ORIGINS & BIASES
From age 14 up until my turning 19 years old I was immersed in something that’s hard to describe in a few words. You can crassly call it a cult, you can naively call it a scheme, or you can desperately call it a philosophy. In September 2001 after numerous back and fourth conversations with one of their staff members, I registered to take The Landmark Forum for Teens. My mother was weary likely from all the yelling and arguing that goes into raising a child such as myself. It seemed there was no solution for my failing grades, and stupid (quite ordinary) teenage attitude. To take this three day seminar you must have the written consent of both your parents/guardians just like any field trip I suppose. She was in a quite desperate place as a parent, and to be honest she eagerly signed with hopes that maybe this would be a turning point in my life, and perhaps our relationship.
I took the course and it had little effect on me. I retook (reviewed) The Landmark Forum with adults, and that’s when things really started to sink in and make “sense.” I will spare you the summary of the course because that is most boring aspect of the enterprise. There is however a rather mild, and fair critical article regarding the Landmark Forum experience found on The Huffington Post Archive. In fact I share much of the same criticisms Karen Badt expresses in her article. What I will offer in place of a dry and mechanical run through is an extensive philosophical criticism, coupled with my “personal” journey through the many programs, events, and productions I have participated in.
For those of you who have not had the fortune of seeing the 3-hour introductory seminar explaining the methodology and basic facts about the company, I will save you the trip. Landmark Education was founded in 1991 by Harry Rosenburg and a number of other individuals directly associated with Werner Erhard, (Formerly Jack Rosenburg, founder of E.S.T. Despite Landmark’s avid attempts at disassociating itself from the polarizing figure, any kindergartner can go on the internet and see the irrefutable monetary, and personal connections between Erhard Seminar Training and Landmark Education Corporation. In fact I am well aware that certain staff members who work in the Los Angeles office building visit with Erhard and have discussions regarding the company and its future.) According to its website they are a professional organization with expertise in the field of training and development, have 50 offices all over the world and offer their educational services in over seven languages. They usually present all this information while donning a business suit, inside of an office building, or at a home (for those who are far too trusting.) They stand in front of a chalkboard, or whiteboard, and have all the essentials (for those who like to pretend they are the authority on a certain subject) pens, pencils, shiny pamphlets, and of course a music stand or podium which just screams “listen to me, I’m a suave professional in control of my life! And you can be one too!” They talk, they smile, they laugh, and it’s all scripted with cleverly placed parts for your timid interaction/reaction.
Their methodology is like nothing I’ve ever seen. In fact, to be fair it is quite efficient and convincing when first introduced to it. They are interested in people “getting” it, and are not interested in “teaching” anything. I suppose that reflects the more eastern side of their existence. However their methodology and even their content does not really hold up if you have a firm set of beliefs, an ideology, or set of philosophical perspectives that are well-informed. (Though they claim to be open-ended, and universally compatible) Their programs are designed for the bored, passionless, credulous, and middle-class. Everyone who participates in their seminars invests in real estate, practices law, or is an actor or screenwriter-on rare occasion you have a teacher or an airline stuartist. 
With this body of rejuvenated people they spread their methodology and ideology in a most evangelical way: having those who have witnessed the miraculous tell everyone they know about what’s possible when they pay 600 dollars and take The Landmark Forum. The most interesting aspect regarding their evangelical methods though is the fact that these people walk around as human billboards for the company for free. (I’ll get to that in a later in this blog's sequel)
With this body of rejuvenated people they spread their methodology and ideology in a most evangelical way: having those who have witnessed the miraculous tell everyone they know about what’s possible when they pay 600 dollars and take The Landmark Forum. The most interesting aspect regarding their evangelical methods though is the fact that these people walk around as human billboards for the company for free. (I’ll get to that in a later in this blog's sequel)PSYCHO-ANALYSIS WITHOUT the ANALYSIS
The propagation of Landmarkian theory whilst inside their seminars is strange, but again effective. The main goal (which is admitted openly by the Leaders of the Course) is to break you down as a person. They say this with a hint of warmth though, because they know the person you are is a fraud and must be abolished so that you may inherit a little truth about the universe. They break you down with numerous tactics:
“Boo-hoo and you spend most of your time whining about yourself. Not a pretty picture!”
“But what can I do about that?” the woman pleads.
“If you want to do something for your daughter, I don't know -- maybe commit suicide! No, this is not working. You're avoiding the hard part, inventing a trick so you can suffer. You've made sure of that for twenty years, so you can die in terrible agony. That way you can think better of yourself.” Thanks to an undercover news team in France we see first hand the abuses suffered by Landmark participants.
- Procedure one: group you together with a bunch of strangers and if you are attending a course with a friend or loved one they urge/force you to sit apart.
- Procedure two: have a dedicated cadre of volunteers act extremely happy and generous the entire time you are there as blatant examples of the wonders of the course.
- Procedure three: have a well-trained (in the arts of: intimidation, public speaking, shutting people down , shutting people up, breaking people down, building people up, finding people’s vulnerabilities, ripping people’s hearts out, and ad-hominem attacks) man or woman establish the rules of the course, as well as establish any deviant as a writhing helpless little worm who can’t take it.
- Procedure four: deny people their regularly healthy, and needed amount of sleep with long 15 hour days.
“Boo-hoo and you spend most of your time whining about yourself. Not a pretty picture!”
“But what can I do about that?” the woman pleads.
“If you want to do something for your daughter, I don't know -- maybe commit suicide! No, this is not working. You're avoiding the hard part, inventing a trick so you can suffer. You've made sure of that for twenty years, so you can die in terrible agony. That way you can think better of yourself.” Thanks to an undercover news team in France we see first hand the abuses suffered by Landmark participants.
UN-SCIENTITIFIC and UN-POETIC
Let’s get to the nitty-gritty: Landmark Education and its leadership body claim that human nature is definable and universal and that they have discovered its nature and have found the most important universals that all humans posses. These universals and major concepts are as follows:
• we are all inauthentic
• we are all incapable of real communication and listening until we acknowledge the constant “dialogue” in our head
• we all labor under the illusion that our lives and everything in them has inherent meaning
• we all complain about our circumstances, lives, and the people in them intentionally to avoid taking responsibility
• we live in fear of our past mistakes and failures and let them totally shape our personalities and behavior
• we live our lives detached from reality and are embedded in the dialogue as if that is reality
• we are all unknowingly incomplete (we are “not over it”) with our past, and all the people in it most especially our parents
• we constantly seek to change and re-arrange things in our lives instead of fundamentally dealing with the issues, the list goes on and on and on.
I think that it was a fair explanation of some of the major ideas behind the work. Many of you might read that list and might say hey well that sounds like psychoanalysis, or some of those terms and ideas sound like nihilism, or even existentialism.
The most annoying aspect of this body of work so to speak is, to put it Karl Popper terms, is the non-falsifiable organism that lies in its center. The applied-philosophy of Landmark is a slippery beast. In the same vein of other New Age groups and others it takes the position that what it says is not true, in fact there is no truth and meaning to be found in life according to them. In the same breath however they will say they know the “truth” about human nature. It’s a clever rouse because with it, they cannot be put the up to scrutiny since they disavow the basic rules attached to making a claim. Every claim ever (if it really is a claim) is subject to scrutiny especially claims regarding the essence of reality and existence. But since Landmark never claims to be right, or think they know the truth, they’re given a pat on the back because they are so different from all the “self-righteous,” people and organizations out there in the world. They are so “open-minded” and accepting, and especially modest. That’s what’s attractive to people, after you receive an education at Landmark you get to pat yourself on the back for not “being self-righteous” and not having a “position.” You can revel in your greatness since you are so “deep,” and “authentic” while other people are shallow and fake, and take life for granted.
It simply replaces old morals with a new set of deeper “morals.” It replaces old obvious self-righteousness with a new hidden one hiding behind the shadows of modesty, and ambiguous stoic statements. What’s not to love though? You pay 600 dollars to be deep, and be excited about living again, since you are so dead inside in the first place. It sounds similar to the concept of being born again for Jesus: new purpose, new drives, new urges all artificially imposed upon your natural ones, sounds like a picnic to me. According to the content found in the Landmark Advanced Course, (the second course in the curriculum for living) reality itself (meaning everything encompassed in the three-dimensions we find ourselves in) is solely constructed upon language, and more importantly on agreements. Agreements are not what shape reality, they are the essence of our realities. They literally are reality. What they mean by agreements isn’t anything special, they simply are referring to shared majority perceptions. If most people think war, and corruption are staples of human nature and reality, and they agree they’ll be here forever, they’ll be here forever for no other reason other than the agreed previous assumption. All we have to do to stop the many varying tragedies in the world is to get people to not be so cynical and create a new agreement and everything will be dandy. I’m sorry but how stupid is that? That’s the catch though; you cannot even challenge many of their positions because they’re so baseless. They present outrageous claims like that in pretty little spotlights, with big cardboard signs with large-print Einstein quotes to back them up.
That’s another thing that is especially infuriating. Aside from their wild claims regarding the nature of reality, they use universally accepted and loved figures to back their seminar’s content up. Again to refer to the Huffington Post, they use figures like Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, and the like to validate and say, “Hey we’re cool, we like these people. We can even quote them!” The funny thing is as so astutely observed by Karin Badt most of these figures were entrenched in heavily political times and struggles (Not non-positional, pseudo-spiritual objectivity). But that’s not the point, the point is Landmark in essence is completely apolitical, and it is not only a tragedy to bring those names up just as mere figures of positive introspection, it’s absurd.
The most annoying aspect of this body of work so to speak is, to put it Karl Popper terms, is the non-falsifiable organism that lies in its center. The applied-philosophy of Landmark is a slippery beast. In the same vein of other New Age groups and others it takes the position that what it says is not true, in fact there is no truth and meaning to be found in life according to them. In the same breath however they will say they know the “truth” about human nature. It’s a clever rouse because with it, they cannot be put the up to scrutiny since they disavow the basic rules attached to making a claim. Every claim ever (if it really is a claim) is subject to scrutiny especially claims regarding the essence of reality and existence. But since Landmark never claims to be right, or think they know the truth, they’re given a pat on the back because they are so different from all the “self-righteous,” people and organizations out there in the world. They are so “open-minded” and accepting, and especially modest. That’s what’s attractive to people, after you receive an education at Landmark you get to pat yourself on the back for not “being self-righteous” and not having a “position.” You can revel in your greatness since you are so “deep,” and “authentic” while other people are shallow and fake, and take life for granted.
It simply replaces old morals with a new set of deeper “morals.” It replaces old obvious self-righteousness with a new hidden one hiding behind the shadows of modesty, and ambiguous stoic statements. What’s not to love though? You pay 600 dollars to be deep, and be excited about living again, since you are so dead inside in the first place. It sounds similar to the concept of being born again for Jesus: new purpose, new drives, new urges all artificially imposed upon your natural ones, sounds like a picnic to me. According to the content found in the Landmark Advanced Course, (the second course in the curriculum for living) reality itself (meaning everything encompassed in the three-dimensions we find ourselves in) is solely constructed upon language, and more importantly on agreements. Agreements are not what shape reality, they are the essence of our realities. They literally are reality. What they mean by agreements isn’t anything special, they simply are referring to shared majority perceptions. If most people think war, and corruption are staples of human nature and reality, and they agree they’ll be here forever, they’ll be here forever for no other reason other than the agreed previous assumption. All we have to do to stop the many varying tragedies in the world is to get people to not be so cynical and create a new agreement and everything will be dandy. I’m sorry but how stupid is that? That’s the catch though; you cannot even challenge many of their positions because they’re so baseless. They present outrageous claims like that in pretty little spotlights, with big cardboard signs with large-print Einstein quotes to back them up.
That’s another thing that is especially infuriating. Aside from their wild claims regarding the nature of reality, they use universally accepted and loved figures to back their seminar’s content up. Again to refer to the Huffington Post, they use figures like Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, and the like to validate and say, “Hey we’re cool, we like these people. We can even quote them!” The funny thing is as so astutely observed by Karin Badt most of these figures were entrenched in heavily political times and struggles (Not non-positional, pseudo-spiritual objectivity). But that’s not the point, the point is Landmark in essence is completely apolitical, and it is not only a tragedy to bring those names up just as mere figures of positive introspection, it’s absurd.
TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE
That brings me to my next point. The political implications of Landmark are hard to read at first. As you progress though, you will notice that the “victim” we play in life (that’s a derogatory term to them) is by our choice. We decide everything in our lives, and nothing is an accident, nothing is a coincidence. These abuses however run deeper than simply exacerbating fractured family relations. They completely reinforce the farce of all our existence:
Landmark calls its list of ideas and theories distinctions. They are tools for distinguishing aspects of reality or reality itself in order for you to be "extraordinary" in the face of circumstances. Eventually if you master these distinctions (which means you must take at least three courses, and participate by either slaving away for free at one of their offices, or paying to take numerous seminars) then your life could quite possibly be saved from mundane existence. One of the distinctions that I find most offensive is the term “clearing.” It is posited that everyone has a clearing, and that this clearing allows and disallows things from happening in your life. A clearing is always there, you are always a clearing for something. If you lose your job like I mentioned above, then you were a clearing for “losing my job.” If you are a victim of a hate crime, you were a clearing for “racism and hatred.” If you are a retired millionaire, and you invested in a random .com company, and made a hundred-thousand dollar profit, you were a clearing for “making lots of money/abundance.” It’s just another one of Landmarks undisputable claims to fame, undisputable in the sense that you can’t even dispute it. So the children of Darfur are a clearing for “war and poverty,” as well as the people of Iraq! Landmark die-hards will quickly rebuke me saying, “We don’t mean that! That’s slander!” Well folks you have to have a little consistency here: it’s either individuals have full control over reality and they don’t know it, or there are structures, and social relations and things that happen out of the individuals hands.
It is complete an utter rugged individualism. Unpolished, uncouth, and jagged. But what else is to be expected? The human potential movement, the new age movement, the Oprah in the afternoon with a side of Dr. Phil movement, were conceived in the minds of middle-class men and women who were completely alienated by and disillusioned with life. Werner Erhard (EST, The Forum) was a used car sales man before he had his epiphany. I’m not accusing Landmark and its staff of being insincere though. I am quite sure most of them really believe in what they say and what is “taught.”
(Part II of this two part blog will consist of a thorough run-through of Landmark's financial history, including it's business dealings, "volunteer" sector, and profit margin. It was also include some information on Werner Erhard and maybe a few more jabs at their inconsistent perspectives.)
that the current system of social relations, and economic organization is just and fair.Any complaint of any sort regarding social inequality, racial inequality, distribution of wealth, are all moot and false interpretations. In fact, Landmark and its Forum “leaders” take a stance siding with the egoism of Ayn Rand. If you complain, you are a victim, and therefore powerless to change your situation. See how cunningly they put it? When racism happens it’s merely your “situation,” something within your grasp to change on your own, not a system of hate and intolerance existing for 500 years. When you get laid off due to a slump in the economy or an employer who wants to keep profits up by laying off a slate of employees, again there is no structure, no economic engine at work here, the blame falls on you. According to them you have full control of reality. Everything interpreted as real is really just an interpretation, in other words “a story.” It takes Cogito Ergo Sum to a whole new level. It makes it literal. And that makes for very very reactionary implications.
Landmark calls its list of ideas and theories distinctions. They are tools for distinguishing aspects of reality or reality itself in order for you to be "extraordinary" in the face of circumstances. Eventually if you master these distinctions (which means you must take at least three courses, and participate by either slaving away for free at one of their offices, or paying to take numerous seminars) then your life could quite possibly be saved from mundane existence. One of the distinctions that I find most offensive is the term “clearing.” It is posited that everyone has a clearing, and that this clearing allows and disallows things from happening in your life. A clearing is always there, you are always a clearing for something. If you lose your job like I mentioned above, then you were a clearing for “losing my job.” If you are a victim of a hate crime, you were a clearing for “racism and hatred.” If you are a retired millionaire, and you invested in a random .com company, and made a hundred-thousand dollar profit, you were a clearing for “making lots of money/abundance.” It’s just another one of Landmarks undisputable claims to fame, undisputable in the sense that you can’t even dispute it. So the children of Darfur are a clearing for “war and poverty,” as well as the people of Iraq! Landmark die-hards will quickly rebuke me saying, “We don’t mean that! That’s slander!” Well folks you have to have a little consistency here: it’s either individuals have full control over reality and they don’t know it, or there are structures, and social relations and things that happen out of the individuals hands.
It is complete an utter rugged individualism. Unpolished, uncouth, and jagged. But what else is to be expected? The human potential movement, the new age movement, the Oprah in the afternoon with a side of Dr. Phil movement, were conceived in the minds of middle-class men and women who were completely alienated by and disillusioned with life. Werner Erhard (EST, The Forum) was a used car sales man before he had his epiphany. I’m not accusing Landmark and its staff of being insincere though. I am quite sure most of them really believe in what they say and what is “taught.”
(Part II of this two part blog will consist of a thorough run-through of Landmark's financial history, including it's business dealings, "volunteer" sector, and profit margin. It was also include some information on Werner Erhard and maybe a few more jabs at their inconsistent perspectives.)
8 comments:
As a writer and political activist who has taken some Landmark courses and knows a lot of other people who has, I found your lengthy and articulate essay about the philosophy behind the programs and your opinions about the people who take them to be condescending, if not downright insulting.
The idea that advocating personal responsibility necessarily leads to Ayn Randian selfishness and right wing social neglect is baseless nonsense. Although I've met people who've taken the Forum from all political persuasions, I notice that a great many of them, including myself, are working tirelessly for the election of Barack Obama, hardly a poster boy for the virtues of selfishness. Obama himself harps on personal responsibility while advocating progressive social policies.
I suppose in your eyes I must be another bored, passionless and credulous Landmarkian quoting inspiring public figures to support his points. My experience of people who takes Landmark's courses is that they tend to be the most interested, passionate, and insightfully skeptical people you'd ever meet. In fact, to me the whole basis of Landmark's programs seems to be skepticism--Questioning your long held assumptions and prejudices about oneself and the world.
And while many of your basic factual assertions about the Landmark Forum are Palinesque (untrue), what strikes me as most inaccurate about your portrayal of the spirit in which the courses are given. You imply a spirit of insult and attack, and motives of wealth and exploitation. It seems to be that a bigger lie couldn't be told. The courses are all about compassion for one's fellow human beings, and that sense of connectedness and compassion is one of the most palpable things about the Landmark Forum. From the course leaders to the participants, I've never bet a bunch of people more willing to listen to perspectives other than their own; to connect with others that they wouldn't have trusted in the past; and to take decisive action to make that sense of compassion and connectedness more real in the world.
Thanks for listening.
I'll wait for more comments to pile up before I respond to you Jonathan...
perhaps by e-mail if you'd like?
debating on here would leave people who really haven't taken landmark lost in a jungle of jargon unless you'd rather me slay you here. . .
Alex is obviously someone who didn't like The Landmark Forum and is now attempting to dissuade anyone who reads his comments from taking it. He manages to put down Werner Erhard (who has made a difference in millions of people's lives (see "Transformation: the Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard, and check out the incredible difference Forum graduates are making in the world on the website "Landmark Graduates in the News"), Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandhi (I think you know the difference these men made!). And for what purpose? To make a difference in your life? in anyone's life? In the world? I don't think so! If you know someone who has taken The Forum, ask them whether they think it's worth the time and the money. If you want "scientific" evidence - check out surveys that have been done, and the "testimony" given by a former president of the American Psychological Association. 7 out of 10 people say The Forum was one of the most valuable things they ever did. Probably 2 out of the other 3 got enough value to not write comments like Alex did. That leaves the other 1 out of 10. Clearly, Alex is one of those. He is a good example of the "righteousness" and "make others wrongedness" that they try to point out in The Forum - beliefs, attitudes, language, and actions that basically either don't make a difference, or make a negative one. Hopefully, his highly biased (and as far as I'm concerned) extremely innacurate presentation of what The Forum is, how Forum leaders conduct themselves, the "philosophy" involved, the "beliefs" or "truths" he thinks Landmark presents, etc. I hope you look further than this before deciding whether or not to attend the 3-day Forum. While nobody "needs" it, you would be missing an opportunity that the vast majority of participants consider to have been extremely worthwhile. By the way, I took the original est Training in 1975, a year after I got my Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Columbia University. I have been a therapist, organizational trainer, and seminar leader for 40 years, have taken The Forum and many of the other courses offered by Landmark Education (which is probably the largest educational organization in the world, and has succeeded almost solely by satisfied "customers" sharing its value with their friends, family, coworkers, etc), and have participated in many "self-development" and Continuing Ed programs. For me, what Landmark offers is truly unique, extremely valuable, and definitely worth taking a chance on. While you may wind up a cynical, negative, self-appointed expert on Landmark, Ayn Rand, and just about everything, the odds are greatly in favor of you being glad you did it!.
Steve Rubin, NY
Jonathan I never intended for my opinions to be downright insulting, I was really aiming for just plain old insulting. My apologies for you and yours. Now let's get down to business. I don't think much of your campaigning for Obama. Obama voted to go into Iraq and he is not timid about expanding the War in Afghanistan, and has no qualms about "defending" Israel from Iran. You know about Israel right? That country that has received more monetary aid in the past thirty years than Africa and South America combined. That country that has in place one of the worst if not the worst apartheid system in the world. That country that has the best trained Air Force in the world. That country that has numerous nuclear war heads at its disposal. I mean how could such a peaceful, timid country possibly defend itself against impoverished Iran?
And if I am not mistaken, (which i am not) Obama has said numerous times that he is a fan of Reagan. And I know I have heard he's a fan of Reagan and how he handled "all the excesses of the 1960's and 1970's-"
to quote the source article's author:
Obama did not specify what he believes those "excesses" were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.
If you want to talk about right wing neglect I mean you can't anymore right wing or neglectful that Reagan.
And about your opinion of people at Landmark being skeptical...I've been around Landmark since I was 9 years old NONE of the people I've met there were REALLY critical or SKEPTICAL of the organization. Whenever there are criticisms on the internet (even the ones MUCH more mild than my own )they just brush it aside as another person "who didn't get it" or who "has a racket." It's preposterous, and that is what I was getting at when I said you cannot criticize the organization because a bunch of drones are lined up to ask you "what you're really feeling?" "what do you really want?" I would like someone to listen to my criticism instead trying to find out what's behind like they're some zen master psychologist of some crap.
And they do want to break you down. And I am not saying that they're doing it with an agenda other than transformation....but that's what they want to do. Trust me I haven't been fucking around at Landmark I was DEAD serious about that place. I took the LMF, the Advanced Course, the SELP, two seminars and the ILP, all before age 20 and I volunteered there for 1000's of hours and have registered 100's of teenagers in the teen introduction rooms. I know my shit. In other words I am not talking out of my ass.
I could care less if someone is willing to "listen to perspectives other than their own." Does that change the world? No, in fact that plays into a lot stupid ideas developing...like let's be bipartisan and push this centrist pointless bill through...or let's listen to the racist minutmen project...everyone has to be listened to equally, let's not be self-righteous about ending the murder in Iraq because maybe there is a possibility that a supporter of Iraq has a valid thing to say. I complete abhor watered down, INEFFECTIVE political discourse such as that.
HOWEVER to be fair, Obama is the reflection of what this country thinks they want. His speeches are inspiring, and he always appealing (especially now-a-days) to CLASS anger, talking about how the rich have usurped so much, and how insurance companies have done so little for "the people." But this isn't a new thing for democrats to do it is a strategy they always have pulled out to suck people into their promises...and not have them dwell on true socialist revolution and reforms...they promise the system can resolve its own contradictions, sort of in the same way your body might cure itself of cancer.
Landmark reaps what it sows, and that is bored middle-class and credulous people too optimistic about stupid shit like presidential elections with Uncle Toms running.
Alex: Keep writing and keep up the great work. You rock. Your analyses are spot on.
-- GuruTruth
I'm a graduate. Took the Landmark Forum two years ago. I now have a hugely improved relationsihp with my mother, my career has taken off, and I have a great relationship with people and colleauges in my life I wouldn't have had but for taking this course. Do it, try it. Don't rely on the opinion of just one person!
I graduated from Landmark too, Alex, and I was able to save my father from cancer. Do you think its right for my dad to die from cancer when Landmark has given me the healing powers to prevent his death? You know what? Don't come running to me when you've got cancer.
Post a Comment