Some more thoughts:
Landmark states that integrity is a mountain with no top - it can never be achieved. The best we can do is constantly restore it. For years, this made sense since all people are fallible, and it's foolish to think we've reached a place where we no longer err. I'm also seeing it now as a guilt-trip, similar to original sin in Catholicism. Like constantly having to ask God for forgiveness, we need to appeal to more coaching to restore integrity (which can never be restored).
Recently, my experience with Landmark has been in the real world and not within the grasp of its centers and programs. Particularly in online groups, I see people trying to help others with their day-to-day lives. It's here that I've seen terrible coaching from people who were leaders at some level. What I also see is people using integrity as a guilt-trip trump card.
This is one of the flaws of Landmark: it's easy to explain away someone's issue with up-to-interpretation rationalizations.
"You're out of integrity"
"You aren't being authentic"
"You're running a racket"
"You're making up a story"
"You're making this wrong so you can be right"
"This is your act running your life"
"Have you done the next course?"
Most of these responses lack specificity and rely on the interpretation of whoever's coaching. In the Facebook group, people have asked for definitions of integrity, authenticity, and act, only to get 50 different responses. The one that gets the most likes apparently wins for that day.
This lack of precision is at the heart of where I think Landmark is inherently flawed. It's almost like astrology. We're told to look back and pick 3 childhood events that created our strong suits. But there's no sound method for picking these 3. It's easy to look back and find 50 events that match "I'm not good enough". As a result, we decide what our act is and then base everything we do on it. I learned that my act is "I don't need you". From that point forward, I viewed everything I do and what happens from the lens of "I don't need you".
What if that's not actually my act? What if I made a mistake in figuring out what it is? What if my horoscope isn't actually true?
Then there's the problem with story. To some degree, it's a valid distinction - separating out what really happened in a situation from our interpretation can be very helpful. "My dad hates me." "What evidence do you have?" "He didn't take me to Disney World." "Maybe there's another explanation than he hates you?"
What I've learned from discussing this with Landmarkers is that people don't use this distinction to actually get clear about what happened and what didn't. They use it to create a different story that suits their purposes. In the above example, instead of investigating precisely why dad didn't take them to Disney Land, they change the story by supposing dad just couldn't afford the trip.
This might be the worst part of Landmark. Forget the manipulation and money-driven tactics for a moment. Consider how Landmark is set up. You take a 3 day course that completely shakes your reality and gives you a different perspective. Then you either go out into the world without any continued support, or you keep coming back to pay for more. But you didn't know going in that you might need to take more classes.
If you take an intro college course, you know there's other classes. There's no secret that if you want a degree or to be expertly trained, you need to follow a curriculum. In Landmark, it's not clearly stated that you might need to take more courses because guess what - you don't have - there is no actual curriculum. It's a hodge podge of experimental seminars and courses that are designed to do one thing: train you in becoming a better pawn. And the training can be very helpful for your non-Landmark life.
In the money seminar, I realized the possibility of playing music for money. But once you've paid for the course and are in the classroom, you start to realize that the seminar isn't about making more money. They tell you that money is merely the access into what's really bothering you. Each seminar has a topic, and the topic is the weakness that's stopping you from living powerfully. You go in with the goal of making more money, and instead you work on being more authentic with your family.
I can't say what Landmark's true intentions are. But here's what it ultimately looks like: In 3 days, you're shown how you can live a more effective life. Some valuable seeds are planted, but they are only cultivated if you stay in the Landmark conversation. The language is unique, so you'll struggle to go off on your own and discuss integrity with people who have a different definition. So, you decide to make friends with other Landmarkers and attend more classes. It's like being exposed to Catholicism and feeling alone in a world full of Jews. You naturally want to go back to the Catholic church. And that's not necessarily bad.
But it's not made clear ahead of time. And let's consider what people are getting as a result. If all of this fascinates you, I recommend checking out the Facebook group: [www.facebook.com]
Take a look at all the transformed people who've spent thousands on leadership training. Watch as they bicker back and forth, arguing over definitions, how to apply the work, and congratulating each other for reaching unmeasurable milestones or having gotten "it". Also, take note of how many are still working on the goals they originally set for themselves. There's a woman named Laura Landry who goes around talking about how she's transforming health care, 10 years after doing the Forum and many other courses. She hasn't gotten the funds she proudly bragged about creating the power to achieve. And yet she goes around acting wise, coaching other people without empathy as if she knows anything.
If she's so wise, why hasn't she gotten her funding, and why is she spending so much time in an online group talking about Landmark? It's because she's still trying to chase the carrot. She's staying in the conversation with like-minded people who provide her little more than a platform to prove why she's right and a constant opportunity to reaffirm and adjust her story for why her life isn't going the way she wants it and why everything will be OK.
At this point, it's sounding clear that I'm losing faith in Landmark. I'm just typing off the top of my head.
Landmark states that integrity is a mountain with no top - it can never be achieved. The best we can do is constantly restore it. For years, this made sense since all people are fallible, and it's foolish to think we've reached a place where we no longer err. I'm also seeing it now as a guilt-trip, similar to original sin in Catholicism. Like constantly having to ask God for forgiveness, we need to appeal to more coaching to restore integrity (which can never be restored).
Recently, my experience with Landmark has been in the real world and not within the grasp of its centers and programs. Particularly in online groups, I see people trying to help others with their day-to-day lives. It's here that I've seen terrible coaching from people who were leaders at some level. What I also see is people using integrity as a guilt-trip trump card.
This is one of the flaws of Landmark: it's easy to explain away someone's issue with up-to-interpretation rationalizations.
"You're out of integrity"
"You aren't being authentic"
"You're running a racket"
"You're making up a story"
"You're making this wrong so you can be right"
"This is your act running your life"
"Have you done the next course?"
Most of these responses lack specificity and rely on the interpretation of whoever's coaching. In the Facebook group, people have asked for definitions of integrity, authenticity, and act, only to get 50 different responses. The one that gets the most likes apparently wins for that day.
This lack of precision is at the heart of where I think Landmark is inherently flawed. It's almost like astrology. We're told to look back and pick 3 childhood events that created our strong suits. But there's no sound method for picking these 3. It's easy to look back and find 50 events that match "I'm not good enough". As a result, we decide what our act is and then base everything we do on it. I learned that my act is "I don't need you". From that point forward, I viewed everything I do and what happens from the lens of "I don't need you".
What if that's not actually my act? What if I made a mistake in figuring out what it is? What if my horoscope isn't actually true?
Then there's the problem with story. To some degree, it's a valid distinction - separating out what really happened in a situation from our interpretation can be very helpful. "My dad hates me." "What evidence do you have?" "He didn't take me to Disney World." "Maybe there's another explanation than he hates you?"
What I've learned from discussing this with Landmarkers is that people don't use this distinction to actually get clear about what happened and what didn't. They use it to create a different story that suits their purposes. In the above example, instead of investigating precisely why dad didn't take them to Disney Land, they change the story by supposing dad just couldn't afford the trip.
This might be the worst part of Landmark. Forget the manipulation and money-driven tactics for a moment. Consider how Landmark is set up. You take a 3 day course that completely shakes your reality and gives you a different perspective. Then you either go out into the world without any continued support, or you keep coming back to pay for more. But you didn't know going in that you might need to take more classes.
If you take an intro college course, you know there's other classes. There's no secret that if you want a degree or to be expertly trained, you need to follow a curriculum. In Landmark, it's not clearly stated that you might need to take more courses because guess what - you don't have - there is no actual curriculum. It's a hodge podge of experimental seminars and courses that are designed to do one thing: train you in becoming a better pawn. And the training can be very helpful for your non-Landmark life.
In the money seminar, I realized the possibility of playing music for money. But once you've paid for the course and are in the classroom, you start to realize that the seminar isn't about making more money. They tell you that money is merely the access into what's really bothering you. Each seminar has a topic, and the topic is the weakness that's stopping you from living powerfully. You go in with the goal of making more money, and instead you work on being more authentic with your family.
I can't say what Landmark's true intentions are. But here's what it ultimately looks like: In 3 days, you're shown how you can live a more effective life. Some valuable seeds are planted, but they are only cultivated if you stay in the Landmark conversation. The language is unique, so you'll struggle to go off on your own and discuss integrity with people who have a different definition. So, you decide to make friends with other Landmarkers and attend more classes. It's like being exposed to Catholicism and feeling alone in a world full of Jews. You naturally want to go back to the Catholic church. And that's not necessarily bad.
But it's not made clear ahead of time. And let's consider what people are getting as a result. If all of this fascinates you, I recommend checking out the Facebook group: [www.facebook.com]
Take a look at all the transformed people who've spent thousands on leadership training. Watch as they bicker back and forth, arguing over definitions, how to apply the work, and congratulating each other for reaching unmeasurable milestones or having gotten "it". Also, take note of how many are still working on the goals they originally set for themselves. There's a woman named Laura Landry who goes around talking about how she's transforming health care, 10 years after doing the Forum and many other courses. She hasn't gotten the funds she proudly bragged about creating the power to achieve. And yet she goes around acting wise, coaching other people without empathy as if she knows anything.
If she's so wise, why hasn't she gotten her funding, and why is she spending so much time in an online group talking about Landmark? It's because she's still trying to chase the carrot. She's staying in the conversation with like-minded people who provide her little more than a platform to prove why she's right and a constant opportunity to reaffirm and adjust her story for why her life isn't going the way she wants it and why everything will be OK.
At this point, it's sounding clear that I'm losing faith in Landmark. I'm just typing off the top of my head.