Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 43
Ford Greene, a California attorney who has taken on the Moonies and defended
deprogrammers,5 offers a definition tailored from his experience:
A cult is an organization of people, often masquerading in the guise of religion,
members of which are unconditionally and indiscriminately obedient to the
commands of a single leader who claims to have an exclusive connection with
God or some other supra-human source o moral authority.6
The courts rely on Webster‟s Dictionary and the standard definition of “brainwashing” as
“the forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social or religious
beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.”7 Greene‟s definition is
more specific:
Brainwashing is the application of specific and identifiable techniques that are
intended to, and do, undermine an individual‟s ability to reason and impair his
capacity to exercise an informed consent and replaces those functions with
indiscriminate and unconditional obedience to the commands of a single leader.8
The term first appeared in reports of the effects of communist indoctrination. Psychiatrist
Robert J. Lifton describes eight basic characteristics of brainwashing in his study of Chinese
totalitarian control:”Milieu Control, Mystical Manipulation, Demand for Purity, Cult of
Confession, Sacred Science, Loading of Language, Doctrine Over Person, and Dispensing of
Existence.9 These elements are accepted by cult experts as being applicable to modern
cults, and the Lifton model of brainwashing is currently used by attorneys pursuing cults in
formulating statements of fact and educating the court.10
Techniques and Casualties
The technology of coercive influence programs recently has developed far beyond what was
employed in the Soviet Union and China, in that the previous applications were for the
purpose of extracting confessions or effecting political reorientation.11 Experts claim the
programs developed within the last 15 years differ significantly in the scope and
sophistication of the influence tactics they employ.12 These differences are of particular
concern to individuals seeking remedies in tort for damages done to them by cults.
The newer programs attack a person‟s self-image, sense of reality and of existence, making
the individual feel personally defective. “Alter the self or perish” is the motto.13 Once
fundamental coping mechanisms are tampered with or stripped away, psychosis can result.
Most people who have come away from a cult experience, family and friends of cult victims,
and experts in behavioral science familiar with cultism agree that mind control techniques
sustained even for short periods of time can cause damage to a person‟s social,
physiological, and psychological well-being. If not interrupted, drastic (and sometimes
pathological) changes in personality occur and are potentially irreversible. Even if the
encounter with such programs of manipulation is brief and exit from them successful, the
experience can ruin lives. Apart from these dangers, experts suggest a real threat to society
exists in the form of harm to the family relationship, espousal of illegal and harmful
practices, and a potential for violence.14
Given the nature of the perceived harm posed by cult groups on the mind and body of
individuals, and assuming that society has compelling interests favoring prevention or
intervention, what courses of action are available? Possible remedies include
conservatorship15 and habeas corpus proceedings,16 consumer protection legislation,17
various forms of self-help, including deprogramming,18 and litigation.
In resisting any restriction on their activities, cults and their attorneys claim that hysterical
parents, intolerant of their children‟s choice of a religion, simply are trying to force their
children to remain under their control. Writers defending cults attack the anti-cult
Ford Greene, a California attorney who has taken on the Moonies and defended
deprogrammers,5 offers a definition tailored from his experience:
A cult is an organization of people, often masquerading in the guise of religion,
members of which are unconditionally and indiscriminately obedient to the
commands of a single leader who claims to have an exclusive connection with
God or some other supra-human source o moral authority.6
The courts rely on Webster‟s Dictionary and the standard definition of “brainwashing” as
“the forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social or religious
beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.”7 Greene‟s definition is
more specific:
Brainwashing is the application of specific and identifiable techniques that are
intended to, and do, undermine an individual‟s ability to reason and impair his
capacity to exercise an informed consent and replaces those functions with
indiscriminate and unconditional obedience to the commands of a single leader.8
The term first appeared in reports of the effects of communist indoctrination. Psychiatrist
Robert J. Lifton describes eight basic characteristics of brainwashing in his study of Chinese
totalitarian control:”Milieu Control, Mystical Manipulation, Demand for Purity, Cult of
Confession, Sacred Science, Loading of Language, Doctrine Over Person, and Dispensing of
Existence.9 These elements are accepted by cult experts as being applicable to modern
cults, and the Lifton model of brainwashing is currently used by attorneys pursuing cults in
formulating statements of fact and educating the court.10
Techniques and Casualties
The technology of coercive influence programs recently has developed far beyond what was
employed in the Soviet Union and China, in that the previous applications were for the
purpose of extracting confessions or effecting political reorientation.11 Experts claim the
programs developed within the last 15 years differ significantly in the scope and
sophistication of the influence tactics they employ.12 These differences are of particular
concern to individuals seeking remedies in tort for damages done to them by cults.
The newer programs attack a person‟s self-image, sense of reality and of existence, making
the individual feel personally defective. “Alter the self or perish” is the motto.13 Once
fundamental coping mechanisms are tampered with or stripped away, psychosis can result.
Most people who have come away from a cult experience, family and friends of cult victims,
and experts in behavioral science familiar with cultism agree that mind control techniques
sustained even for short periods of time can cause damage to a person‟s social,
physiological, and psychological well-being. If not interrupted, drastic (and sometimes
pathological) changes in personality occur and are potentially irreversible. Even if the
encounter with such programs of manipulation is brief and exit from them successful, the
experience can ruin lives. Apart from these dangers, experts suggest a real threat to society
exists in the form of harm to the family relationship, espousal of illegal and harmful
practices, and a potential for violence.14
Given the nature of the perceived harm posed by cult groups on the mind and body of
individuals, and assuming that society has compelling interests favoring prevention or
intervention, what courses of action are available? Possible remedies include
conservatorship15 and habeas corpus proceedings,16 consumer protection legislation,17
various forms of self-help, including deprogramming,18 and litigation.
In resisting any restriction on their activities, cults and their attorneys claim that hysterical
parents, intolerant of their children‟s choice of a religion, simply are trying to force their
children to remain under their control. Writers defending cults attack the anti-cult
