Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2009, Page 57
Appendixes in Top Secret, I have the impression that Price relied on limited and dated, if
not biased, sources. His model of a deprogrammer and cults seems greatly influenced by
the controversial career and behaviors of Ted Patrick (Let Our Children Go, 1976) and
perhaps by early 1980s movies about deprogramming (Split Image, Ticket to Heaven). More
recently, Holy Smoke (1999), a film by Jane Campion, continues this stereotyping narrative
about abusive shock tactics in deprogramming. These movies and Patrick‘s career as
described in Let Our Children Go do not represent my extensive experience with the field.
Other sources seem to be a specialized group of social scientists who have a significant
reaction to what they call the ―Anti-Cult Network.‖ One book referenced by Price, The New
Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and New Religions, by David Bromley and Anson
Shupe, Jr. (1980), typifies the scholars I am referring to. Other scholars referenced and in
that camp are James R. Lewis, J. Gordon Melton, and James Richardson. Price does list one
book co-edited by sociologist Benjamin Zablocki, who is more in line with how I see the
problem. The anti-anti-cult network scholars assert that there is no such thing as
―brainwashing‖ (as anti-cultists mean it). They argue that ―new religious movements‖ are
vilified mainly because they are new and/or foreign, misunderstood, and upstart
alternatives to established religions. I do not entirely disagree with this argument as far as
it goes, but getting one of these specialized scholars to admit that controversial cults might
fully deserve the criticism by ex-members is like pulling wisdom teeth without a numbing
agent. I have tried. Many of them develop brain-lock when an ex-member speaks out. All
they seem to hear are ―atrocity tales‖ with doubtful content. Price inherits the same brain-
lock, as evidenced in this passage, for example:
We need to keep in mind what Peter Berger describes as ―nihilation
strategies.‖ When someone embraces a new set of beliefs or a new
allegiance, diametrically opposed to his former ones, he seeks to make sense
of the old allegiance in terms of the new… One simply cannot deal with the
chagrin of having been a ―kooky cultist,‖ and it becomes in mighty handy to
deny that one‘s choice for the previous state was voluntary. ―I only joined up
because they brainwashed me!‖ This is another way of saying, ―You know, I
must have been crazy to have joined that group!‖ Only it is no longer
hyperbole. You are seeking to slough off the responsibility for a decision you
now find embarrassing. I suspect the same thing happened in the early 1980s
when the porn star Linda Lovelace abandoned her film career and claimed,
not that she had repented of her sins, but that she escaped from the slavery
and brainwashing at the hands of her evil manager, who forced her to
degrade herself in pornographic moviemaking. She was ashamed now of
having done it, so ashamed that she could not imagine she had ever chosen
to do it. Her story was a nihilation strategy to save face. And one suspects
the atrocity tales of ex-cultists partake of the same. (313)
So, what is Price inferring here? Do all deprogrammed or walk-away ex-cultists identify with
what Linda Lovelace supposedly claimed? Linda Lovelace is somehow a paradigm for ex-
members now when she says, ―The manager made me do it‖? Do ex-members accept no
responsibility? Is it all brainwashing, as if brainwashing creates a kind of robotic automaton?
I admit that I have run into a few folks who blame it all on the cult when they should take
more responsibility, but I can assure Professor Price that, by far, most of the thousands of
ex-members I have personally encountered would be chuckling at his stilted depiction.
I recall once in 1992 having to defend myself in a civil suit by a large martial arts cult (John
C. Kim schools at the time) that did not like that I had accused them, in writing, of using
―coercive persuasion‖ to manipulate potential instructors into signing huge contracts—like
$30,000 and $125,000. The Texas judge threw out the complaint after I testified and after
our lawyer with my help cross-examined their witnesses and their ―expert.‖ I felt sorry for
Appendixes in Top Secret, I have the impression that Price relied on limited and dated, if
not biased, sources. His model of a deprogrammer and cults seems greatly influenced by
the controversial career and behaviors of Ted Patrick (Let Our Children Go, 1976) and
perhaps by early 1980s movies about deprogramming (Split Image, Ticket to Heaven). More
recently, Holy Smoke (1999), a film by Jane Campion, continues this stereotyping narrative
about abusive shock tactics in deprogramming. These movies and Patrick‘s career as
described in Let Our Children Go do not represent my extensive experience with the field.
Other sources seem to be a specialized group of social scientists who have a significant
reaction to what they call the ―Anti-Cult Network.‖ One book referenced by Price, The New
Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and New Religions, by David Bromley and Anson
Shupe, Jr. (1980), typifies the scholars I am referring to. Other scholars referenced and in
that camp are James R. Lewis, J. Gordon Melton, and James Richardson. Price does list one
book co-edited by sociologist Benjamin Zablocki, who is more in line with how I see the
problem. The anti-anti-cult network scholars assert that there is no such thing as
―brainwashing‖ (as anti-cultists mean it). They argue that ―new religious movements‖ are
vilified mainly because they are new and/or foreign, misunderstood, and upstart
alternatives to established religions. I do not entirely disagree with this argument as far as
it goes, but getting one of these specialized scholars to admit that controversial cults might
fully deserve the criticism by ex-members is like pulling wisdom teeth without a numbing
agent. I have tried. Many of them develop brain-lock when an ex-member speaks out. All
they seem to hear are ―atrocity tales‖ with doubtful content. Price inherits the same brain-
lock, as evidenced in this passage, for example:
We need to keep in mind what Peter Berger describes as ―nihilation
strategies.‖ When someone embraces a new set of beliefs or a new
allegiance, diametrically opposed to his former ones, he seeks to make sense
of the old allegiance in terms of the new… One simply cannot deal with the
chagrin of having been a ―kooky cultist,‖ and it becomes in mighty handy to
deny that one‘s choice for the previous state was voluntary. ―I only joined up
because they brainwashed me!‖ This is another way of saying, ―You know, I
must have been crazy to have joined that group!‖ Only it is no longer
hyperbole. You are seeking to slough off the responsibility for a decision you
now find embarrassing. I suspect the same thing happened in the early 1980s
when the porn star Linda Lovelace abandoned her film career and claimed,
not that she had repented of her sins, but that she escaped from the slavery
and brainwashing at the hands of her evil manager, who forced her to
degrade herself in pornographic moviemaking. She was ashamed now of
having done it, so ashamed that she could not imagine she had ever chosen
to do it. Her story was a nihilation strategy to save face. And one suspects
the atrocity tales of ex-cultists partake of the same. (313)
So, what is Price inferring here? Do all deprogrammed or walk-away ex-cultists identify with
what Linda Lovelace supposedly claimed? Linda Lovelace is somehow a paradigm for ex-
members now when she says, ―The manager made me do it‖? Do ex-members accept no
responsibility? Is it all brainwashing, as if brainwashing creates a kind of robotic automaton?
I admit that I have run into a few folks who blame it all on the cult when they should take
more responsibility, but I can assure Professor Price that, by far, most of the thousands of
ex-members I have personally encountered would be chuckling at his stilted depiction.
I recall once in 1992 having to defend myself in a civil suit by a large martial arts cult (John
C. Kim schools at the time) that did not like that I had accused them, in writing, of using
―coercive persuasion‖ to manipulate potential instructors into signing huge contracts—like
$30,000 and $125,000. The Texas judge threw out the complaint after I testified and after
our lawyer with my help cross-examined their witnesses and their ―expert.‖ I felt sorry for
