Sex and Re-Evaluation Counseling (RC)
(With particular reference to 'Counseling on Early Sexual Memories'
& 'A Rational Theory of Sexuality')
The aim of this article is to outline some of the basic ideas that
RC has to offer on sexuality and some of the dangers that blind
acceptance of these ideas can lead to. In addition it also highlights
some of the cult-like aspects of RC, concerning the sexual behaviour
of the founder ‘Harvey Jackins’. The RC booklets ‘Counselling
on Early Sexual Memories’ and ‘A Rational Theory of
Sexuality’ were written by ‘Harvey Jackins’ are
the prime source of the information discussed here. Information
has also been taken from the ‘Belgium Study Group on Psychotherapy
Cults’ that carried out an extensive study of ‘RC’
and the behaviour of Harvey Jackins. The conclusions of the Belgium
Study group were that the organisation was a successful Psychotherapy
Cult. ‘Successful’ because it has survived for many
years, under the leadership of Jackins (now deceased), despite well-publicized
allegations about his abusive behaviour to other members. Harvey
Jackins is no longer in charge of RC, his son ‘Timothy Jackins’
is currently in charge of the organisation. However, the policies
and teachings that enabled Harvey Jackins to sidestep well aimed
criticisms of both his conduct and RC teachings are still in place.
As critics of RC and its leaders are still silenced in the same
manner as when H. Jackins was in charge a reminder from the Belgium
Study Group is still apt.
Authoritarian systems of many kinds try to silence and
discredit their critics and whistleblowers in any way they can.
Abusive psychotherapy cults usually make insinuations against
the mental health and stability of anyone who challenges them. [Belgium Study Group on Psychotherapy Cults: iv]
The Fundamental Theorem of Sexuality
RC calls itself a form of counselling whereby two or more people
take it in turns to act as client and counsellor. However, it is
much more than counselling. RC asks its members to re-live traumatic
experiences, and express the emotions experienced. This will often
involve shaking, crying, shouting, and hitting pillows. This process
is called ‘discharge’ in RC literature. The aim of this
practice is to free the client from the effects of those emotional
experiences and to be fully rational beings. According to RC, if
we feel a need for something, or a strong desire for something,
then this is an indication that it has come from our emotional side
and is not to be acted on. This is because RC views strong emotions
as a result of distress. Thus Jackins writes concerning sexual desires:
Unless you calmly and deliberately decide to feel sexual
because it is the optimum rational behaviour in a particular situation,
and you decide to do it before you feel sexual, any sexual feelings
mean you are the victim of restimulation. [A Rational Theory of Sexuality:12]
The main message given by Jackin’s is that all our sexual
feelings are under our control and we can decide whether or not
to have them. Sexual feelings that arise without our consent are
the result of restimulation from the past and are not to be acted
on. Hence RC encourages its members to think of most of our sexual
desire (all sexual desire that is not chosen) as based on distress.
It does not offer any scientific research or evidence to back these
claims up, but it is expected that members takes these principles
on board as an act of trust in the organisation. There is no evidence
to support the claim that a strong desire to form sexual relationships
is based on early childhood distress i.e. sexual abuse. In fact
all the evidence of evolutionary psychology suggests that the opposite
is true. Given the importance of reproduction to the species (any
species) it is highly unlikely that sexual motivation or sexual
arousal would be left to arbitrary choice. This leaves one with
the suspicion that the postulates of RC are not based on solid grounds.
One notable consequence of those who blindly accept the theory,
is that those who experience unbidden sexual feelings i.e. the majority
of members, will see themselves as ‘distressed’. This
is likely to lead to confusion over whether to act on such feelings
and a healthy sexual relationship is likely to be impaired. RC members
will thus be encouraged to see themselves as having a ‘need’
for counselling, rather than feeling at ease with their sexual feelings.
Given the strong correlation between sexual satisfaction and happiness
within a relationship the advice from Jackins or RC does not look
like being conducive to the well-being of its counselling members.
The claims of Jackins get even more bizarre and extreme when he
goes on to say that the basic cause of our sexual feelings, that
arise without our consent i.e. without rational deliberation, are
hidden deep in the memories of our unconscious minds. They stem
from sexual abuse and almost every woman and most men have suffered
from such abuse. Hence he writes:
…[T]hat almost every woman, that almost every woman
in our society, has been sexually abused as a small child, and
that a very large proportion of all men have been abused sexually
as small children. [A Rational Theory of Sexuality p.14]
Although there are many people in RC who when joining have no memory
of being sexually abused, according to RC this does not count as
evidence that they were not abused. This is because according to
RC ‘These are bad incidents that we have no aware
memory of.’ [A Rational Theory of Sexuality p.16]
As a consequence of the basic RC theory its counsellors are expected
to uncover sexual abuse even where the client does not have any
recollection of abuse. Where counsellors expect to uncover areas
of abuse there is a well-known danger that this expectation can
influence the clients own memories in that area. RC counsellors
not only expect to uncover abuse, but instruct their clients to
construct their own memories where the clients run out of early
distressing incidents to recall.
RC instructs the counsellor that if the client does not use their
imagination the counsellor is instructed to make up the fantasy
for them. This adds another danger – namely those who have
vivid imaginations or are open to suggestion will be more liable
to have constructed memories of sexual abuse. There are many stories
that tell of it not being uncommon for members who, prior to joining
RC, had no recollection of sexual abuse to finish workshops on incest
with early memories of incest!
The Unacceptability of RC Methods by Professional Establishments
Research studies in Psychology give us an understanding of how
false memories can arise. First, there are social demands on individuals
to remember, for instance counsellors can exert pressure on individuals
to come up with memories during sessions. Secondly, when people
are having trouble remembering, the suggestions by counsellors can
enter into the content of the memory. Finally, individuals can be
encouraged not to think about whether their memories real or not.
All of these factors are present in RC counselling sessions –
in fact the techniques are recommended to counsellors! False memories
can be constructed by combining actual memories with the content
of suggestions during the process. This leads individuals to confuse
the source of information. [E.Loftus 1997]. Such practices are (for
good reason) deemed unacceptable by current medical and psychological
opinion:
Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any 'memory
recovery techniques' which are based upon the expectation of past
sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. [Royal College of Psychiatrists, Reported Recovered Memories
of Child Sexual Abuse, 1997. (UK)]
The AMA considers recovered memories of childhood sexual
abuse to be of uncertain authenticity, which should be subject
to external verification.
[American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs,
Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse, 1994.]
RC’s basic postulate that almost everyone has been abused
as a child, even if they cannot remember it is actually in contradiction
to all the evidence from the respected psychological organisations.
Whilst people who have been abused may be reluctant to talk about
it, or not want to remember the events, there is no evidence to
say that they are unable to remember whether they were abused or
not and hence no reason for recovery techniques involving regression
and imagination to take place.
…most people who were sexually abused as children
remember all or part of what happened to them although they may
not fully understand or disclose it.
[American Psychological Association, Questions and Answers about
Memories of Childhood Abuse 2003]
When counselling on early sexual memories clients still in RC should
bear in mind that early sexual memories may be vague and surrounded
by mixed emotions that may be unrelated to any current event. They
should also request the counsellors not to interject with suggestions
or constructed fantasies during this time. They should take
support from the fact that their own memories which are likely to
be partial and incomplete are likely to be more accurate than vivid,
complete memories.
An Outrageous Unethical Practice
By far the most worrying aspect of RC theory is the claim that
sex can be used as a means to induce discharge (an RC term for the
process that occurs during counselling sessions) and a way to contradict
feelings of isolation. A number of ex- RC members have reported
first hand the offer of ‘late night’ counselling sessions
with the previous leader of the organisation ‘H. Jackins’.
It was rumoured that all those at the top level of the organisation
had slept with Harvey Jackins and many more had been molested or
harassed by him during counselling sessions. Counselling in RC could
be a dangerous affair. H. Jackins was well known for his advances
on young female clients within the organisation, clearly violating
the trust that members put into the organisation. He was reported
to have told young women that they can overcome or contradict their
“father stuff” by making love with him. Those that complained
of his behaviour were advised to counsel on their experiences, or
counsel with Harvey on his behaviour, rather than take them to external
authorities. Jackins workshops were known to exhibit an odd style
of public counselling that may have been used to deflect these accusations.
Many attenders at Jackins workshops have noticed an odd style
in his public “demonstrations” of counselling. He
generally selects pretty young women to work with in front of
the group. After his client has displayed to “the greatest
counsellor in the world” the stereotypical RC discharge
with the prescribed shaking, yawning, and giggling, he directs
her to say to him: “I love you, Harvey. I want to be close
to you. I want to blank with you.” Ostensibly this direction
to the woman is intended “to contradict her pattern of isolation”
but other interpretations are possible. One observer maintains
that Jackins gives this blatantly seductive direction in public,
hoping to make people less likely to believe the “rumours”
about how close he really does get to women in private. Routinely,
after these sessions there is applause and everyone colludes –
most unknowingly – by acting as if something profound and
wonderful has happened for the hapless client.
[Belgium Study Group on Psychotherapy Cults; 5]
Voicing criticism within RC is not easy. There are practices that
RC employs which aim at isolating dissenting individuals and preventing
others from being in close contact with them where their voices
can be heard to all. There also exist methods for distracting and
re-focusing members concerns with the RC theory and practice.
Eliminating Dissent 1
RC aims to eliminate dissenting thoughts from outside the counselling
setting. It not only requires its members to refrain from criticising
other members in public, but also takes such criticism as being
based on distress. Hence the criticisms are automatically deemed
unreliable. The current (2002) guidelines explicitly state that
criticisms of leaders are not accurate but are due to distress:
Attacks on any member or leader are not attempts at correcting
mistakes but rather dramatizations of distress. These are not
acceptable behaviours within the RC community.
[Guidelines for the Re-evaluation Counselling Communities p.68]
and
Any Co-Counsellor who has an issue with a co-counselling
leader’s behaviour, shall communicate the criticism directly
to that person and seek a resolution, and not express such criticisms
to anyone else inside or outside of RC.
[Guidelines for the Re-evaluation Counselling Communities p.69]
Eliminating Dissent 2
It is standard practice for RC teachers when faced with dissent
from these ideas, which arise in a discussion context to silence
them by requesting that the dissenter ‘put those ideas to
one side for now’. If they arise during a counselling session
the more experienced RC counsellor may use the tactic of interruption
and/or distraction in order to stop the dissenting chain of thought.
Notably, there is a prevalence amongst RC members to find fault
with themselves if they persist in finding the RC postulates as
counter-intuitive or hard to believe as opposed to finding fault
with the postulates. In view of the above the latter option would
seem an altogether more ‘rational’ enterprise.
Here is an example of a counsellor interrupting and distracting
dissent taken from a counselling session I attended:
Client:
I think that the RC quote is telling us that everything
we know about ourselves is wrong, but I do not believe this –
It seems very counter-intuitive and…
Experienced Counsellor:
I know…I know…But what would it be like if
it were true…How would that feel like? I would like you
to try to experience that feeling now…
Here the tactic is to stop the dissenting thought and distract
the original worry. Counter-intuitive thoughts are accepted by focusing
on the feeling that such thoughts are true. Hence the client is
often brought into a state of confusion whereby intuitively they
have beliefs that clash with RC (I know my sexual identity), whilst
they are also brought to accept the RC beliefs (I don’t know
my sexual identity). This tactic occurs frequently in various settings.
I knew someone who was asked to take charge of the finances of the
group. They did not want to take over this role. A mini-session
was called for. They were asked to counsel on their ‘distress’
over taking the role, rather than reasons for not wanting to do
the role i.e., what would it be like if you could do take over the
role for us. The aim is to get the person to experience positive
feelings with the role in order to overcome the original desire.
This method will also be used to dissuade people from leaving RC.
Conclusion
The organisation still has the same structures in place since the
death of the leader ‘H. Jackins’ and hence still has
the same potential for causing as much harm and abuse to clients
as benefits. RC has retained the mechanisms in place for either
covering up, or limiting the amount of exposure of any unethical
behaviour of its members. Members who refuse to change their criticisms
of others behaviour or reject the groups basic postulates are likely
to find themselves being prevented from attending Co-Counselling
meetings and being seen as in ‘distress’ and without
a cogent opinion. Similarly those that express a desire to leave
will be seen as in ‘distress’ and they will be encouraged
to remain within the organisation. More experienced counselling
members will make regular telephone calls in an attempt to book
more counselling sessions as opposed to respecting the clients wishes.
In addition the grand claims of the effectiveness of the therapy
are not corroborated by independent evidence. The main source of
testimony to the effectiveness of the practice comes from the personal
testimony of H. Jackins. The organisation does not allow any public
investigation into its practices or the effectiveness of its techniques.
Hence the claims of this organisation remain uncorroborated and
unreliable.
Given the cult-like features associated with this organisation
I could not advise any individual who is seeking a form of counselling
to go to RC when there are more viable alternatives available.
Freedomofmind.com fully supports religious
freedom and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The fact that a person’s name or group appears on our website
does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult.
They appear because we have received inquiries and have established
a file on the group.
The Freedom of Mind Resource Center Inc. was established by cult expert Steve Hassan.
