Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 41
be rectified in spite of such reasoning, but the psychological damage caused by blaming the
victim will undoubtedly continue.
Objection: The Double Bind
The Passantinos‘ section on the double bind, or circular reasoning, is rather curious. The
Passantinos assert that the exit counselor provides no proof to the cultist that his or her
group uses coercive persuasion. The authors say, ―If you leave the cult as a result of
deprogramming (or exit counseling), that proves you were under mind-control. If you return
to the cult, that proves you are under mind-control‖ (p. 34).
This quote presumes that exit counselors don‘t do any homework before taking on a case,
that they simply come into a situation and say, ―Yup, it‘s mind-control.‖ If the exit counselor
is thorough, he or she will make a reasonable determination before seeing the cult member
that he or she really is in a group that uses thought-reform techniques. Those who are not
subjected to mind-control, even though the family may think they are (e.g., a family
complains that their son in Baha‘i no longer goes to Christian church services and therefore
must be under mind-control) will not be considered for an exit counseling. Thus, competent
exit counselors do not place group members in a double bind because the counselors make
the assessment of whether or not an exit counseling is appropriate before seeing the
person. This is not to say that there are not exit counselors who view every unorthodox
group as characterized by mind-control and, therefore, would place such group members in
a double bind. But the exit counselors we have worked with demonstrate much more
discernment and integrity than they are given credit for by the Passantinos.
Thus, the Passantinos are mistaken when they say, ―The standard for determining mind-
control is not some objective evaluation of mental health or competency, but merely the
assumed power of mind-control the critic accords to the cult‖ (p. 34). The Passantinos seem
to overlook the fact that exit counselors arrive on the scene literally with suitcases full of
evidence. Responsible exit counselors will have documentation on the practices of the group
and how those practices relate to principles of mind-control. Such documentation may take
the form of personal testimonies of former members of the group, relatives of members or
former members, or of law enforcement officials or other agencies who have investigated
the group or otherwise had dealings with it. The documentation may be from news reports
on the activities of the group or the writings of mental health professionals. Exit counselors
will also have a history of how the cult member‘s personality has changed since joining the
cult. Exit counselors will note the member‘s reactions to their presentation of information
about the group and its practices. For example, the cult member may meet contrary
information with a response such as, ―All this stuff is just a bunch of lies of the devil.‖ An
experienced exit counselor will show the cult member that such remarks really do not settle
the issue of whether or not the information is correct. The exit counselor will challenge the
cult member to examine the evidence, to put the evidence to the test of veracity. Although
one might challenge the persuasiveness of the exit counselor‘s evidence, fair-mindedness
demands that the competence and diligence of the exit counselor be respected. They --at
least the competent and ethical ones --are not the unthinking, hired guns that the
Passantinos make them out to be.
The remaining part of this section in the Passantinos‘ article has to do with definitional
issues. Here the Passantinos do two things. First, they demonstrate that within the network
of cult critics there is disagreement about how best to define terms such as ―mind-control‖
and ―cult.‖ This is true. Their discussion of Enroth (1977, 1992) and certain contributors to
Langone‘s (1993) Recovery from Cults (Zimbardo, Andersen, &Galanti) demonstrates
simply that different scholars in the field conceptualize the issues somewhat differently from
Singer, Martin, and others. None of us tries to enforce a ―party line.‖ And, as noted
previously, theoretical clarification and refinement is a need in this field. However, these
be rectified in spite of such reasoning, but the psychological damage caused by blaming the
victim will undoubtedly continue.
Objection: The Double Bind
The Passantinos‘ section on the double bind, or circular reasoning, is rather curious. The
Passantinos assert that the exit counselor provides no proof to the cultist that his or her
group uses coercive persuasion. The authors say, ―If you leave the cult as a result of
deprogramming (or exit counseling), that proves you were under mind-control. If you return
to the cult, that proves you are under mind-control‖ (p. 34).
This quote presumes that exit counselors don‘t do any homework before taking on a case,
that they simply come into a situation and say, ―Yup, it‘s mind-control.‖ If the exit counselor
is thorough, he or she will make a reasonable determination before seeing the cult member
that he or she really is in a group that uses thought-reform techniques. Those who are not
subjected to mind-control, even though the family may think they are (e.g., a family
complains that their son in Baha‘i no longer goes to Christian church services and therefore
must be under mind-control) will not be considered for an exit counseling. Thus, competent
exit counselors do not place group members in a double bind because the counselors make
the assessment of whether or not an exit counseling is appropriate before seeing the
person. This is not to say that there are not exit counselors who view every unorthodox
group as characterized by mind-control and, therefore, would place such group members in
a double bind. But the exit counselors we have worked with demonstrate much more
discernment and integrity than they are given credit for by the Passantinos.
Thus, the Passantinos are mistaken when they say, ―The standard for determining mind-
control is not some objective evaluation of mental health or competency, but merely the
assumed power of mind-control the critic accords to the cult‖ (p. 34). The Passantinos seem
to overlook the fact that exit counselors arrive on the scene literally with suitcases full of
evidence. Responsible exit counselors will have documentation on the practices of the group
and how those practices relate to principles of mind-control. Such documentation may take
the form of personal testimonies of former members of the group, relatives of members or
former members, or of law enforcement officials or other agencies who have investigated
the group or otherwise had dealings with it. The documentation may be from news reports
on the activities of the group or the writings of mental health professionals. Exit counselors
will also have a history of how the cult member‘s personality has changed since joining the
cult. Exit counselors will note the member‘s reactions to their presentation of information
about the group and its practices. For example, the cult member may meet contrary
information with a response such as, ―All this stuff is just a bunch of lies of the devil.‖ An
experienced exit counselor will show the cult member that such remarks really do not settle
the issue of whether or not the information is correct. The exit counselor will challenge the
cult member to examine the evidence, to put the evidence to the test of veracity. Although
one might challenge the persuasiveness of the exit counselor‘s evidence, fair-mindedness
demands that the competence and diligence of the exit counselor be respected. They --at
least the competent and ethical ones --are not the unthinking, hired guns that the
Passantinos make them out to be.
The remaining part of this section in the Passantinos‘ article has to do with definitional
issues. Here the Passantinos do two things. First, they demonstrate that within the network
of cult critics there is disagreement about how best to define terms such as ―mind-control‖
and ―cult.‖ This is true. Their discussion of Enroth (1977, 1992) and certain contributors to
Langone‘s (1993) Recovery from Cults (Zimbardo, Andersen, &Galanti) demonstrates
simply that different scholars in the field conceptualize the issues somewhat differently from
Singer, Martin, and others. None of us tries to enforce a ―party line.‖ And, as noted
previously, theoretical clarification and refinement is a need in this field. However, these
