Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out
Page 19
Ethical Concerns
Ted Patrick once mused, “Sooner or later, they’re going to have to recognize deprogramming as a profession.”686 An effort to do just that took place in the late 1990s. Cult-exit counselor Carol Giambalvo, along with others who were formerly associated with deprogramming, launched a professional group called “thought reform consultants.”687 This small group tried to establish ethical standards for their profession based on an adaptation of the codes and standards of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the National Association of Social Workers, the Private Practice of Clinical Social Work, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Academy of Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselors.688
As of this writing, however, their efforts fail to demonstrate that there are effective means of enforcing the group’s stated ethical standards. A lawsuit filed against Patrick Ryan, a thought-reform consultant and coauthor of the group’s ethical standards, highlighted this weakness.689 The plaintiff claimed that Ryan was “verbally contracted…to provide counseling services” and that he had received $2,250 as a deposit for the services he would render. Shortly thereafter the arrangement was terminated, and it was allegedly agreed that the unearned deposit would be refunded. Ryan never refunded the money. A claim was subsequently filed in court. Carol Giambalvo was repeatedly asked to mediate the situation based on the group’s published ethical standards, which specifically emphasized “the importance of clear understandings on financial matters with clients,” 690 but she declined to do so.
Ryan later lost the lawsuit, and his former client was awarded a judgment of $2,000. He appealed the verdict but lost again, and the court increased the judgment to $2,400. After Ryan’s second appeal, the plaintiff apparently tired of the litigation and failed to appear. The case was dismissed.691
The unhappy client who filed the lawsuit against Ryan had been referred to him by psychologist Steven K. D. Eichel.692 Eichel later commented that he was “greatly pained by what [had] happened” and expressed “deep empathy and respect for the travails and tribulations of the client” who had sued Ryan. He noted that “most professional associations have mandated consequences when a member of that association breaches its ethics code” and that “an ethics code without some means of enforcement…is of educational value and little more.” Eichel added that a “meaningful venue for enforcing an ethics code” is required, or a “‘code of ethics’ is simply a set of aspirations that has no bearing on actual behavior.”693
Costs
In addition to legitimate concerns about the ethical standards of cult-intervention professionals, there is always concern about costs. Fees charged may vary widely from hundreds to thousands of dollars per day. For example, in 1988 Steve Hassan pointed out that the cost of deprogramming had become a serious consideration. He claimed that “a fee of from $18,000 to $30,000” was the range to be expected.694In inflationary adjusted dollars, this would be $35,000 to $58,000 today. Fees currently range from less than a thousand dollars per day to teams that charge thousands of dollars daily. Hassan himself now reportedly charges fees ranging from $2,500 to $5,000 per day, not including expenses.
Declining Number of Professionals
In 1981 Margaret Singer identified ninety working cult-exit counselors. Roughly half were former cult members, and many had left their respective cults through deprogrammings conducted by one of the “early pioneers.”695 Over the years the ranks of cult deprogrammers and intervention specialists have dwindled. Today only a few people with substantial experience in this field are still working full time. These professionals are scattered around the world, with only a handful remaining in the United States.
CHAPTER 7
ASSESSING THE SITUATION
Here are some helpful suggestions and guidelines for families, friends, and others concerned about a suspected cult problem. Having a well-grounded and practical approach is important when identifying and assessing whether a particular group or leader might be “cultlike” or potentially unsafe. Typically groups or leaders who can be seen as potentially unsafe lack accountability and transparency through meaningful checks and balances, which create firm boundaries and safeguards. Questions should be asked and research done, as outlined in this chapter, to evaluate and assess this situation effectively.
The process for determining whether a particular group or leader may pose potential problems concerning the well-being of individuals involved should be based on behavior, not beliefs. That is, what is the objectively observable structure and dynamics of the suspected group? This question can be answered by both examining the group itself and observing how someone involved has been changed as a result of group influence. An examination of the group should focus not only on the leader but also on others involved in the group who may also influence or reinforce group behavior.
Don’t panic. Your initial concern and suspicion may be wrong.
Before moving forward and considering a response, it is important to better understand and educate yourself about cults in general. What can you see as distinct differences between a destructive cult and a benign group? The key to understanding this difference is first recognizing that the “thought reform” process destructive cults use heavily relies on the control of information and communication. This is what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton has called “Milieu Control,” which is based on control of the environment.
For example, we can see Milieu Control through such elements as tightly controlled housing arrangements, intentional communities, or what has often been referred to as cult compounds. But a state of relative isolation can also be achieved by simply keeping people so busy with group activities that there is functionally little, if any, meaningful time spent away from the group with the exception of work, school, or sleep.
A pattern of hyperactivity can effectively monopolize a member to the extent that it cuts him or her off from any meaningful outside frame of reference or objective feedback. Hyperactivity may also eliminate much of the time previously used for personal reflection and contribute to an eventual erosion of the desire for that process. Instead the group and associations in the group consume time, leading to isolation from family and old friends. Group activities may ultimately deprive members of sleep and effectively produce a state of sleep deprivation. Research suggests that prolonged periods of sleeplessness can produce hallucinations, delusions, and disorientation.696
Ultimately the net effect is the creation of a kind of group bubble, which encapsulates those involved. The group controls life in the bubble, which its devotees dominate and suffuse with its own perspective and agenda.
Warning Signs Based on Structure and Behavior
How can you recognize whether this invisible bubble exists? Here are some prominent warning signs you can use to identify a leader or regime controlling such an environment. Does the group or leader fit a familiar profile, which would tend to define a potentially unsafe group or destructive cult? Here are ten “warning signs” regarding leadership based on structure and behavior. These features are frequently associated with unsafe groups or cults.
The leadership of the group has absolute authority without any meaningful accountability. There is no genuine democratic form of governance that would offer any meaningful checks or balances to the power of the leadership through elections, a constitution, or bylaws.
There is no meaningful financial disclosure or transparency regarding the group’s money or assets. There is no detailed and independently audited financial statement or budget published or distributed to the members or contributors annually, disclosing in detail all salaries, compensation, and expenses paid out from group funds. Only the leadership and its chosen few really know about the finances of the group in any depth.
Leaders define what is right and wrong, and group members are expected to essentially defer any meaningful value judgments of their own. A kind of learned dependence often develops regarding problem solving and conflict resolution.
The group deliberately isolates its members in a substantially controlled environment. Information is controlled by creating strict rules or guidelines regarding such things as books, outside reading, television, movies, radio, and music. Members may be prohibited contact with anyone who might express independent or opposing ideas, doubts, or negative feelings about the group. The group and its leaders are seen as absolutely necessary to filter out the contamination of the outside world.
There are no meaningful boundaries. There is no area of a member’s life that appears to be private and therefore immune from the leadership’s scrutiny.
The group promotes unreasonable fears about the outside world. This may be expressed through predictions of impending catastrophe, obsessions about evil conspiracies, or seemingly exaggerated claims and paranoid suspicions about the group’s perceived enemies.
The group perpetuates an ethos of perfectionism. Members subsequently feel that they can never be “good enough” and are forever striving to further prove themselves.
The group devalues self-esteem and individual expression and considers them “selfish.” Group members who try to question leadership or express ideas outside the group mind-set are characterized negatively with such labels as “ego driven,” “rebellious,” “suppressive,” “demonic,” or “satanic.”
Former members once associated with the group often relate the same allegations of abuse by the leadership. This repetition reflects a continuing pattern of grievances.
The group leadership may possess some of these attributes, but when an increasing number of these characteristics are evident, they often indicate that the group is potentially unsafe. It is important to note the leader’s communication style, such as the means used to convey his or her rules and orders. Always keep in mind that a recently recruited member of a controversial group may not know all the facts. Information in authoritarian groups tends to flow downward from the top, and often relatively new members at lower levels may be kept unaware of many of the more controversial practices, rituals, and lifestyle requirements those at higher levels know.
“Cultlike” Behavior
Another layer of warning signs relates to the behavior of someone suspected of cult involvement. Here are ten of the most commonly cited behaviors that lead to suspicion about cult involvement.
Growing obsessiveness regarding a group or leader, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration
The blurring of identities. The identity of the group, the leader, or some higher power increasingly ceases to be seen as distinct and separate. Instead identities become blurred and seemingly fused as involvement with the group continues and deepens.
Whenever critical questions arise about the group or leader, they are often dismissed and characterized as “persecution.”
Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed repetitive verbiage and mannerisms that reflect a group mind-set or cloning of preferred group language and behavior
Growing dependence on the group or leader for problem solving and solutions, coupled with a corresponding decrease in individual analysis and reflection
Hyperactivity regarding the group or leader, which seems to inhibit or supersede previously held personal goals or individual interests
A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor
Increasing lack of communication and isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group or leader
Anything the group or leader says or does can be justified or rationalized, no matter how harsh or harmful it may appear.
Former group members are typically considered in a critical or negative light, and they are most often avoided. There seems to be no legitimate reason to leave the group. Those who leave are always wrong.
Some of these behaviors may be observed when individuals become involved in and excited about any new group or association. But when an increasing number of these behaviors are evident, coupled with the structural authority issues previously cited, there may be cause for serious concern.
Don’t Blame the Victim
It’s important at this point to dispel a common myth about cultic involvement. Many people believe there is a certain type of person who is vulnerable and becomes involved in a destructive cult. This assumption is based on the theory that somehow healthy, strong, intelligent, and well-educated people from good families don’t become involved in destructive cults. Some people suppose that if someone is religious, he or she is somehow inoculated and less vulnerable to cults.
In my experience such theories and assumptions are not useful and are often quite misleading. There is no psychological research that definitively correlates a specific type of person or predisposition with cult involvement. When we keep this fact in mind, the focus for assessment should be not on the person the cult recruited but rather on the cult itself—its leaders and their behavior, such as recruitment and retention practices.
I have found that all types of people are potentially vulnerable to cults given the right set of circumstances. The members of destructive cults come from both strong and troubled family backgrounds. They are also often highly educated and intelligent people. In fact, I have deprogrammed five medical doctors.
Some cult members I have worked with over the years have come from troubled or problematic families, but this is not a required precondition likely to lead to cult involvement. Even though some cult members may have histories of psychological problems or substance abuse or both, these are not prerequisites either. Likewise, socioeconomic backgrounds are not that significant. I have met cult members from a very wide cross section of social, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. Because cult recruitment is so often inherently deceptive, there should be no blame placed on those who are recruited. Most cults don’t want psychologically damaged, physically impaired, or dysfunctional people; they instead prefer emotionally healthy and high functioning people who can be useful and productive.
The process of cult recruitment is also often based on highly honed coercive persuasion techniques. The most established cults have carefully crafted and refined their process and techniques. People aren’t generally prepared, either through specifically focused education about cults or through their own personal experiences. The people cults approach are most often ignorant concerning their methodology and how they really work, and individuals frequently overestimate the innate ability to resist such coercive persuasion and undue influence techniques. This lack of awareness then becomes a vulnerability cults can exploit.
Some notorious cults have historically used front organizational names to hide their actual identity and purpose. A religious cult may not even initially explain to a potential recruit that it has any spiritual or religious agenda. Groups with controversial leaders may likewise withhold information about their hierarchy and more radical beliefs. In many cults only after a recruit is under undue influence is this information genuinely shared.
Scientology, which has been called a “cult,” often begins its pitch with a “personality test” or “stress tests.”697 These tests are done to supposedly identify areas of concern that can be improved or require further attention. Respondents are led to believe the purpose is self-improvement, not a measure of religious devotion. Scientologists may point out to a potential recruit that Jews, Protestants, and Roman Catholics are actively engaged in Scientology. Only after a person moves more deeply into Scientology‘s course curriculum and training, however, does he or she begin to realize more fully the demands of the organization and its distinct religious identity and status. No new recruit fully understands the responsibilities or full implications of total commitment, nor is he or she completely informed of the beliefs forming the basis for Scientology.
Fal
un Gong presents itself as a form of traditional Chinese exercise to improve physical health and promote “truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.” However, much more controversial beliefs proposed by its founder lie behind the group practice, and these are not readily explained to a potential practitioner.698 Initially, new recruits most probably don’t fully understand the special importance of the movement’s founder, Li Hongzhi. Later they learn about the fantastic supernatural claims of “Master Li” and his singular status as the “living Buddha.”699 The personality-driven nature of the group isn’t completely evident at the beginning. But eventually, as the recruit becomes more deeply involved and his or her training progresses, he or she will learn that the supposed healing benefits of the group essentially depend on the supernatural powers of Li Hongzhi.700
Researcher Robert Cialdini, author of the book Influence, identified six basic principles of influence.701 These principles of influence can be used as tools to persuade anyone about almost anything, through carefully crafted advertising, sales gimmicks and fund raising. For example, the high-pressure sales and investment schemes that employ a “bait and switch” approach. This occurs when a shopper is lured in with the promise of one thing but subsequently moved to buy something else. In much the same way, cults can attract attention and interest by presenting themselves deceptively to lure in a potential recruit and then switch to something else as the recruitment process is completed.