CULT PERSUASION “brainwashing,” mind control, cult conversion, and deprogramming.
Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
-
Upload
tatiana-buianina -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
-
8/3/2019 Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
1/4
Deprogramming, Exit Counselling, and
Ethics: Clarifying the Confusion
19.12.2009
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Paul Martin, Ph.D.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s increasing numbers of parents began to observe and report striking
and frightening changes in their young-adult children. Formerly serious, high-achieving, well-adjusted
students would suddenly drop out of school, shun their families and friends, and devote themselves
completely to unusual groups that parents and others quickly identified as cults. In many cases, parents
also worried about their childrens physical well-being because of the groups dietary, health, work, orsexual practices. Although evangelical parents obtained some information focused on doctrinal and
historical issues from organizations such as the Christian Research Institute, parents who did not identify
with evangelicalism had nowhere to turn and usually worried alone for long periods of time. Gradually,
they began to find and help each other.
Occasionally, these individuals would find a mental health professional or clergyman who sincerely
listened to their concerns. Parents would usually voice such observations as: "Thats not my kid"; "He
talks like a robot, as though he were programmed";
"She was fine, but now she seems like a different person." Soon, these parents and professionals
realized that they were observing a process akin to what was popularly known as brainwashing. But they
didn't know what to do. Their children wouldnt listen, or their responses to all questions andcomplaints seemed programmed. They sometimes succeeded in persuading their children to leave the
groups, and the term "deprogramming" was used to describe the process of countering the cults
"programming." Partly because of these successes, the cults antagonism toward parents hardened.
Parents found they could no longer gain access to their children.
Seeing no other options, some parents-with the help of former cult members-began to take their adult
children off the street, bring them to secure places, and detain them there until they had listened to a
detailed critique of the cultic group. Frequently, these encounters lasted three days or more. But the
process usually worked. Hundreds of cult members renounced their cults. In time, the term
"deprogramming" came to be associated with this initially coercive process, even though originally
"deprogramming" did not imply coercion. Soon, a network of deprogrammers developed, with someeven earning their living as deprogrammers. Although most parents were ethically and emotionally
conflicted over the deprogramming process, it seemed at the time to be their only option in a desperate
situation. Hundreds of these parents felt as though deprogramming had brought their children back to
life. The ex-members felt that they had been liberated from a psychological prison.
Because deprogramming had come to be associated with coercion and confinement and because it so
often worked (about two-thirds of the time), it caused quite a controversy. Cults railed against it, in large
-
8/3/2019 Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
2/4
part because it was effective in persuading their members to leave. But even some cult critics
denounced it on legal and ethical grounds. Others additionally felt that a more sophisticated
understanding of cults opened up alternatives to deprogramming. These persons-some of whom were
helping professionals or clergy-believed that parents tended to let their emotions dominate their
actions. They began to help parents with their distress and help them communicate more effectively, so
that they would be able to persuade their children to speak with someone knowledgeable about cults.
The term "voluntary deprogramming" came to associated with this process. It soon became clear,
however, the adjective "voluntary" did not remove the negative connotation "deprogramming" had
acquired. Gradually, the term "exit counseling" replaced "voluntary deprogramming." [Some exit
counselors prefer the term "cult education consultant," but that term has not yet caught on.) Today,
there are many exit counseling and few deprogramming.
Exit counseling refers to a voluntary, intensive, time-limited, contractual educational process that
emphasizes the respectful sharing of information with cultists. Because some persons, who perform
deprogramming like to call themselves "exit counselors" the two terms are sometimes confused. A
recent [Christian Research] Journal article on "exit counseling" angered many exit counselors in large
part because it failed to stress the distinctions between exit counseling and deprogramming.
These distinctions, however, are important. Deprogramming entails coercion and confinement. In exit
counseling the cultist 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 generally viewed as unethical, deprogrammers critiques of the
unethical practices of cults will tend to have less credibility with cultists than the critiques of exit
counselors. Neither the authors, the organizations for which they work, nor the publisher of this journal
endorse involuntary deprogramming.
Ethical concerns obviously are much greater with regard to deprogramming than exit counseling.
Deprogramming advocates maintain that its coercive aspect is a regrettable but necessary step in
freeing people from evil groups. They point out that the law has long recognized that competing rights
and needs can sometimes produce situations wherein an undesirable action might be necessary to
prevent something worse. This has often been called the "necessity" or "choice of evils" defense. An
example would be running a red light in order to get a bleeding person to a hospital. Running the red
light is a legal violation, but in such an emergency it would likely be deemed to have mitigating
circumstances. Obviously, with regard to deprogramming the central question is whether the evil to be
countered is terrible enough to mitigate the culpability of the coercion.
Determining the ethical defensibility of a particular deprogramming is not always simple. Generally
speaking the most sensible cases will involve minor children, especially when the cult prevents parents
-
8/3/2019 Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
3/4
from seeing or communicating with their child. With regard to adults in cults, a reasonable likelihood of
imminent danger to the life of the cultist is probably a critical factor in ethically defending a
deprogramming. Imminent danger, however, may not always be a sufficient justification of
deprogramming because other interventions may be reasonable to pursue (e.g., obtaining a court order
to remove the endangered person from the group).
Whether a particular judge or jury will accept the necessity defense for a deprogramming is a matter
that is independent of, though related to, the ethical defensibility of the deprogramming. A parent, for
example, may believe that his or her child is in imminent danger, that an exit counseling is not possible,
and that there is not sufficient time to obtain a court order. The parents opinion may be sufficiently
reasonable, based on the facts of the case, to be ethically defensible. However, a judge might reject the
necessity defense because he or she believes that there had indeed been time to obtain a court order,
or that it was reasonable to first attempt exit counseling. The judgment of the legal system determines
the acceptability of a necessity defense, regardless of the ethical defensibility of a particular
deprogramming, although the more ethically defensible a deprogramming is the more acceptable is the
necessity defense likely to be.
Historically speaking, when deprogramming have resulted in lawsuits or criminal charges, judges and
juries have in many cases decided in favor of parents and deprogrammers. In other cases courts have
exonerated the parents but held the deprogrammers liable. Occasionally, both parents and
deprogrammers have been held liable. Although there have been attempts to pass laws that would
essentially sanction deprogramming in advance, these attempts have failed repeatedly, in large part
because many believe that such laws would create more serious problems than they would solve. Thus,
the ethics and legality of deprogramming have been and continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
In order to evaluate the ethical and legal implications of intervening on behalf of a loved one, we
suggest that families consider the following questions:
1. Is the familys decision based primarily on the welfare of the cultist, rather than entirely on their own
psychological needs?
2. Do they have adequate information to conclude that their loved one is indeed imperiled by a cultic
group and that an intervention is warranted? Have they consulted with experts, including legal experts,
if warranted? Before they implore their loved one to make an informed decision about cult affiliation,
they ought to make sure they have made an informed decision about intervention.
3. Have parents contemplating an ethically defensible deprogramming carefully considered whether
there are any less restrictive options with a reasonably good chance of eliminating the imminent
danger? The greater the danger and the lower the probability of success of less restrictive alter-natives,
the more ethically defensible will be the deprogramming.
4. In the case of deprogramming, is the familys decision sufficiently well informed that they would be
emotionally and intellectually able to defend it in court if need be? Families should remember that they
may have to demonstrate that the deprogramming was necessary, not merely that the cult is harmful.
Because not all jurisdictions and judges will accept the necessity defense, parents and/or
deprogrammers may be charged with a crime regardless of the apparent "necessity" of the
deprogramming.
-
8/3/2019 Deprogramming Exit Counselling and Ethics Clarifying the Confusion
4/4
5. Have they carefully checked on the competence and integrity of those who may conduct the
intervention? Although many helpers are ethical and competent, we have heard reports indicating that
some have exploited vulnerable families and/or may not be as competent as they claim, at least with
regard to certain cases. If families fail to investigate a prospective helper, they may be led to participate
in an unethical and possibly illegal and ineffective intervention.
Ethical helpers will not rush families to a decision (whether for deprogramming or exit counseling)
merely because it meets the financial or emotional needs of the helper. Most deprogrammers and exit
counselors work hard to help cult members make informed decisions about their group affiliations.
Some, unfortunately, do not pay as much attention to their ethical obligation to make sure that the
families with whom they work have made truly informed decisions. If they did, there would, in our
opinion, be even fewer deprogramming than currently occur.
From Cult Observer, Volume 10, No. 4 -- 1993. This article first appeared in the winter 1993 issue of the
Christian Research Journal, P.O. Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693. Reprinted with permission.
(o 2)