Landmark Enterprises, formerly know as The Forum and Erhard Seminar Training (EST), is a San Francisco based quasi-religious psychotherapy corporation which gained my attention when an acquaintance enrolled in one of its seminars.
After completing the Forum, the first of Landmark¹s seminars collectively called a curriculum for living, he demonstrated an intense enthusiasm similar to an obsession for enrolling friends and relatives into the program. According to him, the Forum created a perpetual feeling of "awesomeness" it was truly a "life transforming experience." Having grown up in an environment permeated with assorted charismatic groups, I am extremely skeptical about any organization that assures salvation, self-actualization, or any other variation of enlightenment: how could a three and one half day personal growth seminar transform your life? Don¹t you need time and experience to test the results?
Other participating acquaintances claimed that the Forum was one, if not the single, most significant event in their lives. Gradually becoming anxious and irritated by their "transformations," I actually attended two introductory sessions to The Forum where my concerns received validation. I observed that "Forum" participants never can articulate exactly how the "transformation" takes place; participants and Landmark staff claim that it is a totally "experiential / emotional" transformation not explainable within the limited confines of language, yet, Forum participants remarkably remember how to parrot the jargon, analogies, quotes, and "technology" provided by Forum leaders and staff.
Why is the article relevant? First, because members of the [collge] community enrolled in Landmark seminars and actively proselytize the merits of the Forum. Second, Landmark Enterprises is scheduled to provide an information presentation on campus. Third, it is very difficult to obtain information about Landmark Enterprises which increases the possibility for making an uninformed choice about enrolling in the Forum. Although I have no desire to alienate gratified Forum participants, I wish to closely examine the sources contributing to their experiences.
I searched TRIPOD and the MACSPIRS database, a resource for journal articles (including recent ones) in both psychology and psychiatry and found few articles specifically addressing the Forum. This is noteworthy because Landmark Enterprises makes a considerable effort in its public relations materials to fend off accusations that it is a cult by providing numerous testimonies from "experts" in the field of psychology. For unknown reasons, such positive professional opinions fail to appear in published academic literature.
Whether or not Landmark Forum is a cult is strictly a matter of semantics. Some serious writers call the Forum a cult while many authors adopt more descriptive labels to distinguish the differences between unorthodox religious sects and quasi-religious charismatic groups with cultish characteristics.
The literature on the Landmark Forum and similar groups roughly falls in three categories:
In the personal testimony category, I found positive literature about the Forum in several newspaper articles from Landmark¹s press packet. Two positive articles came from the New York Times and the Inquirer. Personal testimony articles are analytical soft and heavy on the highly subjective areas of personal growth, motivation, usefulness, etc. Typical of Forum participants, personal testimony articles heralded the motivation and success inspired by Forum participation with only superficial observations about how the "transformation" took place.
Satisfied Forum graduates have a website at (http://www.inlink.com~dhchase/forum.htm). [Editor's note: hahaha]
On the other hand, the anti-cult literature sometimes provides highly applicable observations about Forum affiliation. For a particularly candid appraisal of EST/ Forum/Landmark, check out two articles written in the 1980s: 1) Robert Farr, Mellow out or You Will Pay in Argus, a University of Maryland student magazine located at (http://www.ex.cult.org/Groups/est-landmark) 2) Landmark Education, by Andy Testa (http://www.thur.de/religio/ therapie/landmark/landmark.html#2). Forum graduates will vigorously attempt to refute these articles claiming that the current program is nothing like the one being described, however, my personal observations (acquired before reading the articles) essentially confirm most everything written. The only major difference between the Forum of today and yesteryear is that the Forum leaders no longer verbally assault, intimidate, and humiliate trainees. Also, I am told trainees are allowed to visit the restroom whenever they choose without a staff/ volunteer escort.
In this essay, I provide a brief historical survey of Landmark Forum and its founder, Werner Erhard, then note the shared observations of myself and other guests who attended introductory sessions at the Broad Street offices of Landmark Forum. I examine how the Forum exercises intense group influence over its members with analysis provided by psychiatrist Marc Galanter, author ofCults and Zealous Self-Help Movements published in American Journal of Psychiatry in March 1990. As a practical matter, the proverbial question is whether or not the means justify the ends. Do the manipulative group settings, profit motives, conformity, indoctrination, and secretive security arrangments associated with Landmark Enterprises justify the personal satisfaction achieved by most Forum graduates?
In America, we support the ideals of religious tolerance, liberty, and freedom of speech, thus after reading the evidence, ultimately each individual must make a personal choice in answering this question. Landmark¹s leadership program pretentiously assures genuine "life tranformations" which allow individuals to 1) operate at a "higher level of being;" and 2) find a personal "source" of strength, just like Mandela, King, and Ghandi. Although some proponents of Erhard¹s ideology may lead highly successful lives and make significant contributions to their communities or causes, such testimony fails to validate the trueness of the assumptions made by Landmark¹s ideology, a product of profit-oriented efforts to exploit the sense of powerlessness afflicting many people.
Throughout history, many believers have accomplished both wonderful and hideous feats under the influence of false ideology. Ironically, the alleged inner- transformation promised by Forum leaders is less praiseworthy than the leadership skills of common working people facing real choices, dilemmas, and struggles as part of their everyday experience. Forum leaders assume that enlightened actions require "being committed to being who we really are; learning about what we don¹t know we don¹t know;" and being trained in expensive seminars. True leaders, regardless of their station in life, understand the meaning of sacrifice, obligation, duty, and community. The Landmark brand of inner transformation lacks the integrity, conviction, and deep understanding demonstrated by the leaders whose quotes are used sparingly by Forum leaders.
Werner Erhard concocted a unique blend of Scientology (a quasi- religious human potential group) and Zen Buddhism to create Erhard Seminar Training (EST) which first opened its doors in San Francisco during the early 1970s. According to Erhard, the purpose of Est is "to transform your ability to experience living so that the situation you have been putting up with or trying to change clears up just in the process of life itself." Testa states that "The Forum attempts to deconstruct personal attachments in a non-abusive manner by focusing your attention inward: the basis is being kept in a [Forum center] for fourteen hour days with little sleep, listening to the same thing over and over. Most of it consists of having people look at their childhood, and finding the events that caused them to make decisions about other people, especially their parents. This usually results in a closer relationship with the parents." So far, so good. Testa is accurate on every account, and if you ask a Forum graduate if they are closer to their parents or a loved one, they will almost always answer in the affirmative.
Robert Farr precisely articulates my sentiments as I sat through one of the "sharing" sessions at the Introduction to the Forum: "the most determined brown nosing of the day occurred during a process called sharing.
Willing trainees were asked to relate any experience relevant to the Est training, though most of the sharing involved nothing more than braggadaccio [actually, more tearful melodramatics in our session]. Talkative trainees giggled trite tales of colloquial stupidity as they told of the niggling activities of their lives. All tales were met wit the same exuberant applause, as the trainers urged us to acknowledge¹ the courage of fellow trainees." A guest sitting next to me commented that the whole affair resembled a talk-show. Indeed it did; I waited anxiously for Oprah to make a cameo appearance. Of course, according to Forum grads, there have been legendary moments during sharing like the instances when a woman spoke about being raped as a child and when a man confessed to having committed a murder. After the Forum experience, he realized his personal responsibility and handed himself over to the authorities. My acquaintance assured me that I would be impressed, however in the two sharing sessions that I attended, I found myself annoyed with the melodramatics and bored with the often trifling "shares" of zealous participants. I was unnerved by the weird conformity demonstrated by a crowd willing to rigorously applaud at the Forum leader¹s not-so-funny remarks, almost as if there was a lighted applause sign visible only to Forum trainees. Similarly, I found Forum grads to be quite aggressive and they often applauded inappropriately during highly personal shares.
After the shares and a speech by the Forum leader, the leader invited Forum graduates to take fifteen minutes for a personal explanation (sales-pitch!!!) to share why they wanted their guests to do the Forum. After the first introductory session, I already knew what to expect so I walked around the room eaves-dropping on various conversations. There were enough parrots in that room to fill the aviaries of at least three major zoos. The standard invitation usually went something like this: "I love you, I care so much about you, I want contribute to your life and I see so many possibilities/potential for you, etc. etc."
Testa states that "anal-retentive non-stop participation in seminars and advanced courses is sold hard," as clearly evidenced by the parroting and recruitment efforts. Rather than advertise, the Forum relies on graduates to recruit customers for its 3 1/2 day seminars. Erhard is a smart man. Every standard marketing textbook states that word-of-mouth is the most effective promotion tool, especially for a group such as the Forum. The Forum would not want to attract too much attention, otherwise it might be subject to much closer scrutiny.
Graduates honestly believe that they are "contributing to your life" when they harass you until you agree to come to the final 1/2 night called Introduction to the Forum or more aptly - sales night. Guests are subject to an intense sales pitch and graduates are encouraged to sign up for Advanced Seminars. Testa notes that "everything is ordered in excruciating detail, down to the separation between rows of chairs at seminars." Same story today! One Forum acquaintance informed me about her profound experience setting up a Forum seminar room; she stated that "we did everything with such precision: we set out each and every Landmark Education pen with the point facing forward, every pen equidistant from the other. We worked within deadlines to set up the room and everyone understood what needed to be done. You would not believe the commitment and intentiality." I think her comment set a new world record for anal-retention. Maybe not: there were 150,000 new Forum graduates last year alone.
Moreover, I have learned through personal experience that Forum graduates in advanced seminars are discouraged from engaging in alcohol consumption and speeding. Remarkable - Landmark Enterprises accomplishes without government coercion what both Prohibition and thousands of state troopers have failed to do.
There is however an unquestionable element of security within the Landmark Enterprises center. When you arrive as a guest at the center, a cheerful volunteer attaches a color-coded nametag to your lapel. Beware that if your sticker falls off, you will not be able to walk ten feet without being accosted by one of the omnipresent volunteer/staff members who wants to know who you are, who invited you, etc. Clearly, these people have an interest extending well beyond a friendly greeting.
Dr. Sheridan Fenwick, author of Getting It: The Psychology of Est (1976) and a staunch critic of EST/Landmark, asserts that Erhard¹s management circulated 15 page security memos and hired private detectives to interview people suspected of speaking to reporters.
In spite of such criticism, Landmark Enterprises has proven to be an excellent investment for its stakeholders. Landmark Enterprises boasted sales revenues of over thirty million dollars during the past seven years. Unfortunately for Werner Erhard, negative publicity from media attacks, including an unflattering segment on 60 Minutes, forced him to sell his shares in the company to 43 Forum leaders. Erhard believed that Landmark¹s viability was hindered by its association with him. The LA Times reported that a concerted effort by Scientologists to discredit Erhard was the prime catalyst for Erhard¹s early retirement in 1991. Apparently, successors of Ron Hubbard in the Scientology cult held a grudge against Erhard for allegedly stealing their ideas and designing a more effective and profitable program of his own. Landmark Enterprises has forty-three owners/stakeholders, a paid staff of roughly two hundred, and over one thousand volunteers who commit themselves to contributing to the lives of the less enlightened. Although corporate literature states that Landmark is an employee owned company with no shareholder owning more than 2 percent of company stock, this statement is somewhat deceptive. I personally interviewed a Forum leader and inquired about the ownership of the corporation. He stated that as a Forum Leader, he was among the forty-three stakeholders in the corporation. He also stated that Landmark staff are not shareholders in the company. I doubt that I have misunderstood his remarks.
Volunteers keep costs down and the stakeholders¹ profits up, yet this logic never enters the mindset of zealous volunteer graduates. As part of the Introduction to the Forum experience, groups of about twenty-five guests were sequestered into rooms with about five Forum volunteers who desired to answer all of our questions. I will call our orientation leader John. I asked John, a financial analyst by profession, how he felt about volunteering his time to a profit-oriented corporation. His response was quite revealing. John stated: "I am only interested in my commitment to contributing to other¹s lives. I have no idea why Landmark is organized as a profit making corporation instead of as non- profit institution.
Perhaps the Forum can reach more people without the legal constraints of non-profit status. I am sure the stakeholders know best how to achieve the objectives of the Forum." I am sure that Mr. Erhard agrees as he sips fine wine on the deck of his luxury yacht in Costa Rica. The Forum certainly served his interests. Although the Forum challenges individuals to expunge their righteous assumptions, apparently this invitation does not extend to challenging the authority of Landmark Forum leadership, even for financial analysts who ought to know better. I asked John "please provide the names of organizations that Landmark served on a non-paid consulting basis." The volunteer fumbled for names for about forty-five seconds, then finally admitted that he had no idea. The guests in my orientation asked serious questions and found the Forum volunteer to be polite, but uninformative.
Apparently, John, accustomed to a crowd who could be manipulated into engaging in the personal/emotional talkshow format, found himself at a loss when faced with a serious and skeptical crowd. Needless to say, the enrollment rate for my group was quite low. John is probably indicative of the mindset of many satisfied Forum customers. They come to introductory sessions, are swept up in the manipulative group dynamics of intense emotions, and enroll as they follow others who are also enamored by the emotions and process. Landmark Enterprises charges $290.00 for the Forum introductory course. If you do not like it after the first day, you may leave and lose a fifty dollar deposit. If you stay, official policy is that you pay the full price and there is little mention of refunds. Of course, unless you stay the whole four days, Forum leaders assure you that you cannot possibly achieve the true benefit of the Forum.
In our orientation, another guest asked why Landmark Forum will not refund dissatisfied customers since Landmark repeatedly guarantees that customers will have a life transforming experience. Again, our volunteer hedged. He stated that he strongly believed that Landmark would gladly refund dissatisfied customers. This is just one of the many inconsistencies that I encountered in dealing with Forum staff/volunteers.
According to Landmark¹s own market research, most customers come out satisfied with the experience. In support of their research, I observed the gleeful cheers and whistles of Forum participants responding to the Forum Leader¹s joke: "Is $290 dollar too much for a life transforming experience." Apparently, the primarily white-middle class crowd felt good about their investment.
Marc Galanter offers a psychiatric perspective on how groups such as Landmark Forum exercise control over their members minds within the generic model of a cohesive, intensely ideological charismatic organization. The following passage represents a collection of excerpts directly quoted from Galanter¹s article with my examples in parenthesis.
"The model of the charismatic group can be used generically to describe modern cults and zealous self-movements. Such a group is characterized by
It is "charismatic" because of the commitment of members to a fervently espoused transcendent goal; indeed, this goal is frequently articulated by a charismatic leader or ascribed to the progenitor of the group.
One of these forces, group cohesiveness, is defined as the product of all the forces that act on members to keep them engaged in a group. When cohesiveness is strong, participants work to sustain the commitment [a Forum buzz word] of their fellow members, to protect them from threat, and to ensure the safety of shared resources [such as the creepy security arrangements within the Landmark center and legal maneuvers to stymy serious criticism]. This can lead to the members; psychotherapeutic benefit [the intense awesomeness felt by Forum graduates]. Shared belief, [such as Erhard;s unorthodox Est system] is the second force.
Altered consciousness is another force operating in the charismatic group. It is frequently described by modern cult members and is typically elicited by intense group experience [such as through the emotionally intense seminar training].
In the charismatic group, the forces of group cohesiveness, shared belief, and altered consciousness operate to compel behavioral conformity and modulate affect without overt coercion. There is no physical coercion in charismatic groups. Instead the psychological forces described above allow members to attribute new meaning and values to their experiences by means of social reinforcement of compliance."
"How does this reinforcement take place? Findings on the role of these forces suggest the operation of a "relief effect" in the psychiatric impact of charismatic groups. That is to say, both recruits and long- term members experience a relief from emotional distress when they feel more closely affiliated with the group; a decline in affiliate feelings, on the other hand can result in greater distress. Such an effect, sociobiologically grounded and mediated by the social context [and the Forum is a highly manipulated social context] can serve as an operant reinforcer for regulating behavior.
Members who act in accordance with group;s expectations [i.e. Forum conformity] are reinforced by enhanced well-being. When they reject the group;s behavioral norms they experience the negative reinforcement of increased distress [try challenging the underlying ideology of Forum graduates and see if you don;t create distress]. This also serves to enhance the likelihood of members; maintaining affiliation with the group and compliance with its expectations for behavior."
To defend itself against claims that Forum graduates spend excessive amounts of time associated with Landmark Enterprises, the standard party-line response is that Forum graduates spend only a small amount of time participating in Landmark activities with the remainder spent engaging in highly productive lives. Expounding on Galanter;s analytical framework, I contend that Landmark recruits and long-term members receive a psychic benefit from affiliation with Landmark that extends far beyond the manipulated social context in the mortar and concrete block Landmark building on Broad Street.
Having consciously or unconsciously accepted Erhard;s ideology, fervent Forum graduates lead their lives as perpetual Forum participants: they construct their decisions, judgements, commitments, activities, language, and values from entrenched ideology. An individual who actively advocates and lives his/her life based on deeply ingrained indoctrination demonstrates the strongest possible type of affiliation with a group.
In comparison, the general public has been exposed to religious dogma and anti-communist propaganda and is continually being subjected to new forms of indoctrination. Forum graduates testify to feeling more motivated, in control, and assertive about making their work and home more satisfying and productive for people surrounding them. Interviews with family, friends, and coworkers essential supports their testimony. As practical concern, the question arises as to whether Erhard;s ideology is any better or worse relative to any other form of indoctrination. Erhard may well have developed a better ideology for eager consumers. Forum leaders promise inner-transformation: they claim that their method helps each individual find his personal source of inspiration, just like the great people who are often quoted during Forum seminars.
There is, however, a stark contrast between the methods employed by the Forum and the lives of great leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Ghandi. These great leaders pursued a course of action without the benefit of human potential seminars. Instead, they faced ostracism, imprisonment, racism, and death. They responded with sacrifice, hunger strikes, and purification rituals during their courageous moral struggles.
These leaders eschewed stereotypical Landmark sloganistic comments about "not trying to make you wrong" and innocuous metaphysical hogwash about "being committed to being committed; or engaging in activities by being who we fundamentally are." Landmark ideology specifically discourages actions based on obligation, duty, sacrifice, or guilt. Landmark;s ideology represents a grotesque mockery of the character of all true leaders and insults all people who have made great personal sacrifices for the common good or for others.
Forum leaders perpetuate a preposterous claim that a seminar series captures the depth, wisdom, and leadership of great individuals who lived most of their adult lives dedicated to uplifting their communities. Did the black residents of Birmingham, Alabama worry about making the police wrong; as they peacefully marched to show the moral supremacy of equality, liberty, and justice? Were these black civil rights marchers "committed to being committed," or were they making a sacrifice for their children by peacefully standing up in the face of vicious dogs and the blows of police nightsticks?
Would Ghandi;s campaign of civil disobedience have been more effective with the benefit of Forum advanced seminar training which told him not to speed on the colonial highways or drink alcohal? Trying not to "make someone wrong" is easy in a conflict free world. When one must make a choice about what is right, Erhard;s system falls flat on its face. When one does not have money, education, or access to institutions, does the Forum creed of personal responsibility for one;s situation represent reality? No, it does not and this is why the Forum appeals to individuals born into the middle class. Landmark provides easy answers and makes people feel good - no guilt, pain, fear, or obligations - just pay a fantastic introductory price of 290 dollars. [Editor's note: $325]