| |
An Afterword:
Before anyone bothers to send me hate mail on this, I know that the
contest was set up by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was a colorful old time science
fiction writer. Robert Heinlein counted him as a good friend through his
whole life. Hubbard was highly prolific but still broke most of the time.
Then he made
it big with a book called DIANETICS. Dianetics was the first of the really
popular self-help books, and the techniques described in it weren't a lot
different from some of the unorthodox branches of psychoanalysis, while
the psychological theories presented were a rather interesting synthesis
of Alfred Count Korzykski's Science
and Sanity, an early book on general semantics, and Jung's
psychoanalytical theory of a collective unconscious. In place of Freud's
id, ego, and superego, Hubbard postulated a reptilian "reactive
mind" in addition to the rational conscious mind; like Freud, he
postulated that hidden memories were responsible for many mental health
problems.
"General
Semantics" was a theory of the relation of language to reality (and
thus a branch of epistemology) and had -- still has -- some highly
respectable adherents, including Wendell Johnson of the University of
Iowa, and Dr. S. I. Hayakawa who was later President of San Francisco
State and after that a US Senator. Despite its rough treatment by Martin
Gardiner in his Fads and Fallacies in the Name Of Science, General
Semantics was taught in universities, and while it had its woo-woo
adherents, it had some academic heavyweights behind it as well; and like
Freudian analysis, it's still around although not so popular as it once
was.
General Semantics was a bit of a fad among science fiction writers in the
40's (Null-A by van Vogt was one major series, but there were plenty of
others). Jung was of course perfectly respectable in those days, and is
still held in some reverence by those who cling to the psychoanalytic
tradition. Freudian theory and psychoanalysis changed the world. (Not in my judgment
for the better, but it was certainly "respectable").
Dianetics is easily shown to be a synthesis of Jung and Korzybski. A
rather good synthesis, in my judgment, remarkably good for someone of
Hubbard's limited academic education -- but then many of the old line
science fiction writers were self taught. Heinlein with his engineering
degree from the US Naval Academy was one of the better educated early SF
writers. Fred Pohl, for example, never went to college and was a weather
chart draftsman for the Army Air Force in WW II. (Now the field is lousy
with Ph.D. types, like Greg Benford, David Brin, Charlie Sheffield, Yoji
Kondo, Robert Forward, etc. Even Niven has an honorary Ph.D.) In any
event, Dianetics was readable, and presented a synthesis of fairly
respectable psychological theories. It was written in a breathless style,
and it's now pretty clear that Hubbard couldn't possibly have collected
the patient record data he claimed -- but then it is now known that Freud
made up most of his case histories, too.
Like many theories and techniques of psychological self-help, Hubbard's
Dianetics "worked" in the sense that you could easily see
improvements in those who stuck the course. Of course you could also see
improvements in patients who stuck the course in almost any non-insane
system of therapy, from Freud's authoritarian and structured analysis with
the god-like therapist, to Rogerian non-directed therapy, to Glasser's
Reality Therapy, to Reich's psycho-drama if not his later "orgone
energy" therapy. Dianetic auditing worked better than many of the
more orthodox shrink programs, and its practitioners didn't need expensive
college degrees and years of psychoanalytic therapy before they could
practice it. It became quite popular, and that was its undoing.
The American medical
establishment came down hard on Hubbard. Lawsuits drained his profits, and
a host of detractors made destroying him a campaign objective; if Wilhelm
Reich or Karen Horney had been subjected to such a campaign they'd have
gone under, as indeed would almost anyone else. (Recall that Ignatz
Semmelweiss, the Austro-Hungarian physician who discovered that childbed
fever was caused by physicians and midwives not washing their hands
between patients and thus spreading salmonella was locked in a madhouse by
his colleagues).
Hubbard reacted by founding a church on the theory that the First Amendment
would protect him. At this point I lose track, because I haven't followed
the vicissitudes of the story, and I have no real knowledge of what
Scientologists believe or purport to believe. I have heard stories of a
rather fanciful pre-history of the human race, but how much of that
practitioners believe, and how much is a smoke screen I do not know: like
the Druze religion, apparently only the adepts know the actual arcana at
the heart of the belief system. If that sounds a bit like gnosticism, I
expect the similarity is intended.
The part I do know is Dianetics. I've read that book, and it doesn't
seem reasonable to me for the same reason that I find Freud's theories
untenable: no one has ever been able to find anything like the brain
structures postulated by Freud, Jung, or for that matter Hubbard. That
hasn't put all the Freudians out of business, although unlike Scientology,
the numbers of Freudian true believers seem to be dwindling; but it does
make psychoanalytical theories, to which Dianetics is closely related,
rather suspect in this era of new understanding of real brain
structures.
There are many stories about Scientology, some rather frightening, but
they don't all have equal credibility. Some are amusing, such as the story
of the ship with the dirty rag tied around its stack to indicate that it
was somehow in disfavor with Hubbard. I once asked Algis Budrys, who was
one of the founders of the Writers of the Future and whose integrity,
credibility and good sense have never been questioned by anyone I know,
about the truth of those stories. His reply: "I don't know either,
but I do know that all that happened a long time ago." Which is
self-evidently true. Hubbard has been dead, or discorporated, or ascended,
for some time now. In any event I haven't observed anyone being
mistreated, and all the adherents to Scientology I have met seem contented
to be there; and as my wife observes, they're sure better off reading
books and drinking coffee in a safe environment than out on the very
dangerous streets not fifty yards away.
I have
friends who are fanatic Scientology haters, and I have friends who are, I
think, members in good standing of the Church of Scientology (and in the
case of one of them, also a member in good standing of his Reform Jewish
Temple, so apparently there's no conflict there). I have good friends who
hate the Mormon Church, and other friends including Orson Scott Card who
are members in good standing of it (as is one of the current presiding
judges of the Writers of the Future contest).
I don't insist that my
friends like each other.
I also don't have to have an opinion about the Church of Scientology,
because it doesn't operate the Writers of the Future, and has no influence
over who wins it. That much I can guarantee. The contest isn't rigged.
Algis Budrys wouldn't have anything to do with it if there were the
slightest chance of that. Nor would I.
Hubbard founded and left money for the Writers and Artists of the
Future contests, and those are at least as legitimate as most of the other foundations people leave as their memorials. I find the company
congenial, my fellow judges are all both friends and people I respect, it
helps new writers, and
I know the contest is conducted fairly. And I have a lot of fun at the
awards, which are pretty much open to the public. I think you need a
ticket but they're free.
|
