Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 42
may have been wavering, or who had not made intense emotional investments to the
ideology. On these grounds alone, the stories of people who went through these camps and
related programs should interest many scholars.
Of greater interest to scholars, however, is that these teen training programs fit the most
restrictive definition of brainwashing facilities. That is to say, these programs variously
confined (and at times incarcerated) their young participants as they physically maltreated
them, which are the two necessary conditions that some sociologists require for labeling and
analyzing a thought reform program as ―brainwashing‖ (Anthony, 1990: 304-305). Indeed,
we even could narrow further these already restrictive requirements for brainwashing by
saying they must take place amidst a program of intense ideological training consisting of
indoctrination classes, social isolation, and forced confessions, often combined with
extremely hard physical labor and social humiliation. Because The Family‘s so-called teen
―education‖ programs of the late 1980s meet this most narrowly restrictive sociological
definition of brainwashing, scholars (especially sociologists of religion) will need to
reexamine a term that has been out of favor among them for over a decade and a half.
Our purpose here is not to argue over the long-term effectiveness of brainwashing. Instead,
we simply intend to support our claim that The Family instituted programs that meet the
most demanding social scientific definition of brainwashing—a definition even stricter than
one given in a Family publication that ―‗brainwashing‘ implies the use of force, coercion,
duress and imprisonment‖ (World Services, 1993: 20). We are fully prepared to consider
the possibility that brainwashing programs can operate outside of settings that forcibly
confine and physically maltreat (presumably as they attempt to re-educate). We do not
explore, however, this possibility within the study at hand.
Not only does this study call for a reexamination of the brainwashing concept, but also it
relies upon a research source --former members --that many sociologists of religion have
neglected for a number of years (see Richardson 1994: 34-39). Simple triangulation,
involving the collection of multiple accounts of the programs by different people, in
combination with organizational publications, help ensure the basic accuracy of former
members‘ information (see Richardson, 1994: 37).
On the topic, therefore, of teen training programs, former members who assisted us are far
more reliable than current Family members. Current members appear to have become so
conscious of the benefits accruing from favorable public relations from academics that they
may not give accurate descriptions of life in these programs and camps (Kent and Krebs,
1998a: 45-46 1998b: 37-38 1999: 21-22). Moreover, this particular group has a long-
standing policy that justifies deception when protecting its collective interests (Berg, 1979),
so members‘ comments about a controversial subject such as these teen re-education
programs are likely to be highly problematic. By contrast, former members who wish to
remain anonymous have a great investment in protecting their identities, so if anything they
are more likely to understate, rather than overstate, their experiences.
The study‘s senior author conducted the interviews described in this paper between 1992
and 1998. These interviews build upon and grow out of his ongoing research about so-
called ―cults and new religions‖ that have affected Canada and Canadians. The interviews
ranged in duration from less than forty-five minutes to several hours. They involved open-
ended questions that allowed people to tell their own stories in their own words. Many of
the people whom the senior author interviewed felt strongly about what they considered to
have been extreme physical, emotional, and sexual abuses that they experienced in these
programs, and they were pleased that an academic provided them an opportunity to speak.
Moreover, the senior author did all but one of the interviews over the telephone, which
prevented interview subjects from being influenced by unintentional body cues.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 43
The Teen Training Programs and Victor Camps in Academic Studies of The Family
Only one of the existing academic discussions of The Family has anything beyond a brief
mention of these camps and programs (see Chancellor, 2000: 234-241). Indeed, it is
impossible to know what these programs were like from information gleaned from most of
the standard (and even controversial) studies on the organization. The earliest scholarly
discussion appears to be David E. Van Zandt‘s Living with the Children of God. Writing
during a period (January 1991) when at least some of these camps probably still operated,
Van Zandt stated that ―[a]t the age of eleven or twelve, a member is sent to one of the
TTCs [Teen Training Camps] for leadership training. In many cases, those who attend the
TTCs do not return to their parents, but are sent directly to new [Family] Homes to begin
their adult proselytizing efforts for the Family‖ (Van Zandt, 1991: 171-172). Van Zandt did
not indicate that young people above the age of twelve also entered variations of TTC
programs.
Van Zandt suggested that the teen camps were designed to protect teens from sexual
pressures:
As with adult sexual sharing, there are reports that some leaders set up
―sharing nights‖ for children in which they were paired off to make love
before falling asleep. Moreover, there were many cases in which older males
were pressuring young girls to share sexually.
This activity apparently got out of hand by 1984, and the group established
―Teen Training Camp[s]‖ (TTC) in 1985 and 1986 at which pre-and young
teens were removed from these sexual pressures and were educated (Van
Zandt, 1991: 171).
Our ex-member sources, however, indicate that pre-teen sexual sharing took place for a
brief period at one of the camps, and that teen sex flourished at another (Hosea‘s Macao
camp). Moreover, adult sexual exploitation of young girls almost certainly continued at
Macao‘s Detention Teen program, which we will discuss later on.
Other references to The Family‘s teen camps and programs in academic literature appear in
the controversial study of The Family edited by James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (1994
see Balch, 1996). One article, written by a psychologist and a sociologist who studied young
people in The Family, mentioned the problem caused by individualistic expressions in the
organization. It continued by stating:
[A]n initial approach to this problem was the establishment of special youth
centers in certain parts of the world (e.g., Japan, Mexico, and Brazil) where
young people who had been identified as ―problems‖ could be sent for an
intensive period of social and spiritual ―retraining and strengthening‖ under
the direction of adult teacher-supervisors.... These centers were called
―Victor‖ programs, signifying the hope that those who entered the program
would be able to gain a ―victory‖ over personal problems and return to their
homes in a ―yielded‖ state, with heightened motivation to make more
positive contributions (Shepherd and Lilliston, 1994: 63).
Readers can infer from these comments that one purpose of the Victor program was to train
teens to subjugate their individuality to the collective will (presumably what the researchers
meant by ―a ‗yielded‘ state‖), but they give no details about how this subjugation occurred.
Gordon Melton‘s brief mention of these camps and the Victor program only said that ―the
attendees and the leaders engaged in a rather frank discussion on sexual issues‖ (Melton,
1994: 90), without mentioning their more central purpose of individual teen subjugation.