Lecture Outline:
- Deprogramming as Antidote
- The Character of Deprogramming
- Deprogramming and the Law
- The Effects of Deprogramming
- Suggested Readings
- About This Course
Part I: Deprogramming as Antidote
Deprogramming as Antidote
- The Presuppositions of Deprogramming Advocates
- The Logic of Deprogramming
The Presuppositions of Deprogramming Advocates
- Brainwashing is difficult to resist and has powerful effects.
- Leaders effectively "program" those whom they lure into the
"cult."
- Reversing these effects requires equally powerful measures.
- Programming can only be reversed by " "deprogramming."
The Logic of Deprogramming
- Conversion to a new creed via brainwashing involves
deceptive measures including:
- Drugs
- Food and sleep deprivation
- Various other techniques to reduce rational functioning
- Hypnosis
- Once converted, the individual is enslaved and unable
to act independently of the directives of his/her manipulators.
- Commitment to the new religion is not really a true commitment
but, rather, a pseudo-conversion.
- Process reversal (deprogramming) of he programmed
victim is necessary to restore free will and rational choice.
- Enslaved individuals have no rights because they have
been taken away by the group.
Part II: The Character of Deprogramming
Deprogramming involves a wide array of practices ranging from:
- Involuntary (Coercive) methods to
- Voluntary (Noncoercive) methods
Deprogramming involves a wide array of practices
- Involuntary vs. Voluntary
Involuntary Deprogramming (Coercive)
- The abducted person is taken to an isolated location from
which he/she is not free to leave
- The abductors engage in intense, virtually non-stop,
interrogation
- The abducted one is compelled to listen to prolonged defaming
of the group and its leader.
- The abducted person is pushed to physical and mental
exhaustion..
- Deprogrammers work toward one goal -- forcing the abductee to
renunciation of the group, its leader, and its beliefs
- Initiated by kidnapping or luring an NRM member under false
pretenses.
Voluntary Deprogramming (Non-coercive)
- The goal of voluntary deprogramming is the same as involuntary
deprogramming-- to "talk people out" of their new faith commitment.
- The dividing line between voluntary and involuntary
deprogramming is whether or not the invidiual has agreed to
participate.
- In reality, there is great variability in how voluntary
deprogramming is conducted. An individual may agree to "talk"
about their new faith and then later discover they have entered a
situation from which it is extremely difficult to exit.
- Thus, voluntary deprogramming may vary from coercive-like to a
much kinder, gentler, informal process from which the cult member
may or may not elect to continue memberhip.
Part III: Deprogramming and the Law
Deprogramming and the Law
- The Lesser of Evils
- Convervatorships
- Covert Deprogramming
The Lesser of Evils
- Not all deprogrammings have been successful.
- Some NRM members who escaped or faked a renunciation of the
faith sued their parents and/or the deprogrammers for kidnapping.
- Where these individuals were legally adults, the facts of the
case were pretty clear cut.
- The defense of the deprogrammers has been the "lesser of
evils" argument.
- There have been quite a number of convictions, but sentences
have tended to be quite light.
Further observation on the "lesser of evils" defense
- Deprogrammers view their activity as rescuing innocent victims
from the sinister influence of pernicious cults.
- Note the parallelism in this argument and the leadership of
"Operation Rescue," the anti-abortion movement.
Conservatorships
- Conservatorship defined: a court order granting legal
guardianship to one individual over the affairs of another because
the latter is judged to be incompetent to conduct their own
affairs.
Conservatorships and "cults"
- As early as 1975 some parents took advantage of
conservatorship laws to have their adult children declared
mentally incompetent.
- Once a temporary conservatorship was granted by a court,
parents rushed their child off for deprogramming.
- Under the protection of the conservatorship, the
deprogrammings were legal.
- These temporary conservatorships were challenged by the
religious movements.
- The deprogrammers and their supporters, in turn, sought
conservatorhips legislation with broader powers.
The battle for broader conservatorships
- The battle ground for broader latitude in conservatorship
legislation took place in New York state where as legislator named
Leshner introduce a broad sweeping bill.
- Nearly identical legislation was introduced in approximately
35 states
- The Leshner Bill was twice passed by the NY legislature,
but First Amendment proponents rallied and two different
governors vetoed the bill.
- As a result, the conservatorship legislation failed to make
inroads across the nation.
Covert deprogramming
- Deprogramming is alive and well in America today, but most of
it is ostensibly voluntary.
- Involuntary deprogramming has become a precarious business --
but it still exists.
- Galen Kelley convicted of kidnapping .in Northern Virginia in
1993.
Part IV:The Effects of Deprogramming
The Effects of Deprogramming
- Deprogrammers Have High Levels of Success
- Why Is Deprogramming Successful?
- What Are the Psychological Consequence of Leaving?
Deprogrammers Have High Levels of Success
- In 1987 David Bromley was able to obtain data from the files
of the Unification Church on 400 members who were deprogrammed.
- This profile of Unification Church members is the only data of
its kind that has ever been publically available.
- It offers some important clues both about the demographics and
the success rates of deprogramming.
Unification Church deprogrammings by year: 1973-1986
|
1973
|
2
|
|
1974
|
10
|
|
1975
|
81
|
|
1976
|
108
|
|
1977
|
32
|
|
1978
|
14
|
|
1979
|
23
|
|
1980
|
25
|
|
1981
|
50
|
|
1982
|
30
|
|
1983
|
16
|
|
1984
|
4
|
|
1985
|
0
|
|
1986
|
1
|
|
TOTAL
|
396
|
Who is deprogrammed?
|
Age
|
Percent
|
|
Minor
|
21.5%
|
|
Adults
|
78.5%
|
Sex:
|
Percent
|
|
Females
|
52%
|
|
Males
|
48%
|
Length of membership
|
Percent
|
|
< 1 year
|
49.5%
|
|
> 1 year
|
51.5%
|
Deprogramming success rates
|
Age at deprogramming
|
Success
|
Failure
|
|
<18-20
|
76%
|
24%
|
|
21-25
|
60%
|
40%
|
|
26+
|
54%
|
45%
|
|
Average
|
64%
|
36%
|
Sex of deprogrammee
|
Success
|
Failure
|
|
Male
|
61%
|
39%
|
|
Female
|
68%
|
32%
|
|
|
|
|
Membership length
|
Success
|
Failure
|
|
< 1 year
|
86%
|
14%
|
|
1-3 years
|
61%
|
39%
|
|
3 years +
|
41%
|
59%
|
Why is Deprogramming Successful?
- May already have doubts
- May be burned out by the hectic, demanding life-style of the
group
- May feel acute guilt/grief over turmoil family has experienced
- Deprogrammers present shocking information about the unsavory
behavior of the individual's group and leader.
- The individual is identified as a victim of brainwashing
perpetrated by the "cults."
- The beliefs of the group are presented as heretical to their
family's faith tradition.
- Deprogrammers seek to capitalize on all of these factors,
especial guilt.
What Happens to People Who Leave Cults and Sects?
James Lewis study of former NRM members who left
groups by three routes:
- Own volition>
- Voluntary exit counseling
- Involuntary exitc counseling
Lewis concludes:
- People who leave NRMs involuntarily do suffer
a mental disorder found in DSMIII
Post traumatic Stress Syndrome
- But the cause is not membership, but the trama
people are subjected to as a result of deprogramming (exit
counseling)
Part V: Reading Bibliography on Deprogramming
- Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, eds. 1983.
- The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy: Sociological, Psychological, Legal
and Historical Perspectives. Lewiston, New York: Edward Mellen Press.
- Kelley, Dean M. 1977.
- "Deprogramming and Religious Liberty," The Civil Liberties Review.
(July/August): 23-33.
- Patrick, Ted. 1976.
- Let Our Children Go. New York: E.P. Dutton.
- Ungerleider, J. Thomas, and David K. Wellisch, 1989.
- "Deprogramming (Involuntary Departure), Coercion, and Cults," in Marc Galanter, ed.
Cults and New Religious Movements. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
pp. 239-253.
