Yesterday I was asked two questions: how many brethren would leave if they felt they could, and what sort of people give up after trying the life outside and go back?
Both are really aspects of the same thing. That is, what makes someone prefer one life to the other? It's a tricky one to answer. I suspect there are as many different explanations as there are people. And although I feel relatively normal (touch wood), I keep being told I'm not typical, so I'm hesitant about extrapolating from my own experience.
I was told - tearfully - just before leaving that I wasn't "worldly" enough to survive this dreadful outside world. That presupposes that there is a certain type of character who can succeed once removed from the protection of the fellowship. I'm not sure that's entirely the case. I have the feeling that the key difference is more to do with expectations and resources than personal qualities, except in the sense that those within the brethren are shielded to some extent from the consequences of their failings, and that shielding disapppears when they leave.
My impression is that there are not as many who would like to leave the brethren as those on the outside would like to think. And, hard as it may be to imagine, there are quite a lot of people who go back into it having experienced the freedom of the alternative, and profess themselves much happier as a result.
Practicalities have a lot to do with it, I'm sure. Thinking over the various people I have known who have made the trip out and back, I realise that a good many of them made the decision to return at a time in their lives when security and support became very important. Few returnees are in middle age, for example. Younger people hit financial trouble, or social trouble of one kind or another, and rebound into the safety of what they know. That may be explicit trouble, or it may be the accumulation of feeling that they don't quite fit in to the society they wanted to. I don't think anybody would quibble if I said that there isn't the unquestioning friendship on the outside - it has to be earned to some extent, and although that makes it valuable, it also implies effort. Effort is a key point: people seem to tire of having to run their own lives. Older people get to a point in their lives, too, when predictability and social support easily outweigh any loss of freedom, especially if there is family they can be reunited with. Overall, with some exceptions, those with the means to live comfortably outside do not return to the brethren. Living comfortably, of course, means different things to different people, from material wealth to feeling loved.
This is perhaps a cynical view. No doubt there are some who come to a deep conviction that the brethren were right all along ... but mostly the conviction is layered on top of the other reasons, as far as I've seen. And, interestingly, most of the arguments used on me are practical ones, too.
Really, I do have to say that life within the brethren is easier. If you can swallow the notion that their way is best, then it's a great weight of responsibility off your shoulders not having to decide things for yourself any more. In moments of weakness, I defy anyone not to find that attractive, particularly combined with constant affirmation from a large and supportive social group.
Expectations are another aspect, I think. Some people expect life outside to be a constant party. Others see evil wherever they look. Both extremes are likely to discover more misery than they need. Normal life, outside as well as inside the fellowship, has ups and downs, and if you're inclined to look at all the negative experiences as the result of being outside, then of course you'll want to change that.
So am I going back? Well, I don't like to say "never" about anything, but I can't see it happening. I thought life after the brethren would be hard work, so I'm hoping the low points don't catch me out. It's been good so far, but I'm sure the problems will come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"I keep being told I'm not typical," (My HTML cannot be accepted. It tells me "Tag is broken")
Can you elaborate on this please. Who is telling you that?
Those on the outside or those on the inside, if you will pardon the shorthand?
Off at a tangent perhaps - but can you tell
us how many people whom you have known have joined the Brethren from 'outside' as completely new recruits? And have they stayed permanently?
Most of the accusations of atypicality (is that a word?) have been from outside, and I think it's normally meant as a compliment. I choose to take it that way, anyway. It goes "you're not very ... for a recent ex-brethren person" (fill in the gap).
I know four totally fresh joiners from outside within my memory, which is four more than most would know, and a good many more who joined long before I was born when things were somewhat different. I don't count them because I wouldn't have known without being told. The more recent ones joined between fifteen and twenty years ago, and show absolutely no signs whatever of wishing to leave. They are marvellous people, and I've often thought the brethren hardly deserve them.
Thankyou, Survivor, for an intelligent reply. One good thing about being "out" is that we can ask questions like this without it going on our Stasi file. (It goes in our blog instead!)
Perhaps the brethren I knew were of a different cut, but I had the strong impression that a primary motivation for staying in was fear - and the biggest fear of all was that they might die and not be buried by the brethren.
Post a Comment