A Captive Organization

image courtesy of @the_ghostina — *image courtesy of* *@the_ghostina*

“As I understand it, people who no longer want to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but who have been, must then dissociate; is that right?” says Angus Stewart, the Senior Counsel Assisting to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Stewart looks briefly up at the witness under oath and then back at his notes. Across from him is a TV screen projecting a videoconference feed of Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the eight-man governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for the spiritual and organizational leadership of over 8.5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.

Jackson: No, not necessarily. I meet many people in my travels that perhaps were Jehovah’s Witnesses at one stage but then have decided no longer to be active. So, they haven’t gone through a formal process.

Stewart: Well, I have chosen my words deliberately, Mr. Jackson.

Stewart repeats the question, challenging Jackson’s evasion.

Stewart: If someone no longer wants to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they must then disassociate; is that right?

Jackson: Again, please, if they want to take the action of doing that. But, of course, they have total freedom. If they don’t want to apply to officially be removed as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they can tell anyone they want that they are no longer a Jehovah’s Witness.

The prosecutor then reads from the official policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses as published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania (WTS) regarding the procedure for discontinuing membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The policy is clear: if a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) decides that she no longer wants to be a member of the religion, she must disassociate herself and will be shunned from the community. Further, if she chooses not to formally disassociate but is later discovered to have violated the organization’s strict code of conduct, she will be disfellowshipped. (Disfellowshipping refers to WTS’s disciplinary policy of formal excommunication from the religion. The policy also calls upon close friends and blood relatives to shun the disfellowshipped person.)

Stewart again attempts to hold Jackson to the unambiguous policy of disassociation and disfellowshipping enforced by the influential preacher.

Stewart: So is it the case, then, that someone who no longer wants to be recognized as or known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses must then disassociate?

Jackson: No, it doesn’t say that they must do anything. If you read on, you will see there is a process. This gives the person the right to officially have an announcement made that they are no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But, as I already said, if they decide they don’t want to exercise that right, they don’t automatically come under this provision.

Stewart: But then people who don’t exercise that right are then (...) still subject to the rules and discipline of the organization, aren’t they?

Jackson evades again.

Jackson: I would have to check on that, because personally that’s not my field. But my understanding is, if a person has made it known by their actions in the community over a period of years that they are not a Witness, we would only hold any reports in abeyance until they decided they wanted to return.

Stewart pushes back once more.

Stewart: Mr. Jackson, I have to say that my understanding is if someone in that position is caught transgressing one of the rules, they would still be subject to the disciplinary proceedings, including possibly disfellowshipping; is that not right?

Jackson: That is a possibility, but in all fairness to your question, I think there are circumstances, but I couldn’t make a definitive comment on that.

Stewart goes on to present a hypothetical in which a JW who chooses not to formally disassociate and face shunning from his friends and family is caught by congregation elders celebrating Christmas or a birthday (customs considered by JWs to be part of false religion and detestable to God).

Stewart: They would be found to be in transgression of the rules, would they not?

Jackson: That is not my understanding. But again, as I said, it is not my field, that goes into policy with regard to those types of things, but from my personal experience, that’s not the case.

Stewart (indignantly): Mr. Jackson, you say it’s not your field, but you are a member of the Governing Body which is responsible, as you have said, for the whole field, and you have been a member for 10 years, and all the committees are responsible to and accountable to the Governing Body.

Jackson: That is correct.

“So someone who wants to leave the organization must choose, you accept, between freedom from the organization on the one hand and friends, family, and social network on the other?”

- Angus Stewart, *Australian Royal Commission*

At this point in the proceedings, Stewart is only barely able to conceal his frustration. Official policy is clear: every JW is subject to the rules of the organization under threat of judicial action. This includes prohibitions on premarital sex, the celebration of holidays, voting, and violating the policy of shunning by having spiritual association with ex-member family or friends.

Stewart: Well, there’s no middle road, is there? I mean, you are either a member and subject to the organization or are not – isn’t it the case?

Jackson: Yes, but I thought you were asking me about disassociation.

Stewart: Well, I am, indeed. So if someone hasn’t disassociated but has sought merely to become inactive or to fade [away from the organization], they are then still subject to the organization’s discipline and rules?

Jackson: If they acknowledge being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Stewart: And if they do the contrary – which is to say they are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses – the effect of that is disassociation?

Jackson: That’s if they decide to go down that course. (…)

Stewart: So someone who wants to leave the organization must choose, you accept, between freedom from the organization on the one hand and friends, family, and social network on the other?

Jackson refuses to concede.

Jackson: I thought I made it quite clear that I don’t agree with that supposition(...)

Stewart: Mr. Jackson, the reality of the situation is that a person who has been baptized a Jehovah’s Witness is thereafter either in the organization or out of it; is that not right?

Jackson: I think perhaps you have got your facts a little wrong there.

Stewart: I don’t think that’s correct, because you have accepted already, Mr. Jackson, that a person in the situation you have postulated of merely becoming inactive is still subject to the rules of the organization.

Jackson deflects. His tenacious refusal to admit (or perhaps even to comprehend) the implications of the organization’s coercive policy is confounding. Finally, the governing body member unequivocally presents his stance on the point of contention.

Jackson: I don’t agree with the sweeping statement that they only have the two choices.

Stewart: Well, it’s right then, isn’t it, because if they don’t want to be subject to the discipline and rules of the organization, then they have to leave by actively dissociating; isn’t that the truth?

Jackson: That’s if they definitely don’t want to be, yes.

Stewart is dogged; he won’t let the point go. Quite rightly. In the context of child sexual abuse, the fact that a JW cannot choose to stop attending congregation meetings without sacrificing their closest family and friends presents an unbearable burden to victims of sexual assault at the hands of fellow congregation members. They, in effect, must either continue attending congregation meetings (sitting in the same room with their abusers who have been deemed repentant by congregation elders) or formally disassociate and face excommunication and shunning.

The situation surrounding child sexual abuse in the JW community is grave indeed and worthy of a separate volume completely. Respectfully, I do not discuss this topic at length in The Life of PIMO. But as Stewart proceeds with his examination, he touches on a sociological reality that sets the stage for my book. He continues:

Stewart: Do you accept that putting people to that choice makes your organization in many respects a captive organization?

Jackson: I do not accept that at all.

There it is; broken down in the simplest of terms: organizational captivity.

It is these captive policies that create the sociological phenomenon of Physically-In-Mentally-Out (PIMO) Jehovah’s Witnesses.

JW PIMOs are disillusioned with their religion. But they are stuck.

Stewart chose not to use the oft-repeated pejorative for organizations like WTS; cult. Accusations of cultism are met not only by WTS Public Relations personnel but also by lay witnesses with organizationally prescribed and pre-rehearsed statements of defenses. The use of “cult” in this courtroom setting would have triggered a canned defense from the Governing Body member who, no doubt, interpreted the prosecutor’s scathing criticism as evidence of divine favor. As St. Paul the Apostle wrote, “all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12, New World Translation [NWT]).

Like Stewart, I have also made the decision to avoid polarizing language in A Voice From Inside to the extent possible. I do not intend to argue that JWs are a cult. I will not accuse WTS leadership of deliberately brainwashing their followers. Rather, I will follow the custom of the academic and scientific communities who use the terms New Religious Movement (NRM) and High Demand Religious Group (HDGR) when referring to JWs. These categorizations are accurate, maintain a level of respect for the beliefs of adherents, and afford individual members dignity.

In Chapter 3 of A Voice From Inside called “The Mechanics of Psychological Captivity”, I will discuss at length the psychological principles associated with what psychiatrist and author Robert Jay Lifton calls ideological totalism. I draw heavily from Robert Jay Lifton’s Losing Reality: On Cults, Cultism, and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry to draw connections between aspects of JW life that coincide with Lifton’s theory of thought reform. Lifton’s eight-element framework derives from his research of the Chinese Communist Party’s formalized indoctrination of communist principles in the minds of Chinese citizens. I will argue that ideological totalism aptly applies to the WTS community. However, as Lifton’s book’s own title suggests, one must acknowledge the proximity of ideological totalism and cultism; a proximity that is at the root of emotion-laden accusations of culthood launched at JWs and WTS. The relationship between the two socio-psychological concepts is best described by Lifton himself:

“I came to realize that ideological totalism and cult-like behavior not only blend with each other but tend to be part of a single entity(...) Totalism and cultile behavior are not separate identities but part of a common constellation.” - Robert Jay Lifton

That being said, in order to avoid unnecessary semantic controversy, I will most often use the expression that Angus Stewart of the Australian Royal Commission chose to use: Captive Organization.

Because of my upbringing and active membership as one of JWs, the dialogue between Mr. Stewart and Geoffrey Jackson (made available on YouTube) was my first exposure to this unique identifier of WTS. Stewart’s use of “captive organization” was fresh and arresting, bypassing the well-oiled psychological defenses and synaptic potentiation of my cultural theology.

Frankly, it set me back.

And so, “captive organization” is well-suited for the thesis of A Voice From Inside - Notes On Religious Trauma Syndrome In a Captive Organization.

Stewart: Well, there’s no middle road, is there? I mean, you are either a member and subject to the organization or are not – isn’t it the case?

Jackson: Yes...

Stewart and Jackson finally agree on one thing: There is no middle road.

Special thanks to @the_ghostina for the use of her work for the opening image. You can find Christina’s work on Instagram @the_ghostina

References:

Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania (2013) New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. Brooklyn, New York. Retrieved from: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014682#h=1:0-26:914

Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015) Case Study 29: Jehovah’s Witnesses. Retrieved from: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-29-jehovahs-witnesses

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania (2019). Shepherd the Flock of God. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. Brooklyn, New York. Retrieved from: https://www.yumpu.com/s/KQ9L34McNkjyH7Wf

“A Captive Organization” - The Life of a PIMO Jehovah’s Witness

“So someone who wants to leave the organization must choose, you accept, between freedom from the organization on the one hand and friends, family, and social network on the other?”