Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 39
Unfortunately, I do not have the ARIS flyer, so I do not know for sure if Introvigne has
taken his carefully arranged quotes out of context, but I suspect that he has because (1)
the snide tone of “glad to suggest a deprogrammer and cooperate with him” reflects the
same bias that fuels the ad hominem attacks that cult apologists rely on time and again,
and (2) similar quotes from documents put out by other cult critics do not mean what
Introvigne seems to suggest they mean--that is, the straw-man view that brainwashing is a
sinister, irresistible, “magical” force which instantly turns formerly rational, strong-willed
adults into smiling robots who would serenely walk off a cliff if told to do so by their leader.
“They [techniques of thought reform] are capable of working on anyone, even on those who
may think they are immune” is a true statement. But it is true in the same way that the
following statement is true: “The techniques used by advertisers, salesmen, and public
relations professionals are capable of working on anyone, even those who may think they
are immune.” The latter statement does not imply that public relations professionals believe
in magic or have inordinate power over the human mind neither does the former, which is
generally used in an educational context to counter a common misconception: “I (my
kid/our students/born-again Christians/etc.) would never join a weird cult only crazy
people join cults!” The statement also means that no class of person (e.g., people from
good families) is immune to the seductiveness of cults. But it does not mean that anyone
can be seduced at any time.
Whether or not people join cults “voluntarily” is a more subtle issue because it may be
interpreted philosophically (what does free will mean?). In the educational context of flyers
and other educational documents, however, “voluntary” has the common-sense meaning of
informed, nonmanipulated choice. If a smooth-talking salesman persuades a lonely,
90-year-old widow to buy a vacuum cleaner that she neither needs nor can move around,
common sense would question the “voluntariness” of the widow‟s “choice,” even though
philosophers might debate the issue for a millennium. (A centuries-old body of law on undue
influence agrees with the commonsense view.) Often cult educational organizations stress
this commonsense notion of voluntariness in order to counter (1) the common
misconception that attributes cult joining to mental or moral deficiency and (2) the
tendency of ex-cult members to blame themselves so completely that they lose sight of the
fact that they were indeed wronged by exploitative manipulators.
The problem with the thought reform explanation of how cults change people isn‟t that it is
“magical” or “post-rational” (whatever that term is supposed to mean), as Introvigne
incorrectly asserts. The problem is that it is not always a sufficient explanation. Because so
often they have seen beliefs used to manipulate individuals, proponents of the thought
reform explanation tend to discount the fact that people sometimes change themselves by
changing their beliefs through a process of genuine, unmanipulated thinking, that is,
through genuine deliberation. Undoubtedly such deliberation plays a major role in
conversions to nonmanipulative groups, mainstream or nonmainstream. In manipulative
groups, however, deliberation, though it certainly occurs, often occurs in a context that
renders its voluntariness specious. This is because typically the deliberation will consist of
corollaries deduced from core assumptions that the person has imbibed because of
manipulation, not rational deliberation. For example, if through manipulation one comes to
accept the fundamental principle that “one must destroy the mind to find God,” then that
person may “voluntarily” engage in an escalating program of meditation (paying escalating
sums of money for the program) and wind up meditating, say, eight hours a day and suffer
all kinds of ill effects (in all probability mini-manipulations may occur as the person
proceeds through the meditation program). To the superficial observer, the person
“voluntarily” chose this destructive pattern of behavior. The discerning observer, however,
may recognize that this behavior reflects a psychological fraud, a set of “voluntary”
Unfortunately, I do not have the ARIS flyer, so I do not know for sure if Introvigne has
taken his carefully arranged quotes out of context, but I suspect that he has because (1)
the snide tone of “glad to suggest a deprogrammer and cooperate with him” reflects the
same bias that fuels the ad hominem attacks that cult apologists rely on time and again,
and (2) similar quotes from documents put out by other cult critics do not mean what
Introvigne seems to suggest they mean--that is, the straw-man view that brainwashing is a
sinister, irresistible, “magical” force which instantly turns formerly rational, strong-willed
adults into smiling robots who would serenely walk off a cliff if told to do so by their leader.
“They [techniques of thought reform] are capable of working on anyone, even on those who
may think they are immune” is a true statement. But it is true in the same way that the
following statement is true: “The techniques used by advertisers, salesmen, and public
relations professionals are capable of working on anyone, even those who may think they
are immune.” The latter statement does not imply that public relations professionals believe
in magic or have inordinate power over the human mind neither does the former, which is
generally used in an educational context to counter a common misconception: “I (my
kid/our students/born-again Christians/etc.) would never join a weird cult only crazy
people join cults!” The statement also means that no class of person (e.g., people from
good families) is immune to the seductiveness of cults. But it does not mean that anyone
can be seduced at any time.
Whether or not people join cults “voluntarily” is a more subtle issue because it may be
interpreted philosophically (what does free will mean?). In the educational context of flyers
and other educational documents, however, “voluntary” has the common-sense meaning of
informed, nonmanipulated choice. If a smooth-talking salesman persuades a lonely,
90-year-old widow to buy a vacuum cleaner that she neither needs nor can move around,
common sense would question the “voluntariness” of the widow‟s “choice,” even though
philosophers might debate the issue for a millennium. (A centuries-old body of law on undue
influence agrees with the commonsense view.) Often cult educational organizations stress
this commonsense notion of voluntariness in order to counter (1) the common
misconception that attributes cult joining to mental or moral deficiency and (2) the
tendency of ex-cult members to blame themselves so completely that they lose sight of the
fact that they were indeed wronged by exploitative manipulators.
The problem with the thought reform explanation of how cults change people isn‟t that it is
“magical” or “post-rational” (whatever that term is supposed to mean), as Introvigne
incorrectly asserts. The problem is that it is not always a sufficient explanation. Because so
often they have seen beliefs used to manipulate individuals, proponents of the thought
reform explanation tend to discount the fact that people sometimes change themselves by
changing their beliefs through a process of genuine, unmanipulated thinking, that is,
through genuine deliberation. Undoubtedly such deliberation plays a major role in
conversions to nonmanipulative groups, mainstream or nonmainstream. In manipulative
groups, however, deliberation, though it certainly occurs, often occurs in a context that
renders its voluntariness specious. This is because typically the deliberation will consist of
corollaries deduced from core assumptions that the person has imbibed because of
manipulation, not rational deliberation. For example, if through manipulation one comes to
accept the fundamental principle that “one must destroy the mind to find God,” then that
person may “voluntarily” engage in an escalating program of meditation (paying escalating
sums of money for the program) and wind up meditating, say, eight hours a day and suffer
all kinds of ill effects (in all probability mini-manipulations may occur as the person
proceeds through the meditation program). To the superficial observer, the person
“voluntarily” chose this destructive pattern of behavior. The discerning observer, however,
may recognize that this behavior reflects a psychological fraud, a set of “voluntary”
