Developing Flair

Gurdjieff often remarked that suggestibility is one of man's most devastating flaws. Many people, salesmen and ad execs for example, have learned quite by accident how to manipulate people in some small way by taking advantage of this flaw. While we may have some 'moral idea' that this is wrong, it does not change the reality of this facet of life. What I wish to examine is the responsibility of teachers, healers, therapists, and leaders in regard to this flaw and how students can protect themselves by developing flair. Becoming free from suggestibility is one of the characteristics of a developed man.

There is always a 'power differential' between a teacher and a student (or therapist and client, priest and confessor, etc.), and the latter's suggestibility is amplified by this differential. Taking advantage of this is morally wrong, according to legal measures of society's standards (and in an objective sense), and we must ask ourselves what is the responsibility of a teacher. Objectively, conscience will guide us. This is a far better guide than the somewhat arbitrary judgments of society.

It is stated in Tales (p235) that it is possible to have a high level of development and not have contact with conscience. This constitutes a dangerous situation in regard to our topic, for lack of connection to conscience allows for a mechanical abuse of suggestibility, such as mentioned above. This is not at all unknown and is usually described as a 'cult,' although there is no sharply defined notion of what a cult is, beyond physical violence. Psychic violence is a greater concern but is not acknowledged by ordinary lines of thought or society's legal morality. Cults are generally thought of as a group of people, and a one-on-one situation is not even considered.

So we must take the examples left to us in the Work—primarily the examples of teaching styles of G and Ouspensky. G is well known to have had a special power over people, particularly his students. However, if we look closely, we will see that he never influenced people in regard to their spiritual search. In other words, G allowed people to leave (and many did, including O) and did not penalize them for doing so. He used his influence only when students asked him directly for it, and he never gave more direction than was necessary. In this way, G was never psychically violent, even when delivering a strong 'shock.'

O, on the other hand, was well known to manipulate crowds. On one occasion he is said to have given a general order for his students never to have any contact with G (which he renounced at the end of his life, ironically). This is clearly an invasion on the part of the teacher. The teacher should never give ultimatums to a student, nor direct his personal life, nor penalize him for his actions. The student is mechanical, and therefore it is objectively wrong to punish him for being mechanical (G outlines this in Search, p14).

So we, as students of the Work, must evaluate as objectively as possible the actions of our teacher to discern this abuse of suggestibility (or what I would call 'psychic violence'). As we are, being objective to ourselves is difficult at best, but we can be fairly objective when looking at others if we can avoid becoming sentimental. Therefore it will be useful if we can look at the experiences of others who have come before us without mixing in our opinion of them. It is the very people who give the most resistance that show the teacher's true spirit and strip away the façade (these people are also the ones we are most likely to have opinions about).

An additional difficulty is the general acceptance of this type of behavior in ordinary life, since most hierarchical models are built on it. The blind faith of most followers of religion is a primary example. People believe what they are told and do not make the effort to verify things for themselves or confront the teacher (when most teachers are confronted, they punish the student). In this way the student is asking (really demanding) to be taken advantage of! This is the basis for the 'victim mentality' that defines our culture. Of course this is not limited to religion; our belief in science, in government, in popular personalities, and in the latest fad are all exactly the same.

This brings us to 'flair,' described in Views (p57) as a part of G's earliest teachings. Can one develop flair, or is it 'something we are born with'? Flair may be developed accidentally, but this does not mean that it cannot be developed through conscious effort (and intentional suffering). Making the efforts described above will develop flair; blindly following will lead to atrophy (and self-calming).

Remember what is said on page 4 of Meetings; we must preserve both the wolf and the sheep "to deserve the name of man." Therefore we must constantly develop both of these characteristics in our psyche, both by submitting will to our teacher and by impartially judging him (by verification) as well. In this way we can become sure of our direction and know we are not being led astray.

KSR 12/26/00