Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 80
that ISKCON utilized an inverted moral system. Thus, Greg's statement served to make
internal information (previously stored and suppressed memories) more salient
The role of suggestion. I noticed a tendency to ask Ken to verify certain pieces of critical
information. In addition, it seemed important for the deprogrammers to present Ken with
information he already knew, but was suppressing. To me, this tactic seemed to add weight
to the validity of the deprogrammers' information and presented them as credible and
honest individuals. As the deprogramming progressed, the amount of new information being
presented to Ken seemed to increase. Like acceptability of this new information was
enhanced by its temporal association with past more painstakingly verified information.
Some of the statements made by the deprogrammers seemed especially powerful these
tended to convey subtle suggestions for change. For example, at one point Curt stated that
“I don't mean to be facetious, but I am being a little bit, because I think that it's like, you
wanna ...not you, but Krishnas ...I hear the same raps all the time ...” In stating “not you,
but…Krishnas” Curt seemed to be subtly suggesting to Ken that he was not a Krishna.
Subtle, embedded messages that distinguished between Ken and ISKCON devotees
(thereby implying that the two identities were separate: occurred fairly often throughout the
deprogramming.
Models of Change
Cognitively, the deprogrammers very closely followed the model mapped out by Sandy. The
deprogrammers began with a critical review of ISKCON's activities, comparing them to their
claims. Concurrently, they critiqued Prabhupada and the Governing Body Commission, the
council of gurus that formed the governing body of ISKCON after the swami‟s death. The
second day was devoted to a more thorough critique of ISKCON doctrine as it was
expressed and practiced by ISKCON leaders and devotees. Ken renounced ISKCON that
evening. The next day, the deprogrammers began the process: of educating Ken about
coercive persuasion.
Garvey's (1988) four-stage theory of deconversion also provides a basis for summarizing
Ken's cognitive change process. Initially, Ken demonstrated hostile denial, followed
relatively quickly by a prolonged period of questioning. As the deprogramming progressed,
Ken became more and more willing to provide information, about both ISKCON and himself.
A major turning point came when Ken admitted to participating in illegal fund raising,
something he initially denied. Finally, Ken became very excited about the connections he
was making it became difficult for him to take breaks or get to sleep. His mind was, as he
put it, “racing” with suppressed questions and new viewpoints. Ken began to analyze
information on his own.
Social-affiliative process. Like most individuals vulnerable to the social engineering that
typifies destructive cults, Ken was responsive to his interpersonal setting. From the
beginning, the deprogrammers treated him with honesty and acceptance, which was
contrary to his expectations. Ken found it difficult (as did I) not to like the deprogrammers.
They were informed, articulate, interesting, very witty, and highly charismatic. Yet he had
been told by ISKCON that deprogrammers were worthy only of hate. Liking both
deprogrammers and ISKCON leadership was inconsistent (Heider, 1958), generating an
urge to restore some kind of affiliative balance (by rejecting ISKCON). The deprogrammer
also immediately introduced the idea that they took issue with Ken's Krishna practices, but
not with Ken as a person. They insisted on a demarcation between Ken's pre-cult and cult
identities, accepting the former while challenging the latter. This seemed to throw Ken off-
he was expecting only to be attacked, and in fact had become accustomed to deeply
personal attacks at the hands of his guru and other ISKCON leaders. The fact that Ken was
already deeply involved with his own internal struggle between his pre-cult and cult
personalities was of considerable help to the deprogrammers. The deprogramming served to
that ISKCON utilized an inverted moral system. Thus, Greg's statement served to make
internal information (previously stored and suppressed memories) more salient
The role of suggestion. I noticed a tendency to ask Ken to verify certain pieces of critical
information. In addition, it seemed important for the deprogrammers to present Ken with
information he already knew, but was suppressing. To me, this tactic seemed to add weight
to the validity of the deprogrammers' information and presented them as credible and
honest individuals. As the deprogramming progressed, the amount of new information being
presented to Ken seemed to increase. Like acceptability of this new information was
enhanced by its temporal association with past more painstakingly verified information.
Some of the statements made by the deprogrammers seemed especially powerful these
tended to convey subtle suggestions for change. For example, at one point Curt stated that
“I don't mean to be facetious, but I am being a little bit, because I think that it's like, you
wanna ...not you, but Krishnas ...I hear the same raps all the time ...” In stating “not you,
but…Krishnas” Curt seemed to be subtly suggesting to Ken that he was not a Krishna.
Subtle, embedded messages that distinguished between Ken and ISKCON devotees
(thereby implying that the two identities were separate: occurred fairly often throughout the
deprogramming.
Models of Change
Cognitively, the deprogrammers very closely followed the model mapped out by Sandy. The
deprogrammers began with a critical review of ISKCON's activities, comparing them to their
claims. Concurrently, they critiqued Prabhupada and the Governing Body Commission, the
council of gurus that formed the governing body of ISKCON after the swami‟s death. The
second day was devoted to a more thorough critique of ISKCON doctrine as it was
expressed and practiced by ISKCON leaders and devotees. Ken renounced ISKCON that
evening. The next day, the deprogrammers began the process: of educating Ken about
coercive persuasion.
Garvey's (1988) four-stage theory of deconversion also provides a basis for summarizing
Ken's cognitive change process. Initially, Ken demonstrated hostile denial, followed
relatively quickly by a prolonged period of questioning. As the deprogramming progressed,
Ken became more and more willing to provide information, about both ISKCON and himself.
A major turning point came when Ken admitted to participating in illegal fund raising,
something he initially denied. Finally, Ken became very excited about the connections he
was making it became difficult for him to take breaks or get to sleep. His mind was, as he
put it, “racing” with suppressed questions and new viewpoints. Ken began to analyze
information on his own.
Social-affiliative process. Like most individuals vulnerable to the social engineering that
typifies destructive cults, Ken was responsive to his interpersonal setting. From the
beginning, the deprogrammers treated him with honesty and acceptance, which was
contrary to his expectations. Ken found it difficult (as did I) not to like the deprogrammers.
They were informed, articulate, interesting, very witty, and highly charismatic. Yet he had
been told by ISKCON that deprogrammers were worthy only of hate. Liking both
deprogrammers and ISKCON leadership was inconsistent (Heider, 1958), generating an
urge to restore some kind of affiliative balance (by rejecting ISKCON). The deprogrammer
also immediately introduced the idea that they took issue with Ken's Krishna practices, but
not with Ken as a person. They insisted on a demarcation between Ken's pre-cult and cult
identities, accepting the former while challenging the latter. This seemed to throw Ken off-
he was expecting only to be attacked, and in fact had become accustomed to deeply
personal attacks at the hands of his guru and other ISKCON leaders. The fact that Ken was
already deeply involved with his own internal struggle between his pre-cult and cult
personalities was of considerable help to the deprogrammers. The deprogramming served to
