Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 56
An influential book (Bromley &Shupe, 1981) referred to ―the cult hoax‖ (p. 3) and said that
―the basic issue is still that of religious freedom‖ (p. xii).
The other party in the dispute included lay activists and professionals concerned about
people caught up in cultic groups, their worried and sometimes frantic families, and those
who might join destructive groups in the future. From the beginning, there was
considerable disagreement among these activists and professionals concerning
deprogramming, conservatorship bills, and proffered explanations on why people joined and
left cultic groups. There was, however, a consensus that cultic groups were harming many
people and something should be done to limit this harm. Moreover, there was a consensus
that whatever ―cult‖ referred to, the term embraced nonreligious as well as religious groups,
although a large majority were religious.
A few sociologists reported on their unsystematic observations of cult critics and began to
label these persons the ―anti-cult movement,‖ or ―ACM‖ (Bromley &Shupe, 1981). Cult
critics, most of whom derided the notion that they were ―anti‖ cult (they were concerned
about ―the deed not the creed‖Rudin &Rudin, 1980), returned the insult and branded
these scholars ―pro-cultists‖ or ―cult apologists.‖ (I have preferred to use the terms ―critics‖
and ―sympathizers‖ to refer to these two vaguely defined ―camps.‖)
At the time (the late 1970s), I found this situation puzzling and disturbing. Having been
exposed to various new religious movements while growing up in the 1960s and having
read much of the pertinent sociological and religious studies literature of the 1970s, I
realized that critical portrayals of cults were indeed sometimes sensationalized and often
undiscerning. Being in the so-called ACM camp, on the other hand, made me realize that
the sympathizers‘ portrayal of the ACM was at least as inaccurate and sensationalized as
some critics‘ depictions of cults. (In my view, even recent academic publications on the
―ACM‖ reflect the authors‘ preconceptions about the ―ACM‖ more than they reflect empirical
reality  Shupe &Bromley, 1994). Moreover, my being a mental health professional who
worked with former group members and families affected by a cult involvement made me
acutely aware of the reality of harm. Although groups differed considerably and individuals
differed markedly in their idiosyncratic responses to similar group situations, some groups
clearly harmed some individuals. To me, the incontrovertible reality of harm justified some
criticism of cultic groups. The challenge was to make that criticism fair and balanced. This
same challenge confronts us today.
The Early Days of AFF
My AFF colleagues and I tried at the time to express this goal through the name we chose
for our work, ―the Center on Destructive Cultism,‖ which was founded in 1980. We used the
term ―cultism‖ instead of ―cult‖ for we knew that our concern was certain processes of
control and exploitation associated with groups called ―cults,‖ not the groups per se.
Moreover, our putting the adjective ―destructive‖ in front of ―cult‖ demonstrated that we
realized that not all ―cults‖ were harmful. Our concern was with unethical and harmful
practices of some groups, not belief systems or the social deviance of the group. Dr. John
Clark at the time called the cult phenomenon an ―impermissible experiment‖ on the
changing of human personality.
Unfortunately, we soon discovered that our dual objectives of research and education (of
the public, professionals, families, and former group members) sometimes came into
conflict. Our education mission demanded simple, succinct, and emotionally moving
explanations in order to relate to activists and get our message into the media, through
which people came to know of our existence. But our research, clinical work, and scholarly
study demonstrated that reality is not so simple as TV and newspapers would like it to be.
An early monograph (Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981) contended that conversion to
cultic groups could most fruitfully be understood as an interaction of variables in the group

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 57
and in the person, a view that was nothing like the sensationalized ―brainwashing‖ stories
that circulated in the popular press at that time (although many media stories were
responsible and balanced.).
We hasten to add, however, that our argument should not be construed as
condemning all cults and cult-like organizations as unhealthy. Different
groups present different settingssome harmful, some benign, others
perhaps constructive,  to potential converts, each of whom in turn presents
a unique personality sometimes healthy, sometimes troubled, always more or
less vulnerable  to the proselytizers with whom he comes into contact.
(Clark et al., 1981, p. 6)
Some of us ―floated‖ alternatives to the terms that most dominated the media, that is,
―cult‖ and ―brainwashing.‖ John Clark, and I were fond of the term, ―unethical social
influence.‖ Margaret Singer for a while spoke about SMPSI, the systematic manipulation of
psychological and social influence. Some people suggested the use of ―high intensity
groups‖ or ―high control groups‖ as an alternative to ―cult‖ and ―mind control‖ as an
alternative to ―brainwashing.‖ Although ―mind control‖ achieved a measure of acceptance in
public discourse and became the preferred term of some activists in this field, the press
liked ―cult‖ and, to a lesser extent, ―brainwashing.‖ Alternative terms languished. By the
mid-1980s most of us gave in to popular usage and learned to make the best of ―cult‖ and
―brainwashing,‖ trying, when we could, to communicate more subtlety  than these terms
typically conveyed. (See Rosedale &Langone, 1998, for a discussion of definitional issues.)
Sympathizers and the “ACM”
Despite the variety of views within the critical community, academic sympathizers (mainly
sociologists) did not conduct empirical surveys of professionals or activists in the so-called
ACM. To understand the ―ACM‖ they relied on theories that emphasized the social
construction of phenomena such as deviance or evil (e.g., Bromley &Shupe, 1981), rather
than the evaluation of the objective nature of the phenomenon under study. This theoretical
orientation led to their writing about such notions as ―atrocity tales‖ (Bromley, Shupe, &
Ventimiglia, 1979) to characterize the negative reports of former group members, who were
dubbed ―apostates‖ and distinguished from ―defectors,‖ who did not produce negative
reports. Although, strictly speaking, these terms may not have been intended to be value
judgments or statistical generalizations about the truth claims of critics (Bromley, 1998),
they clearly came to be perceived as suchin both camps. Sympathizers tended to discount
the negative reports of ex-members and critics, attributing them to social indoctrination
processes of the so-called ACM (Lewis &Bromley, 1987). Critics viewed the propagation of
the notion of ―atrocity tales‖ as academic obfuscation, designed to whitewash realities that,
as with other social issues, were indeed ―bad,‖ not mere ―constructions‖ imposed on social
groups by other social groups. (The Nuremberg trials, for example, explored real evil, not
mere social constructions of evil.) Critics sometimes concluded that sympathizers used such
notions to hide their true agenda of protecting cultic groups. Sympathizers, for example
seemed to accept uncritically the positive reports of current members, whose accounts they
did not tag with derogatory labels, such as ―benevolence tales,‖ or ―personal growth tales.‖
Only the critical reports of ex-members were called ―tales,‖ a term that clearly implies
falsehood or fiction. Not until 1996 did a researcher actually conduct an empirical study to
assess the extent to which so-called ―atrocity tales‖ might be based on fact (Zablocki,
1996).
Sympathizers also presented the ―brainwashing model‖ in such simplified terms that their
descriptions could be called a caricature of ―brainwashing.‖ A review of Strange Gods: The
Great American Cult Scare includes a telling critique of this caricature: