it, the Catholic Church managed to create much of the demand and most of the supply."'

Within the mass meeting context, patterns of accusation for the sins of questionable association, questionable intents, incorrect attitudes, "objectively harmful" actions (regardless of intent), and dangerous social origins become vehicles for neutralizing opposing views and silencing inter nal criticism. For example, within such situations men cannot comfortably, publicly criticize measures proposed to combat sexism within an organization, especially when they agree that the problem exists but disagree on the solution. I have seen men chastized as sexists whose only sin was to be apathetic about joining a men's discussion group on sexism. In other circumstances the appropriate epithet can be thrown at those who are "objectively" oppressors to silence them or to embarass them into participation: white, racist, middle class, male, fascist, "Cambridge radical chic", bourgeois, macho, authoritarian, intellectual, elitist, affluent, Communist, Atheist, tool of Satan, fag nigger-lover, wimp.' The tactic effectively drives out most nonmasochists, leaving those self-confident enough to deny guilt and those gullible enough to accept it. Needless to say, such practices are exceedingly destructive to open organizations.

5 All Facets of Life are Recast in Terms of the Religion/Ideology.

Life becomes living solely for the Revolution or the Second Coming; all discussion and daily life becomes oriented towards the nuts and bolts of the Great Cause, and one's humor disappears.' A deadly seriousness pervades all actions and conversations; both have become instruments for processes larger than the believer. After all, aren't we about to be vaporized, raptured, liberated or enslaved if we don't take immediate, serious action? Anything less, of course, is nonproductive frivolity, counterproductive in attitude and effect.

Against Faith

The danger implicit in these "traditionalistic", dogmatic modes of existence is not so much the courses of action that they pursue (obnoxious as they may be), but the active suppression of unorthodox approaches, experimentation, and radical restructurings of thought and social form necessary for further growth. The individual, movement, or society stagnates, unable to creatively innovate, to restructure itself to adapt to new challenges.

At the root of the problem is an insecurity of identity both on the individual and social leyel. Counterexamples throw identified roles and social norms into question, delegitimating them, making them appear absurd. To those with an identity invested in them, social norms must be pre- served to preserve dignity and meaning in existence."

We must break out of such norms, whether of society or of the move- ment, to unstrangle both, to revitalize both. The psychologist Robert lay Lifton has summarized my analysis and predispositions quite well:

Most of the revolutionary ideologies of the past have been notable in providing elaborate blueprints for individual and collective immortality, specifications of ultimate cause and ultimate effect, theological in tone and scientific in claim. For present day revolutionaries to reject these Cartesian litanies is to take seriously some of the important psychological and historical insights of the last few decades. For they are rejecting an oppressive ideological totalism — with its demand for control of all communication in a milieu, its imposed guilt and cult of purity and confession, its loading of the language, its principles of doctrine over person and even dispensing of existence itself (in the sense that sharp lines are drawn between those whose right to exist can be recognized and those who possess no such right). This rejection, at its best, represents a quest by the young for a new kind of revolution — one perhaps no less enduring in historical impact, but devoid in the claim of omniscience, and of the catastrophic chain of human manipulations stemming from that claim. In other words the young resist the suffocating personal boundaries imposed by other revolutions. "

We need to work to transform the monological styles of our own demonstrations and mass meetings along with the dominant communicational structures of our society into more dialogical, open ended forms. In doing this we will need to develop a tolerance for other ideologies, modes of expression, and personality styles in dialogue with our own. A certain pragmatic relativism is necessary if such a libertarian, dialogical framework is to function." We must listen to those views which are relevant to our needs and aspirations, and while not necessarily agreeing with them, examine them "as if" they were true- We will then develop the facility to think in other "languages", other systems of belief, and other cultural norms; understanding our enemies' points of view as well as our own. We will then be free to fight for the kind of world we deeply want to see to arise, not the only world we know, and not the preordained, inevitable, "morally correct" wave of the future.

Our cognitive world will similarly change, adopting those aspects of each culture, tradition, or ideology which seems most beneficial from the standpoint of our constantly redefined goals. Instead of one doctrine to completely orient our entire world, we will adopt aspects of many, creating new frameworks whenever possible. In selecting between competing, plausible theories and strategies we will strengthen our ability to distance ourselves from our "theories of action", increasing our capacity to see when such approaches become counterproductive or irrelevant to our aspirations.

Instead of one apocalyptic revolution, we should try to build into ourselves and our organizations the capacity for permanent innovation and change in all dimensions. instead of relying on an organizing principle for change, a Design from doctrine or latent traditionalistic norms, we should substitute experimentation and extensive communication. Pluralistic modes of experimentation allow the greatest degree of creativity; the whole group is not bound by one strategy and autonomous, heterogeneous subgroupings are encouraged to take their own paths. Coupled with a libertarian organizational framework for communications, where groups "spontaneously" assemble and dissamble task forces according to the current needs of each constituent group, the process becomes "self-organizing". The movement possesses a constantly reorganizing network of interacting individuals, groups, and concerns, constantly changing -and evolving but without an official ideology or determinate end state. Within such a movement radical restructurings can be facilitated; permanent, ongoing revolution can become the norm instead of the exception.

Of course this is only my hope and my preference.

There is little use in devising a system of thought about the nature of the trap if the only thing to do in order to get out of the trap is to know the trap and find the exit. Everything else is utterly useless: Singing hymns about the suffering in the trap ...or making poems about the freedom outside of the trap, dreamed of within the trap The first thing to do is to find the exit out of the trap. The nature of the trap has no interest whatsoever beyond this one crucial point: WHERE IS THE EXIT OUT OF THE TRAP?

—WILHELM REICH

—Peter Cari an i

If you think you're free, there's no escape possible: Baba Ram Dass

1. Erich Fromm discusses the psychological motivation for this drive towards submission to a movement of this sort in EscapeFrom Freedom (1941 ). He discusses three modes of escape from self-identity within the context of Fascism: authoritarianism. destructiveness, and automaton conformity. The first and the last seem most applicable to religious and political sects today. In addition Eric Hoffer's The True Believer (1951) is a mpoesntwa r antitotalitarian tract on the sociology and psychology of such mass move- ts.

2 -Within the context of radical demonstrations, chanting slogans is meant to fill this role of demonstrating unity. Marching in tight rows, five or six abreast, also demonstrates unity by subordinating the participants to the demonstration. Needless to say. chanting destroys the possibility of dialogue between demonstrators themselves and between demonstrators and interested bystanders. It further prepares the uninitiated for direction by the marshalls (the organizers of the event) for which chants to shout, where to march and which projects to pursue after the demo is over.

3. One means of sparking self-reflection is to offer a counter-example which parodies the believer's views to the point of absurdity, as in The Ruling Class, where two madmen each claiming to be God are placed in the same room as therapy. When accosted on the same streetcorner daily by the same believer (who wants me to take a ''personality test") with whom discourse has failed, I find that silently handing out a deaf-mute card works wonders.

4 Many of these are articulated in depth in a mid-1950's study of Chinese brainwashing. Coercive Persuasion (1961) by E.H. Schein. The analysis explores both the structure of belief and the social setting of belief change. Unfortunately the work only deals with Chinese Communist ideology, and does not address similarities with beliefs found in "democratic" societies

6 This was essentially the same rationale used by the television networks to suppress broadcast of the filmed statement made by the Iranian captors of American hostages Calls for unity are also of ten used to suppress dissenting points of view on a national level, as in the case of Senator Kennedy's criticism of the Shah, and on a movement level For example, my affinity group was, for a time, told we could not give a presentation on nonviolent direct action against nuclear power plants at a "progressive" set of teach-ins at MIT because it would make the antinuke movement look divided, (which, in fact, it is).

6 For more elaboration on these dichotomies and of a did logical vs. antidialogica I action, see Paolo Friere's Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968). f riere has a theory of education which places students and teachers on equal terms, in two-way rather than one-way conversation. This line of thinking is also shared by Ivan Illich in his critiques of professionalization.

7. He goes on to note that the large, bureacratic mail order social change organizations do the same thing: the amount of absolution is proportional to the amount of the check sent in return.

8. This is nut to say that sexism. racism, authoritarianism, imperialism, classism, intellectual snobbery, and the other oppressions/injustices do not exist. There are times when such labels are warranted: when the offender is aware of the injustice and the meaning of the label, and continues to consciously support it. In most cases, however, the labels are not used to express moral outrage but to punish other people for having views different from their own.

9. A sense of humor seems to require both a distancing from one's immediate situation and more than one semantic context for comprehending the irony in the joke. As the punch line comes around interpretation of the joke leaps from one meaning to another as in a Gestalt switch. (The people who do catastrophe theory claim to have an explanation for this process.) In any case, since true believers are working within one conception of things, they can't seem to comprehend humor based on other systems. What's left are the "technical" jokes around different doctrinal interpretations.

10. I believe that much of the opposition of conservative, tradition-oriented women to women's liberation lies in this insecurity in the face of much greater freedom for choosing alternatives to traditional roles.

11. Robert lay Litton. Boundaries (1969) Simon & Shuster, p. 97

I discovered this book having already written and sketched out the overwhelming bulk of this essay, it's a bit embarrassing to have one's entire psyche and system of beliefs characterized. but I suppose it's deserved since it is precisely what I attempt to do to true believers.

Paul Feyerabend in Science in a Free Society (its) New Left Books, advocates such Dadaistic framework for scientific advancement, rejecting any constraints on methodology and content as being destructive to future development, He also argues tht science, like religion, should be separated from the state. and that lay people should have democratic control over publicly funded scientific research