Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 30
Outreach to Ex-Cult Members:
The Question of Terminology
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
American Family Foundation
William V. Chambers
University of South Florida, Ph.D
Abstract
A questionnaire listing terms applicable to cults was sent former members of
cultic groups. 108 were returned in time for analysis. Subjects were asked to
rate and rank terms with regard to the degree to which they would be
meaningful and acceptable to cultists who left their groups on their own
(“walk-aways”). 71 of the 108 subjects were themselves walk-aways.
Although subjects on average gave favorable ratings to the terms, subjects
indicated that walk-aways would relate less well to traditional terms used
by cult educational organizations, e.g., “cult,” “brainwashing.” Terms such as
“psychological abuse,” “spiritual trauma,” and “trust abuse” received higher
average ratings and rankings. A factor analysis produced five factors, two of
which, Abuse and Trauma, were significantly more acceptable than the
other three factors, Mind Control, Social Manipulation, and Group Intensity.
The implications of these findings for cult educational organizations are
discussed.
Organizations such as the American Family Foundation (AFF) and the Cult Awareness
Network (CAN --originally called the Citizens Freedom Foundation) came into being in the
late 1970s in order to respond to the needs of individuals and families troubled about
involvement with groups that appeared to use high-pressure tactics to recruit and retain
members. Such groups were often called cults because a) most at this time were religious
and b) the term “cult” typically referred to new, marginal religious movements that were
not connected to mainstream religions, as were sects for example (Nelson, 1968).
The families and individuals disturbed by cult involvements began to organize and form
organizations such as AFF and CAN because traditional helping sources, mental health
professionals and clergy in particular, dismissed or misunderstood their concerns
Affected individuals and families saw similarities between the tactics they had observed in
the groups causing concern and those observed by students of Korean War POWs. The
terms “brainwashing” (Hunter, 1953), ”coercive persuasion” (Schein, 1961), ”thought
reform” (Lifton, 1961), and the more popular “mind control” were used to describe and
explain the disturbing phenomena. The process of deprogramming, in which a cultist‟s
family hired former cult members to physically restrain the cultist and force him or her to
listen to information not available in the cult (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989), was a frequently
employed method for helping family members in cults (in recent years “forced”
deprogramming has been largely replaced by voluntary deprogramming, now called ”exit
counseling”).
The controversy over deprogramming became bitter as cult propagandists and sympathetic
academicians (Bromley &Richardson, 1983), on the one hand, and affected persons
and academicians and professionals sympathetic to the other side (Delgado, 1978
Langone &Clark, 1985) argued about whether cults or deprogrammers more
severely curtailed civil rights. A change in terminology quickly resulted from this debate.
Academicians sympathetic to cults stopped using the term “cult” (see Robbins, 1969 for an

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 31
early article in which the term “cult” was used), which they felt had acquired a pejorative
connotation, and began to use the more neutral “new religious movement” (NRM).
Cult critics rejected “new religious movement” because it seemed to give undeserved
respectability to noxious groups and because even during the early days it was apparent
that not all controversial groups were religious. Galanter‟s (1982) “charismatic group,”
although neutral and applicable to nonreligious groups, is vague (was Red Auerbach‟s
Boston Celtics a “charismatic group”?) and, like NRM, often perceived as euphemistic.
Many professionals felt uncomfortable with “cult” because not all “cults” employed the high
pressure tactics that fueled the controversy (e.g., the Meher Baba group described by
Robbins, 1969). Shapiro (1977) coined the term “destructive cult” in order to distinguish
that subset of groups that was harmful from that subset which was not. Shapiro‟s
distinction, however, was not consistently employed by workers in the field. The adjective
“destructive” was often omitted, and “cult” and “destructive cult” in practice became
interchangeable.
Many cult critics, especially those associated with the American Family Foundation,
attempted to downplay the categorization of the “group” and stress the “processes” that
harmed people. In a booklet for the layman (Langone, 1982), for example, the author
purposely did not discuss specific groups in order to encourage readers to avoid
“cataloguing” groups into “bad” and “acceptable” and to look instead at how the social
influence processes in a particular group affected a particular individual.
This booklet also introduced the term “unethical social influence,” which, it was hoped,
might replace “cult,” “brainwashing,” “coercive persuasion,” etc. Around the same time,
Margaret Singer (Singer, 1982) proposed “systematic manipulation of psychological and
social influence” (SMPSI). Although fellow professionals saw the advantages of such terms,
they did not strike a chord among the parents and ex-cultists we and our colleagues were
trying to help. Thus, many of us found ourselves employing a variety of terms to
describe the same phenomenon, adjusting the terminology to suit the group to which we
were trying to communicate.
By 1988 it became clear that despite their shortcomings we were stuck with “cult,” “mind
control,” and their brethren. Too large a body of popular and professional literature had
been produced, and these terms were implanted in the public mind. In 1988 the 1982
booklet, which had been entitled “Destructive Cultism: Questions and Answers,” was
revised. The new booklet, acknowledging popular usage, was called “Cults: Questions and
Answers” (Langone, 1988).
During the past few years, however, the terminology we have so grudgingly come to
accept has been challenged by a new development. As cult educational organizations have
matured and endured, more and more people have become aware of their services. In
recent years substantial numbers of people who left cultic groups without a family-inspired
intervention have turned to such organizations for help. Some of these people have simply
left the group for whatever reason. These have come to be called “walk-aways.” Others,
who have been ejected from the group, have come to be called “cast-aways.” Based on
the reports of those who do contact cult educational organizations, it appears that many,
and probably most, walk-aways and cast-aways not only do not relate to terms such as
“cult,” but indeed find them offensive.
Several factors appear to account for this phenomenon. First, ex-cultists, like the public at
large, tend to subscribe to the popular misconception that “cults” are deviant, “weird”
groups for “weird” people. (The recent spate of media reports on Satanism has
reinforced this misconception.) Because their group, their friends in the group, and
they themselves are not “weird,” their group is not a cult. Second, even when ex-members