You Can Go Home Again is an educational video produced by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), now known as the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ).737
Though this video is more than thirty years old, it remains a compelling classic about cults. It features a discussion with former members of purported cults, who explain their experiences. Moderated by cult awareness pioneer Rabbi Maurice Davis, it illustrates repeated parallels between former cult members regardless of their different group background. The video offers compelling historical evidence that the key structural features and behavior defining destructive cults have remained the same.
Picking Participants
During the preparation process and ultimately by the conclusion of the preparation meeting, those concerned about the cult member must decide who will attend the intervention. That is, family members, friends, past mentors, and associates are the most respected and therefore would be the most effective at the intervention.
Who will be included in the intervention and why?
Who cannot be included due to some personal or potential conflict?
Everyone involved should be informed of the time commitment required to participate—that is, eight hours each day for three to four days. If someone cannot afford to contribute the time allotted, he or she must make this fact clear before the intervention begins. Some people may be able to make only a partial commitment. For example, someone might agree to participate on the first day but cannot continue beyond that point. Or someone may agree to come in at a later point after the first day of the intervention. Everyone involved should understand who will be involved and how much time he or she will be available.
On the first day too many people may cause excessive stress or embarrassment for the person who is the focus of the intervention. Another consideration may be that certain people will be more welcome and better understood at a later point in the intervention. For example, a former cult member may not initially be welcome, but after some discussion, he or she may be later introduced as a viable source of additional information.
An intervention cannot be done without the complete support of those directly participating in it. Anyone who expresses conflict or ambivalence about the intervention need not participate and must be excluded. Someone who lacks genuine commitment to the process can easily sabotage an intervention effort.
At this juncture of the preparation process, the net result is to determine who specifically will attend the intervention. Any scheduling conflicts must be considered, and ultimately all who plan to participate must agree on the set schedule and location for the intervention.
Defining Roles and Boundaries
During the preparation meeting it is important for all those participating in the intervention to understand the distinct boundaries involved and what their respective roles will be.
Meaningful boundaries must be understood. What is the role of the intervention specialist, facilitator, or coordinator who has been chosen? How will he or she run the intervention, and what are the respective roles of each attendee or participant? Each person’s role must be clarified before beginning the intervention so there is no misunderstanding that might potentially create confusion or a disruption.
During the preparation meeting, one area of concern to be discussed, which the intervention poses, is the potential uncovering or disclosure of painful family problems or secrets. Everyone must understand that family issues aren’t the focus of the intervention. Everyone must agree that if such issues arise during the intervention and interrupt its focus, taking a break may be necessary. At that time the leader or facilitator may privately point out to individuals that the discussion is losing its necessary focus and suggest other more appropriate alternative means and resources, which might be used at some future time.
The person chosen to lead the intervention is in the primary role and will lead the discussion. That person will essentially control the presentation based on the assembled and organized file, and will keep the dialogue focused on that material and research. Others attending the intervention cannot interfere with that organized presentation and will not needlessly divert attention to other topics that aren’t directly relevant. He or she will present the main body of information. In this sense the intervention process can be seen in many ways as a kind of lecture series or ongoing educational seminar largely led by one person who has been primarily delegated with the responsibility of presenting the material.
An intervention isn’t therapy or counseling. Therefore, an intervention isn’t the time to bring up personal family disagreements or grievances. Such matters can easily disrupt and potentially terminate an intervention. Family, friends, and other concerned parties in attendance must also understand that making disparaging or derogatory remarks and engaging in personal arguments are detrimental and may easily sabotage the intervention effort. For example, asking, “How could you believe that?” or saying, “You are too smart to be taken in by this” serves no useful purpose and may instead seem to denigrate the individual. Such remarks also ignore the fact that intelligence, general education, and career experience don’t somehow protect people specifically from coercive persuasion techniques.
During an intervention family members, friends, and other participants must remain focused on two primary purposes. They will function as eyewitnesses of the situation that has caused concern and as emotional anchors. The cult-involved individual must feel emotionally anchored and safe because of their presence. This is the primary reason why they will stay. Thus participants must help to create an atmosphere of mutual support and safety based on whatever historical trust and understanding exist. This is vitally important, because any intervention with an adult in the United States today must be done on a voluntary basis. This means the person who is the focus of the intervention must give his or her consent, and the intervention depends on his or her ongoing cooperation.
During the preparation process, participants should discuss likely scenarios or potential situations that may occur. For example, how will those present respond if the person who is the focus of the intervention becomes belligerent, threatens to leave, or abruptly begins to exit? At this point who would be most effective at persuading him or her to stay? Who would be most effective at persuading the person to stop and reconsider? This step might necessitate following the person when he or she leaves and then privately discussing the matter of returning to the intervention. No physical coercion may be used—only moral suasion. Someone might quite literally need to pursue the person for such a discussion. This possibility must be discussed in some detail to determine who the designated person will be to handle such a situation if it occurs.
What would the person say in that situation?
My advice in such a situation is to always underscore the purpose of the intervention, which is education and information—and that this educational process and dialogue are done within a finite framework. That is, the cooperation being requested is only temporary and relatively brief. The intervention will end at an agreed-on point of time. The decision to continue with a group or leader ultimately remains an individual choice, and that decision will be respected. Those participating in the intervention are asking only for some designated time for discussing and sharing their concerns and helpful information. Education is helpful and useful in providing for an informed decision-making process.
As previously mentioned, family and friends gathered for the intervention can provide firsthand eyewitness information. They can explain what they have seen and observed regarding recent events or behavior that has caused them concern. At various points during the intervention, the person in focus may deny that any problematic situation has existed or continues to exist. But because family and friends have firsthand knowledge, they may at the appropriate time be able to share another perspective through their personal experiences. When instances of denial arise, addressing them immediately isn’t always necessary. What’s important is exercising patience and
waiting for the appropriate time to address such issues. As more information is shared and discussed, the intervention leader will evaluate the best time to address such concerns; then he or she can moderate such input.
During the intervention family and friends in attendance should feel free to respond as the facilitator or discussion leader makes various points if they feel they have something directly relevant and pertinent to say. For example, they may offer their personal observations, corroborating points about manipulation, undue influence, or coercive persuasion techniques that appear to be evident.
Important Rules to Remember
Those participating must understand that they cannot demand declarative statements. They must never demand that the person who is the focus of the intervention make some type of definitive statement about his or her future commitment to the cultic group or leader. If and when that person decides to make a definitive statement, he or she will do so subject to his or her own timeframe.
The purpose of the intervention isn’t to present a list of demands that require an immediate response but rather to solicit cooperation in an ongoing educational process based on sharing information. What this means is that those participating must refrain from making demands and function within previously described boundaries—only as emotional anchors and eyewitnesses, not as inquisitors.
If a professional intervention specialist or facilitator is present, he or she cannot stay at a family residence or at whatever venue is being used for the intervention. Preferably he or she should stay at a nearby hotel. Those involved may call the facilitator if an urgent situation arises between intervention sessions that may require advice and attention. This separation affords a level of privacy and rest for everyone concerned. This intervening time typically takes place overnight between daily eight-hour intervention discussions.
Establishing boundaries between a professional intervention specialist and other participants is critical. This measure not only allows everyone some space to ease tension but also serves to maintain the interventionist’s separate and distinct role—that is, as someone who isn’t personally invested in the process or outcome but rather is present to serve as an educational resource and facilitator for informational purposes.
The daily schedule for an intervention usually runs between about 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and is usually an extended weekend. But this may vary depending on the needs and schedules of those involved.
Hours outside the intervention are for rest and relaxation. Nothing should be discussed regarding the intervention, the group, the leader who has drawn concern, or any related topic. Discussions of these issues could potentially escalate into a needless argument, which might subsequently explode and then effectively end the effort. Instead of discussing such potentially explosive subjects, everyone concerned can enjoy TV, watch a movie, or play games. But it is important to stay together.
Everything should be done to make the environment comfortable. Primary participants in the intervention typically stay with family or friends at the location of the intervention overnight. It’s important to ensure that any promises made regarding communication with the group or leader are kept. There should be no telephone calls, Internet access, or outside visits.. Those staying together should seek to ensure that this commitment is honored. This agreement may mean keeping fairly close company. For example, depending on the severity of the situation, someone may sleep in the same room or near the person who is the focus of the intervention.
At the conclusion of the first day, the discussion will focus on an agreement to meet the following day. At this point obtaining a firm commitment is important. There should be an understanding that the intervention discussion may continue for at least two or possibly three more days. Such a commitment must include an understanding about communication with the cultic group or leader who has raised the concern. Specifically, there should be no communication during the intervention process with anyone associated with the cultic group or leader in any way, shape, or form. This must include phone calls, text messages, e-mails, physical contact, or other forms of communication. The reason for this stipulation is simple. Those involved must be assured that the person at the focus of the intervention is thinking independently and not being coached. The temporary cessation of any ongoing communication or interference specifically guarantees this assurance.
If someone protests such an agreement about communication, it is best to respond by pointing out that what is being requested is, in a practical sense, quite reasonable. First, quality time is necessary to discuss serious concerns without interruption or interference. Second, the person who is the focus of the intervention has probably spent considerable time exclusively devoted to the group or leader without interference from family or friends. Therefore, allowing family and friends some time to privately discuss their concerns seems only fair.
If and when an agreement to temporarily discontinue communication with the group or leader is effectively made, it may be a good idea to ask everyone to turn off his or her cell phones and disconnect all Internet access and phone lines at the location chosen for the intervention. Typically interventions take place at a private residence where those involved can stay together overnight. But in some situations it may be better to arrange for hotel accommodations. Expect the cultic group or leader to interfere if there is communication. In most situations, if someone contacts the cultic group or leader, the group or leader will make every effort to sabotage or end the intervention.
Again, no physical coercion may be employed to enforce an agreement to temporarily discontinue communication with the group or leader. But the person who is the focus of the intervention may be asked to temporarily surrender his or her cell phone, laptop, notebook, or any other means of communication; the device will then be stored away until the intervention ends. This step may also necessitate closely monitoring the person in focus to make sure he or she honors whatever commitments he or she has made regarding time allotted and ongoing communication. Again, someone may sleep in the same room to ensure the individual doesn’t leave or try to contact the group or leader during the night.
But if the person makes an effort to leave or contact the group or leader, nothing can be done to physically restrain him or her. Ultimately all that can be done is moral suasion. This means family and other concerned parties may plead as persuasively as possible that whatever allotment of time and constrained communication were agreed on should be honored. The importance of the suggested close supervision simply allows those involved an opportunity to present their objections and remind the individual of their commitment when, or if, he or she tries to violate the agreement.
During the preparation process what must be emphasized is how important it is to consistently follow and maintain the rules, boundaries, and roles previously outlined and discussed.
Starting Out
Often families and others involved in intervention efforts are most concerned and nervous about the initial introduction and first few minutes. They must understand that such interventions, including substance abuse interventions, occur as a complete surprise. This is usually an imperative that is most especially necessary due to concerns about interference from the group or leader. Because of the unexpected nature of the intervention, participants frequently worry about the initial introduction. That is, how should they introduce an intervention specialist and explain the situation?
The introduction and explanation should be presented as simply and succinctly as possible. For example, they can say, “We are worried about you, and we want to have an open discussion about our concerns.” Then they can add, “Frankly we feel a bit overwhelmed, and so we asked someone knowledgeable to help us.” At this point the family members or those involved specifically introduce the cult-intervention specialist by name. Simply a first name is at least initially sufficient and nonthreatening. At this juncture an intervention specialist or leader assumes the role of facilitator. In other words the primary responsibility for
the intervention has now shifted from the family and others attending the intervention to the designated facilitator or specialist. Going over this point and understanding each specific piece of the intervention process in detail are important steps during preparation and specifically during the preparation meeting.
The first day usually begins in the morning to allow the maximum amount of time before ending the first day of discussion; it then typically ends in the late afternoon or early evening. Explaining the goals for the first day is important.
At the end of the first day, it is unlikely that the cult-involved person will demonstrate particular progress or sudden new insights. The goal of the first day is simply to build a foundation and gain a commitment to continue to the second day. If that agreement, with the aforementioned prohibition regarding communication with the cultic group or leader, is achieved, then the first day is a success. Most failed interventions end on the first day.
Staying Focused
The preparation process is an opportunity for everyone to fully understand the basic structure of the intervention—that is, breaking down block by block how the intervention process will be structured. This includes the four basic blocks of discussion during the intervention, which are defining a destructive cult, understanding how coercive persuasion and influence techniques work, discussing specifically relevant and historical information about the group or leader, and addressing family concerns.
At this point it is important to understand the inherently fluid nature of an intervention, which may shift and turn during an ongoing dialogue and exchange of ideas. This means that the order in which the four blocks of the intervention proceed largely depends on the corresponding interest and concerns of the person who is the focus of the intervention.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 24
