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.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 67
The public perception of intervention or ―deprogramming‖ has been molded by the tense
propaganda between cultic groups, their sympathizers, and critics, and by the images and
story lines in the media. Interventions that have received serious attention from the media
(newspapers and television news) are almost always the kidnap/deprogram variety,
especially when such incidents fail and result in litigation or prosecution. Kidnap style
deprogramming in the United States has declined radically since the early 1990s despite
evidence that hundreds of such potentially illegal interventions occurred during the 1970s
through 1980s. My contention is that coercive approaches to intervention have always been
only a small fraction of overall attempts at intervention, but the perception of
deprogramming, or cult intervention, with kidnapping as the primary intervention strategy
persists among the general public.4
This perception is fueled not so much from the critics of cultic groups, but remains within
the propaganda generated by embattled cults or new religious movements themselves.5 The
hated deprogrammer and his alleged brutality serve to distance group members from their
antagonistic or less than sympathetic families who might hire such a person.
Deprogrammers also fulfill the role of a Satan or dark force par excellence that would steal
one‘s soul or ―light.‖ These perceptions, often fueled by group propaganda,6 make it difficult
for families to openly introduce any critic or ex-member to a cult member in non-coercive
settings—especially since the late 1970s.7 From the controversial group member‘s viewpoint
all interventions are suspected as not only possible avenues for disturbing or ―evil‖
information, but also for what might degenerate into a brutal deprogramming once it
begins. This ―fear‖ can be a powerful prophylactic against participation in a family discussion
of even the most benign proportions with a counselor or consultant—a horrible
deprogrammer might appear by surprise in a family arranged setting.8
The public perception that the deprogrammer is a necessary mercenary on one hand, or a
hero willing to risk jail on the other, is a result of selective attention to kidnap/
deprogramming in newspaper, magazine and television reporting, especially in cases that
fail.9 Litigation and criminal charges are news that become public domain, whereas success
stories from interventions rarely make news as the families of ex-members and ex-
members prefer privacy.10 Successful intervention dramas, however, are presented to the
public in another format—the movie or television special. These productions, whether
journalistic, fictional, or dramatized ―true stories,‖ have focused on the kidnap/
deprogramming approach as the ―last resort‖ intervention strategy of a desperate family. All
of the significant productions that we review in this paper end with the group member
leaving the group after a dramatic intervention that involves some kind of coercion. Never is
the group member presented as returning to the ―cult‖ after intervention despite evidence
in my awareness that nearly half did.
Twice movie producers have approached me to advise them about deprogramming—one
film aired as an NBC TV special in 1994 and many times thereafter on cable TV. The story
was based on two 1988 cases about which I had intimate knowledge. O‘Hara-Horowitz
Productions purchased the rights to my story and hired me as a consultant. My experience
with that production company and their script writer led me to ponder why the producers
gravitated to this one approach to intervention—the physically coercive one—despite my
best efforts to offer them an interesting non-coercive intervention story. The answer was
ratings—producers are worried about who might watch their story. Stories that portray
crime, violence, sex, and suspense attract a wider audience.11 I knew that within this
specific theme of a deprogramming and a cult, most of these attractive, sensational
elements can and have occurred to some degree, and a kidnapping scene adds to the
suspense.12 The producers could, therefore, claim to represent ―reality.‖
Certainly, many former members of some of the more abusive or manipulative groups can
identify with the way that such films portray cults. And, certainly, some cultic group