Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 30
Conversions can be engineered, but non-manipulative entries into high-control
environments can also be difficult to leave. The Moonie model so influenced people in this
field that, for years, many professionals and researchers ignored the growing evidence that
the Moonie model of conversion was not typical. Dr. Benjamin Zablocki (1998), in an
important paper, "Exit Cost Analysis: A New Approach to the Scientific Study of
Brainwashing," quotes Dr. Stephen Kent, who says that brainwashing is a useful ―technique
for retaining members not for obtaining members‖ (p. 218). These sociologists, who have
organized two research programs for this conference, do activists and mental health
professionals in this field a service by drawing our attention to this important distinction.
(The distinction is certainly relevant to the case of people born into high-control groups, a
subject of one of this conference‘s programs.) Even when conversions are not engineered,
the maintenance of the convert‘s loyalty might involve high levels of manipulation and
psychological coercion. Conversely, that an engineered conversion brings somebody into a
relatively benign and non-manipulative environment might also sometimes be the case.
Given the concern some mainstream campus ministries have shown for evangelists who, so
to speak, put a notch on their Bible every time they ―win‖ a soul for Christ, I suspect that
some conversions to mainstream Christian denominations might be more manipulative than
many realize (see special issue of Cultic Studies Journal ―Cults, Evangelicals, and the Ethics
of Social Influence,‖ 1985).
The powerful social forces in many controversial groups place these groups at risk for
harming their members, psychologically, physically, and economically. (In this conference
historian Dr. Jean-Francois Mayer and psychiatrist Dr. Robert Jay Lifton will inform us about
two of the most conspicuous examples of groups that harmed their members, The
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments and Aum Shinrikyo.) Cult
sympathizers, to a large extent, appear to have been reluctant to write about these
negative effects of conversion, although there are some notable exceptions (e.g., Rochford,
1998). Barker sheds light on this reluctance in a candid comment she made during her
presidential address to the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion in 1995:
If we are to be honest and self-critical, we have to admit that several of us
have reacted against the selective negativity of the ACM by, sometimes quite
unconsciously, making our own unbalanced selections. Having been affronted
by what have appeared to be gross violations of human rights perpetrated
through practices such as deprogramming and the medicalization of belief,
there have been occasions when social scientists have withheld information
about the movements because they know that this will be taken, possibly out
of context, to be used as a justification for such actions. The somewhat
paradoxical situation is that the more we feel the NRMs are having
untrue bad things said about them, the less inclined we are to publish
true “bad” things about the movements. (Barker, 1995, p. 305 –
emphasis added)
Some cult critics have shown a similar reluctance to acknowledge positive aspects of the
groups they criticize, although mental health professionals have long encouraged families to
acknowledge their loved ones‘ positive experiences, something that families, quite
understandably, often find painful to do. But this perspective doesn‘t always find its way
into mental health publications on this subject.
In literature classes in college or high school, we all heard about two-dimensional and
three-dimensional characters. The latter were preferable because they were more complex,
more nuanced, more interesting — in short, they were more real. Similarly, we need three-
dimensional theories of cult conversion, cult experience, and cult departure and recovery.
The landscape is much more varied than we realize. That is why in this conference we have
organized programs on positive and negative aspects of conversion, including positive
Conversions can be engineered, but non-manipulative entries into high-control
environments can also be difficult to leave. The Moonie model so influenced people in this
field that, for years, many professionals and researchers ignored the growing evidence that
the Moonie model of conversion was not typical. Dr. Benjamin Zablocki (1998), in an
important paper, "Exit Cost Analysis: A New Approach to the Scientific Study of
Brainwashing," quotes Dr. Stephen Kent, who says that brainwashing is a useful ―technique
for retaining members not for obtaining members‖ (p. 218). These sociologists, who have
organized two research programs for this conference, do activists and mental health
professionals in this field a service by drawing our attention to this important distinction.
(The distinction is certainly relevant to the case of people born into high-control groups, a
subject of one of this conference‘s programs.) Even when conversions are not engineered,
the maintenance of the convert‘s loyalty might involve high levels of manipulation and
psychological coercion. Conversely, that an engineered conversion brings somebody into a
relatively benign and non-manipulative environment might also sometimes be the case.
Given the concern some mainstream campus ministries have shown for evangelists who, so
to speak, put a notch on their Bible every time they ―win‖ a soul for Christ, I suspect that
some conversions to mainstream Christian denominations might be more manipulative than
many realize (see special issue of Cultic Studies Journal ―Cults, Evangelicals, and the Ethics
of Social Influence,‖ 1985).
The powerful social forces in many controversial groups place these groups at risk for
harming their members, psychologically, physically, and economically. (In this conference
historian Dr. Jean-Francois Mayer and psychiatrist Dr. Robert Jay Lifton will inform us about
two of the most conspicuous examples of groups that harmed their members, The
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments and Aum Shinrikyo.) Cult
sympathizers, to a large extent, appear to have been reluctant to write about these
negative effects of conversion, although there are some notable exceptions (e.g., Rochford,
1998). Barker sheds light on this reluctance in a candid comment she made during her
presidential address to the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion in 1995:
If we are to be honest and self-critical, we have to admit that several of us
have reacted against the selective negativity of the ACM by, sometimes quite
unconsciously, making our own unbalanced selections. Having been affronted
by what have appeared to be gross violations of human rights perpetrated
through practices such as deprogramming and the medicalization of belief,
there have been occasions when social scientists have withheld information
about the movements because they know that this will be taken, possibly out
of context, to be used as a justification for such actions. The somewhat
paradoxical situation is that the more we feel the NRMs are having
untrue bad things said about them, the less inclined we are to publish
true “bad” things about the movements. (Barker, 1995, p. 305 –
emphasis added)
Some cult critics have shown a similar reluctance to acknowledge positive aspects of the
groups they criticize, although mental health professionals have long encouraged families to
acknowledge their loved ones‘ positive experiences, something that families, quite
understandably, often find painful to do. But this perspective doesn‘t always find its way
into mental health publications on this subject.
In literature classes in college or high school, we all heard about two-dimensional and
three-dimensional characters. The latter were preferable because they were more complex,
more nuanced, more interesting — in short, they were more real. Similarly, we need three-
dimensional theories of cult conversion, cult experience, and cult departure and recovery.
The landscape is much more varied than we realize. That is why in this conference we have
organized programs on positive and negative aspects of conversion, including positive
