Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 81
provide a powerful and ultimately decisive “push” toward intensifying this ongoing conflict
and making the pre-cult self-system more salient. By raising his anxiety moderately and
facilitating self-examination, the deprogrammers enhanced Ken's need to affiliate
(Festinger, 1954 Gerard &Rabbie, 1961). As the deprogramming progressed, team
members continued to be generally accepting of Ken.
Violating Expectations and Counteracting Social Manipulation
As their behavior continued to violate Ken's preconceptions, the deprogrammers began to
chip away at the motives and intentions of the ISKCON devotees (e.g., his guru) with whom
Ken felt the most affiliation. A crucial phase in this process appeared to be when Curt and
Sandy utilized Ken's own letters to his guru, along with the latter's replies. They made it
clear that Ken's relationship with his guru was a perversion both of the father-son/teacher-
student intimacy Ken was clearly missing in his life, and of his own stated desire for an
egalitarian and spiritually-based love. Curt‟s quick introduction of Greg and later
introduction of Dara utilized an established affiliative pattern: we tend to affiliate fastest
with others most like ourselves (Schachter, 1959). I observed the fastest and earliest
bonding between Ken and Greg. They were from a similar social-cultural, religious, and
demographic background, were not too far apart in age, were both male (an important
consideration with Krishnas) and, of course, Greg had been an ISKCON devotee. My
analysis of individual programmers‟ conversational style tended to support Greg's central
role as a bridge between Ken and those deprogrammings to whom he was relatively
dissimilar.
The deprogrammers were in my opinion immensely charismatic and likeable people. They
seemed genuinely to believe in and enjoy their work. They did not present themselves
arrogantly or condescendingly, and they seemed skilled at making people feel comfortable
and at the center of attention. While this affiliative process lacks the deceptiveness inherent
in “love bombing,” the mere fact of the deprogramming (the expense and energy, the time
commitment and attention) seemed to enhance Ken's feelings of being important, which in
turn facilitated the bonding process. His mother's concern and the sacrifices she made for
the sake of his deprogramming had a major impact, once he was able to allow himself to be
aware of these feelings.
Curt and Sandy tended to balance each other out, as well. Curt was typically more serious,
while Sandy laughed and joked continuously, providing permission for Ken to use humor to
reduce anxiety. Physically, Curt and Sandy were dissimilar. Also, Sandy was a long-term
and established family man, while Curt at the time had a troubled marriage and no children.
Throughout the deprogramming, but especially during the final three days, Curt “trusted”
Ken's sincerity. For Curt, I suspect this testing was a necessary safeguard. On a social-
affiliative level, I think it also served to solidify the relationship by making it somewhat
difficult (and therefore, in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, a more “valuable”
goal) to join the ranks of the successfully deprogrammed (Festinger, 1957).
Curt was able to negotiate expertly the thin line between being open and honest about his
own rejection of ISKCON, and being confrontational toward Ken. In the early phases of the
deprogramming, Curt rarely confronted Ken and almost never attacked Prabhupada. He
seemed to follow Ken's pacing with regard to how much and whom to attack. Those
relatively rare occasions when he became personally confrontative with Ken occurred only
after a bond between the two seemed fairly well established
In general, I was surprised at how rarely the deprogrammers engaged in personal
confrontations of Ken. Some of the anecdotal literature, including the more critical reviews
(e.g., Barker, 1984 Beckford, 1985 Bromley, 1979 Bromley &Richardson, 1983 Levine,
1994) as well as friendly reports (e.g., Patrick &Dulack, 1976), suggested that
provide a powerful and ultimately decisive “push” toward intensifying this ongoing conflict
and making the pre-cult self-system more salient. By raising his anxiety moderately and
facilitating self-examination, the deprogrammers enhanced Ken's need to affiliate
(Festinger, 1954 Gerard &Rabbie, 1961). As the deprogramming progressed, team
members continued to be generally accepting of Ken.
Violating Expectations and Counteracting Social Manipulation
As their behavior continued to violate Ken's preconceptions, the deprogrammers began to
chip away at the motives and intentions of the ISKCON devotees (e.g., his guru) with whom
Ken felt the most affiliation. A crucial phase in this process appeared to be when Curt and
Sandy utilized Ken's own letters to his guru, along with the latter's replies. They made it
clear that Ken's relationship with his guru was a perversion both of the father-son/teacher-
student intimacy Ken was clearly missing in his life, and of his own stated desire for an
egalitarian and spiritually-based love. Curt‟s quick introduction of Greg and later
introduction of Dara utilized an established affiliative pattern: we tend to affiliate fastest
with others most like ourselves (Schachter, 1959). I observed the fastest and earliest
bonding between Ken and Greg. They were from a similar social-cultural, religious, and
demographic background, were not too far apart in age, were both male (an important
consideration with Krishnas) and, of course, Greg had been an ISKCON devotee. My
analysis of individual programmers‟ conversational style tended to support Greg's central
role as a bridge between Ken and those deprogrammings to whom he was relatively
dissimilar.
The deprogrammers were in my opinion immensely charismatic and likeable people. They
seemed genuinely to believe in and enjoy their work. They did not present themselves
arrogantly or condescendingly, and they seemed skilled at making people feel comfortable
and at the center of attention. While this affiliative process lacks the deceptiveness inherent
in “love bombing,” the mere fact of the deprogramming (the expense and energy, the time
commitment and attention) seemed to enhance Ken's feelings of being important, which in
turn facilitated the bonding process. His mother's concern and the sacrifices she made for
the sake of his deprogramming had a major impact, once he was able to allow himself to be
aware of these feelings.
Curt and Sandy tended to balance each other out, as well. Curt was typically more serious,
while Sandy laughed and joked continuously, providing permission for Ken to use humor to
reduce anxiety. Physically, Curt and Sandy were dissimilar. Also, Sandy was a long-term
and established family man, while Curt at the time had a troubled marriage and no children.
Throughout the deprogramming, but especially during the final three days, Curt “trusted”
Ken's sincerity. For Curt, I suspect this testing was a necessary safeguard. On a social-
affiliative level, I think it also served to solidify the relationship by making it somewhat
difficult (and therefore, in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, a more “valuable”
goal) to join the ranks of the successfully deprogrammed (Festinger, 1957).
Curt was able to negotiate expertly the thin line between being open and honest about his
own rejection of ISKCON, and being confrontational toward Ken. In the early phases of the
deprogramming, Curt rarely confronted Ken and almost never attacked Prabhupada. He
seemed to follow Ken's pacing with regard to how much and whom to attack. Those
relatively rare occasions when he became personally confrontative with Ken occurred only
after a bond between the two seemed fairly well established
In general, I was surprised at how rarely the deprogrammers engaged in personal
confrontations of Ken. Some of the anecdotal literature, including the more critical reviews
(e.g., Barker, 1984 Beckford, 1985 Bromley, 1979 Bromley &Richardson, 1983 Levine,
1994) as well as friendly reports (e.g., Patrick &Dulack, 1976), suggested that
