Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 66
Persistence of “Deprogramming” Stereotypes in Film
Joseph P. Szimhart
Abstract
This paper reviews dramatic portrayals of deprogramming, a neologism that
appeared several decades ago to identify the process of de-converting
members from eccentric groups or "cults."1 My interest in this subject stems
from experience as both a participant and observer—I made my living as a
deprogrammer for over a decade until 1997. In my experience
deprogramming covered an array of intervention models from non-coercive
educational discussions to the imposition of dialogue after a kidnapping or
involuntary confinement of a cult member. Although the vast majority of
interventions were of the former model, the high drama of the latter
―abduction‖ model as the remedy for a condition called "brainwashed"
attracted media attention. By 1980 several films and television specials about
coercive deprogramming were in production stages. Since 1980 a regular
stream of productions has continued to represent intervention with cultists as
coercive rarely have non-coercive interventions received even cursory
dramatic attention. This paper reviews significant productions through 2000
that have influenced public perception and argues that a stereotype has
appeared in the public mind as a result. The paper also argues that this trend
will not change because non-coercive interventions are ostensibly difficult to
dramatize, lack violent interaction and therefore have little monetary
potential.
Early in the 1970s, ―deprogramming‖ appeared as a term to describe efforts to break
someone‘s allegiance to or obsession with a controversial new religion, religious leader or
cult.2 Specifically, deprogrammers allegedly worked to undo the false beliefs and odd
behaviors induced by what is popularly called ―brainwashing.‖ By 1980, the general public
often identified deprogramming events with abduction and confinement. The general
outrage about some ―cults‖ tacitly condoned radical remedies to rescue cult ―victims.‖3
Media coverage of cults, including the Charles Manson Family murders in 1969 and the
tragedy at Jonestown in Guyana where over 900 People’s Temple members died from mass
murder/suicide in 1978, etched an extreme notion of cult activity into the public mind.
Cultists appeared ―programmed,‖ hypnotized, and potentially in harm‘s way—only radical
remedies could snap them out of it in time to prevent tragedy or, at the very least, a
wasted life serving a spurious cause. Deprogramming movies that reinforced and may have
shaped public perception of the remedy appeared. This paper will question the validity of
this perception of deprogramming, and will describe many of the visual images that helped
to form it. The paper will also address who most benefits from sustaining stereotypes.
Public Perception and Cult Propaganda
Many eccentric social movements, or ―cults‖, engage their devotees or followers in
controversial lifestyles that invite intense reactions from unsympathetic family and friends,
if not from the normative society. If family efforts to ―reason‖ with the devotee fail to come
to a mutual understanding or to successfully dissuade, frustrated persons may seek
professional or radical remedies. In recent history, especially since the early 1970s, families
have turned to self-defined intervention helpers, also known as ―deprogrammers‖ and ―exit
counselors,‖ to influence someone to leave a cult, marginal group or destructive
relationship. Strategies by interventionists to encourage disengagement from marginal
groups have ranged from polite argument in non-coercive settings to the notorious
―kidnap/deprogramming‖ incidents.
Persistence of “Deprogramming” Stereotypes in Film
Joseph P. Szimhart
Abstract
This paper reviews dramatic portrayals of deprogramming, a neologism that
appeared several decades ago to identify the process of de-converting
members from eccentric groups or "cults."1 My interest in this subject stems
from experience as both a participant and observer—I made my living as a
deprogrammer for over a decade until 1997. In my experience
deprogramming covered an array of intervention models from non-coercive
educational discussions to the imposition of dialogue after a kidnapping or
involuntary confinement of a cult member. Although the vast majority of
interventions were of the former model, the high drama of the latter
―abduction‖ model as the remedy for a condition called "brainwashed"
attracted media attention. By 1980 several films and television specials about
coercive deprogramming were in production stages. Since 1980 a regular
stream of productions has continued to represent intervention with cultists as
coercive rarely have non-coercive interventions received even cursory
dramatic attention. This paper reviews significant productions through 2000
that have influenced public perception and argues that a stereotype has
appeared in the public mind as a result. The paper also argues that this trend
will not change because non-coercive interventions are ostensibly difficult to
dramatize, lack violent interaction and therefore have little monetary
potential.
Early in the 1970s, ―deprogramming‖ appeared as a term to describe efforts to break
someone‘s allegiance to or obsession with a controversial new religion, religious leader or
cult.2 Specifically, deprogrammers allegedly worked to undo the false beliefs and odd
behaviors induced by what is popularly called ―brainwashing.‖ By 1980, the general public
often identified deprogramming events with abduction and confinement. The general
outrage about some ―cults‖ tacitly condoned radical remedies to rescue cult ―victims.‖3
Media coverage of cults, including the Charles Manson Family murders in 1969 and the
tragedy at Jonestown in Guyana where over 900 People’s Temple members died from mass
murder/suicide in 1978, etched an extreme notion of cult activity into the public mind.
Cultists appeared ―programmed,‖ hypnotized, and potentially in harm‘s way—only radical
remedies could snap them out of it in time to prevent tragedy or, at the very least, a
wasted life serving a spurious cause. Deprogramming movies that reinforced and may have
shaped public perception of the remedy appeared. This paper will question the validity of
this perception of deprogramming, and will describe many of the visual images that helped
to form it. The paper will also address who most benefits from sustaining stereotypes.
Public Perception and Cult Propaganda
Many eccentric social movements, or ―cults‖, engage their devotees or followers in
controversial lifestyles that invite intense reactions from unsympathetic family and friends,
if not from the normative society. If family efforts to ―reason‖ with the devotee fail to come
to a mutual understanding or to successfully dissuade, frustrated persons may seek
professional or radical remedies. In recent history, especially since the early 1970s, families
have turned to self-defined intervention helpers, also known as ―deprogrammers‖ and ―exit
counselors,‖ to influence someone to leave a cult, marginal group or destructive
relationship. Strategies by interventionists to encourage disengagement from marginal
groups have ranged from polite argument in non-coercive settings to the notorious
―kidnap/deprogramming‖ incidents.
