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‖.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 27
 Through the use of ―sharing‖ exercises, ―confessions,‖ and skillful
individualized probing, the group [leader(s)] assesses the recruit‘s strengths
and weaknesses.
 Through testimonies of group members, the denigration of the group‘s
―competitors‖ (e.g., other religious groups, other therapists), the tactful
accentuation of the recruit‘s shameful memories and other weaknesses, and
the gradual indoctrination of the recruit into a closed, nonfalsifiable belief
system, the group‘s superiority is affirmed as a fundamental assumption.
 Members‘ testimonies, positive reinforcement of the recruit‘s expressions of
trust in the group, discrete reminders about the recruit‘s weaknesses, and
various forms of group pressure induce the recruit to acknowledge that
his/her future well-being depends upon adherence to the group‘s belief
system, more specifically its ―change program.‖
 These same influence techniques are joined by a subtle undermining of the
recruit‘s self-esteem (e.g., by exaggerating the ―sinfulness‖ of experiences
the recruit is encouraged to confess‖), the suppression or weakening of
critical thinking through fatiguing activity, near-total control of the recruit‘s
time, trance-induction exercises (e.g., chanting), and the repetitive message
that only disaster results from not following the group‘s ―change program.‖
These manipulations induce the recruit to declare allegiance to the group and
to commit to change him/herself as directed by the group. He or she can now
be considered a convert embarking on a path of ―purification,‖
―enlightenment,‖ ―self-actualization,‖ ―higher consciousness,‖ or whatever.
The recruit‘s dependency on the group is established and implicitly, if not
explicitly, acknowledged. Moreover, he/she has accepted the group‘s
authority in defining what is true and good, within the convert‘s heart and
mind as well as in the world.
Although, like my most of my colleagues, I have avoided the term ―brainwashing,‖ if
pressed, I would say that the above bulleted statements more or less describe the first
phase of what one might call ―brainwashing.‖ This process does not make ―robots.‖ It does
not eliminate choice, the capacity to make decisions. The process manipulates choice,
resulting in what Dr. Janja Lalich, in a new theoretical formulation, calls ―bounded choice‖
(Lalich, 2004). Moreover, the tension inherent in yielding to group pressures—what some
have called a ―pseudo-identity‖ (West &Martin, 1996)—sets the stage for future conflicts
and disillusionment, which may eventually lead to departure from the group. Why most
members of most groups eventually leave, while others remain is a question for which we
still don‘t have an adequate answer, in my opinion. My impression is that there are many
answers, reflecting many kinds of interactions between individuals and powerful
environments.
Scholarship on the “Anti-Cult Movement” (ACM)
Kropveld (2003) summarizes the main problem with sociological research on the so-called
ACM:
The sociological literature on the ―anti-cult movement‖ repeatedly makes the
mistake of presuming that all organizations and individuals, who express
concerns about cults, have uniform objectives, a common agenda, and close,
interlinking relationships. In fact, there are numerous differences, and most
―ACM‖ groups know very little about other groups and individuals. Here is a
partial list of organizations that Dr. Barker might categorize as ―cult
awareness groups‖ (all are from North America unless otherwise indicated):