Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 82
confrontation played a central role in successful deprogrammings. Like the previous ones I
had observed, Ken's deprogramming lacked strong personal confrontations.
Affiliative behavior can be increased by introducing moderate levels of anxiety (Gerard &
Rabbie, 1961). Brian spoke of the “management of tension” which involves a “very artful
use of confrontation.” The deprogramming generated a certain level of tension, and the
cultist almost had to affiliate to obtain some relief. Brian noted that “the most successful
deprogrammers have a range ...they use what's necessary” to generate moderate levels of
anxiety. The use of guilt, however, was avoided. Instead, with Ken, the deprogrammers
quickly sensed that Ken had many suppressed doubts, and they constantly harked back to
these to generate tension.
Target of Conversation and Focus of Group Process
As a unique form of group process, Ken's deprogramming had two distinct modes
differentiated by the target of conversation.
The “Formal Deprogramming” mode. Throughout the deprogramming, there seemed to
be some clear differences in the group process. In the early deprogramming period (Days I
and 2), the deprogramming was clearly focused on Ken, with most conversation flowing to
and from Ken and the various deprogrammers present. During this period, there were very
few “lapses” into smaller, concurrent, and independent conversations. I have termed dim
periods the “Cultist-focused” (CF) or Formal Deprogramming mode.
The “Casual Deprogramming” mode. Later, as the deprogrammers became increasingly
more convinced of Ken's decision to exit the cult, the deprogrammers loosened up and the
conversation flowed more spontaneously. This loosening led to occasional subgroupings of
dyads and triads that talked amongst themselves, which allowed for more one-to-one
bonding. I have termed these periods the Subgroup-focused (SF) or Casual Deprogramming
mode.
Cultist vs. subgroup focus. Although the conversation always seemed to vacillate to some
degree between these two modes, during the pre-snap phase the time spent in Formal
Deprogramming was clearly greater than the time spent in Casual Deprogramming or,
CFSF (Cult Focus predominated over Subgroup Focus). Post-snap, I noted a reversal, with
SFCF. The exception to this rule was the introduction of a new deprogrammer (Dara),
which seemed to result in a reversion to Formal Deprogramming. Ken, who by this time had
become comfortable in the more loose SF mode, occasionally resisted Dara's attempts at
reformalizing the deprogramming.
Therapeutic Relationship and Counseling Process
The goal of any deprogramming is change, on both cognitive and behavioral levels. All
interactions between people involve influence and change, but therapeutic relationships
differ from other interactions in discernable ways. Ken's deprogramming met the six criteria
of therapeutic relationships as summarized by Marmor (1987):
Nature of the relationship. Ken's deprogramming was contingent upon the establishment
of rapport. His relationship with the deprogrammers was (eventually) based on trust,
empathy, and the belief that they would be supportive. As Rogers (1987) noted, decades of
psychotherapy research have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of empathy as a
change agent in therapeutic relationships, regardless of the therapists school of though. In
contrast to casual relationships, Ken was not expected to return empathy and support to the
deprogrammers.
Cognitive learning. A major goal of Ken's deprogramming was the imparting of new
information specifically aimed at giving him “an intelligible, meaningful, and rational
framework for understanding why and how his problem developed” (Marmor, 1987, p. 269).
confrontation played a central role in successful deprogrammings. Like the previous ones I
had observed, Ken's deprogramming lacked strong personal confrontations.
Affiliative behavior can be increased by introducing moderate levels of anxiety (Gerard &
Rabbie, 1961). Brian spoke of the “management of tension” which involves a “very artful
use of confrontation.” The deprogramming generated a certain level of tension, and the
cultist almost had to affiliate to obtain some relief. Brian noted that “the most successful
deprogrammers have a range ...they use what's necessary” to generate moderate levels of
anxiety. The use of guilt, however, was avoided. Instead, with Ken, the deprogrammers
quickly sensed that Ken had many suppressed doubts, and they constantly harked back to
these to generate tension.
Target of Conversation and Focus of Group Process
As a unique form of group process, Ken's deprogramming had two distinct modes
differentiated by the target of conversation.
The “Formal Deprogramming” mode. Throughout the deprogramming, there seemed to
be some clear differences in the group process. In the early deprogramming period (Days I
and 2), the deprogramming was clearly focused on Ken, with most conversation flowing to
and from Ken and the various deprogrammers present. During this period, there were very
few “lapses” into smaller, concurrent, and independent conversations. I have termed dim
periods the “Cultist-focused” (CF) or Formal Deprogramming mode.
The “Casual Deprogramming” mode. Later, as the deprogrammers became increasingly
more convinced of Ken's decision to exit the cult, the deprogrammers loosened up and the
conversation flowed more spontaneously. This loosening led to occasional subgroupings of
dyads and triads that talked amongst themselves, which allowed for more one-to-one
bonding. I have termed these periods the Subgroup-focused (SF) or Casual Deprogramming
mode.
Cultist vs. subgroup focus. Although the conversation always seemed to vacillate to some
degree between these two modes, during the pre-snap phase the time spent in Formal
Deprogramming was clearly greater than the time spent in Casual Deprogramming or,
CFSF (Cult Focus predominated over Subgroup Focus). Post-snap, I noted a reversal, with
SFCF. The exception to this rule was the introduction of a new deprogrammer (Dara),
which seemed to result in a reversion to Formal Deprogramming. Ken, who by this time had
become comfortable in the more loose SF mode, occasionally resisted Dara's attempts at
reformalizing the deprogramming.
Therapeutic Relationship and Counseling Process
The goal of any deprogramming is change, on both cognitive and behavioral levels. All
interactions between people involve influence and change, but therapeutic relationships
differ from other interactions in discernable ways. Ken's deprogramming met the six criteria
of therapeutic relationships as summarized by Marmor (1987):
Nature of the relationship. Ken's deprogramming was contingent upon the establishment
of rapport. His relationship with the deprogrammers was (eventually) based on trust,
empathy, and the belief that they would be supportive. As Rogers (1987) noted, decades of
psychotherapy research have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of empathy as a
change agent in therapeutic relationships, regardless of the therapists school of though. In
contrast to casual relationships, Ken was not expected to return empathy and support to the
deprogrammers.
Cognitive learning. A major goal of Ken's deprogramming was the imparting of new
information specifically aimed at giving him “an intelligible, meaningful, and rational
framework for understanding why and how his problem developed” (Marmor, 1987, p. 269).
