Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 29
their son David, that they had been ―unloving, self-centered, selfish, overprotective,
indulgent parents‖ (Adler, 1978, p. 26). Allen commented that Brian seemed to lack the
―mysterious inner ballast‖ (1) that helps one find an identity, but at the same time blamed
himself for Brian‘s actions. He felt guilty over his divorce from Brian‘s mother and for having
spent too little time with his sons. He also blamed his own emotional difficulties. The
Hershells, similarly, questioned their role in their daughter Jean‘s development Like many
other parents, they
finally realized that it was not what we had done or not done, so we could
stop beating ourselves! It was a combination of many factors: it was
circumstances, it was timing, it was the approach, it was the deception, the
―love-bombing,‖ the interplay [of these factors]. In short it was the
vulnerability of any and all young people. At any given time, any of them
could be ripe to be entrapped (Hershell &Hershell 198 1, p. 133).
The parents, in each case, upon seeing their child for the first time since his or her cult
involvements commented on the feeling of distance between them as well as changes in
physical appearance, deference to more senior members of the group, and a certain rigidity
of expression.
Parental Actions
Getting Information
The parents‘ initial knowledge about cult groups varied, depending upon when in the past
decade or so their child was recruited into such a group. For those who became involved
before 1975 or 1976, there was little information available in the popular press. These
parents tended to turn to their clergymen, or social welfare agencies, or attorneys, most of
whom had as little knowledge as the parents. A few turned to the media for help, provoking
some journalistic investigations (Landes, 1976 Stoner &Parke, 1977 Warshaw, 1979).
Most parents went to public libraries to seek information, or somehow tapped into the
growing network of parents with cult-involved children. The latter route was often a devious
one through ‗a friend of a friend‘ who knew someone else whose child was or had been in a
cult. In the 1982 survey group, only two parents immediately sought a deprogrammer and
ten took no action at all. A few tried to persuade their children of the error they had made
in accepting the ways of new friends so uncritically and precipitously, but reported that they
were unsuccessful.
Making Contact
During the period of the young person‘s cult affiliation, almost all of the parents initiated
some contact with their child, most often by phone, although this did not necessarily
continue on a regular basis. (Continuing communication, non- hortatory in tone, is
recommended by most experts in the field, incidentally, as essential for any defection from
the cult and for reconciliation with the family to occur. See Langone, 1985.)
For those living away from home, occasional visits initiated by the parents were usually
permitted, but only after the initial indoctrination phase of membership had been
completed. Typical of visits to a cult residence was the Adlers‘ first attempt to see David at
the Moonie camp:
We moved to a variety of spots in the camp but were always surrounded by
Moonies. Finally, David, following their lead, insisted we come into one of the
cabins. We did so reluctantly and were seated in a semicircle around him
(Adler, 1978, p. 27).
Eventually the Adlers saw their son alone for half an hour, and were able to schedule
another meeting with him for the next day at the Moonie residence in San Francisco. In like
their son David, that they had been ―unloving, self-centered, selfish, overprotective,
indulgent parents‖ (Adler, 1978, p. 26). Allen commented that Brian seemed to lack the
―mysterious inner ballast‖ (1) that helps one find an identity, but at the same time blamed
himself for Brian‘s actions. He felt guilty over his divorce from Brian‘s mother and for having
spent too little time with his sons. He also blamed his own emotional difficulties. The
Hershells, similarly, questioned their role in their daughter Jean‘s development Like many
other parents, they
finally realized that it was not what we had done or not done, so we could
stop beating ourselves! It was a combination of many factors: it was
circumstances, it was timing, it was the approach, it was the deception, the
―love-bombing,‖ the interplay [of these factors]. In short it was the
vulnerability of any and all young people. At any given time, any of them
could be ripe to be entrapped (Hershell &Hershell 198 1, p. 133).
The parents, in each case, upon seeing their child for the first time since his or her cult
involvements commented on the feeling of distance between them as well as changes in
physical appearance, deference to more senior members of the group, and a certain rigidity
of expression.
Parental Actions
Getting Information
The parents‘ initial knowledge about cult groups varied, depending upon when in the past
decade or so their child was recruited into such a group. For those who became involved
before 1975 or 1976, there was little information available in the popular press. These
parents tended to turn to their clergymen, or social welfare agencies, or attorneys, most of
whom had as little knowledge as the parents. A few turned to the media for help, provoking
some journalistic investigations (Landes, 1976 Stoner &Parke, 1977 Warshaw, 1979).
Most parents went to public libraries to seek information, or somehow tapped into the
growing network of parents with cult-involved children. The latter route was often a devious
one through ‗a friend of a friend‘ who knew someone else whose child was or had been in a
cult. In the 1982 survey group, only two parents immediately sought a deprogrammer and
ten took no action at all. A few tried to persuade their children of the error they had made
in accepting the ways of new friends so uncritically and precipitously, but reported that they
were unsuccessful.
Making Contact
During the period of the young person‘s cult affiliation, almost all of the parents initiated
some contact with their child, most often by phone, although this did not necessarily
continue on a regular basis. (Continuing communication, non- hortatory in tone, is
recommended by most experts in the field, incidentally, as essential for any defection from
the cult and for reconciliation with the family to occur. See Langone, 1985.)
For those living away from home, occasional visits initiated by the parents were usually
permitted, but only after the initial indoctrination phase of membership had been
completed. Typical of visits to a cult residence was the Adlers‘ first attempt to see David at
the Moonie camp:
We moved to a variety of spots in the camp but were always surrounded by
Moonies. Finally, David, following their lead, insisted we come into one of the
cabins. We did so reluctantly and were seated in a semicircle around him
(Adler, 1978, p. 27).
Eventually the Adlers saw their son alone for half an hour, and were able to schedule
another meeting with him for the next day at the Moonie residence in San Francisco. In like
