Deprogramming

Deprogramming refers to actions to persuade or force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious or other group deemed to have placed the person under "mind control." It is normally commissioned by concerned relatives of the follower, often parents of adult children and involves forcible abduction and confining the person against his or her will without prior psychological evaluation. This led to controversies over freedom of religion and civil rights in the US, Europe and Japan in the late twentieth century.

Supporters of deprogramming portray the practice as an antidote to supposedly coercive religious conversion practices by "cults." They describe it as a desperate but necessary resort for families who feel that their loved ones have been taken away from them and may be in serious danger. 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—especially after deprogrammers found themselves liable to jail and expensive civil suits—other types of non-forcible interventions, such as "exit counseling," followed that do not involve kidnapping and forcible confinement.

Forcible deprogramming has virtually disappeared in western countries, but it is still reported occastionally in Japan. A widespread state-sponsored, often extremely violent deprogramming campaign is in progress in China against members of the Falun Gong spiritual movment.

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! hoever 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 renounce their faith. The Apostle Paul, before becoming a Christian, reportedly worked as an agent of the Jewish high priest to forcibly remove new Christians from their communities 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 opposing versions of Christianity.

Even 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 not necessarily protected if family members decided to force them back to more traditional ways. 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 brethren under threats of both social and physical punishments. In the later nineteeth century, members of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other new religions were vulnerable to agents of their relatives who sometimes forcibly removed them from their communities against their will. In the US, Supreme Court decisions gradually upheld the constitutional 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

With religious freedom firmly established in most western countries, parents wishing to force their adult children back into traditional faiths and lifestyles were left with no legal means. Deprogramming would emerge in the early 1970s as a remedy for this perceived problem, complete with a theory of "mind control" that sought, ultimately unsuccessfully, to by-pass religious freedom issues.

Deprogramming's advent

The word "deprogramming" was coined by Ted Patrick, a Democratic community activist 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. Although he had no training as a psychologist, Patrick concluded that "cult" members 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."

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, abduction teams, guards to prevent "deprogrammees" from escaping their "rescuers," and anti-cult groups that educated the public against "cults" and simultaneously refered frightened parents to deprogrammers.

Patrick described details of some of his forcible abductions in his book Let Our Children Go! (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."

While nearly all deprogrammings involved abductions and forcible confinement, not all deprogrammers ascribed to Patrick's brand of physical intimidation and scare tactics. On the other hand, as the demand for deprogrammers increased during the "cult scare" of the 1970s, deprogrammers widened their scope to offer the services not only to relatives of members of new religions, but also to parents who objected to their adult children belonging to left-wing politcal groups, Pentecostal Christian churches, lesbian organizations, Hasidic Jewish movements, and even the Roman Catholic Church.

State attitudes

A number of judges in the United States cooperated with parents and anti-cult groups in issuing conservatorships granting relatives custody over adult "cult" members on the grounds that, even though no court officer or psychologist had interviewed the person in question, he or she was judged to be mentally incompetant. A number of state-sanctioned legal deprogrammings took place under this procedure until higher courts made it clear that such practices violated the civil rights of those who had chosen new faiths.

Meanwhile, several criminal proceedings against Ted Patrick 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 after the Jonestown tragedy of 1978, the "cult scare" among American and Euopean parents continued to create a strong market for deprogrammers. Ex-cult members who had themselves been deprogrammed, such as Steven Hassan, sometimes became deprogrammers themselves. Even after deprogramming's demise in the U.S. and Europe, hundreds of adherents of new religions in Japan, especially members of the Unification Church, faced deprogramming attempts during the 1990s and early 2000s. Although legal rulings have generally gone against deprogramming in Japan, occasional cases are still reported there.

Attempts to change state laws to legalize deprogramming in the the U.S. have not succeeded. New York was the first state to propose a deprogramming bill in 1981. It passed based both houses of the legislature but was vetoed by then-Governor Hugh Carey. Similar attempts to legalize deprogramming also met with failure in Kansas, New Jersey, Nebraska, and Maryland. Opposing this legislation was a widespread coalition of civil rights and mainstream religious groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. National Association of Churches.

European anti-sect oranizations have succeeded in criminalizing "mental coercsion" by "sect" leaders in several countries, although actual deprogramming cases remain rare. On the other hand, a widespread government-sponsored deprogramming campaign currently exists in China, aimed primarily at members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The Chinese government has acknowledged its co-operation with "International Anti-Cult organizations" and has forced thousands of Falun Gong members into "rehabilitation camps."

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 sign 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 ):

• Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
• Present contradictions (ideology vs. reality)
• The breaking point: When a subject begins to listen to the deprogrammer; when reality begins to take precedence over ideology.
• Self-expression: When the subject begins to open up and to voice some of his own gripes against the cult.
• 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.

Opponents of deprogramming point out that the actions of deprogrammers constitute a much more extreme form of so-called "mind control" than anything practiced by "cult" groups. Moreover virtually no cases have been produced involving new religious groups actually holding a person against his or her will, as is the case with deprogramming.

Deprogramming and violence

Beyond the basic question of forcible confinement, reports of more egregious forms of violence during the deprogramming process were widespread. 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.

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>

While distinctions can be made between "focible" and "voluntary" deprogramming, American courts 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 in 1987 when the American Psychological Association refused to endorse the findings of pro-deprogramming pyschologist Margaret Singer in a report the APA itself had commissioned her to create. From 1990 on, American courts consistently rejected Singer and other "mind-control" theorists, finding that such theories were not part of accepted mainline science.

During the 1990s, deprogrammer Rick Ross was sued by Jason Scott, a former member of a Pentacostal group called the Life Tabernacle Church, after an unsuccessful depromming attempt. In 1995, 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. More significantly, 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. This case is often seen as effectively closing the door on the practice of involuntary deprogramming in the United States.

Exiting Counseling, etc.

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.

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.

Steve Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, admitted that he took part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, but has spoken out against them since 1980.. However, in the same book (page 114) he stated that depogrammings can be kept as last resort if all other attempts fail. In his book Releasing the Bonds he spoke decidedly against coercive deprogramming methods using force or threats. 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.

"Exit counseling" represents a distinct approach to influencing a person to leave a "cult," in that it firmly rejects force, dealing only with clients who willingly agree to speak to the counselor.

Proponents of this approach point out aht deprogramming, especially when it fails, can entail considerable legal and psychological risk. These risks in exit counseling are much smaller.

Unlike deprogramming, which is usually defined as including coercive factors, exit counseling is usually seen as a voluntary agreement between a follower and an exit counseling specialist to talk about the follower's involvement with the group and it is usually done in presence of the family of the follower.

Proponents of new religious movements as well as some people who value religious freedom and tolerance sometimes oppose exit counseling—those less adamantly than deprogramming—because it targets religious minorities and tries to alter the beliefs of a person based on his or her religious affiliation. Another point of criticsim is that exit counseling presumes the group has used some sort of mind control or manipulation on the person. In contrast, adherents of NRMs, theologians, and also some proponents of the counter-cult movement deny that mind control exists or that manipulation could be a primary factor in choosing a religious affiliation. "Exit counseling" is thus seen as "mind control in reverse."

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Clark, David]] et al. Exit Counseling: A Practical Overview in Michael Langone, ed. Recovery from Cults, 1993, ISBN 0-393-31321-2
• 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.
• Giambalvo, Carol: Exit Counseling: A Family Intervention, 1992, ISBN 0-931337-05-4
• Hassan, Steven. in Releasing the bonds, 2000, ISBN 0-9670688-0-0
• Kent, Stephen 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
• Melton, Gordon, J. "Brainwashing": Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe. Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved May 31, 2007.
• Le Moult, J. Deprograrnming members of religious sects, Fordham Law Review, 46, 1978. pp. 599-640.
• Singer, Margaret: Cults in Our Midst, Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995.

Dramatization

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

External links

• Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies. Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved June 1, 2007.
• Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center. www.freedomofmind.com. Retrieved June 1, 2007
• Information Network Forcus on Religious Movements. www.inform.ac/ Retrieved June 1, 2007
• Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation. www.csj.org. Retrieved June 1, 2007.

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.