Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 22
spiritual sources “from which cult theologies claim to derive.” The third phase of Kelly‟s
deprogrammings involved a member of the deprogramming team returning home with the
cultist “to help smooth the difficulty of returning to the family” (p.151).
In a sociological study of deprogramming, Kim (1979) conducted a series of interviews with
17 subjects who had been deprogrammed, with additional information gathered through
participant observations of the rehabilitation process following the deprogramming. Kim
defined a belief system alteration process as requiring a “plausibility structure” consisting of
“credible views of reality..through which a legitimating apparatus..is provided” (Kim, 1979,
p. 199). In deprogrammings, the plausibility structure, Kim found, consisted of a strongly
held conviction that the cult member‟s beliefs and actions are the result of mind control the
belief system is therefore the target of deprogramming. The process of deprogramming,
according to Kim, involved coercive persuasion as described by Schein (1961). The cult
member is initially subjected to a period of “unfreezing” in which external forces are
manipulated in a manner that renders the cult member‟s existing equilibrium unstable.
Once accomplished, the next step is “changing,” in which a new set of information and
modes is provided to give the cult member “a direction of change toward new equilibrium”
(e.g., her new interpretation of her cult experience) is rewarded and socially supported in
order to facilitate its integration into the rest of the personality.
Kim‟s sociological analysis of deprogramming/rehabilitation merits careful consideration.
Barker (1984), in her critical review of the literature on deprogrammed and
nondeprogrammed former Moonists, provided additional support for this thesis.
Deprogrammees may indeed be subjected to “unfreezing.” On the other hand,
deprogrammers have argued that the desired change involves a reawakening of the pre-cult
personality. As Heller (1982) has stated, deprogramming as a dialectical process seeks to
refute current beliefs rather than inject new ones. The deprogrammers I spoke with
uniformly stated that they did not seek to be models for the cult member, nor did they wish
the cult member to adopt their personal belief systems. As deprogrammer Curt Miller stated
during my study: “I don‟t believe in vegetarianism, but I‟m not out to make [the cultist] eat
meat.”
Current anecdotal evidence suggests that both views may hold some validity while the cult
member may not be exhorted to adopt the deprogrammer‟s comprehensive cosmology, or
his/her personality or behavior patterns, the acceptance of the deprogrammers‟ plausibility
structure0 the belief that cults employ mind control – is often a major goal of
deprogramming. Many cultists, upon renouncing their cult allegiances, do in fact become
deprogrammers themselves, illustrative of Buford‟s state of “identification and
transference.” Typically, these former cultists assist in deprogrammings temporarily, at
least in part out of a feeling similar to “survivor guilt.” As Barbara Dole once stated, “I
sometimes feel like I want to get out as many people as I recruited into [the cult].” One the
other hand, Paul Engel, former National Chairman of FOCUS, a network of former cultists
affiliated with the Cult Awareness network (CAN), has remarked on the broad diversity of
activities, life-styles, and careers eventually adopted by deprogrammed cult members, and
there appears to be considerable diversity among deprogrammers in their intervention
strategies (Garvey, 1988 Hassan, 1988 Ross &Langone, 1988).
Deprogramming and “Exit Counseling.”
Kidnapping. The Assistant Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union echoed the
feelings of many researchers when he stated that “deprogramming is a fancy word for a
variety of kidnapping” (LaMarche, 1982). Delgado (1977) took issue with this stance. He
argued that kidnapping is a legal term that is usually interpreted to mean the forceful
holding of a person for the purpose of securing a ransom. Programmers do sometimes hold
their clients, at least initially, against their will. They are paid for their efforts, but this
spiritual sources “from which cult theologies claim to derive.” The third phase of Kelly‟s
deprogrammings involved a member of the deprogramming team returning home with the
cultist “to help smooth the difficulty of returning to the family” (p.151).
In a sociological study of deprogramming, Kim (1979) conducted a series of interviews with
17 subjects who had been deprogrammed, with additional information gathered through
participant observations of the rehabilitation process following the deprogramming. Kim
defined a belief system alteration process as requiring a “plausibility structure” consisting of
“credible views of reality..through which a legitimating apparatus..is provided” (Kim, 1979,
p. 199). In deprogrammings, the plausibility structure, Kim found, consisted of a strongly
held conviction that the cult member‟s beliefs and actions are the result of mind control the
belief system is therefore the target of deprogramming. The process of deprogramming,
according to Kim, involved coercive persuasion as described by Schein (1961). The cult
member is initially subjected to a period of “unfreezing” in which external forces are
manipulated in a manner that renders the cult member‟s existing equilibrium unstable.
Once accomplished, the next step is “changing,” in which a new set of information and
modes is provided to give the cult member “a direction of change toward new equilibrium”
(e.g., her new interpretation of her cult experience) is rewarded and socially supported in
order to facilitate its integration into the rest of the personality.
Kim‟s sociological analysis of deprogramming/rehabilitation merits careful consideration.
Barker (1984), in her critical review of the literature on deprogrammed and
nondeprogrammed former Moonists, provided additional support for this thesis.
Deprogrammees may indeed be subjected to “unfreezing.” On the other hand,
deprogrammers have argued that the desired change involves a reawakening of the pre-cult
personality. As Heller (1982) has stated, deprogramming as a dialectical process seeks to
refute current beliefs rather than inject new ones. The deprogrammers I spoke with
uniformly stated that they did not seek to be models for the cult member, nor did they wish
the cult member to adopt their personal belief systems. As deprogrammer Curt Miller stated
during my study: “I don‟t believe in vegetarianism, but I‟m not out to make [the cultist] eat
meat.”
Current anecdotal evidence suggests that both views may hold some validity while the cult
member may not be exhorted to adopt the deprogrammer‟s comprehensive cosmology, or
his/her personality or behavior patterns, the acceptance of the deprogrammers‟ plausibility
structure0 the belief that cults employ mind control – is often a major goal of
deprogramming. Many cultists, upon renouncing their cult allegiances, do in fact become
deprogrammers themselves, illustrative of Buford‟s state of “identification and
transference.” Typically, these former cultists assist in deprogrammings temporarily, at
least in part out of a feeling similar to “survivor guilt.” As Barbara Dole once stated, “I
sometimes feel like I want to get out as many people as I recruited into [the cult].” One the
other hand, Paul Engel, former National Chairman of FOCUS, a network of former cultists
affiliated with the Cult Awareness network (CAN), has remarked on the broad diversity of
activities, life-styles, and careers eventually adopted by deprogrammed cult members, and
there appears to be considerable diversity among deprogrammers in their intervention
strategies (Garvey, 1988 Hassan, 1988 Ross &Langone, 1988).
Deprogramming and “Exit Counseling.”
Kidnapping. The Assistant Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union echoed the
feelings of many researchers when he stated that “deprogramming is a fancy word for a
variety of kidnapping” (LaMarche, 1982). Delgado (1977) took issue with this stance. He
argued that kidnapping is a legal term that is usually interpreted to mean the forceful
holding of a person for the purpose of securing a ransom. Programmers do sometimes hold
their clients, at least initially, against their will. They are paid for their efforts, but this
