Psychological toll of being a spy behind lines

Try also checking what it's like to be an undercover cop - in a gang, using drugs, etc. It should be very similar.

Do you know the tv game show "The Mole"? One of the 10 contestants is a double agent trying to make the games fail while the others are trying to unmask him or her. You might also want to check what moles past and present (and around the world) have said on the subject of deception and the toll it takes on them.

I'm not sure 'The Mole' comparisons are fair.

It's a TV show. The consequence of getting caught is not winning a competition. That's it.

In a war situation the consequences of getting caught is death. I don't have the references near me at the moment, but from reading examples in World War II - the spies often had massive tolls on their health.

In one example the family described him as having aged 30 years due to the tremendous stresses.

There was a study done on Dutch Underground Agents after the Second World War .. many had quite debilitating health issues due to living under continual stress.

Good luck with your project,

Mac

One psychological problem with which a mole must cope is cognitive dissonance. When you assume a side long enough to be believable and effective, the tendency is to begin to believe it yourself. A mole has to constantly fight that effect and remind himself of his purpose. Such persistent inner conflict can create symptoms similar to those of multiple personality disorder. If that happens, you can no longer trust yourself to maintain and respect priorities. You can, in the vernacular, turn.

Can I suggest you try the books of John Le Carre (assuming you haven't already), A Perfect Spy is probably going to be useful. The author used to work for the intelligence services so you're going to get a good flavour of the psychology involved. Possibly Len Deighton's Game, Set and Match series might help you also.

Good luck.

Your spy is going to start off with a set of core beliefs. My side are the good guys. I'm spying on people who are bad or at least untrustworthy. I'm doing good, etc.

Initially they might start with a fear of failure, of being responsible for not stopping bad things happening combined with a fear of being caught. They're going to be living in a state of increased arousal and tension. Their appetite and speech might be poor, they might be jumpy, unable to relaxe. If they can deal with that then great, if it's overwhelming then that kind of pressure eventually leads to burnout.

Then cognitive dissonance comes into play. I'm spying on the bad guys...right? They'll meet some people who they like and who don't seem so bad, make a few friends, figure out that the kitten-killing facility their bosses told them about is actually a children's hospital. Their core beliefs are going to start being challenged. It gets harder to spy on the bad guys when you start seeing evidence that they aren't all bad. this could lead to second thoughts, depression, quitting or even switching sides....or to protect yourself from it you have to become a little inhuman and dehumanise the enemy.

Longer term, when you start to dehumanise people then it's easy to go a bit too far, become a little heartless. ignore the suffering of those around you or even add to it. Even James bond's womanising crosses this line a little. Some limited psychopathic traits like low empathy are probably quite helpful as a spy. To use or harm someone you either have to believe they're bad enough to deserve it or feel detached enough from their feelings not to care.

Then you'll have to deal with seeing the results of your work pay off. if you're sending information back home about finances and technology then that's easier than sending the name of a person, then knowing they've "disappeared" leaving a distraught family behind. After you've done that once I imagine it's going to get harder to send names.

Throw in the possibility of self doubt, possible traumatic experiences and guilt and i suspect a spy has to be a special kind of person.

i imagine that if one wasn't suited to that lifestyle then most agencies would not want to recruit you, unless you were a disposible asset and the agency planned to disown you when you were caught.

If i were recruiting spys I'd be looking for intelligent people with a ruthless streak who firmly believed in my cause.


Craig

LindaJeanne said:

I've been having difficulty with research for one of the sub-plots of my WIP.

I want to know about the psychological toll of being a spy living in enemy territory.

In part, this depends on where your spy is stationed, and whether or not there's a war going on. Peacetime espionage is its own creature, and even then it has two components: whether your spy is an illegal agent, without diplomatic protection, or whether he's attached to an embassy or the UN. Diplomatic immunity means just that: you can't be arrested, only expelled from the country. Much less stressful. I assume, however, that you're asking about the experience of illegal agents here.

What effect does it have on someone's psyche, to spend years lying to everyone they meet (including supposed "good friends") about who they are, where they're from, what they believe, and what they want? What toll does it take to have the constant background awareness of the risk (and consequences) of discovery (like a sword-of-Damocles on steroids)?

Two books you should pick up--and I'd hesitate to use John LeCarre, despite his experience, because of the rather one-sided and dark cast to his work--are KGB and KGB Today, both authored by John Barron. The sections dealing with Rudi Hermann and Kaarlo Tuomi are good representations of living "behind the lines" during peacetime. In general, the initial deployment causes some stress, but acclimation takes place over time.

One thing to remember is that many people in intelligence have learned to think that lying is a necessary and not immoral act. The end is seen to justify the means. If this thinking breaks down over time--for instance, the spy sees that he has caused suffering to others and can no longer justify it--then revulsion occurs, and sometimes a change of loyalties as well.

And through all this, being cut off from the usual "support network" of friends and family?

Anyone without support is going to suffer additional stress. However it's worth noting that in some cases spies are deployed with their families. This is particularly true of diplomatic personnel, and has also occurred with illegals. Of course, even the family deployment can cause strain if the spy can't talk about or explain his work.

What psychological traits make one suitable? It seems like a contradiction: loyal enough to something to take such tremendous risks, but comfortable enough with deception to live a lie.

It's actually not so contradictory. Human beings are tremendously skilled at rationalization; and a spy, who lives outside the norms, simply makes a daily practice of it. It's when he can't rationalize anymore that he runs into trouble.

What effects does the job have on those who are suitable for it -- and on people who turned out to be less suitable? I'm interested in both short-term effects and long-term effects.

Google the effects of chronic stress to get a range of responses. No two people are alike, nor will they exhibit all the symptoms in the same way.

You can also look at the responses of soldiers to war. Some develop PTSD, and others do not. Core resilience, physical factors, family background and many other factors play a part here.

What options does someone in that situation have, if they are perceptive enough to realize they are starting to crack from the strain -- assuming that warning a superior about their mental health and walking away isn't an option?

Depends on how far your man is willing to go. If he can't alert his superiors and can't be exfiltrated, he's going to fall back on whatever coping mechanisms he's used to best effect in the past: distractions, alcohol, exercise, religion, or just about anything that people do to cope. He may try to exert control in areas of his life that have nothing to do with espionage--becoming obsessive about diet, for example, or growing rigid routines. Or he may take up gardening. You can take about any track here that fits your character.

What happens when he can't cope anymore: most likely defection or suicide--but those are last ditch options, unless he's come to a moral conclusion that defecting is the right thing to do.

My searches for information on "psychology" and "espionage" (in academic databases, not just the web) have turned up the wrong sort of info: how to predict who is at risk for selling secrets to either an enemy government or a corporate competitor (depending on context). This is not remotely helpful.

No, not really. The libraries, and old WWII or Cold War memoirs, are likely to be of more use here.

Click to expand...

Hope this helps, and if I can answer any more questions, feel free to shoot me a PM.

If you're interested in the undercover police analogy, try Googling books by or about RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) undercover agents. They seem to have sent quite a few people undercover against various mobs, with a range of results, a couple of the men wrote memoirs about their times, and other books have been written about them.

You also must consider the spy's assignment. The kinds of work vary widely. Intelligence field offices need all kinds of help where they cannot use local nationals. The janitor in a secure facility will be treated as much like a spy as an assassin. Intelligence analysts in the field typically have no more job-related stress than those at Langley. It can be pretty hum-drum, just another bureacracy.

But that would be a boring book.

Think about the Redford character in Three Days of the Condor. Although set in D.C. it's a study of an average guy suddenly thrust into a tense, dangerous situation. One of my favorite spy movies, and the book, Six Days of the Condor is better.

aliwood said:

Can I suggest you try the books of John Le Carre (assuming you haven't already), A Perfect Spy is probably going to be useful. The author used to work for the intelligence services so you're going to get a good flavour of the psychology involved. Possibly Len Deighton's Game, Set and Match series might help you also.

Click to expand...

I suggest Le Carré, also. His first novel, The Spy Who Came In from the Cold is all about this very issue. And Le Carré is a much better writer than Deighton, IMO.

caw

Al Stevens said:

You also must consider the spy's assignment. The kinds of work vary widely. Intelligence field offices need all kinds of help where they cannot use local nationals. The janitor in a secure facility will be treated as much like a spy as an assassin. Intelligence analysts in the field typically have no more job-related stress than those at Langley. It can be pretty hum-drum, just another bureacracy.

Click to expand...

In line with what Al is saying, and depending on where/when your WIP is set:

The KGB also fielded agents in various capacities, some as observers, some as "sleepers," others as agents of influence. At the same time, most were not intelligence professionals--they were civilians recruited in these capacities, and were under the direction of KGB officers, either legal or illegal. Russian students and expatriates were commonly used, as were nationals of third countries where the KGB had an influence.

Caught spying, they would run the same risks as anyone else, but at the same time the risk of detection and arrest could be fairly low.

Intelligence work can be as bland as vanilla pudding, and like Al told you, thoroughly bureaucratic. In fact, a common source of stress for spies can be dealing with their own bureaucracy, just like any other job. If you're looking for the high-stress, stereotypical picture of a spy, however, you'll either be looking at wartime or a hostile country (i.e. one likely to hand you life in prison or the death penalty), and being an illegal without diplomatic protection, doing sensitive recruiting or actual sabotage.

Note: In wartime, all bets are off, and you can lose your life quite neatly without actually doing much to earn the penalty. Also, if you're playing both sides of the game and your own country catches you, you're pretty well toast--and again, if you're caught playing on the enemy's team.

Also, as long as we're on this subject, let me introduce you to MICE--the four reasons most commonly cited for someone agreeing to spy or to trade sides.

Money: maybe greed, maybe debts to pay off, maybe a financial emergency. Quick cash is needed or wanted here.

Ideology: a belief that this really is the right thing to do, for one reason or another. This makes you one of the "good guys."

Compromise: some form of blackmail or threat of exposure. A common KGB trap was to stage a seduction and then use the photos to get cooperation from the victim.

Ego: wanting to be important, or to have the power of secrets nobody else has. This is a pretty common one, with the target susceptible to flattery and a bit of cash thrown in. People who have never been more than adequate, or feel unappreciated, can be vulnerable.

So now you know....

If it's available to you, try The Spy Museum in Washington, DC. They have an extensive exhibit and a spy tour. They also have an extensive bookstore you may be able to order from (ask for a recommendation and see what it gets you). When I went there, I think I saw a film on how spying makes the person constantly look over their shoulder. They're never completely comfortable because they're constantly worried about getting caught.

Also, try looking at the books written about people who were spies. There's quite a few on Hansen, Aldrich, etc. The problem with being motivated with money is that the purpose for having it is to spend it. Those spies sometimes get caught once people start noticing that nice boat that they shouldn't be able to afford.

Try documentaries on spies. Because those are for the public and things about people tend to sell better, there's likely to be something on the spy experience.

The Spy Museum would probably have some exhibits of interest. It also--how shall I say this? caters to the public love of the dramatic; and at least a couple of the people I last knew to be associated with it have what you might call a knack for self-promotion.

It would be a good tour, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

BTW, even egregious behavior doesn't always draw the attention it should. The warning signs around Aldrich Ames were missed repeatedly, and despite the official story, it was a Russian double-agent who turned him in--something of poetic justice, given the number of Soviet double- agents he betrayed to death.

But yes, good suggestions.