Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 40
behaviors based on premises that are accepted through manipulation and that serve the
manipulator‟s interest, rather than the person being manipulated.
Much as victims of financial fraud will “voluntarily” engage in a set of behaviors that
ultimately leads to financial harm, victims of psychological fraud may seem to “voluntarily”
engage in a set of behaviors that leads to psychological harm. The law has long recognized
that someone tricked into believing a fundamental and false financial assumption (e.g.,
investing in such-and-such a real-estate trust will produce very high returns, when in fact
the trust is bogus) may seek redress from the manipulator for adverse consequences that
on the surface appear to result from “voluntary” decisions made by the victim. The law‟s
recognition of a parallel fraud based on induced, false psychological assumptions and the
resulting adverse psychological effects, however, is not so well established, although there
is some relevant case law (see American Bar Association Commission on Mental and
Physical Disability Law, 1995).
Secular critics may overlook the role of deliberation because they focus only on the
manipulations that initially may have induced a person to accept a core assumption. But to
fully understand cult members‟ experiences, thought reform proponents should recognize
that the cult member will experience deliberation that is not manipulated as well as
“deliberation” that rests on manipulation of core assumptions. When trying to map out cult
members‟ string of deliberations and induced, destructive assumptions, the secular critic
may benefit from the analyses of religiously-oriented cult critiques that emphasize
deliberation, that is, what the person thinks about the group. But the full picture cannot be
grasped without also examining what the group does to the person.
Thus, we have the following admittedly oversimplified and tongue-in-cheek scenario: a
member of the Unification Church says “I joined because the Divine Principle makes sense
to me and helped me see how to lead a happy life.” The sociologist says, “He affiliated
himself with a demonized, minority religious group because it gave him a cognitive
framework that he perceived to be useful in alleviating his felt distress and alienation from
the majoritarian culture.” The content-focused secular critic says: “The doctrines of the
Unification Church are illogical because of a, b, c and, moreover, Rev. Sun Myung Moon has
made predictions x, y, z, which never came to pass. Don‟t waste your time on this claptrap.
Let me teach you about critical thinking.” The content-focused religious critic (who may
agree with the secular critic‟s logical analysis) says: “You joined the Unification Church
because you are confused and don‟t understand the errors on which its theology is based.
Let me share the truth with you.” The process-focused religious critic says: “You joined the
Unification Church because you succumbed to the temptations of the demons that control
that heretical group. Let us pray so that you can be liberated from them.” The proponent of
the thought reform model says: “Your joining the Unification Church has nothing to do with
the Divine Principle. You joined because you were in a state of temporary psychological
vulnerability when the Moonies subjected you to a systematic program of psychological and
social influence. Please let me explain. Then you can make a truly informed choice.”
The thought reform model may indeed go a long way toward explaining why this particular
person joined the Unification Church (UC) at this particular time. But, as usually formulated,
this explanation does not always adequately account for why this particular person may
have said “Get lost” to a skilled recruiter from a Bible-based cult two days before saying
“Yes” to a less skilled UC recruiter. The person‟s cognitive analysis of the Unification
Church‟s teachings, however erroneous, may play a role in the person‟s “conversion,” even
if the quality of that analysis is sophomoric (e.g., “I wish there weren‟t so much bickering
among Christians. I think that the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World
Christianity sounds like a good idea”).
behaviors based on premises that are accepted through manipulation and that serve the
manipulator‟s interest, rather than the person being manipulated.
Much as victims of financial fraud will “voluntarily” engage in a set of behaviors that
ultimately leads to financial harm, victims of psychological fraud may seem to “voluntarily”
engage in a set of behaviors that leads to psychological harm. The law has long recognized
that someone tricked into believing a fundamental and false financial assumption (e.g.,
investing in such-and-such a real-estate trust will produce very high returns, when in fact
the trust is bogus) may seek redress from the manipulator for adverse consequences that
on the surface appear to result from “voluntary” decisions made by the victim. The law‟s
recognition of a parallel fraud based on induced, false psychological assumptions and the
resulting adverse psychological effects, however, is not so well established, although there
is some relevant case law (see American Bar Association Commission on Mental and
Physical Disability Law, 1995).
Secular critics may overlook the role of deliberation because they focus only on the
manipulations that initially may have induced a person to accept a core assumption. But to
fully understand cult members‟ experiences, thought reform proponents should recognize
that the cult member will experience deliberation that is not manipulated as well as
“deliberation” that rests on manipulation of core assumptions. When trying to map out cult
members‟ string of deliberations and induced, destructive assumptions, the secular critic
may benefit from the analyses of religiously-oriented cult critiques that emphasize
deliberation, that is, what the person thinks about the group. But the full picture cannot be
grasped without also examining what the group does to the person.
Thus, we have the following admittedly oversimplified and tongue-in-cheek scenario: a
member of the Unification Church says “I joined because the Divine Principle makes sense
to me and helped me see how to lead a happy life.” The sociologist says, “He affiliated
himself with a demonized, minority religious group because it gave him a cognitive
framework that he perceived to be useful in alleviating his felt distress and alienation from
the majoritarian culture.” The content-focused secular critic says: “The doctrines of the
Unification Church are illogical because of a, b, c and, moreover, Rev. Sun Myung Moon has
made predictions x, y, z, which never came to pass. Don‟t waste your time on this claptrap.
Let me teach you about critical thinking.” The content-focused religious critic (who may
agree with the secular critic‟s logical analysis) says: “You joined the Unification Church
because you are confused and don‟t understand the errors on which its theology is based.
Let me share the truth with you.” The process-focused religious critic says: “You joined the
Unification Church because you succumbed to the temptations of the demons that control
that heretical group. Let us pray so that you can be liberated from them.” The proponent of
the thought reform model says: “Your joining the Unification Church has nothing to do with
the Divine Principle. You joined because you were in a state of temporary psychological
vulnerability when the Moonies subjected you to a systematic program of psychological and
social influence. Please let me explain. Then you can make a truly informed choice.”
The thought reform model may indeed go a long way toward explaining why this particular
person joined the Unification Church (UC) at this particular time. But, as usually formulated,
this explanation does not always adequately account for why this particular person may
have said “Get lost” to a skilled recruiter from a Bible-based cult two days before saying
“Yes” to a less skilled UC recruiter. The person‟s cognitive analysis of the Unification
Church‟s teachings, however erroneous, may play a role in the person‟s “conversion,” even
if the quality of that analysis is sophomoric (e.g., “I wish there weren‟t so much bickering
among Christians. I think that the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World
Christianity sounds like a good idea”).
