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

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 104
other viewpoints and analyses, but whom he has excluded from the sample because their
attitudes were deemed pernicious. This is no problem unless we are to generalize from the
attitudes of exit counselors to cult-, and their, converts, in which case, we should also
consider the perceptions of the ―alternate counselors.‖
Respectfully,
Thomas Robbins, Ph.D.
To The Editor:
The University of Nebraska‘s conference, ―Other Realities: New Religions and Revitalization
Movements‖ (March 27-30, 1985), provided a unique opportunity to hear conflicting
arguments on the cult issue. Papers were presented by scholars thought of as apologists for
cults, as well as by critics of the cults. The scholars were mainly sociologists and historians
of religion. A few philosophers were present. As a member of a distinct minority, i.e., those
who oppose the theory and practice of many ―new religions,‖ I found the divergent
approaches intriguing. The sociological and historical papers reflected contradictory views on
what is valid scholarship, what it means to be human, and what is a proper mode for the
ascertainment of truth. The Issues addressed were profound ones. Any summary of the
proceedings will do injustice to the conference‘s tone, level of erudition, and the common
respect displayed among the participants. The following comments reflect one participant‘s
observations.
Sharing a meal with Tom Robbins, one of the more prolific authors in this field, affords a
better view of his humor and perspective than can be gleaned from the intelligence which
marks his published prose. Dr. Robbins seems to be a concerned and honest social
observer. His formal statements, however, display a flawed judgment which one would hope
not to find accompanying such finely honed instincts for intrusions on freedom. An example
can be found in his plenary address on the legal problems posed by new religions. Robbins
claimed that the Constitution presupposes personal autonomy as a universal and constant
reality. This is historically inaccurate. The framers adhered to the view that free will was a
fragile human potential. The Bill of Rights was written to protect this fragility. This subtle,
crucial distinction appears to set sociologists like Dr. Robbins apart from those of us who
tend to be critical of cults. These sociologists appear to begin an examination with sweeping
assumptions that necessarily support the ensuing intellectual framework (―model‖) through
which their conclusions are shaped, and predetermined. Robbins was the least ardent
practitioner of this analytic approach.
Dr. Rodney Sawatsky, who teaches Religion and History at Conrad Greble College in
Waterloo, Ontario, underscored the cause of the sociologists‘ tendency to ignore fact when
he noted the influence of Immanuel Kant on the development of sociology. Kant‘s focus on
the internal processes which allow the discernment of truth led sociology to the point of
making the individual more central to truth than the object of truth itself. This neo-positivist
approach was glaringly prevalent in the papers presented by the sociologists.
Charles Harper of Creighton University gave the most explicit expression of the sociologists
disdain for fact. His paper ostensibly addressed the conditions under which cultic
developments are seen as problems. Without citing a single fact about the demonstrated
harms which have been visited upon cult participants, Dr. Harper blithely declared, ―Our
social reality has been re-ordered by the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) ...Without the ACM
we‘d have cults, but no cult problem.‖ Harper‘s astonishing challenge to deductive reasoning
was carried further by the following statement: ―Social problems are not based on objective
conditions, but on interpretations.‖
Anson Shupe echoed the theme by stating that the ―ACM‖ is devoid of valid concerns. The
American Family Foundation, he charged, ―was only a steppingstone to a growth industry.‖