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

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 23
payment does not constitute a ransom. Deprogrammers are not paid to deliver cultists to
parents or, following payment of a ransom, to cults. Rather, they are paid to deliver a
service: The attempted deconversion of the cultist. Whether or not the provision of this
service involves picking up and holding the cultist against his will is an ancillary issue that
may only be indirectly related to the service change, if it is related at all. Whether or not a
deprogramming meets the legal criteria for kidnapping, there seems to be little denial that it
can involve confining an individual despite his expressed wishes to leave, sometimes for
weeks.
The deprogrammer‟s claim of cultic mind control is central to the question of kidnapping or
involuntary confinement because it bears directly on the “choice of evils” defense used by
deprogrammers and their employers (the cultist‟s family) who have been prosecuted
following an unsuccessful deprogramming. The “choice of evils” defense is based on the
argument that the actions of family members, and the deprogrammers they employ, are
justified because the involuntary confinement of their loved one is “less evil” than the choice
of leaving a loved one in a destructive cult that utilizes mind control. Litigation relevant to
the issue of mind control has yielded contradictory decisions. Prior to 1978, Shepherd
(1985) stated that the reality of mind control has never been substantiated in court.
However, Rosedale (1986) notes that the Minnesota Supreme Court later decided that (in
Peterson v. Sorlien) “the conduct of new religious groups may well have impaired the
plaintiffs volitional capacity,” thereby giving credence to the mind control argument.
In one significant trial involving deprogrammers charged with kidnapping, a Denver jury
found deprogrammers Robert Brandyberry and Dennis Whalen “not guilty” of kidnapping
and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The case was brought in district court by the Denver
District Attorney on behalf of Unification Church member Christina Adolfsson. According to
defendants' attorney Ford Greene (himself a former deprogrammer), the jury decided that
during the attempted deprogramming “ordinary notions of intelligence and morality were
not as bad as what had happened to Adolfsson with the Unification Church ...by attempting
to deprogram Adolfsson, [the deprogrammers] were trying to save her from a greater harm
by a destructive cult” (Brandyberry and Whalen Not Guilty,” 1988).
Voluntary (exit-counseling) vs. involuntary Reprogramming. Despite some confusion,
the voluntary/involuntary, overt/covert nature of the initial phase of the deconversion event
appears to be the single most important characteristic differentiating exit counseling from
deprogramming.
Deprogramming began as an involuntary process, in part because voluntary methods were
not known or believed to be effective (Hassan, 1988), and in part because early
deprogrammers largely consisted of Ted Patrick's deprogrammees or those who followed
and believed in Patrick's theory and style of deprogramming. After the initial flurry of
successful deprogrammings began to take their toll on cult membership, however, many
cults began to fight back. Following a “failed” deprogramming (one in which the cultist
either escaped the deprogramming or returned to the group afterward), these organizations
would support or even encourage returning members to file civil and criminal actions
against their deprogrammers and the family members who hired them. Around the same
time, a growing number of deprogrammers, Steven Hassan figuring prominently among
them, began to grow wary of the ethical as well as legal dangers presented by
“involuntaries” (as deprogrammings involving a snatch came to be known). Several of these
deprogrammers began to refuse involuntaries. Still other deprogrammers, having completed
college and graduate school and entered formal mental health professions (e.g., Paul
Engel), wanted to continue deprogramming, yet felt obligated to obey legal regulations and
ethical codes that eschewed anything that even appeared coercive or deceptive. At first,
they described themselves as deprogrammers who only performed “voluntaries.” To
distinguish themselves still further from the deprogramming teams still engaged in