We are continuing on the subject of thought reform. This post is the seventh in a series which will tell what thought reform is and what behavior is evidence of a thought reform environment. Our reference book is “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton (original copyright 1961, later published again in 1989, ISBN 0-8078-4253-2 [alk. Paper]). This work has been from Chapter 22 titled “Ideological Totalism”. The sixth post explained the “Sacred Science” and how that affected members within WOFF. Next, we will review another characteristic of thought reform- “Loading the Language”. Did I see this characteristic of thought reform during my time at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF)? WOFF is run by Jane Whaley. As a review, I spent 16 years being involved in WOFF. My experience within the group is a “normal” one as far as I can tell.
Before we get into the source material, we need to make a few distinctions on this subject. First, most every group in any culture will have specific terms related to unique activities or customs within that group. This is true in business, sub-cultures, hobby groups, industrial trades, medical fields and so on. These could be labeled “lingo” or group-activity specific unique terms. I have experienced this in many areas as I feel certain many readers have as well. In business, there are even unique terms in diverse groups within one industry or company. This is a serious part of the learning curve when one moves from one group to another or even one job to another within the same field. For instance, there are differing terms to describe many of the same services or products within the consumer financial services industry. Banks use one set of terms and Credit Unions use another to describe many of the same products or services.
In and of themselves, these “lingo” terms do not harm but serve to identify and in some cases unify folks around a certain activity or cause. So, where does the harm reside in the totalist environment when terms describing certain activities or beliefs are used? Robert Lifton opens the material with this statement, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed.” (page 429) Can former members agree that this was common at WOFF?
In previous posts we have reviewed several WOFF- terms. Learning WOFF-speak was essential to the indoctrination process. How many Sunday night services were spent discussing the meaning and application of certain terms? The banter and specious discussions about who “heard God” and who did not “hear God” in how they spoke or used the terms was of course ruled and moderated by Jane Whaley. This was a great source of power to be able to not only create the term but to define it and the ways to use it. Here is the link to a post from January 2010 about this subject… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=101 In this post, the there are several WOFF-speak terms which are explained such as “take hold!”, “open your heart” “fulfill your call”, getting “checked out” and “that did not feel right”… In addition to these terms, we have used many more in the writing of these posts. Who could forget these terms and how they have been used over and over in WOFF-land? Even now, these terms may come up in everyday conversations and I immediately have to purpose to look away from the ingrained WOFF meaning and determine the meaning the term as it is being used in the WOFF-less world. Oh, the joy of the privilege to do that!
This post explains other terms such as “We don’t do that OUT FROM UNDER AUTHORITY.” Find that post here… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=451. This phrase was/is loaded with all kinds of meaning at WOFF.
Lifton goes on “Totalist language, then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel’s Trilling’s phrase, “the language of nonthought”.”(page 429) In my opinion, the loaded language at WOFF was an ALL-ENCOMPASSING jargon. Yes, I would agree it expressed the “language of nonthought”. Why? The answer to me is obvious, yet it may be very complicated to explain. Many of the terms at WOFF were thought-stoppers. Many of them were meant to stop dissent and then mold the thoughts of members into the one direction that Jane desired all of them to walk— that was in agreement and in lock-step to her thoughts, her choices and her translation of Scriptures. How can I say this? After 16 years of hearing WOFF-speak; I no doubt lived under its power. How could a new member see and know its power? I first noticed it when certain phrases were catchalls and repeated with ever growing repetition. I had WOFF-speak used on me and I used it on others. It was the verbal currency of the group. If you did not speak it, you would be helped. If you resisted the environment of WOFF-speak, you may be given individual help.
In addition, during times when outsiders were allowed in to special gatherings or meetings, there was encouragement from the pulpit to stay away from specific terms; as outsiders would not know their meaning. Jane was aware of WOFF-speak and knew outsiders were also aware of it. It was a definite struggle at times for some to switch from WOFF-speak to normal conversation. By working out in the public, I was more practiced than some members. It was a purposeful action to make the switch when outside of WOFF.
Lifton writes, “The loading (of the language) is much more extreme in ideological totalism… since the jargon expresses the claimed certitudes of the sacred science.”(page 430) Yes, many WOFF-terms were used to explain or support the “sacred certainties” inside of WOFF. As previously expressed, the constant quoting of pet Scriptures turned what was meant to free people from bondage into something that actually brought bondage. Once a certain Scripture was referenced as an answer to a situation or as an answer to a question, the parameters and “meaning” of that verse were known by most members and thus it would stop any further questions about the matter. The verses were used to limit and justify the bondages of WOFF-life. This is explained as Lifton continues, “For the individual person, the effect of the language of ideological totalism is summed up in one word: constriction. He is …linguistically deprived; … his capacities for thinking and feeling are immensely narrowed.” (page 430) Of course, while I was inside of WOFF, I would have scoffed at this statement! How could I not be thinking and feeling as I should? WOFF was full of emotions! That is a BIG understatement. Okay, maybe it was not full of free-thinking, since Jane said many times, “the natural mind is an enmity against God”. Was that from Romans 8:7..? Yes, the underlying purpose was to stop free thinking. Loaded language seemed right while on the inside of WOFF- or at least plausible with the consequences of not using it – as they were…
Lifton put forth several ideas about the constant use of the “jargon” inside these groups. He wrote that the constant use of these special terms would then cause uneasiness after the original sense of security in this unique expression waned. Then the member may shout them ever louder as they struggled on the inside to find meaning in the words which had become meaningless. I experienced this at WOFF. For years, I would dutifully use the WOFF-speak terms while in my own thoughts attempt to fashion better more accurate phrases. Yes, I was not fully aware of the restrictive powers in the WOFF loaded language. The full understanding of the “constriction” came only after leaving and reflecting on time spent inside WOFF.
In conclusion, Lifton writes of the effects of loaded language, “…his imagination becomes increasingly dissociated from his actual life experiences and may even tend to atrophy from disuse.” (page 430) Imagination was not encouraged in the earlier years; however, in recent years as “newer members” came into the group, the rules on imagination use have changed. This has been one of the most perplexing changes in recent years. What was “bad” in years past is now “good”? Amazing how that works.
Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.
Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.
(Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 199.