Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 26
parents‖ posture, for this can easily lead to a false dismissal of cult-related
harm. (Langone, 1984, p. 6)
We hasten to add, however, that our argument should not be construed as
condemning all cults and cult-like organizations as unhealthy. Different
groups present different settings – some harmful, some benign, others
perhaps constructive – to potential converts, each of whom in turn presents a
unique personality – sometimes healthy, sometimes troubled, always more or
less vulnerable – to the proselytizers with whom he comes into contact. We
are concerned here exclusively with cults which regularly effect drastic and
destructive personality changes in many converts. (Clark, Langone, Schecter,
&Daly, 1981, p. 6)
To those of us working with families and former group members it appeared that
sociologists of religion ignored these distinctions and attributed Ted Patrick‘s simplistic views
to everybody associated with the so-called ―anti-cult movement.‖ Sociologists seemed to
confuse the processes or conditions associated with ―brainwashing‖ with one of many
possible outcomes of a ―brainwashing‖ process, namely, the creation of deployable agents.
They depicted brainwashing in the starkest, black-and-white terms. The possibility that one
brainwashing program might be ineffective, another moderately effective, and still another
very effective seemed to have escaped notice. Either one was brainwashed or one was free.
Ted Patrick might have agreed. But most of the professionals in the field saw the
phenomenon as a more complex process and viewed ―brainwashing‖ as a term that referred
to a continuum of influence. Indeed, most of my colleagues, including exit counselors who
stress information sharing with cultists, would probably endorse what Dr. Barker said after
her quotation cited above:
If, on the other hand, it is just deception that is being practiced, converts will
be perfectly capable of making a decision—although they might make a
different decision were they basing their choice on more accurate information.
It can be argued, and it is indeed frequently the case, that when people who
have joined a movement realize that the movement‘s beliefs or practices are
not what they had initially thought them to be, they leave the movement. It
can also be argued that once some people have actually joined a movement
on the basis of false information, they are more likely to stay because they
have become subjected to further influences they may, for example, have
formed strong emotional attachments to members of the movement during
the ―extra time‖ that was gained through the deception. (Barker, 1989/1995,
pp. 17-18)
I have elsewhere elaborated upon Dr. Barker‘s propositions in a Web article entitled,
―Deception, Dependency, and Dread‖:
Although the process here described is complex and varied, the following
appears to occur in the prototypical cult conversion:
A vulnerable prospect encounters a cultic group.
The group (leader[s]) deceptively presents itself as a benevolent authority
that can improve the prospect‘s well-being.
The prospect responds positively, experiencing an increase in self-esteem and
security, at least some of which is in response to what could be considered
―placebo‖ The prospect can now be considered a ―recruit‖.
parents‖ posture, for this can easily lead to a false dismissal of cult-related
harm. (Langone, 1984, p. 6)
We hasten to add, however, that our argument should not be construed as
condemning all cults and cult-like organizations as unhealthy. Different
groups present different settings – some harmful, some benign, others
perhaps constructive – to potential converts, each of whom in turn presents a
unique personality – sometimes healthy, sometimes troubled, always more or
less vulnerable – to the proselytizers with whom he comes into contact. We
are concerned here exclusively with cults which regularly effect drastic and
destructive personality changes in many converts. (Clark, Langone, Schecter,
&Daly, 1981, p. 6)
To those of us working with families and former group members it appeared that
sociologists of religion ignored these distinctions and attributed Ted Patrick‘s simplistic views
to everybody associated with the so-called ―anti-cult movement.‖ Sociologists seemed to
confuse the processes or conditions associated with ―brainwashing‖ with one of many
possible outcomes of a ―brainwashing‖ process, namely, the creation of deployable agents.
They depicted brainwashing in the starkest, black-and-white terms. The possibility that one
brainwashing program might be ineffective, another moderately effective, and still another
very effective seemed to have escaped notice. Either one was brainwashed or one was free.
Ted Patrick might have agreed. But most of the professionals in the field saw the
phenomenon as a more complex process and viewed ―brainwashing‖ as a term that referred
to a continuum of influence. Indeed, most of my colleagues, including exit counselors who
stress information sharing with cultists, would probably endorse what Dr. Barker said after
her quotation cited above:
If, on the other hand, it is just deception that is being practiced, converts will
be perfectly capable of making a decision—although they might make a
different decision were they basing their choice on more accurate information.
It can be argued, and it is indeed frequently the case, that when people who
have joined a movement realize that the movement‘s beliefs or practices are
not what they had initially thought them to be, they leave the movement. It
can also be argued that once some people have actually joined a movement
on the basis of false information, they are more likely to stay because they
have become subjected to further influences they may, for example, have
formed strong emotional attachments to members of the movement during
the ―extra time‖ that was gained through the deception. (Barker, 1989/1995,
pp. 17-18)
I have elsewhere elaborated upon Dr. Barker‘s propositions in a Web article entitled,
―Deception, Dependency, and Dread‖:
Although the process here described is complex and varied, the following
appears to occur in the prototypical cult conversion:
A vulnerable prospect encounters a cultic group.
The group (leader[s]) deceptively presents itself as a benevolent authority
that can improve the prospect‘s well-being.
The prospect responds positively, experiencing an increase in self-esteem and
security, at least some of which is in response to what could be considered
―placebo‖ The prospect can now be considered a ―recruit‖.
