Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 103
COMMENTS
To The Editor:
The study of ―Counseling and Involvements in New Religious Groups‖ by Dr. Lawrence
Bennett Sullivan impressed me as a valuable study of the attitudes of anti-cult counselors
until, at the end, it seemed to dissolve in vituperation, conspiracy theory, and grim
warnings against ―subversion.‖ Let me make a few quick points:
1) Dr. Sullivan‘s claim that ―vastly too little attention‖ has been given to the unethical
recruitment tactics of cults is bizarre. T.V. movies, regular movies, and drugstore
paperbacks have depicted idealistic youth trapped in gurus‘ webs and rescued by
deprogramming, while Teen, Reader’s Digest, Good Housekeepinq and other popular
magazines have published I-saved-my-child-from-a-fanatic-cult articles, with copious
quotations from John Clark, Margaret Singer, et al?
2) Any discussion of coercion, deception, and ―psychological terrorism‖ relating to cults
which fails to mention the tactics of some anticultists (e.g., coercive deprogrammings) is
unbalanced to say the least! Granted, these tactics represent a response to manipulative
cultist tactics but some of the ―subversive‖ tactics of the latter are in turn a response to the
tactics of some of the anti-cultists. Dr. Sullivan‘s vehemence and one-sidedness in this
respect does not contribute to the depolarization which I would like to see occur.
Dr. Sullivan notes that the counseling that he describes was often of little value and that
counseling objectives with targeted devotees were often not achieved. What does he
suggest as an alternative? (Not coercion, I would hope!) Perhaps more effective counseling
relationships could have developed if the counselors didn‘t operate so clearly as parental
agents, and if they didn‘t view the exiting of the counselee from the group as an a priori
overriding imperative. I know some members of notorious ―destructive cults‖ who simply do
not live a regimented, communally encapsulated lifestyle. I know others who have done
skilled and creative work in journalistic and other diverse enterprises operating under the
auspices of ―cults.‖ Some converts have been helped and others hurt. I believe that the goal
of counseling should emerge from the counseling relationship and the particularities of each
devotee‘s situation.
I think some cultists have used deceptive methods to ―sabotage‖ anti-cult operations. But I
think other counselors, even those who might be in sympathy with one group or another,
have been sincere in advocating ―mediation.‖ Naturally, every person with a special
viewpoint or bias is going to view ―mediation‖ and ―counseling‖ in a particular way, and may
view others with different orientations as conspirators. Thus, opponents of coercive
deprograimming have noted that some persons who are ―counselors‖ today were
―deprogrammers‖ yesterday, and have wondered if the shift has sometimes been nominal.
There is also the factor of different counseling programs competing for the limited attention
and resources of concerned parents, citizens, and funding sources.
Dr. Sullivan‘s vehemence concerning cult sympathizers purporting to be counselors leads
me to wonder if he would hold that anyone who has a different orientation from his and/or
is sympathetic to a spiritual minority can make any valid contribution in the area of cult
counseling or research. For example, I am sympathetic to Meher Baba, a fairly
nondestructive group. I have a colleague who is more connected to Meher Baba than I am
and who favors Rogerian nondirective counseling, as opposed to doctrinaire exit counseling,
for devotees. Are we potentially or objectively ―subversive‖ or beyond the pale?
Finally, I want to emphasize that Dr. Sullivan‘s study is a study of the attitudes of anti-cult
exit counselors, no more and no less. He makes mild cautionary statements about applying
their perceptions of converts to the ―reality‖ of cults. I prefer to stress the point. I will also
note that the author‘s parting fulminations indicate that there are other ―counselors‖ with
COMMENTS
To The Editor:
The study of ―Counseling and Involvements in New Religious Groups‖ by Dr. Lawrence
Bennett Sullivan impressed me as a valuable study of the attitudes of anti-cult counselors
until, at the end, it seemed to dissolve in vituperation, conspiracy theory, and grim
warnings against ―subversion.‖ Let me make a few quick points:
1) Dr. Sullivan‘s claim that ―vastly too little attention‖ has been given to the unethical
recruitment tactics of cults is bizarre. T.V. movies, regular movies, and drugstore
paperbacks have depicted idealistic youth trapped in gurus‘ webs and rescued by
deprogramming, while Teen, Reader’s Digest, Good Housekeepinq and other popular
magazines have published I-saved-my-child-from-a-fanatic-cult articles, with copious
quotations from John Clark, Margaret Singer, et al?
2) Any discussion of coercion, deception, and ―psychological terrorism‖ relating to cults
which fails to mention the tactics of some anticultists (e.g., coercive deprogrammings) is
unbalanced to say the least! Granted, these tactics represent a response to manipulative
cultist tactics but some of the ―subversive‖ tactics of the latter are in turn a response to the
tactics of some of the anti-cultists. Dr. Sullivan‘s vehemence and one-sidedness in this
respect does not contribute to the depolarization which I would like to see occur.
Dr. Sullivan notes that the counseling that he describes was often of little value and that
counseling objectives with targeted devotees were often not achieved. What does he
suggest as an alternative? (Not coercion, I would hope!) Perhaps more effective counseling
relationships could have developed if the counselors didn‘t operate so clearly as parental
agents, and if they didn‘t view the exiting of the counselee from the group as an a priori
overriding imperative. I know some members of notorious ―destructive cults‖ who simply do
not live a regimented, communally encapsulated lifestyle. I know others who have done
skilled and creative work in journalistic and other diverse enterprises operating under the
auspices of ―cults.‖ Some converts have been helped and others hurt. I believe that the goal
of counseling should emerge from the counseling relationship and the particularities of each
devotee‘s situation.
I think some cultists have used deceptive methods to ―sabotage‖ anti-cult operations. But I
think other counselors, even those who might be in sympathy with one group or another,
have been sincere in advocating ―mediation.‖ Naturally, every person with a special
viewpoint or bias is going to view ―mediation‖ and ―counseling‖ in a particular way, and may
view others with different orientations as conspirators. Thus, opponents of coercive
deprograimming have noted that some persons who are ―counselors‖ today were
―deprogrammers‖ yesterday, and have wondered if the shift has sometimes been nominal.
There is also the factor of different counseling programs competing for the limited attention
and resources of concerned parents, citizens, and funding sources.
Dr. Sullivan‘s vehemence concerning cult sympathizers purporting to be counselors leads
me to wonder if he would hold that anyone who has a different orientation from his and/or
is sympathetic to a spiritual minority can make any valid contribution in the area of cult
counseling or research. For example, I am sympathetic to Meher Baba, a fairly
nondestructive group. I have a colleague who is more connected to Meher Baba than I am
and who favors Rogerian nondirective counseling, as opposed to doctrinaire exit counseling,
for devotees. Are we potentially or objectively ―subversive‖ or beyond the pale?
Finally, I want to emphasize that Dr. Sullivan‘s study is a study of the attitudes of anti-cult
exit counselors, no more and no less. He makes mild cautionary statements about applying
their perceptions of converts to the ―reality‖ of cults. I prefer to stress the point. I will also
note that the author‘s parting fulminations indicate that there are other ―counselors‖ with
