Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 20
Cult Awareness Groups and NRM Scholars: Toward
Depolarization of Key Issues
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Abstract
Since the 1970s there has been a divide between scholars and professionals
with sometimes widely differing views of cultic groups. Although the phrases
―anti-cultists‖ and ―pro-cultists‖ are commonly used to describe the two
camps, this article refers to sympathizers and critics. The article discusses
the history of the academic disputes, attempts over the years to encourage
dialogue between the two camps, and changes in the population of help
seekers. Dialogue in recent years has decreased the polarization and
increased communication between the two ―camps.‖
What has sometimes been called ―the cult wars‖ began in the 1970s. At that time ad hoc
grass roots organizations began to form in response to what was perceived to be a sudden
increase in the number of young people joining nonmainstream religious groups, i.e.,
―cults.‖ Virtually all of these organizations were founded and supported by parents of cult-
involved young people, mostly college age. The term ―cult‖ has been defined in many
different ways. I now prefer a modification of a definition advanced by sociologist Benjamin
Zablocki (cf. Rosedale &Langone, 1998): ―an ideological organization held together by
charismatic relationships and demanding a high level of commitment.‖ However, most of
the early critics of cultic groups, including myself, placed exploitative manipulation at the
core of their definitions. A popular definition in this tradition is:
Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive
devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing
unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation
from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to
heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures,
information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment,
promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.),
designed to advance the goals of the group‘s leaders, to the actual or possible
detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West &Langone,
1986, pp. 119-120)
The late Henrietta Crampton, who founded a parent organization concerned about Children
of God and was one of the early leaders of the Citizens Freedom Foundation (later renamed
the Cult Awareness Network), told me that in the very early days of this movement (early
1970s), she and other parents were able to visit the headquarters of cults and talk to their
young adult children. As a result, many of the young people left the group. According to
Crampton, the groups then tightened their boundaries and made contact between families
and members more and more difficult. What little communication was allowed was closely
monitored by group leaders. Parents in these interactions saw their children‘s‘
conversations as stilted, rehearsed, and under the control of their ―handlers.‖ Analogies
with Korean War era brainwashing were easy to make, and the nascent parent organizations
began to say that their children had been brainwashed, had been ―programmed‖ to behave
in predetermined ways.
In response to these closed boundaries, desperate parents, according to Crampton,
attempted to remove their children from groups through trickery or force. Once away from

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 21
their handlers, the young adult members were persuaded to listen to information censored
by their groups. Most then left. The concept of ―deprogramming‖ came into being, and a
small number of paid consultants began to specialize in getting kids out of cults. The
excitement and risk associated with deprogramming energized the parent organizations. It
also stimulated journalists, who wrote many emotional stories about the process and the
groups from which people had been ―rescued.‖ Although deprogramming resulted in exit
more often than not (studies by Bromley and me both indicated about a 60% exit rate –
Bromley, 1988 Langone, 1984), the failure rate, and consequent legal risks, were
sufficiently high to cause many parents to agonize over the decision (many also were
troubled about the ethics of intervening) and to feel much anxiety before and during the
intervention.
The groups that deprogrammers were most likely to target were the Unification Church,
ISKCON, Scientology, Children of God, The Way International, and Divine Light Mission. Not
surprisingly, the groups fought back through public relations campaigns and special training
for their members. I remember, for example, hearing former Moonies report that they had
been told to slash their wrists if abducted by deprogrammers, so that they could get to a
hospital, where their fellow Moonies could ―rescue‖ them. I also remember reading lurid,
anti-deprogramming propaganda, which parents, deprogrammers, and former members
who had been deprogrammed derided, much as current members scoffed at some of the
media portrayals of cult life.
Parents‘ frustration and anger led them to do what angry citizens often do: they turned to
the government and tried to have conservatorship laws passed in various states so that
they would be able to force the groups to turn the parents‘ adult children over to mental
health authorities. Fortunately, in my opinion, none of these laws ever passed because the
potential for abuse outweighed the potential benefits. Nevertheless, it took several years
before the parent organizations gave up their legislative endeavors.
The combination of deprogramming and attempts to pass conservatorship laws seems to
have motivated some scholars of cults (who began using the term ―new religious
movement‖ to distinguish their work from the media stories about ―cults‖) to advocate on
behalf of the targeted groups. Their advocacy included writing derogatory articles and
books (e.g., Bromley &Shupe, 1981) about the so-called ―anti-cult movement.‖ As a result
―anti-cultists‖ labeled these scholars ―pro-cultists.‖
With few exceptions members of the two camps talked only with their compatriots. Simple-
minded stereotypes flourished. And research to which everybody should have paid
attention went unnoticed by those outside the particular individual‘s camp. Burke
Rochford‘s research on child abuse in ISKCON and ISKCON‘s development from a communal
to a congregational organization (Rochford, 1983, 1997, 1998 Rochford &Heinlein, 1998),
for example, should have been required reading for any parent or professional concerned
about a Krishna case. Instead, hardly anybody in the so-called ―anti-cult movement‖ even
knew about his research until ICSA (then AFF) engaged in substantial dialogue with so-
called ―pro-cultists‖ toward the end of the 1990s. I believe that scholars in the so-called
―pro-cult‖ camp were equally ignorant or dismissive of our work (Kropveld, 2003).
In the late 1990s a dialogue began between a handful of critics and sympathizers (much
credit goes to Dr. Eileen Barker for initiating this dialogue). This dialogue has resulted in
many private conversations (personal and e-mail) and talks at the ―other camp‘s‖
conferences. ICSA conference speakers in recent years have included Nancy Ammerman,
Dick Anthony, Massimo Introvigne, Phil Lucas, Gordon Melton, Burke Rochford, and, of
course, Eileen Barker. These exchanges have, I hope, caused at least some of us to revise
our thinking about contentious issues.