Deprogramming

Deprogramming refers to actions to persuade or force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious or political group.

Deprogramming is normally commissioned by concerned relatives of the follower, often parents of adult children, and is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion and civil rights.

Supporters of deprogramming portray the practice as an antidote to supposedly coercive religious conversion practices by "cults." They describe it as a last resort for families who feel that their loved ones have been taken away from them. The courts in western countries have generally ruled that the practice of deprogramming is a serious crime, involving both kidnapping and a violation of the victim's right to freedom of religion and association.

While during the 1970s and 1980s deprogramming was a common technique, in later years other types of interventions followed that do not involve kidnapping and forcibible confinement. Sometimes the word deprogramming is used in a wider sense, to mean the freeing of someone (often oneself) from any previously uncritically assimilated idea.

History

Precursors

While the term "deprogramming" first came into use in the 1970s, the phenomenon of parents and relatives taking desperate measures to influence a convert to renounce a new faith dates back to ancient times. However, it should be noted that proponents of deprogramming make a distinction between this practice and its precursors. In the New Testament, the mother and brothers of Jesus of Nazareth were so concerned about Jesus' preaching that they believed him to be insane: "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" (Mark 3:21) This prompted Jesus to disassociate himself from his family, saying "Who are my mother and my brothers?... Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-34)

Indeed, the history of western religion contains many examples of people being forced to renounced their faith. The Apostle Paul, before becoming a Christian, reportedly worked for the high priest to forcible remove new Christians from their communites and bring them to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2) The parents of St. Francis of Assisi went to the civil authorities to force him to recant his decision to give away his possessions and devote himself to "Lady Poverty." The Spanish Inquisition resorted to torture and death threats in order to influence heretics to leave their new faiths and return to the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation witnessed numerous families being divided as members opted for this or that version of Christianity. In the New World, known for its religious freedom, Baptists were whipped in an effort to repress their "heresy" in Massachussetts, and Quakers were sometimes executed if their refused to recant their views.

The American and French revolutions contained guarantees of freedom of religion. However, in practice, citizens who opted for new or unpopular faiths were often forced to leave them. In the early nineteenth century, a wave of fear over the Masonic "conspiracy" resulted in numerous cases of Masons being pressured into publicly denouncing their Masonic brethren under threats of both social and physical punishments. In the nineteeth century, members of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other new religions were vulnerable to agents of their families who sometimes forcibly removed them from their communities and returned them to their relatives against their will. Court decisions gradually guaranteed the right of adults to choose a new religion even over their parents' objections. After the end of World War II this right was guaranteed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. —Article 18

Deprogramming's advent

The word "deprogramming" was coined by Ted Patrick, a man who became concerned about the danger of "cults" after the Children of God attempted to recruit his son in San Diego, California in 1971. Patrick infiltrated the group and came to see them and virtually all new religious movements as a serious threats. Cult members, he claimed, were literally incapable of exercising their freedom of will, because their minds had been systematically controlled by their leaders. "Thinking to a cult member is like being stabbed in the heart with a dagger," said Patrick. "It's very painful because they've been told that the mind is Satan and thinking is the machinery of the Devil." (Conway and Siegelman, ch. 6)

Soon Patrick had made a career of kidnapping and "deprogramming" members of such groups as Hare Krishna,, Scientology, the Children of God, the Unification Church and others. A nationwide network was soon spawned involving deprogrammers, private detectives, guards to prevent "deprogrammees" from escaping their "rescuers," and anti-cult groups that served to educate the public against "cults" and simultaneously refer frightened parents to deprogrammers.

Patrick described details of some of his violent, forcible abductions in his book Let Our Children Go! (E. P. Dutton, 1976, page 96)

"Wes had taken up a position facing the car, with his hands on the roof and his legs spread-eagled. There was no way to het him inside while he was braced like that. I had to make a quick decision. I reached down between Wes's legs, grabbed him by the crotch and squeezed—hard. He let out a howl, and doubled up, grabbing for his groin with both hands. Then I hit, shoving him headfirst into the back seat of the car and piling in on top of him."

Other well known deprogammers included Steve Hassan, Rick Ross, and Galen Kelly. While nearly all deprogrammings involved abductions and forcible confinement, not all deprogrammers ascribed to Patrick's brand of physical intimidate and scare tactics.

A number of criminal proceedings against Patrick have resulted in felony convictions for kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment. Other deprogrammers likewise found themselves in trouble with law. However, throughout the 1970s and 80s, large numbers of young adults had joined new religions and the "cult scare" among American and Euopean parents created a strong market for deprogrammers. Ex-cult members who had themselves been deprogrammed, such as Hassan, sometimes became deprogrammers themselves. Even after deprogramming's demise in the U.S. and Europe, large numbers of adherents of new religions in Japan, especially members of the Unification Church, faced deprogramming attempts during the 1990s and early 2000s.

Deprogramming procedures

While there was no "standard" deprogramming procedure, the general prodecure involved:

• voluntary or involuntary removal from the "cult" community
• holding the person in isolation, usually against their will
• establishing a personal relationship
• disputing or attacking "cult information" and imparting "new information" on the "cult"
• preventing the person from engaging in behaviors such as scripture reading, prayer, and chanting
• blocking communication with any persons who might encourage the person to return to the "cult"
• eliciting an overt sing that deprogrammee has renounced his or her allegiance to the cult, such as a public renunciation

Sylvia Buford, an associate of Ted Patrick who assisted him on many deprogrammings, described five stages of deprogramming (Stoner, C., & Parke, J. (1977). All God's children: The cult experience - salvation or slavery? Radrior, PA: Chilton ):

1. Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
2. Present contradictions (ideology vs. reality): "How can he preach love when he exploits people?" is an example.
3. The breaking point: When a subject begins to listen to the deprogrammer; when reality begins to take precedence over ideology.
4. Self-expression: When the subject begins to open up and to voice some of his own gripes against the cult.
5. Identification and transference: when the subject begins to identify with the deprogrammers, starts to think of himself as an opponent of the cult rather than a member of it.

British sociologist Eileen Barker wrote:

Numerous testimonies by those who were subjected to a deprogramming describe how they were threatened with a gun, beaten, denied sleep and food and/or sexually assaulted... In November 1987, Cyril Vosper, a Committee member of the British cult-awareness group, FAIR, was convicted in Munich of "causing bodily harm" in the course of one of his many deprogramming attempts; and a number of similar convictions are on record for prominent members of CAGs [Cult Awareness Groups] elsewhere.

Exit counselor Carol Giambalvo admitted:

It was believed that the hold of the brainwashing over the cognitive processes of a cult member needed to be broken—or "snapped" as some termed it—by means that would shock or frighten the cultist into thinking again. For that reason in some cases cult leader's pictures were burned or there were highly confrontational interactions between deprogrammers and cultist. What was often sought was an emotional response to the information, the shock, the fear, and the confrontation. There are horror stories—promoted most vehemently by the cults themselves—about restraint, beatings, and even rape. And we have to admit that we have met former members who have related to us their deprogramming experience—several of handcuffs, weapons wielded and sexual abuse.<ref.From Deprogramming to Thought Reform Consultation Retrieved May 31, 2007.</ref>

Deprogramming and violence

While distinctions can be made between "focible" and "voluntary" deprogramming, American courts have accepted as fact that deprogramming, in that it forcibly confines a person against his or her will, involves violence against the deprogrammee, as well as false imprisonment, and even kindapping.

In Colombrito vs. Kelly, the Court accepted the definition of deprogramming by J. Le Moult published in 1978 in the Fordham Law Review:

Deprogrammers are people who, at the request of a parent or other close relative, will have a member of a religious sect seized, then hold him against his will and subject him to mental, emotional, and even physical pressures until he renounces his religious beliefs. Deprogrammers usually work for a fee, which may easily run as high as $25,000. The deprogramming process begins with abduction. Often strong men muscle the subject into a car and take him to a place where he is cut from everyone but his captors. He may be held against his will for upward of three weeks. Frequently, however, the initial deprogramming only last a few days. The subject's sleep is limited and he is told that he will not be released until his beliefs meet his captors' approval. Members of the deprogramming group, as well as members of the family, come into the room where the victim is held and barrage him with questions and denunciations until he recants his newly found religion

Courts also ruled that not only the deprogrammers themselves, but also the parents of adult members of new religions, could be criminally and civilly liable in deprogramming cases if they had hired an agent who carried out a crime in an effort to force an adult to renounce his or her chosen faith. The theory that the adherents of new religions were "brainwashed" was rejected as a basis for justifying forcible confinement and deprogramming.

The Death of Deprogramming

By the mid-1980s, deprogrammers were on the defensive in the courts. A major blow against the practice was struck when pro-deprogramming psychologist Margaret Singer was rejected as an expert witness after the American Psychological Association declined to endorse the findings of her DIMPAC report.

During the 1990s, deprogrammer Rick Ross was sued by Jason Scott, a former member of a group called the Life Tabernacle Church, after an unsuccessful depromming attempt. The jury awarded Scott $875,000 in compensatory damages and and $2,500,000 in punitive damages against Ross, which were later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of services. Moresignificantly, the jury also found that the leading anti-cult group known as the Cult Awareness Network was a co-conspirator in the crime and fined CAN $1,000,000 in punitive damages, forcing the group into bankruptcy. (Scott vs. Ross, Workman, Simpson, Cult Awareness Network). This case is often seen as effectively closing the door on the practice of involuntary deprogramming in the United States.

Former deprogrammers, many of whom had already begun using less violent and more effect techniques to persuade "cult" members to leave their groups, adopted terms such as "exit counseling" and "thought control reform" to describe non-coercive means of accomplishing the goal deprogramming had originally tried to accomplish.

Steven Hassan in his book Releasing the Bonds spoke decidedly against coercive deprogramming methods using force or threats.

Steve Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, states that he took part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, and has spoken out against them since 1980 . Hassan states that he has not participated in any deprogrammings since then, even though page 114 of Combatting, Hassan states that depogrammings can be kept as last resort if all other attempts fail. He is one of the major proponents of exit counseling as a form of intervention therapy, and he refers to his method as "strategic intervention therapy.

Exiting Counseling, etc.=

Involuntary deprogramming has fallen into disfavor because of its illegal and other controversial aspects. A number of prominent anti-cult groups and persons have distanced themselves from the practice, noting that a less intrusive form of intervention called exit counseling has been shown to be more effective, less harmful, and less likely to lead to legal action.

The American Civil Liberties Union published a statement in 1977 in which they position deprogramming as a violation of constitutional freedoms:

"ACLU opposes the use of mental incompetency proceedings, temporary conservatorship, or denial of government protection as a method of depriving people of the free exercise of religion, at least with respect to people who have reached the age of majority. Mode of religious proselytizing or persuasion for a continued adherence that do not employ physical coercion or threat of same are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment against action of state laws or by state officials. The claim of free exercise may not be overcome by the contention that 'brainwashing' or 'mind control' has been used, in the absence of evidence that the above standards have been violated."

In the 1980s in the United States, namely in New York (Deprogramming Bill, 1981), Kansas (Deprogramming Bill, 1982), and Nebraska (conservatorship legislation for 1985), lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to legalize involuntary deprogramming.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church (many of whose members were targets of deprogramming) issued this statement in 1983:

The methods involved in "deprogramming" are like those used in Communist concentration camps. Using parents and relatives to entrap members, "deprogrammers" commit grown adults to mental hospitals with the supposed "illness" of holding of a minority religious belief. Other typical deprogramming techniques include kidnapping, illegal detention, violence, psychological harassment, sleep deprivation, inducement to use alcohol and drugs, sexual seduction and rape. By such threats, harassment and manipulation professional "deprogrammers" force members to renounce their faith. Many people are injured physically and psychologically because of this criminal activity. [1]

Deprogramming and exit counseling

Deprogramming and exit counseling, sometimes seen as one and the same, are distinct approaches to helping a person to leave a "cult." Some people blur the distinctions on purpose: some practioners do so to avoid criticism; some opponents do so to intensify criticism.

Proponents of the distinction, however, state that deprogramming entails coercion and confinement. In exit counseling the cult member is free to leave at any time. Deprogramming typically costs $10,000 or more, mainly because of the expense of a security team. Exit counseling typically costs $2,000 to $4,000, including expenses, for a three-to-five day intervention, although cases requiring extensive research of little-known groups can cost much more. Deprogramming, especially when it fails, entails considerable legal and psychological risk (e.g., a permanent alienation of the cultist from his or her family). The psychological and legal risks in exit counseling are much smaller. Although deprogrammers prepare families for the process, exit counselors tend to work more closely with families and expect them to contribute more to the process; that is, exit counseling requires that families establish a reasonable and respectful level of communication with their loved one before the exit counseling proper can begin. Because they rely on coercion, which is illegal except in the case of conservatorship and is generally viewed as unethical, deprogrammers' critiques of the unethical practices of cults will tend to have less credibility with cult members than the critiques of exit counselors.[2]

Deprogramming in popular culture

The 70s was a TV miniseries about four friends in the 1970s. One of the friends, played by Amy Smart, suffering a series of failures which damaged her self-esteem. She joins an apparent spiritualist group and changes her name, but does not realize it is under control of Jim Jones. The other friends wish to get her away from the cult, but express concern that the deprogrammer hired seems militaristic and freaky. Another of the friends, played by Guy Torry does the deprogramming himself, showing her pictures and films of her childhood.

A Bugs Bunny cartoon dealt with Elmer Fudd who apparently loses his mind when he thinks he is a rabbit, and gets committed to a mental institution. Bugs Bunny, in his naivete, allows Elmer Fudd to escape. He is then mistakenly deprogrammed into thinking he is Elmer Fudd, which then creates a hilarious situation as Elmer Fudd in a bunny costume is trying to escape from Bugs Bunny who is wearing a hunter's outfit, believing he is Elmer Fudd.

An episode of The Simpsons called Burns' Heir dealt with the family trying to steal Bart away from Mr. Burns, who they believe is taking over Bart's life and upbringing. A deprogrammer who works for Conformco Brain Deprogrammers (which is owned by Mrs. Fields' Cookies) is hired. By mistake, the deprogrammer abducts Hans Moleman and gets him to believe Homer and Marge are his parents.

In the Simpsons episode The Joy of Sect, Homer Simpson is kidnapped from an UFO cult facility and then deprogrammed by Groundskeeper Willie, Reverend Lovejoy and Ned Flanders with the help of a drop of beer on his tongue.

See also

• Opposition to cults and new religious movements
• Intervention (counseling)

Template:Cult mind control links

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

Bibliography

• Conway, Flo & Jim Siegelman, Snapping (1978), excerpt ISBN 0-9647650-0-4
• Colombrito v. Kelly, 764 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985)
• Dubrow-Eichel, Steve K., Ph.D.: Deprogramming: A Case Study, Cultic Studies Journal
• Stephen A. Kent and Josef Szimhart: Exit Counseling and the Decline of Deprogramming., Cultic Studies Review 1 No.3, 2002
• Langone, Michael: Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics, Clarifying the Confusion, Christian Research Institute Journal, 1993 [3]
• Melton, Gordon, J. "Brainwashing": Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe, . [4]
• Le Moult J. (1978), Deprograrnming members of religious sects, Fordham Law Review, 46, pp. 599-640.
• Ross, Rick: A brief history of cult intervention work, 1999 [5]
• Szimhart, Joseph: Persistence of "Deprogramming" Stereotypes in Film, Cultic Studies Journal, 3/2 2004
• Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics: Clarifying the Confusion - by Michael D. Langone and Paul R. Martin, from the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 46.

Dramatization

• Holy Smoke! 1999 movie based on the book with the same name

External links

• Deprogramming on xFamily.org, a wiki about the Children of God cult
• Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies - Center for Studies on New Religions
• Center for Freedom of Mind - espouses "mind control" idea
• Apologetics Index Collection of research resources on religious cults, sects, world religions, doctrines, and related issues. While operated from an evangelical Christian perspective, the entries also include links to material from a variety of viewpoints.
• Religion News Blog Up-to-date news about religious cults, sects, world religions, and related issues.
• The Oracle of Ifa and the Verdict of the Court: A failed attempt to deprogram from the African "Ifa" religion article by Wim Haan (see Ifá religion)

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Deprogramming  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Deprogramming"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.