Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners and Madmen: A Study of Gurus

by Anthony Storr

In his classic work, Solitude, internationally acclaimed author and psychiatrist Anthony Storr probed our basic and often unmet need for solitude, especially emphasizing its relation to creativity. In Music and the Mind, Storr explored the fundamental human need for music, demonstrating its ability to reunite the mind and body. Now, in Feet of Clay, Storr again provides a fresh perspective into one of the most potentially dangerous human needs, the need for certitude. In vivid portraits of some of history's most intriguing gurus, from David Koresh to Freud and Jung to Jesus, Storr examines why we are so enthralled with certain dogmatic figures who play on our need for certainty.
Gurus are extraordinary individuals who cast doubt upon current psychiatric distinctions between sanity and madness. Because gurus are charismatic figures who are gifted teachers, they recruit disciples who adopt the guru's vision as their own. The guru convinces others that he knows, a persuasive capacity which can bring illumination but which may end in disaster.
Storr demonstrates that most of us harbor irrational beliefs, and he discusses how the human wish for certainty in an insecure world leads to our confusing delusion with truth. Storr reveals how the adoration for the guru can so easily corrupt him and explains why certain gurus become moral parasites while others become spiritual beacons.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Religion, History, Cults, Spirituality, Philosophy

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Anthony Storr was an English psychiatrist and author. He was a child who was to endure the typical trauma of early 20th century UK boarding schools. He was educated at Winchester, Christ's College, the University of Cambridge and Westminster Hospital. He qualified as a doctor in 1944, and subsequently specialized in psychiatry.

Storr grew up to be kind and insightful, yet, as his obituary states, he was "no stranger to suffering" and was himself allegedly prone to the frequent bouts of depression his mother had.

Today, Anthony Storr is known for his psychoanalytical portraits of historical figures.

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a fascinating study of gurus – the good, the bad and the ugly. Storr was a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, and writer of some excellent books.

Gurus covered include:

Jim Jones
David Koresh
Georgei Gurdjieff
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Rudolf Steiner
Carl Jung
Sigmund Freud
Ignatiu of Loyala
Paul Brunton
Mother Meera.

Storr also mentions some politicians as having strong guru characteristics, e.g., Hitler, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and John Kennedy. Other examples of gurus that he mentions include Wagner (a bad guru) and Cardinal Hume (a good guru).

I found this book very interesting, certainly I have learnt a lot about what makes a guru, and what makes them attractive to people.... but have a few issues with it. Particularly that Storr doesn’t really discuss or differentiate between good and bad gurus, or at least does this in a very cursory fashion. Yet this to me would seem a vitally important issue.

All in all a fascinating read. I shall definitely be picking my gurus with caution in the future. At least mine tend to live in books, which makes them a lot more manageable.

In the book Storr details various aspects of gurus and their followers, which I roughly outline here.....

The life journeys that most gurus experience:

*Isolation as children
*A period of depression, a mid-life crisis, a dark night of the soul….or even a psychotic breakdown.
*A revelation. A revelation that the guru says has transformed their lives. A deep belief that the revelation is true and right.
*The telling of this revelation to other people and the gaining of disciples.
*Often they create a background of mystery, e.g., claiming their superior wisdom came from Central Asia or Tibet, or even other worlds.

Character traits of many bad gurus.

*They tend to be narcissistic – they seldom have close friends. They are more interested in what goes on in their own minds than in personal relationships. They need disciples, not friends.
*Intolerance of criticism. Criticism is seen as hostility.
*Paranoid
*They enjoy exercising authority.
*Charisma. This is closely linked to the intensity of their vision. They KNOW their vision is right, and this assurance is a big building block towards having charisma. The ability to speak fluently in public and good looks are helpful additional assets.
*Sexual licence. They often indulge in sexual behaviour which would be condemned as irresponsible in an ordinary person, especially given their roles as gurus in people’s lives.
*Power. They often get pleasure from the exercise of power. Some carry it to the point of making their followers perform meaningless and unnecessary tasks, ostensibly as spiritual exercises, but in fact as a proof of the guru’s power over them. Some enjoy inflicting cruel punishments upon transgressors.

Character traits of many good gurus.

They are altogether more modest, and accepting of the independence and personhood of their disciples. They practise humility, and they support the growth of their disciples.

Our desire for gurus

We all have a propensity to put people on pedestals and make them gurus. Storr argues that people who do this are not immature or neurotic. It is a very basic human impulse.

1) The phenomena of transference, whereby we tend to attribute all sorts of merits (or failings) to authority figures. Freud for instance at first regarded transference with distaste. He wanted psychoanalysis to be an impersonal quest for truth in which the relationship between patient and analyst was entirely professional and objective rather than personal. The role he wanted to assume was that of a mountain guide. Instead he found that his patients made him into an idealized lover, a father figure, or a saviour. We have a strong impulse to put authority figures on pedestals, or alternatively, consider them in a preposterously negative light. Gurus are people we choose to regard as saviours.

2) Our natural respect for good teachers. Storr believes that we are hard-wired to respect good teachers. Unlike animals which depend largely on nature for their behaviour, we depend largely on nurture, and part of that process involves a respect for good teachers. Our admiration for someone we see as our guru just takes this one step further.

3) Gurus give people access to belief systems which reassure and support them, and build self-esteem.

4) When threatened by war, epidemics, earthquakes, famine and other disasters people revert to earlier stages of development , (the paranoid-schizoid stage of development), where they will follow a guru-like leader whom they invest with magical powers for good, and at the same time find scapegoats whom they blame for the disaster and regard as wholly evil. Gurus have much more likelihood of becoming powerful when times are hard and stressful.

[Cooper Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anthony Storr is a British psychiatrist who has written extensively about Freud, Jung, creativity and violence. In this book he takes on gurus: in particular, what do they have in common? What traits or life-experiences do they share? Should a guru with weird beliefs be considered mad? Storr discusses these issues abstractly and also illustrates them with case studies of some well-known people he considers gurus, including bad guys like Jim Jones and David Koresh, iffy guys like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and George Gurdjieff, and better guys like George Steiner, Loyola, Freud, Jung, Mother Meara (of India) and Jesus.
The characteristics of a guru:

*Special Dispensation—claims to have been afforded a special spiritual insight which has transformed his own life

*Creative Illness—the special dispensation in the form of a revelation usually occurred after a so-called “creative illness,” in which the guru experienced a spiritual crisis (sometimes of the mid-life variety), extreme psychological pain, and in some cases one or more actual psychotic episodes. (“The pattern of mental distress followed by an irrational solution is characteristic of gurus, whether they are mad or sane, good or evil. Agnostic skeptics do not always realize how deeply irrational normal people can be.”) (“We tend to diagnose mental abnormality in the socially incompetent and overlook or deny it both in the socially dominant and in the socially unobtrusive.”)

*Insight Applies Universally—the guru assumes that his insight applies to all mankind or to all of mankind’s elite. It is the unchallengeable truth—objective verification is irrelevant. Sometimes these “truths” are simply delusions (for example, the cosmologies of Steiner and Gurdjieff), in other cases they include powerful insights about mankind (for example, Freud’s “defense mechanisms” and Jung’s “psychological types”)

*Isolated as Child—the guru was isolated as a child, remained introverted and narcissistic, and developed a rich fantasy life (“Imagination flourishes best in solitude.”) (“At this narcissistic stage in emotional development the aim is to be loved rather than to love anyone else…. Those who remain narcissistic in adult life retain this need to be loved and to be the center of attention together with the grandiosity which accompanies it. This is characteristic of gurus.”)

*Few Friends—the guru has followers but few if any real friends

*Intolerant of Criticism—the guru is extremely sensitive to criticism, and interprets any questioning by “them” (the unbelievers) as assault, or by one of “us” (the believers) as disloyalty

*Elitist and Anti-democratic—though many pretend to be democratic, most gurus are in fact elitist and authoritarian—after all, they are the only ones who know (“Some gurus are dictators on a small scale.”)

*Mysterious Past—some gurus conceal their pre-revelation lives, remaining “men of mystery” (“Images often flourish in the absence of facts.”)

*Danger of Corruption—since they tend to remain isolated from the real world and are showered with positive feedback by their disciples, gurus often swallow their own bathwater in larger and larger gulps, and eventually become totally corrupted by a situation in which they can effectively act out the infant’s narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence. Some gurus start out as wise men, then promote themselves to prophet, and finally claim to be the Messiah or God Himself (Rajneesh: “I am the Messiah America has been waiting for.”)

*Need Disciples—gurus need disciples for more than money, sex and adulation—they need the reassurance of continual positive feedback to silence their own doubts about their omnipotence (“If I were wrong, why would all these people believe what I say?”) (Former lieutenant of Koresh: “[Koresh:] gets a craving. Then he finds the theology to justify the craving. When others buy into his doctrine, he starts believing it himself.”)

How do we know whether a guru is actually mad? Storr makes a couple of points on this issue:

*Social Context—the definition of delusion is determined by social context—often, if enough people believe it, it is not considered delusional. For example, the tenets of Christianity: virgin birth—come on; resurrection—gimme a break. If an unconnected private citizen espoused comparable beliefs—for example, that angels are birthed from armpits and that dead ants will rise again—he would be considered mad. Therefore, says Storr, “the diagnosis of mental illness should not be made on the evidence of beliefs alone…”

*Problem-solving—the “truths” of gurus, whether valid insights or delusions, are actually attempts at problem-solving—at resolving their spiritual crises. The process is essentially the same as that employed by the highly creative in science and art; the difference is that many gurus think they know, and therefore do not have to subject their insights to objective verification as scientists do, or to aesthetic evaluation as artists do. And many gurus, like some creative scientists and many artists, show symptoms of manic-depression (bipolar disorder) or schizophrenia. (“Paranoid delusions have a positive function. They make sense out of chaos within, and also preserve a subject’s self-esteem. They are a creative solution to the subject’s problems, albeit a creative solution which does not stand up to critical examination.”)

Feet of Clay focuses on gurus, but Storr also has a thing or two to say about their followers. Why do followers prostrate themselves at the feet of other human beings who claim to be gurus? Several motivations come into play:

*Meaning—to give empty lives meaning (C.G. Jung: “Man cannot stand a meaningless life.”)

*Certainty—to discover a certainty that will abolish confusion and psychological pain (“Certainty is a huge seduction.”)

*Simplicity—to simplify life (“One of the major attractions of some of the faiths propounded by gurus is their simplicity. Many of us harbor a secret wish to be transported back to the world of the nursery, where black is black, and white is white…”)

*Find “Parents”—to find the “good” father or mother they never had

*Escape Responsibility—to escape responsibility for their own lives and actions

*Belong—to belong to a social group with similar interests and to engage in social activities and enjoy a camaraderie more satisfying, perhaps, than any they’ve hitherto known

*Something Bigger—to identify with and belong to something bigger and more important than themselves, and thus to escape the pain of low self-esteem or the “horror of [being a:] nonentity” who will die and be quickly forgotten (“No one can afford a total loss of self-esteem, and those who come close to doing so when in the throes of severe depression often commit suicide.”)

*Ecstasy—to experience altered states of consciousness, in particular ecstatic states of oneness with the universe (the “mystical experience”), which many extol as the crowning experience of life (Hugh Milne, a former disciple of Rajneesh: “On several occasions I reached that true bliss and abundant joy which comes from a deep meditative state. This meditative space was incomparably beautiful and worth anything to experience. Those who dismiss ‘evil cults’ have no idea at all how rapturous this state can be, and how no other pleasure can compare with it. Most people who have spent any time in a religious cult will have tasted this bliss, and it is what keeps them coming back for more.”).

For these reasons, many disciples maintain their beliefs, delusive or not, with incredible tenacity. The Christian apologist Tertullian: “And the Son of God died, which is immediately credible because it is absurd. And buried he rose again, which is certain because it is impossible.”

Some gurus do more good than bad, others the reverse. How do we distinguish between them? “The gurus who should be regarded as potentially dangerous are those who are authoritarian and those who are paranoid.” “What distinguishes gurus from more orthodox teachers is their narcissism.” “The certainty shown by gurus should, paradoxically, be the aspect of their behavior which most arouses suspicion.”
But why seek a guru at all? As epigraph for Feet of Clay, Storr chose a quote from the ancient Greek dramatist Euripides:


The wisest men follow their own direction
And listen to no prophet guiding them.
None but the fools believe in oracles,
Forsaking their own judgment.
Know that such men can only come to grief.

This is a very good, straightforward book by a sane, insightful and humane man. Apparently a few of the chapters were written earlier as papers, which results in some repetition, especially late in the book. Otherwise, Feet of Clay is well and simply written and definitely worth reading.

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 1 out of 5]

Leaving this one midway. I don't know whether the original book is as bad, but translation is pretty horrible.

[a.j.b. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Started strong, but quickly became repetitive. Each section did discuss a different "guru", and in each section he drove home what makes a guru a guru...in pretty much the exact same words.
I don't like to bash, but I just did not enjoy the author's voice.
I had very high hopes for this book. Perhaps that was part of my problem with it.

[Bec · Rating 3 out of 5]

Storr goes into detail about the childhood and life story of men he considers gurus, both evil and benevolent. The author is a psychiatrist or perhaps a psychoanalyst, and not a sociologist, but still I found it strange that he examined all aspects of the gurus lives and never mentioned gender as a possible factor in the social development of these men. All of the people Storr examines are men, save for the last 9 pages briefly mentioning a woman who actually does not fit any of the patterns Storr develops in the rest of the book. I'm not saying there are not women who seek power over others or who are narcissistic megalomaniacs, but it seems to me that patriarchy might have something to do with cults based on relationships of disparate levels of power and control. Otherwise he had interesting insights, but this omission was disappointing.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

The datedness of some of the details of the Branch Davidian massacre aside, this was a relevant and interesting book on the psychology behind spiritual gurus and guru-like leaders in the fields of psychology. New Religious Movement nerds such as myself will find no new information on Jim Jones and David Koresh, but I was interested to learn some things about Gurdjieff and Rudolph Steiner, whom Storr used as a contrast of benign/neutral gurus and malevolent gurus. The most interesting thread through all was seeing the commonalities between many of these gurus: a solitary childhood and/or serious introspectiveness, millenarian thinking, a sense of absolute certainty, and narcissism. It definitely gave me some food for thought about America's current presidential administration.

[Bethan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting exploration of the phenomenon that is gurus by a psychologist.

The chapters are devoted to the stories of selected gurus - including Jim Jones, David Koresh, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Freud, Steiner, Gurdjieff, Jung, Ignatius of Loyola, Jesus, Paul Brunton - alongside psychological analysis of their psyches and those of their disciples.

Storr says that gurus tend to be introverted and narcissistic, people who don't think that anyone really cares for them, which may stem from childhood experiences. They lack equal relationships with others and therefore have few checks that come from criticism and egalitarian discourse which must surely help to result in their often wildly eccentric views.

Storr says that gurus tend to have come to a fixed and unique worldview from a period of psychological unwellness. There is discussion of Jung's schizophrenic symptoms, Ignatius's physical convalescence after being an athlete, Rajneesh's long depression (he is thought to be bipolar), Jesus's forty days and nights in the desert, and so on. Storr says that the formation of a fixed and unique worldview is a way to bring meaning and order to a troubled person as well as gives the narcissist a sense of self-esteem, of importance. He observes that a similar if differing process exists for scientists and creatives in that they seek tranquillity or order through their work.

In the case of gurus, Storr says that gurus must have some doubts which is why they accumulate disciples who reaffirm that they are right, as demonstrated by loyalty. Gurus often subject followers to physically demanding lengthy harangues and control over their lives to test this loyalty.

However, Storr makes the extremely good point that the line is not always so clear cut between irrational beliefs and rational beliefs in terms of social acceptance - such as that many ordinary people believe in religion - religious beliefs are simply mainstream and sanctioned. He makes the argument that irrational beliefs are psychotic or a problem if they cause social problems.

Some positives are noted that come from gurus even if much of their theories and beliefs are discredited, such as that Freud's theories have increased tolerance while Steiner's work with disabled people treating them well has been a positive effect. Communes even if harsh are remembered by some followers as happy periods of their lives due to the sense of community and abnegation of mental responsibility that comes from following an authoritarian.

Disciples, of course, seek the peace, acceptance and authority that gurus offer. Charisma is explained as often coming from the guru's almost total self-belief and focused interest in the disciple. For example, Storr writes of Andrew Harvey's experience with Mother Meera, a seventeen-year-old Indian woman, whom Harvey would visit to have his head held by her in silence. He felt mystical experiences; a calm, love. Storr considers that Harvey was seeking a mother figure which came from the effective loss of his mother at a young age from being sent to boarding school at the age of six.

There are not always positive outcomes of course - many gurus become corrupt and are confidence tricksters such as Gurdjieff who extracted large sums of money from followers. The Jonestown massacre where 909 people famously died at the bequest of the guru, almost all from cyanide poisoning, would be a spectacular example of a negative outcome from following a guru.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PSYCHIATRIC PERSPECTIVE ON VARIOUS LESS-THAN-PERFECT ‘GURU’ FIGURES

Anthony Storr (1920-2001) was an English psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “This is a book about gurus… Not all gurus are venerable, but the definition of ‘spiritual teacher’ is sufficiently accurate… Gurus differ widely… but most claim the possession of special spiritual insight based on personal revelation. Gurus promise their followers new ways of self-development, new paths to salvation… Anyone can become a guru if he or she has the hubris to claim special spiritual gifts… many gurus are, or become, unscrupulous wielders of power who exploit their followers in a variety of ways… I do not mean to suggest that ALL gurus have feet of clay. Yet many gurus have been entirely unworthy of veneration: false prophets, madmen, confidence tricksters, or unscrupulous psychopaths who exploit their disciples emotionally, financially, and sexually… it is clear that those who seek a guru to give their lives meaning find it difficult to make this distinction….” (Pg xi-xii)

He goes on, “gurus risk becoming corrupted by power… success often brings about a revision of values. It is intoxicating to be adored, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the guru not to concur with the beliefs of his disciples about him… Gurus who feel entitled to be relieved of financial responsibility also often engage in sexual behavior which would be condemned as irresponsible in an ordinary person…. Gurus not infrequently exploit their followers in other ways. Subservient disciples are all too willing to undertake the chores of life, so that the guru may be spared involvement with trivia… Some enjoy inflicting cruel punishments upon transgressors..” (Pg. xvi)

He outlines, “In what follows, I want to examine a few gurus who differ markedly from each other, but who all display some of the features which I have just described as characteristic… My particular interest is in the personalities of the gurus themselves, although some characteristics of their followers will be mentioned in passing. I have deliberately chosen to study a number of gurus who, ranging as they do from saints to crooks, appear to be quite dissimilar. I hope to show that they have more in common then meets the unexamined eye.” (Pg. xvii)

He begins with Georges Ivanovitch [G.I.] Gurdjieff, who “claims our interest because he, or his doctrines as propounded by his disciple [P.D.] Ouspensky, bewitched so many interesting and intelligent people… Gurdjieff was secretive… about so many features of his background… he claimed to know 18 languages, but there is no evidence to support this. Throughout his life, he continued to speak both Russian and English incorrectly… Gurdjieff’s esoteric knowledge and status as a guru were attributed to his discoveries during his travels in Central Asia, but we are entirely dependent upon his own inaccurate account. The period 1887-1911 remains unsubstantiated and mysterious… Gurdjieff was careful never to be specific about the exact location of these teachers of secret knowledge.” (Pg. 24) He states, “It is difficult to believe that Gurdjieff’s elaborate cosmology was anything other than a planned, comical confidence trick designed to demonstrate how far the gullibility of his followers could be tested. His own account of how he survived his early wanderings reveals how expert he was at deception.” (Pg. 33)

He reports, “Ouspensky, Gurdjieff’s most devoted disciple and interpreter, began to lose confidence in him as a person as early as 1917. This seems to have been precipitated by Gurdjieff’s arbitrary dispersal of the group he has assembled around him in Essentuki. Ouspensky continued to believe in the authenticity of Gurdjieff’s vision and teaching which he accepted as having been handed down from some ancient, esoteric source, but found the man himself more and more intolerable. Ouspensky formally broke off relations in January 1924, and forbade his own pupils to communicate with Gurdjieff or refer to him.” (Pg. 40)

He summarizes, “Gurdjieff was, by his own admission, an accomplished confidence trickster who had no hesitation in deceiving other people and extracting money from them when he needed to do so… Gurdjieff’s picture of the universe, whether learned from esoteric sources or constructed by himself, provided him with his own myth, his own answer to the problem of the meaning of life for which he had sought a solution during his twenty years of travel. This myth was akin to a religious revelation. It gave him the certainty of faith. It was his own conviction that he had discovered ‘the answer’ which made him charismatic and persuasive. Even if some of his followers could not accept or understand all his cosmic doctrines, they still believed that he KNEW; a phenomenon which we shall encounter when discussing other gurus.” (Pg. 43)

Of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (later ‘Osho’), he states, “Rajneesh is best known to the general public as the guru who owned ninety-three Rolls-Royces and who celebrated sex as a path to enlightenment… Rajneesh was hugely successful in attracting followers, especially from the white middle class… He was certainly influenced by the writings of Gurdjieff, to whom he frequently referred, and whom he partly resembled. Both gurus affirmed that it was their mission to rouse people from sleep, and both relied more upon personal charisma than upon any coherent body of doctrine.” (Pg.. 47)

He adds, “Rajneesh, like so many other gurus, became corrupted by wealth and power and deteriorated both physically and mentally. He was finally imprisoned in, and then expelled from, the United States. After being refused entry by various countries, he eventually returned to India. He died in 1990. It is a sad story; for it appears from his discourses that, at the beginning of his career, he had much to offer.” (Pg. 48)

He reports, “[Rajneesh] obtained a B.A. in philosophy in 1955, and an M.A. … in 1957. By 1960, he was an assistant professor teaching philosophy at the University of Jabalpur. At the same time, he began to travel around India giving controversial lectures which gained him a reputation as a debater and iconoclast, although many Indians were shocked by his arrogance and by his attacks on traditional values.” (Pg. 50) “Rajneesh wrote nothing himself, but devoted disciples recorded his discourses and commentaries and made books out of them… Rajneesh must have been a riveting as well as a fluent speaker… the main thrust of his teaching was what he called a ‘religionless religiousness’; by which he meant a religious attitude to life without commitment to any particular creed or church… However, Rajneesh regarded religion as a luxury available only to those who had fulfilled their material needs and who could therefore afford to think about the meaning of life.” (Pg. 51)

He concludes, “Rajneesh degenerated into a monster of greed. He was always a leader; arrogant, intolerant of authority, self-taught, and acknowledging no debt to any Master. No wonder that he became inflated with his own importance… He had an extraordinary range of knowledge and a vision of how life should be lived, but he proved incapable of following his own precepts.” (Pg. 63)

Turning to Rudolf Steiner, he states, “Steiner’s legacy in education has been fruitful. At the time of his death in 1925, there were two Steiner schools in Germany and one each in the Netherlands and Great Britain. Now there are about 500 schools throughout the world. Steiner’s view of education [was] as a way of developing individual physical and mental potentials with little emphasis on conventional examination results… He also believed that, instead of competing with each other, children should be encouraged to help one another. By staying together in the same class over a period of several years, a miniature community is created in which children can learn the social skills of tolerance and mutual cooperation. Particularly welcome is Steiner’s insistence that the arts should play an important part in education. Music, painting, and manual skills such as carving and modelling are part of every child’s education…” (Pg. 80)

He says of C.G. Jung, “His narcissistic needs may have made him unscrupulous sexually, but he behaved no worse than many other men who are gifted with great energy and drive… His conception of the psyche as a self-regulating system is illuminating. His typology of introvert and extrovert has been adapted by experimental psychologists… he drew attention to a phenomenon which has not received the attention it deserves: the need which those who have lost their faith feel for something to replace it… Jung was a guru who saw the light, who generalized from his own experience, who abandoned the scientific tradition in which he had been trained… In spite of this, he made valuable contributions to psychology and to our perception of human nature.” (Pg. 104-105)

Storr also deals with Sigmund Freud, Jesus, and others. This book offers interesting insights on those he covers.

[David Neto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting take on the subject of gurus and their appeal in our postmodern western society. The author makes a list of eight figures that he believes can be considered gurus, and gives us a short biography of all of them. This was to me the most interesting part of the book, the life story of these different characters, of different eras, from Inatius de Loyola to Bagwan Shree Rajneesh (formelly known as Osho). He then tries, from a psychoanalytical point of view, to find common denominators between all of them, to try and build a list of characteristics that can be applied to these so called leaders of men.

Besides making some good points, as well as doing a thorough research on the lives of these gurus, I found myself losing interest towards the end of the book. It seems Mr. Storr tried to take an academic approach to the subject and bring it down a notch to write a book that would please the general public. The result in my view is a grey area somewhere in between, with a conclusion that, although interesting, just wasn't convincing.

3 stars for being a thought provoking agnostic take on a topic that I've been delving about in the past year, with the availability of different documentaries and shows like Wild Wild Country, Waco and Tony Robbinson's hour and a half long infomercial I'm Not Your Guru. I find it fascinating how so many middle class westerners need the guidance of a charismatic figure, even if that means giving up everything else, family and friends, and to suffer psychological and sometimes physical abuse. Belonging is our times biggest social achievement. This book makes a good case on that.

[Shaun · Rating 4 out of 5]

This does come across in many sections like a university essay i.e. make a point, show proof of said point (usually through a quote), emphasise point made.

That said, Storr is a great thinker and a great analyst, so this book is filled with really illuminating and insightful examinations.

It is not a light read, but it is a great read - and one that will have you thinking about who and what you follow, and what ideas you hold dear - not just gurus but all meanings of life.

Definitely well worth a read.

[Dyun Tsang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gurus have no equals and are intensely narcissistic.

"But, like Nietzsche and others who have been brought up in a strongly religious atmosphere, Jung found it difficult to live without a faith. The whole of his later work can be read as an attempt to discover a substitute for the religious faith which he had lost."

[Jennifer deBie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked this one up in the hopes that there would be some history on cults and thought leaders from the 18th or 19th centuries, but other than a section on Jesus this primarily focuses on figures from the 20th century. That said, anyone who can write about Jim Jones, Carl Jung, and Jesus Christ in a coherent way certainly has some interesting theories on what draws followers to an ideological leader.

There are some fascinating comparisons to be made, though the case studies given are fairly limited, and I would love to see a new edition, updated for the 21st century. Not exactly what I was looking for for my research, but Storr is warning readers to always think for themselves rather than following on blind faith, and that's an ideology I can get behind.

[ActionScientist · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very important book by one of the truely wise men of the psychiatric profession, or in Storr's case vocation. I've collected all his book and read parts of them a few times. In a real sense Storr is my chosen guru teacher on field of psychiatry, of which I am both highly critical and pragmatically involved. In turn he compares the guru characteristics of both Jung and Freud.

What I learned, fundamentally, from this book is to constantly check in the mirror and recognise my own tendacy towards gurudom ... which is pretty much part and parcel of being a charasmatic writer. The sub-title "Saints, Sinners and Madmen" pretty much covers the symbolic spectrum (though I'd also add Angels to the list before Saints), at least in terms of male gurus. Comparative literature about women gurus would be useful to this being.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Started out pretty interesting, the first chapter talks about David Koresh and Jim Jones and dudes like that who somehow became gods to so many idiots. It later covers some other well known men, like Jung, Freud, Rajneesh, and some dude named Jesus. Anyway, it's basically saying that all people who are revered in ways like these guys are have many similar characteristics, mostly in the childhood lives.

I thought the first couple chapters were great and I was pretty into it, but about halfway through it starts to feel like a textbook and by the end I just wanted it to be over with. And that Jesus dude? Boring.

[Gregor · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book i ever read.

[David Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinner, and Madmen: A Study of Gurus by Anthony Storr (920) (Free Press 1996) (4020).

I thought that this was a book of biographical sketches about the lives of Roman Catholic saints, but it turned out to be something much more interesting. Author and psychiatrist Anothony Storr has written a book about gurus which focuses on the shared characteristics of gurus and their missions. At the conclusion of his narrative, Storr offers prescient words of warning for the twenty-first century; his statement concludes this book review.

What is a guru? The simplest accepted definition of “guru” is “a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide.” Storr considers the behaviors and practices established by a number of gurus, and he illustrates a spectrum of acts, beliefs, and behaviors that ranks gurus from dangerously insane (Jim Jones of the People’s Temple) to misguided (Ignatius of Loyola) to compassionate and selfless (Mother Meera).

The author writes,

“The phenomenon of the guru raises difficult problems about the nature of mental illness. Can people be regarded as psychotic merely because they hold eccentric beliefs about the universe and their own significance as prophets or teachers? What are the boundaries between sanity and madness? What does labelling someone as psychotic really mean? Are our current psychiatric classifications adequate?...The sane are madder than we think; the mad are saner.” (Storr, 152).

Are all gurus essentially deluded, and are their followers delusional? The author thinks not:

“Delusions have been defined as abnormal beliefs held with absolute conviction; experienced as self-evident truths usually of great personal significance; not amenable to reason or modification by experience; whose content is often fantastic or at best inherently unlikely, and which are not shared by those of a common social and cultural background.” (Storr 199, quoting Mullen).

Did the author learn anything from his study of gurus? Storrs says that he learned to redefine “crazy" or “insane”:

“If there is one lesson I have learned from writing this book, it is that one should never judge a person to be insane or even unreliable only because he holds bizarre beliefs. Most people in the world subscribe to belief systems for which there is no evidence and which do not stand up to critical evaluation. The diagnosis of insanity must include an assessment of the individual’s social behavior and relationships with other human beings.” (Storr, pp. 232-33).

As promised earlier in this review, the following paragraph represents author Anthony Storr’s cautionary words about gurus:

“If there is one message I want to convey, it is to distrust characters who are both deeply self-absorbed and also authoritarian. No one ever knows in the sense that Gurdjieff or Rajneesh or Jung believed that they knew and were supposed to know by their disciples. All authorities, whether political or spiritual, should be distrusted, and extremely authoritarian characters who divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’, who preach that there is only one way forward, or who believe that they are surrounded by enemies, are particularly to be avoided. It is not necessary to be dogmatic to be effective. The charisma of certainty is a snare which entraps the child which is latent in us all.” (Storr, pp. 232-33).

That warning strikes close to home in America’s current political climate.

My rating: 7.25/10, finished 2/4/25 (4020).

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was drawn to this book after reading 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer. I wanted to understand the psychology behind religious gurus and prophets; to discover common trends and find what it is about such leaders that draw people to follow them.

As the title suggests, this book finds that gurus, to use an idiom from the Bible, typically have feet of clay. As Storr explains, character flaws and/or mental illness are fundamental to becoming a guru, in that it leads to their 'enlightenment' and drives their overwhelming self-confidence. Typically, gurus are unable to relate to other people on a personal level, are intolerant of criticism, are charismatic, narcissistic, paranoid, declare unnegotiable boundaries between 'good' and 'bad', and due to their eccentric beliefs about the universe and their own significance as prophets or teachers, raise difficult questions for the rest of us about determining the fine line between psychosis and rationality.

The book examines religious gurus, such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, George Gurdjieff, Saint Ignatius, and Jesus, as well as non-religious gurus such as Frued, Jung, and Steiner. Interestingly, a common theme for gurus is that they all "go through a period of intense mental distress, sometimes amounting to mental illness, before they emerge with a revelation which both marks the end of their period of turmoil and also provides them with a new message which they preach." It is tempting to dismiss the guru's 'enlightenment' as a symptom of illness, such as schizophrenia. However, Storr points out that eccentric beliefs are not evidence of mental illness.

Storr hits the nail on the heads when he says that idiosyncratic belief systems that are shared by only a few people will likely be regarded as delusional and irrational, but when millions of people share the same belief, they are called religions and are accepted as normal. It is impossible to say that one set of beliefs is delusional while the other is sane. The result is a kind of societal-wide cognitive dissonance where, to use Storr's example, it is normal for atheists and agnostics to have a colleague who is rational in their professional and academic life but also passionately believes in the irrationality of the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, who claimed to be the son of God.

Striving to make sense of strange experiences is a normal human behaviour. People want answers to the big questions and want to believe that there is a reason for their existence and their pain. As Keats put it, "I lived, I died, I know not why. I shall not be remembered" is not easily digestible. People want to follow leaders with answers to hard questions. Unfortunately, many gurus are charlatans and prone to corruption and exploitation of their followers - they have feet of clay. In the words of Euripides, "the wisest men follow their own direction and listen to no prophet guiding them."

I gave this book three stars because the analysis only touched the surface. Storr focused on the psychological profile of gurus, but this cannot be separated from the wider cultural/ideological profile of society at the time. This topic merits a much deeper discussion than 250 pages can do justice to.

[Ben Shenton · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was recommended to me by Chris Johnson, the author of 'The Family' which I grew up in.
Reading this seemed to be his rational response for why Anne Hamilton-Byrne the leader of this cult was revered as a guru.
What continues to annoy me about Psychologist and Psychiastrists is that they seem to refuse to acknowledge the reality of a spiritual world that imposes on the natural world
"We are spiritual beings having an earthly experience rather than an earthly being seeking a spiritual experience"
Anthony Starr spoke about Jung and Freud coming up with a framework that they shoe horned evidence to fit into once they settled on their theory to explain life around them and how they related to them.
I felt very much he is doing the same.
He lost me at the point where he brushed over the life of Jesus Christ to fit him into his framework of 40 days fasting being his intense period of self examination and personal crisis that brought about his clarity of message. He didn't know it before the 40 day fast because he ask John to baptise him.
Any knowledge and critical analysis of the bible would immediately show that this isn't valid.
to paraphrase what happened.
John told Jesus, "You should be baptised by me!" Jesus told him, "This must be done so that scripture is fulfilled!"
He knew His mission that is foretold in scripture hundreds of years earlier that he had no control over, His birth and origins are clearly laid out and provide a 100% match.
Having studied all of this and like hundreds of millions of Christians throughout millennia know that these are historical facts and great minds and thousands have failed to overturn this reality... Anthony Storr discredited himself in his haste to shoe horn Jesus Christ into his clinical analysis paradigm.
It reminds me of story of an art curator of a famous painting gallery that asked a visitor what he thought of the famous artworks that were on display. The visitor offered up the following summation , "I don't think much of these at all." The curator replied, "Dear sir, these paintings have already been judged by the greatest critics through the ages as master pieces; it is not these paintings that are being judged but rather those that look upon them!"

[Martin Kollouch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Zklamání. Kniha vykazuje dle mého názoru dosti vad. Zaprvé, autor vybral z velké části guruy, kteří nebyli v pořádku - Koresh, Jones, asi nejextrémnější případy v dějinách. Označovat Junga a Freuda za guruy je přitažené za vlasy, i když splňují autorovu definici gurua, přičemž nikdo neříká, že je správná. Jeho kategorizace Paula Bruntona jako nemocného člověka na základě výpovědi jednoho člověka, který o něm napsal nelichotivou knihu, přestože lze nalézt mnoho knih opačného názoru, značí, dle mého pohledu, snahu o podporu vlastní teorie nehledě na skutečnost. Storr absolutně pomíjí guruy, kteří byli a jsou osobami, které skutečně osvětlují druhé a vybírá jen ty špatné a nebo v případě Steinera "vcelku dobré, ale i přesto pomýlené". Další otázkou je jeho pojetí společnosti. Jsou normy, které uznává většinová společnost skutečně správné? A existuje vůbec něco jako většinová společnost? Na jisté úrovni určitě ano, ale při důkladnějším zkoumání je to pojem iluzorní. Navíc bych si dovolil ostře rozporovat, že většinová společnost uznává vědu jako hlavní prvek určující budoucnost - už jenom kolik lidí dle výzkumů rozporuje například medicínu, popírání evoluce a víra v kreacionismus, otázka změn klimatu a nevíra v závěry ekologů a tak dále.
Kniha je plochým a jednostranným pohledem na téma guruů a pro mne je absolutním zklamáním a nijak přínosnou ji neshledávám, nehledě na to, že je v mnoha případech značně zavádějící a zjednodušením podává často pokřivený pohled na jednotlivé osoby. (Například zjednodušení příběhu o Bhagwanovi a nebo jeho zjevná nelibost k Jungovi.)

[D.K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not a fan of the soft sciences, but this is a very interesting book. In a world marked by differences, this book highlights the commonalities of influential people and how minor deviations produce vastly different outcomes. It lacks the uninteresting analytical jargon, and instead takes a conversational overview of well known social, scientific, academic and cult standouts, and their not as well known paths to success, or in some more relevant cases monumental failures.
The positions the author projects are well supported based on accepted psychological and psychiatric standards, but offers more personal insight into the small stumbles that create spectacular falls , and the leaps of faith that give voice to the personal and public successes of these extraordinary people.
I would recommend this to anyone, who like myself, is interested in the fragility of the human psyche, and the flexibility of the human soul.

[James S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

A rushed, restrained, and surprisingly mild study of what the author calls "gurus," by which he means "cult leaders." He condemns the obviously repugnant cult leaders (Jim Jones), albeit in a brief handful of pages, but when it comes to more complex figures like Freud, he's more ambivalent. While acknowledging that Freudian theory is nothing more than a "secular religion," he also goes on to state that certain aspects of psychotherapy have been helpful. It's obvious the author is a recovering Freudian with a lingering Stockholm syndrome. In his own way, Freud was just as destructive as Jim Jones, but you'll see no such acknowledgment here. Likewise for several other cult figures. If you're looking for an exposé of cult leaders, or for an investigation into why people are attracted to them, look elsewhere.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was irked at the lack of mention of the substances what make up the other body parts. Sure the feet they's made of clay but what about the elbows or the neck napes? I think that a book about leadership should mention all of the body parts that make for a good guru. Freud had his beard, Jesus had his beard, Bhagwan Rajneesh had his beard, Jim Jones had his tinted eye glasses. But Storr makes no mention of the elements that made up those parts. Other than that it was a fine book. It gives the reader (who reads with his eyes made out of fluids and white stuff) a lot to think about when it comes to joining cults. They say leadership is in the eye of the follower. This book talks mostly of cult leaders I think we know a lot about what they're made of already and it ain't clay. It's the stuff that comes out of anuses for the most part.

[Irfan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like Anthony Storr's other books this one is also quite impressive!

When it comes to Gurus...they have certain characteristics in common. First, they believe they have been granted a special insight into truth. They tend to have had isolated childhoods. They frequently undergo a time of psychological stress or breakdown following which they receive their revelation. Surprisingly, most of them are intolerant of criticism and do expel anyone who disagrees with them.
Now one has to know that some of them are wise men and some are evil. And that's what the author goes in detail to explain.

Highly recommended!

[Ben Tyrer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting look at the characteristics many gurus share, and how people develop belief systems which are then spread to others, who reinforce and even help to develop the original delusion. Comparisons are drawn between several notable gurus, which are interesting accounts, while the author describe patterns and similarities in their histories that could constitute a theory of what makes a guru. The author is generous with interjection and his own opinions, which helped keep the book from becoming tiring — which was a risk as the format became a little repetitive toward the end.

[Harry · Rating 3 out of 5]

The summary of the ideas and lives of gurus such as Bhagwan Rajneesh and Gurdjieff was interesting in itself; the reading that these gurus emerge through psychiatric crises was really original and convincing. The book then goes on to raise really interesting questions: how are psychiatric disorders and creativity and genius related? Are religions also founded on similar processes driven by psychiatric disorders? Is the need for religion driven by this too?

The book is just 'ok' writing, so it's not such an enjoyable read, but it is provocative and original thinking.

[Alex Urrutia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was interested in this book because it understandably came up a LOT in Krakauer’s Under The Banner of Heaven. Definitely an interesting read that draws a lot of common threads both socially and psychologically between many of history’s gurus. Like I mentioned after reading UTBoH, I find personal faith endlessly fascinating so this was insightful to see it from the other side as it studied the folks who are more the leaders in it and how they gather and maintain a following.

[Fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

So much covered in one book - gurus, nasty cult leaders, why, what characteristics they share whether they are good or downright hideous, and why people feel the need to follow them. I wouldn't have touched this if it wasn't for book club but I feel like I learnt so much. A little bit unstructured in places but I got there in the end. Learnt something. All good

[Amartya Acharya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Feet of Clay is a very detailed and exhaustive analysis of the so called gurus or teachers and their mental states, the analysis of their ego and the so called narcissism. The distinguishing feature of this book is that it analyses every teaching of the so called guru and tries to correlate that with what is happening with the man itself. It's a fascinating if somewhat a very exhausting read.

[Jamey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The opening chapter of Jim Jones and David Koresh was so disturbing that I had to stop reading. That is not a criticism of the author or the book. But I then skipped ahead to the brief chapter on Rudolph Steiner, who was apparently quite benevolent, decent, and altruistic. I wondered why he was included in this book at all.

[Ben Erlandson · Rating 4 out of 5]

First pass gave me the impression that this book is exceptional, and I'll need to re-read in the future many times. Lots of pencil marks already. I'm interested in this topic to inform character and plot development in an ongoing fiction project.

I'll be reading more of Storr's work.