Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out

by Rick Alan Ross

  An intervention typically takes place in a private and quiet place where participants can dialogue and exchange ideas without interruptions. This most often occurs within a private residence. But at times I have worked in a hospital setting, a business office, hotel conference rooms, and resort retreats.

  During the first day of the intervention, I ask everyone to agree to continue uninterrupted, which means shutting off cell phones, I Internet connections, and other potential sources of interruption. I explicitly ask the person who is the focus of the intervention not to contact or have any communication with the group or leader who has caused concern during the intervention. This request includes anyone associated with that group or leader. At the end of the first day, plans to continue the discussion during the immediately following days are discussed and agreed on. This is done with active family participation. That is, family and others involved are quite actively engaged at this point in persuading the cult-involved person to stay and continue, as discussed during the previous preparation process.

  During the intervention the cult-involved person will stay with family or friends participating in the intervention. This most often means staying at the house of someone involved or sharing a room at a hotel or at whatever venue has been chosen for the intervention. This is all done to rule out any interference from the cultic group or leader during the intervention. It is important that the cult-involved person not be coached and that his or her interaction and considerations are spontaneous rather than rehearsed. Of course, any adult is free to go at any time during the intervention, though family and friends may use moral suasion to urge the person to stay.

  At times, depending on group influence and its level of the use of coercive persuasion and undue influence techniques, a cult member may drift in and out of altered states of consciousness or what has been called “floating.” At such times it may be necessary to take a break and allow some time before becoming refocused and engaging in dialogue again. Taking an outdoor walk, playing with a pet, doing some exercise, or participating in some other physical activity may effectively interrupt such a state and also break up the day, offering a respite. If such floating states occur frequently, it may be meaningful to draw attention to this situation and specifically discuss it. If the cultic group or leader encourages trance states through daily meditation or some other practice, one should suggest that this routine be suspended during the time of the intervention.

  In an intervention focused on the cult involvement of a minor child, the parents or legal guardian might decide not to allow the minor child to leave, which is his or her legal right. Parents may also legally forbid a minor child from contacting or communicating with a cultic group or leader. This prohibition could potentially be enforced by local law enforcement or a court-issued restraining order. A cultic group or leader would typically have no legal right to interfere with or supersede such parental authority.

  Before taking such legally sanctioned action, those concerned should consult a local attorney. In some very rare and extreme situations, an involuntary intervention might occur if a cult-involved adult is being legally held in a treatment facility or is otherwise detained by authorities.

  At the beginning of the intervention, the family should introduce the moderator or facilitator they have honestly chosen. I have typically been introduced as a professional consultant asked to participate due to my knowledge base and work experience. After being introduced, I then explain my work experience and answer any questions before starting the discussion. At this juncture honesty and courtesy are the best responses.

  There should be no deception regarding why everyone has assembled. And the explanation offered for the surprise nature of the intervention is usually explained as follows: if the intervention had been announced in advance, the cult-involved person wouldn’t have attended, the cultic group or leader would have told him or her not to participate, and he or she would possibly have been accompanied by someone from the group or otherwise influenced not to cooperate. In this sense a cult intervention is comparable to the same surprise usually employed in a substance-abuse intervention, with the notable exception that an outside group isn’t typically an issue during an intervention about drug or alcohol abuse. What’s also important during the introduction is assuring the person who is the focus of the intervention and agreeing with everyone present that no one will be rude or disrespectful and that there is no reason to be afraid of asking questions.

  Four basic blocks or categories of discussion should be covered in the intervention. These four building blocks form the foundation needed to accomplish a successful discussion about areas of concern. These blocks might effectively be discussed in the order that follows, but the sequence may vary due to the fluid nature of an intervention, which reflects the interest and focus of the cult-involved individual.

  The four blocks of discussion are the following:

  What are the defining elements of a destructive cult?

  How do destructive cults use identifiable persuasion techniques to gain undue influence over their members?

  What is the history of the particular group or leader who has drawn concern?

  What is the family’s immediate and potential concerns regarding involvement with the group or situation that has led to the intervention?

  First Block of Discussion: Defining a Destructive Cult

  This segment of the intervention is a discussion specifically about the definition of a destructive cult and is largely premised on the simple, three-point definition psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton offered in his paper “Cult Formation.”741 Lifton’s definition forms the nucleus of most, if not all, definitions of destructive cults, which often simply expand upon these three primary characteristics.

  This definition offers a basis to begin the discussion about destructive cults on an objective basis, which is based on behavior rather than on belief. It is important to avoid any appearance of attacking beliefs and instead focus on group behavior, dynamics, and the cult’s hierarchal power structure. This block of discussion does to some extent enable the conversation to touch on the other blocks of the intervention process. That is, Lifton’s criteria include coercive persuasion and exploitation, which may intersect issues such as group dynamics, family concerns, and the specific group or leader’s history. But the discussion at this juncture should stay focused on defining a cult and not be tangentially pulled off track for too long.

  Lifton states that

  cults can be identified by three characteristics:

  1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

  2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

  3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

  A Powerful, Charismatic Leader

  The first criterion is that the group can be seen as essentially personality driven—that is, defined by a living totalitarian leader. He or she is the focus of the group, the locus of power, and its driving force. Whatever he or she says is right is right, and whatever he or she says is wrong is wrong. Members of the group, therefore, ultimately abdicate their ability to make many of their value judgments in deference to the leader.

  At this point in the intervention, historical examples or profiles of destructive cult leaders are offered to specifically delineate and demonstrate how cult leaders operate. For example, well-known cult figures who can be cited and examined include Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, and Charles Manson. The purpose here is not to needlessly frighten anyone by offering such extreme examples of destructive cults, but rather to establish the common traits and behaviors historical cult leaders share. Who they are and how their followers reportedly perceived them are commonly known. What did they have in common as personalities? What parallels are evident in the structure and dynamics of the groups gathered around these leaders?

/>   At this juncture produce research material relevant to the discussion; this might potentially include news articles, book excerpts, documentaries, and news reports relevant to the history and behavior of well-documented cult leaders. The purpose of this block of discussion is to develop a consensus or agreement that there have been historical figures called “cult leaders” and that these leaders share some common, noteworthy characteristics. Discussion then can develop concerning how the particular group or leader, who is the focus of the intervention, might in some ways be similar to the historical profiles of past destructive cult leaders.

  Important points in such a discussion might include a review of accountability in the group. What meaningful checks and balances effectively limit the power of leadership? Is there a form of democratically elected group governance, as mandated by corporate or constitutional bylaws? For example, is there an elected board that serves fixed terms and stands for reelection, as established by an existing set of bylaws? What government of the group exists, and how was it constituted? Is there meaningful financial transparency concerning group funds and the way those funds are handled? For example, this could be through an independently audited budget, which discloses in detail all salaries, compensation, and expenses paid from group funds. Is such a budget made available to all group members or contributors on a regular basis?

  On an interpersonal level, what explicit boundaries exist regarding the leader’s influence? For example, what areas of an individual’s life remain private and personal and are therefore immune from the group or leader’s questioning or scrutiny? Is the leader ever wrong? If the leader has been wrong, what examples can be cited to illustrate this point? Can the leader be meaningfully questioned or contradicted? If the leader can, in fact, be questioned and contradicted, what are some specific examples?

  Has the leader become such a dominant figure that he or she can be seen as the focus and driving force of the group? Has the leader made personal or professional claims that can be seen as grandiose or self-important and self-serving—and that could potentially encourage admiration? Has the group become personality driven? At this juncture there might also be some discussion about narcissistic personalities and about how some of the statements historical cult leaders have made appear to parallel that personality profile.

  Thought Reform

  During this block of the intervention, discussion should focus on defining a destructive cult through the practice of what Lifton calls “thought reform.” This is the second of Lifton’s three criteria to define a destructive cult. But since this topic will be discussed later in far more depth in a succeeding block of the intervention, it is not necessary to delve into it too deeply at this juncture.

  At this point a single salient feature or objective of thought reform may be offered. This might be confined to the basic pattern of corresponding behavior that demonstrates undue influence. That is, members of destructive cults often do things that are not in their own best interest but are consistently in the best interests of the group or leader. We can see this behavior as evidence of undue influence due to diminished independent and critical thinking.

  Undue influence can also be seen in an increased dependence on the group or leader for problem solving, decisions, and value judgments. Some examples can be offered regarding historical cult groups, such as the Waco Davidians, Jonestown, or members of Heaven’s Gate. What did members do that was not in their best interests but was dictated by leadership? These activities might include such acts as relinquishing parental rights, surrendering assets, providing free labor, suffering medical neglect, experiencing family estrangements, and participating in criminal acts on behalf of the group or leader.

  Harm and Exploitation

  The final criterion Lifton offers is that the group or leader does harm or exploits people. The point should be made that not all groups are identical in the level of harm they do; this area varies by degree from group to group. That is, some groups may be more destructive than others. The discussion here focuses on what specific harm groups have historically done and what potential for harm might be seen to exist in the group in question.

  At this point research material and specific documentation should be shared to establish how various cults have exploited or harmed people. Material might include news reports, documentaries, and court records. It is important to establish a pattern of grievances and harm done and then use that information as a basis to determine whether a similar pattern might have occurred in the current situation. At this point friends or family members might briefly discuss some of their concerns, though this stage will be discussed more in depth later in the intervention.

  The previous chapter, “Defining a Destructive Cult,” can be used along with its cited research to support certain points during this first block of discussion. The Cult Education Institute archives and other research resources accessible through the Internet contain a many articles, reports, and other documentation. This material can be used to support and emphasize certain points. The gathered research material should include specific information about histories and profiles of known cult leaders coupled with cult behavior. The Cult Education Institute distributes a helpful DVD titled Cults: An Educational Volume that provides a synthesis of research regarding the basic attributes of destructive cults. This can be viewed along with news reports featuring various destructive cults. News reports about cults can often be seen through the Internet at various points on the World Wide Web.

  Second Block of the Intervention: How Does the Process of Thought Reform Work?

  This block of discussion focuses on thought reform, persuasion techniques, and influence. It is largely based on the writings of Robert Jay Lifton,742 psychologist Margaret Singer,743 sociologist Richard Ofshe,744 and professor of psychology Robert Cialdini.745 The writings of these experts form the basis of the discussion as cited along with other authors and experts listed in a previous chapter on “Cult Brainwashing.”

  You can see the interlocking research reviewed during an intervention by looking at the same phenomenon but from different perspectives and at times different fields of research. What those various perspectives offer and can potentially provide is a kind of three-dimensional imaging that demonstrates how destructive cults and cult leaders operate and how they use recognizable persuasion techniques—or what some might call “tricks” of manipulation to gain undue influence.

  A basic guide to begin is contained in Ofshe’s “Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change.” Ofshe offers what he calls the “four key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes”:

  1. “The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual sense of self to promote compliance”

  Some questions should be raised regarding this point. For example, has the group or leader—the focus of this intervention—often been confrontational? If there have been confrontations, what level of critical feedback is tolerated in such a situation? What are the boundaries in such situations? And do people subsequently feel any pressure to change? Is there noticeable compliance in the group after confrontations take place? Is there a process of breaking people down that can be discerned from this group process?

  2. “The use of an organized peer group”

  Some basic questions should be asked about group structure and dynamics. Do an identifiable group and framework exist? Is there a sense of group identity? How is the group organized? What is the schedule of the group? Answers to these questions should establish the existence of a peer group, its general focus, and expectations.

  3. “Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity”

  Here questions should focus on how group interaction and relationships lead to accepting group norms. Do members of the group genuinely appreciate differences and meaningfully demonstrate tolerance of different opinions and behavior? If so, how is this tolerance specifically expressed? Do relationships in the group seem
to become easier when there is agreement and harder when there is critical feedback and resistance? Does resistance or negative feedback to the suggestions of the group or leader cause serious problems? Can friendships in the group deteriorate due to such a conflict?

  4. “The manipulation of the totality of the person’s social environment to stabilize behavior once modified”

  How much time is spent in the group and its related activities? How much time is spent away from the group? What old friendships, associations, and interests outside of the group remain as active as in the past and intact? Have old friendships, associations, and outside interests deteriorated since one became involved in the group? Has the group or leader encouraged the retention and maintenance of strong friendships, associations, and interests outside the group and its interests?

  These basic factors, as Ofshe outlined, become the foundation for an expanded and more detailed discussion about thought reform as Robert Jay Lifton defined it. Lifton cites eight criteria to use to establish the existence of a thought-reform program, as outlined in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.746 Lifton says that if six of these eight criteria are evident, then a thought-reform program exists and is ongoing.

  1. “Milieu Control,” Ofshe describes, is the “control of the environment and communication.”

  What environmental controls evident in the particular group have drawn concern? Are suggestions or restrictions stated or implied on reading materials, television viewing, communication, and relationships? Do group members live together? If so, what are these living arrangements like? Do they also work together for the same employer? Is that employer somehow associated with the group or leader? How much quality time do members of the group spend alone?