Brainwashing and Behavior Modification: Saving Troubled Teens
Brainwashing and Behavior Modification: Saving Troubled Teens
A Troubled Teen Center Gained Legitimacy
The Fruit Bearing Seed
The Seed’s program had a large number of supporters and detractors resulting in controversies over its specific treatments. The controversies were about Art Barker, the rap sessions, the use of foster homes, and the decision to staff Seed with former Seedlings.
In 1973, John C Cull, a psychologist, and Richard E Hardy, a psychologist and sociologist, published a book on Drug use and rehabilitation with a publisher dedicated to medical and scientific texts. Both published several books and though Cull was the most successful of the two, the point is that they were both respected academics who published in respected venues. They argued that The Seed provided young people with a “sense of belonging,” the tools to find “purpose” and more importantly dedication “toward helping themselves and helping others to help themselves” (Hardy & Cull, 1973). They concluded that the program was “viable and dynamic” based on their observations and “the testimony of parents, doctors, friends, teachers, prison officials, members of school boards, and others” (Hardy & Cull, 1974).
On the Seed’s 25th anniversary, they published testimonials, one said “The Seed has given me a meaning, a purpose to my life, and the chance to kiss and tell my wife and daughter I love them each day” (Seed). The Seed was legitimate and its program appeared to help troubled teens.
Claude Greene, a parent whose child completed the Seed program, said that despite the controversies, the Seed “changed my kid into somebody we can love. And who loves us, of course” (Randolph, 1974).
The socio-cultural climate at the time made interventions like those proposed by the Seed attractive to academics. These interventions thus appeared to be not only plausible but also desirable. Among those who supported The Seed, were “respectable members of the medical profession, the judiciary, youth service programs, and a particularly vast number of parents who proclaim profound positive changes in their children’s behavior” (HPC, 1972). More than thirty parents wrote statements supporting The Seed when the Health Planning Council studied the question of whether to welcome the Seed in Dade County (HPC, 1972).
There are a few key practices that need to be explored in depth: Art Barker and his reputation, the rap sessions, the use of foster homes, the question of staffing.
The Man Behind the Seed
Art Barker started the Seed, and as the Director of the program, he deeply affected its trajectory. According to a former Seedling, Barker rarely attended rap sessions; however, whenever he was present, there would be “ecstatic shots of “Love ya, Art!!” (Polonsky, 2005). Barker was an air force veteran and a former alcoholic. He received several awards for his work at The Seed. In 1971, he was honored with a Man of the Year award for his “contributions in the field of drug abuse,” by Florida’s Education Association and received a community service award from Broward County. The following year, Fort Lauderdale University recognized Barker with an honorary doctorate in Social Science. In 1973, he received a Service to Mankind Award by Northeast Sertona Club of St Petersburg (FMNP, 1974). Nevertheless, Barker’s abrasive personality also caused several problems. Barker often refused to collaborate with governmental requests, and he was adamant about not working with other treatment centers. Still, he was recognized with several awards by distinct institutions for his work on the Seed. Thus, demonstrating that the program was seen as legitimate and efficacious.
The Question About the RAP Sessions
The rap sessions were the main mechanism by which the Seed claimed to transform troubled teens into healthy citizens and thus prevent drug addiction, crime, and death. The Seed’s rap sessions were like other contemporary interventions which had been developed for decades and were seen as powerful tools in the transformation of people’s personalities. The 1972 Grand Jury report stated that while critics claim these sessions amount to brainwashing, these sessions are a “quest for love and respect” which “are the same goals that society has always set for its members, often with far less success than at The Seed.” The reverse use of peer pressure was said to help “each other kick the habit instead of starting it” (Circuit Court). Many specialists praised this prominent feature of the program. A psychologist described this expression of concern and love as having a “reinforcing effect” which was “quite awesome” (Hardy & Cull, 1974). Others positively described this approach as Guided Group Therapy but with bigger numbers.
While many were enthusiastic about this approach, there were some critics who argued that this process aimed to destroy the individual, and delegate authority to a group and thus undermine the individual’s ability to cope with life without the group. The modification of guided group therapy to a larger setting constitutes the development of a new technology to cure drug use and attitudinal problems. This aspect allegedly could rectify wayward teens and prevent others from becoming troubled.
There were strong criticisms of these sessions too. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Don Lund wrote a scathing letter to the Health Planning Council. Their son had been attending the Seed. They criticized the “conditions” judges are “putting young people in” and questions whether they were aware of them. The allegedly “carefully guided” rap sessions are said to comprise “intense ridicule on a practically constant basis, 8 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week” (1973). On February 15th 1973, an officer found Jon “laying in Palmetto Expressway with both wrists cut,” and took him to hospital. The Lund’s were not notified until Jon recovered because per Seed’s guidelines he had no identification. They claim the Seed blamed them for not sufficiently supporting Jon being in the program. The Lund’s claimed that the “Seed is only transferring a person’s dependency on a drug to a dependency on the Seed” (Lund, 1973).
The isolation of new Seedlings was one of the factors that was believed to make attitudinal change possible. The use of foster homes was one of the most contentious issues. These houses allowed the Seed to isolate individuals from their families, friends, and community. Newcomers were further prohibited from contacting anyone from their former lives during this time. Both features were identified as key for effective brainwashing by Schein. Moreover, the use of similar approaches was gaining popularity across both state and private institutions. Henry Lennard and Steven Allen, who advised Phoenix House (another treatment center) argued that a druggie’s addictive social systems needed to be disrupted (Kaye, 2019). Thus, like Seed, they sought to isolate individuals from the social systems that had allegedly caused the problem.
The use of foster homes became a larger problem because the Seed claimed to be a non-residential program as it circumvented this by using foster homes. A Governmental subcommittee in 1974 drew recommendations to ensure that these foster homes complied with fire and safety regulations (Askew, 1974). Others criticized the practice regardless of its alleged efficacy; for example, Richard Killinger, formerly the Chairman of the Division of Drug Abuse Programs and current member of Fort Lauderdale Psychiatric Group, lambasted the use of these homes as “false imprisonment” (Kilinger, 1973). While there were discussions about the use of foster homes and the conditions of these homes, most of this did not condemn isolating troubled teens, but rather under which conditions they had been isolated.
Another feature which was seen both as a strength and as a source of controversy was the use of former addicts to staff the Seed. Hardy and Cull praised the use of former druggies because they could “smell” lies that others would “accept as fact!” (Hardy & Cull, 1974). The 1972 Grand Jury found that the Seed’s staffing does not “detract from the program” (Circuit Court). The Seed produced remarkable results by involving families and the use of intelligence networks which would report on Seedlings. Hardy and Cull were even more impressed by the Seed’s successes which had reached courts, jails, schools, ghettos. They praised the program and thought peer pressure was the “most effective factor” being used (Hardy & Cull, 1974). Another nineteen programs in Florida used some kind of peer-pressure to rehabilitate alleged drug addicts (SDAP, 1972). They describe the group sessions within the context of Guided Group Interaction and Transactional Analysis (Hardy & Cull, 1974). These descriptions make it clear that similar strategies had been used and that professionals as well as state officials believed they could help troubled teenagers.
An evaluation by the Drug State Program in October 1972 lauded the use of these techniques were described as being some of the “outstanding strengths” of the program which were used to “instill awareness of personal responsibility,” and reorient the individual (SDAP, 1972). The use of peers was thought to help transform troubled teens. One consequence of this was that as newcomers became Oldtimers they perpetuated the abuse they had experienced. The Seed sought to transform people into healthy citizens and to eventually transform the world. Polonsky, reflected that he “eventually betrayed everything that was sacred to me at that time in my life.”
Tomorrow The World
The Seed’s popularity in Fort Lauderdale gave them the opportunity to open campuses in other parts of Florida. There were efforts to open Seed sites in Dade County and in St Petersburg where they clashed with the ACLU and only operated for a short while. Barker hoped to open Seed outposts throughout the country and expand internationally within ten years (Randolph, 1974). On May 7th 1973, Raymond R. Killinger wrote a letter to the Governor Askew where he said that he signed the Seed’s first license “under protest” (1973). Echoing these concerns Jeffrey Elenewski, former regional chairman, Broward County for the Division of Health and Rehabilitation Drug Abuse Programs, received “notification to license” the Seed hours before the meeting whether the decision to issue this license was supposed to be made (Elenewski, 1973). By 1973 Killinger was no longer a governmental official and he described the Seed as a “time bomb ticking away and when it blows, as I certainly feel it must, I wish to be aligned with those who feel that the program does not meet the state guidelines in either the letter or spirit of the law.” He added, as a citizen rather than state official, “I am object in the strongest terms to the gestapo training tactics of the Seed. It is the same old story of the end justifying the means”(Kilinger, 1973). Barker publicly called Killinger, a “liar and a fool” (Askew, 1974). Despite the controversies and criticisms of the Seed, it continued to operate. On April 10th, 1974 Askew’s office issued a news release which claimed the “Seed is a viable drug treatment program,” according to a study conducted by a committee chaired by Judge Herboth S. Ryder. The1974 congressional report, the controversies about foster homes, and Barker’s aversive personalities limited the Seed’s growth. Nevertheless, this institution engendered a series of offshoots including Straight Inc.
We are interested in speaking to other Seedlings. If you were at the Seed and are willing to have a conversation about your experiences please email us at: curingcrime@icloud.com
Acknowledgements: Christian wrote his masters project on The Seed for his ALM degree at Harvard Extension. This work draws heavily from that project.
