Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2009, Page 58
her. Out of sympathy for their middle-aged ―expert‖ psychologist (she studied martial arts
at one of the schools), I wrote to her to try to help her understand my position. I ran into
brain-lock (not unusual for a true believer) with her after two exchanges. She said I had a
―reaction formation‖ to cults because I was an ex-member, implying that there was
something seriously wrong with my recovery. As I indicated above, I got deeply involved
with a large New Age cult from 1979-1980.
Now I am not arguing that a ―reaction formation‖ was not part of my ―nihilation strategy‖
after rejecting the Summit Lighthouse, but I emphasize it was only a small part. What I am
arguing is that, by labeling my defection story and recovery as ―nihilation strategy,‖ my
critic brain-locks into seeing no further. So it seems to me that both she and Price do
exactly what they feel deprogrammers and anti-cultists do namely, resort to simplistic
jargon to sustain a bias, or what Price calls a ―plausibility structure.‖ Robert J. Lifton, in his
fine study on brainwashing in Communist China, called this ―loading the language.‖vii Lifton
quoted Lionel Trilling, who calls this the ―language of non-thought.‖
Price also seems to ignore the fact that ―nihilation strategies‖ might include scholarly
refutation of false beliefs, exposure of actual misbehavior by gurus, analysis of group
dynamics that can undermine or compromise individual choice, and learning strategies that
accelerate recovery from psychological harm. It is as if Price is saying that ex-members are
merely utilizing a nihilation strategy to avoid personal responsibility. What I see here is
equivocation in Price‘s argument. A nihilation strategy does not equal an atrocity tale (as if
an atrocity tale excludes accuracy, reason, and intelligent choice with in depth self-
analysis). Furthermore, I challenge Price to produce a real person who remotely resembles
his caricature in The Deprogramming. If he does, I would like to have a discussion with that
person in Price‘s presence.
I want to comment on another equivocation. Price wrote:
If one has abandoned one‘s former membership through a deprogrammer,
one has in effect been through a ―deconversion‖ experience fully as powerful
as the original conversion whereby one entered the cult in the first place. One
rejoices in a new identity. (313)
Oh? That is news to me. I have participated in a wide variety of deprogramming
interventions, easily many hundreds. Most, and exclusively since 1992, were noncoercive
―exit counselings‖ that lasted from three to five days. Most of those were ―successes.‖ By
successes I mean cult members who rejected the cult in my presence during the
intervention, and not months or years after. I can assure Professor Price and that clique of
scholars that influence his ideas that a deconversion during intervention and the conversion
process are not the same ―experience,‖ nor does deconversion have the same ―power.‖
Price seems to mean intervention while confining a cult member against his will when he
refers to what a deprogrammer does. In either case, confined or not, cult members who
―abandoned‖ their group or belief system after going through intervention emerge feeling
relieved of a spurious role and useless burden. If they rejoice, it is because their identity
has been freed from a false or overvalued belief and not because they found a ―new
identity.‖
There is no ―new identity‖ as a result of deprogramming. Early anti-cultists sometimes used
terms like ―pseudo-identity‖ or ―cult self‖ to describe the personality of a devoted group
member in a self-sealing social system. I prefer to call it an ―affected identity‖ conditioned
by specialized self-directed and other-directed manipulations but we need not discuss that
here. When a person emerges from the ―rabbit hole‖ during an exit intervention (to me, the
process amounts to an educational approach once it gets going), no new identity emerges.
It is the same person, but one with new insight, new memories, improved (hopefully)
perspectives and prospects, broader discursive interests, and renewed relationships that
her. Out of sympathy for their middle-aged ―expert‖ psychologist (she studied martial arts
at one of the schools), I wrote to her to try to help her understand my position. I ran into
brain-lock (not unusual for a true believer) with her after two exchanges. She said I had a
―reaction formation‖ to cults because I was an ex-member, implying that there was
something seriously wrong with my recovery. As I indicated above, I got deeply involved
with a large New Age cult from 1979-1980.
Now I am not arguing that a ―reaction formation‖ was not part of my ―nihilation strategy‖
after rejecting the Summit Lighthouse, but I emphasize it was only a small part. What I am
arguing is that, by labeling my defection story and recovery as ―nihilation strategy,‖ my
critic brain-locks into seeing no further. So it seems to me that both she and Price do
exactly what they feel deprogrammers and anti-cultists do namely, resort to simplistic
jargon to sustain a bias, or what Price calls a ―plausibility structure.‖ Robert J. Lifton, in his
fine study on brainwashing in Communist China, called this ―loading the language.‖vii Lifton
quoted Lionel Trilling, who calls this the ―language of non-thought.‖
Price also seems to ignore the fact that ―nihilation strategies‖ might include scholarly
refutation of false beliefs, exposure of actual misbehavior by gurus, analysis of group
dynamics that can undermine or compromise individual choice, and learning strategies that
accelerate recovery from psychological harm. It is as if Price is saying that ex-members are
merely utilizing a nihilation strategy to avoid personal responsibility. What I see here is
equivocation in Price‘s argument. A nihilation strategy does not equal an atrocity tale (as if
an atrocity tale excludes accuracy, reason, and intelligent choice with in depth self-
analysis). Furthermore, I challenge Price to produce a real person who remotely resembles
his caricature in The Deprogramming. If he does, I would like to have a discussion with that
person in Price‘s presence.
I want to comment on another equivocation. Price wrote:
If one has abandoned one‘s former membership through a deprogrammer,
one has in effect been through a ―deconversion‖ experience fully as powerful
as the original conversion whereby one entered the cult in the first place. One
rejoices in a new identity. (313)
Oh? That is news to me. I have participated in a wide variety of deprogramming
interventions, easily many hundreds. Most, and exclusively since 1992, were noncoercive
―exit counselings‖ that lasted from three to five days. Most of those were ―successes.‖ By
successes I mean cult members who rejected the cult in my presence during the
intervention, and not months or years after. I can assure Professor Price and that clique of
scholars that influence his ideas that a deconversion during intervention and the conversion
process are not the same ―experience,‖ nor does deconversion have the same ―power.‖
Price seems to mean intervention while confining a cult member against his will when he
refers to what a deprogrammer does. In either case, confined or not, cult members who
―abandoned‖ their group or belief system after going through intervention emerge feeling
relieved of a spurious role and useless burden. If they rejoice, it is because their identity
has been freed from a false or overvalued belief and not because they found a ―new
identity.‖
There is no ―new identity‖ as a result of deprogramming. Early anti-cultists sometimes used
terms like ―pseudo-identity‖ or ―cult self‖ to describe the personality of a devoted group
member in a self-sealing social system. I prefer to call it an ―affected identity‖ conditioned
by specialized self-directed and other-directed manipulations but we need not discuss that
here. When a person emerges from the ―rabbit hole‖ during an exit intervention (to me, the
process amounts to an educational approach once it gets going), no new identity emerges.
It is the same person, but one with new insight, new memories, improved (hopefully)
perspectives and prospects, broader discursive interests, and renewed relationships that
