This file is copyright (c) 1997 The Philalethes Society and all rights
including any redistribution rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
Permission to quote from, redistribute or to otherwise use these materials
must be obtained from the copyright holder directly by contacting The
Philalethes, Nelson King, FPS, Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt
Ontario Canada, M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax: 416-293-8634 or
nking@freemasonry.org or nking@onramp.ca




                           NEUROTIC MASONRY
                     by Stanley W. Kuciejski, MPS
     (Reprinted by permission of The Philalethes - October, 1988)

     All one has to do is to page through an index of the  Philalethes
Magazine  to come to the realization that Masonry's problems  are  not
anything  new.  Since  the magazine's very  beginning,  article  after
article has attempted to bring attention and possible solutions to the
complex  problems of membership, attendance, overemphasis  on  ritual,
anti-Masonic attacks, etc...With this in mind, is it not time to  look
for the absolute base of the problem - The organization of Masonry.

     Over  the  past  thirty years, the  fundamental  organization  of
Masonry  has become neurotic. Like any individual, organizations  too,
can become neurotic. Masonry is no exception. It clearly  demonstrates
neurotic symptoms, without these symptoms being addressed and  treated
for  by  the membership. This article attempts to use inroads  in  the
fields  of organizational development and organizational  dynamics  to
diagnose, identify some of the causes, and to define a treatment  plan
that  will  hopefully  place Masonry on a healthy path  back  to  full
recovery. It is not a quick cure, but one that will take time and much
effort  on the part of Masonry's collective body.  Masonry's  problems
may be critical but they are not terminal. But, that is based upon the
assumption  that Masons themselves are going to attempt the  cure.  If
not,  then  Masonry  is  lost,  not  only  to  ourselves  but  to  the
brotherhood of man as well.

                               Symptoms

     As  with  individuals,  the  organization  of  Masonry   exhibits
specific neurotic behavioral symptoms that are collectively  displayed
or expressed by the membership of the organization.

                        Pain and Frustration:

     The  membership  of  Masonry has and  continues  to  complain  of
frustration,  worry,  backbiting, loss of self-esteem  and  a  general
sense  of impotence. Members do not feel as though their  multiplicity
of skills are being utilized properly. The results of this symptom  is
that  the  membership  lacks interest,  drops  out,  exhibits  erratic
attendance,  does  not  aid  in membership drives  nor  follow  up  on
possible petitioners or candidates. Members feel as though they do not
have  a vested interest in the overall organization or its  direction.
Those  who  attempt  to  address  problems  they  confront,  soon  are
discouraged and give up because the push for change can be painful and
so they opt for the easier position in favor of the status quo.

                         Subgroup Formation:

     As  pain  and frustration becomes more  intense,  the  membership
often  forms into small, identifiable sub-groups. These  subgroups  or
cliques,  as  some  may  call them, develop on  the  basis  of  common
friendships  with  trusted acquaintances, that often meet  before  and
after  meetings,  over coffee or lunch, to share  gossip,  complaints,
fantasies, or possible strategies for dealing with the  organization's
problems.  The  effect of such groups tend to alienate them  from  the
general   membership   and  heightens  the  anxiety   level   of   the
organizational  body rather than to assist that body in  realistically
dealing with its problems. Since they view themselves as separate from
their parent body, they normally consider themselves as being  "Right"
and  everyone  else  "Wrong". This is an unhealthy  situation  to  the 
overall condition of the organization and its membership.

                   Blaming Others for the Problems:

     This  symptom deals normally with the leadership of  the  Masonic 
body, since the membership attempts to place much of the blame for the 
current  situation  on the Worshipful Master, High  Priest,  Potentate 
etc...In  subgroups or other small gatherings of the  membership,  the 
boss  is  termed as an incompetent, ineffective, or  not  viewing  the 
situation  realistically. Nothing is ever said to his face, and if  it 
is,  it is often vague and misdirected. Therefore, the "Boss"  is  not 
receiving  accurate feedback and the frustration and anxiety level  of 
the organization increases at an alarming rate. In cases such as this, 
ignorance  is  not  a positive factor for the overall  health  of  the 
organization. Ignoring reality only enhances the status quo. Also, the 
recurrence  of  anti-Masonic attacks upon the fraternity  is  an  easy 
scapegoat  for  the  fraternity's problems. We can  easily  blame  the 
current  anti-Masonry trend for our membership losses and lack of  new 
membership,  but  that is only a distorted view of  what  is  actually 
happening and we miss looking deep within ourselves and  organizations 
for a picture of reality.

                       Agreement as to the Real
                    Problems of the Organization:

     The  membership of the organization generally agrees as  to  what 
the  actual problems are confronting the organization. Because of  the 
lack  of communication between the subgroups and  general  membership, 
along  with the leadership of the body, members often are  unaware  of 
the  degree  to  which they, in reality, do agree  (Benne  &  Muntyan, 
1951).  If  communication lines are not functioning,  how  can  anyone 
realize individual positions and consensus.

                     Members Act Contrary to the
                       Knowledge They Possess:

     This   factor  is  one  of  the  most  important.  It   is   this 
characteristic that truly defines neurotic organizational behavior the 
same  way it defines individual neurotic behavior. The  individual  or 
organization  that  consistently acts contrary to  their  best  inner-
signals,  becomes  neurotic. And, if that organization  or  individual 
acts  in  concert  with  others, then it  too  will  display  neurotic 
symptoms.  The  body  must act congruently with reality if  it  is  to 
function properly and effectively.

                      Members Behave Differently
                      Outside the Organization:

     Away from the organization, members often do not suffer the  pain 
and  frustration nor demonstrate the irrational behavior they  exhibit 
inside   the   organization.  When  they  are  happier   outside   the 
organization  than inside, then how does one expect  full  cooperation 
and participation inside. This only intensifies the problems and their 
discomfort  when they meet again. Members may dread going back to  the 
organization,  because  of the painful expectations  they  assume  are 
waiting  for  them. This often is because of  lodge  factionalism  and 
politics.  When  one  feels this way, it  is  hardly  surprising  that 
attendance and membership suffers.

                     Causes Of Neurotic Behavior

     Then why do organization members engage in neurotic behavior that 
is not only destructive to themselves, but to the organization itself? 
There are two primary reasons for this behavior:

                       Lack of Awareness Due to
                         Poor Communication:

     Most  often, members are quite unaware of their own behavior  and 
the  effect  it  has upon themselves and the  organization.  First,  a 
member  may not realize that the ideas and feelings he has are  shared 
by  others in the organization. Thus, he may feel as though he or  his 
subgroup  is the only one who perceives the real problems  confronting 
the  organization.  Even though many others  within  the  organization 
share  like  ideas, he or his subgroup remain ignorant  of  this  fact 
because  of poor communication channels among members.  Regardless  of 
the hierarchy of the organization and its various strata, many of  the 
realizations that the member views are actually shared by many  within 
the body of the organization. This lack of realization of agreement is 
merely a simple communication and information breakdown and is  easily 
corrected. (Lewin, 1951).

     Secondly, members are unaware that the group norms and  standards 
often  prevent  them from coping with the real  problems  encountered. 
While  individual neurosis is based upon personal dynamics within  the 
individual,  organizational,  neurosis is a result of  the  collective 
dynamics unique to the organization. Thus, the norms and standards  of 
behavior,  which  may  be neurotic in nature,  cause  acute  pain  and 
frustration  to  members  which break  these  established  rules.  The 
application  of  social  pressure is intense upon  the  individual  to 
conform to the status quo. Open and often heated debate of issues  may 
be looked upon as rebellious in nature and the rebel alienated  within 
the organization. However, this cause can normally be overcome with  a 
little effort on part of the membership. Disagreement does not have to 
be destructive.

     Last,  members  do   not  realize  how  they  contribute  to  the 
continuation of the organization's problems. The individual member  or 
subgroup  may  see everyone else as being destructive,  not  realizing 
their own part in the destructive process. Masonic identification with 
the Grand Lodge, Worshipful Master, or their peers or the organization 
is  so great, that they lose the ability to recognize their small  but 
important contributions to the actual problems. This factor is one  of 
the  hardest to solve (Freud, 1951). Realization that you are part  of 
the problem is a difficult concept to face.

                       Fantasies About Possible
                        Consequence of Action:

     A  member  or subgroup that desires to take action to  address  a 
particular   problem  often  fears  a  negative  response   from   the 
organization's  membership. "If I do this, then they will think I'm  a 
renegade  or attempting to force my ideas upon the membership."  Since 
change or new ideas are seldom tested in the body of Masonry, possible 
results and outcomes are viewed only from a fantasy viewpoint. When  a 
member  enters  an unknown area, where the negative  consequences  can 
only be imagined, a high level of anxiety results (Bradford &  Harvey, 
1970). Thus, novel approaches are often discouraged, because they  are 
simply  not  put  forth and the absence of such  input  increases  the 
likelihood that none will be forthcoming.

                  Treatment Of The Neurotic Disorder

     Treatment  of  the neurotic organization is possible  and  should 
concentrate upon the following elements:

                       Collection of Data from
                       Organizational Members:

     Make  the  effort  to collect a representative  sample  from  the 
membership  to establish what are the problem areas, what  is  causing 
these  problems and what assets are available within the  organization 
to  solve the problems. This should be undertaken by someone  who  can 
attempt  to  remain objective (it does not even need to be  an  actual 
member of that particular organization and most times that is the best 
for getting true results) in the process and should be in the form  of 
a separate personal interview, not merely a handed out survey. This is 
a timely process, but it is imperative that it be done. The effort and 
results are well worth it. The price for not doing it is too great  to 
the organization. The problem areas are listed as particular themes. A 
Theme  is  defined  as  an issue or  concern  which  is  spontaneously 
mentioned  by at least 50% of the organization members  surveyed.  For 
instance,  a  theme may be "Leadership", or "Overemphasis  on  Ritual" 
etc...The  actual  statements of the causes of each  are  then  placed 
under  the  determined themes. After such data is collected  then  for 
each  theme and the statements listed under each, a summary  statement 
is developed. An example could be:

                       Theme: Lodge Leadership.

1) The WM is too nice and members take advantage of him.
2) The WM always says that everything is under control.
3) The WM sometimes supports positions he disagrees with.
4) He is afraid to take a stance on difficult issues.

                          Summary Statement:

     The Worshipful Master's style of leadership is not of a  decisive 
or confronting nature.

     Data  must  be  a verbatim account of  what  each  member  stated 
relative  to each theme. The data should not be a summary of what  the 
interviewer  believes the person wanted to say. The  interviewer  must 
keep  his biases and pre-existing viewpoints to himself and not  allow 
it to be reflected in the data he collects.

                         Feedback of Data to
                        Organization Members:

     With  the  interviewees  only and the interviewer  at  a  special 
meeting  the  themes and statements are presented back  to  the  group 
(Beckhard,  1967).  During  this several  hour  session,  members  are 
encouraged  to discuss, clarify and modify the themes  and  supporting 
statements collected. When the organization members are satisfied that 
the themes and supporting statements are accurate, they are then asked 
to  develop a single summary statement for each theme that  summarizes 
the data collected.

     After  each  theme  has been discussed and  a  summary  statement 
written  and agreed upon, the group is then required to vote  publicly 
to  whether they agree or disagree with the summary statement. If  the 
clear  majority  do  not  agree  with  the  summary  statement,   then 
discussion  continues  until the majority of members  agree  with  the 
summary.

     The  public  vote  is extremely important  because  it  transfers 
ownership  of the themes and supporting data from the  interviewer  to 
the  organization  members  themselves. The  group  then  accepts  the 
responsibility for the validity of the data collected (Argyris, 1962). 
ONce  the  data belongs to the organization,  then  each  organization 
member of the survey is asked to produce a written statement as to how 
he has contributed to each issue represented by the various themes  by 
following  the directions herein listed: "For each summary  statement, 
write  a few sentences describing the way in which you  contribute  to 
the  issue which is summarized. Your descriptions will belong  to  you 
alone.  However, you may want to share your thoughts with  the  others 
later on. But, there is no requirement to do so."

     In  asking  each survey member to do this, you are  allowing  the 
members of the organization to examine their own contributions to  the 
organization's  problems  and  are avoiding the  survey  members  from 
blaming others.

                         Sharing the Theory:

     Presentation  of  the theory on why the  organization  is  having 
problems is extremely important. It allows the organization members to 
diagnose  and  understand the real problems and to develop a  plan  of 
action  which does not aid to the continuation of these problems.  The 
interviewer presents the following theory:

                      When organization members:

1) Experience pain and frustration.
2) Agree with one another as to the problems and causes, and
3)  Act  in  ways  contrary  to  their  own  thoughts,  feelings   and 
information; the following assumptions should be tested:

     A.   Organization   members   are   knowingly   or    unknowingly 
collaborating with one another to maintain the status quo.

     B.   Organization   members  have  fantasies   about   disastrous 
consequences of confronting those issue they know and agree cause pain 
and frustration.

     At this point, the interviewer then helps the members apply their 
knowledge  to one of their actual themes. Using the member's own  data 
makes them aware of the gap between their own views of reality (We  do 
not work well together) and the actions they take which deny that form 
of  reality  (Making  decisions  that  require  working  more  closely 
together). This awareness confronts the members with the necessity  of 
making a conscious choice to explore alternatives based on their views 
of reality or continuing to act on the basis of irrational  fantasies, 
which are destructive.

                              Conclusion

     With  any  organization making the effort, many problems  can  be 
overcome.  Information and communication sharing are the keys  to  any 
successful  problem  solving program and  a  successful  organization. 
However,  realize  that  any realistic cure  involves  a  complex  and 
lengthy  process. It will not come overnight and will not  be  without 
some  pain  and hard work. The lessons learned by such a  program  are 
valuable  only  if  used and reused. During the  course  of  time  the 
organization  will  automatically develop an open system in  which  to 
confront and solve problems that arrive.

     If  the  organization of Masonry is not prospering  and  growing, 
then we are at fault. We are the organization and the organization  is 
us.  It  is  not the intention of this article  to  change  the  basic 
principles of Freemasonry. The tenants of this organization can hardly 
be improved upon. The fact that our fraternity has its problems merely 
suggests that there is, inside our organization, room for improvement. 
Any organization that does not question its status quo will accumulate 
problems  in  time.  The main factor for Masons to  consider  is  that 
change  is  not always destructive. If we hold an open mind  and  deal 
with reality we will always be progressing forward.

