SOC 257: New Religious Movements Lectures
University of Virginia
Department of Sociology
Jeffrey K. Hadden

Leaving New Religious Movements:
The Deprogramming Model

Lecture Outline:

• Deprogramming as Antidote
• The Character of Deprogramming
• Deprogramming and the Law
• The Effects of Deprogramming
• Suggested Readings
• About This Course

Part I: Deprogramming as Antidote

Deprogramming as Antidote

• The Presuppositions of Deprogramming Advocates
• The Logic of Deprogramming

The Presuppositions of Deprogramming Advocates

• Brainwashing is difficult to resist and has powerful effects.
• Leaders effectively "program" those whom they lure into the "cult."
• Reversing these effects requires equally powerful measures.
• Programming can only be reversed by " "deprogramming."

The Logic of Deprogramming

• Conversion to a new creed via brainwashing involves deceptive measures including:
  • Drugs
  • Food and sleep deprivation
  • Various other techniques to reduce rational functioning
  • Hypnosis
• Once converted, the individual is enslaved and unable to act independently of the directives of his/her manipulators.
• Commitment to the new religion is not really a true commitment but, rather, a pseudo-conversion.
• Process reversal (deprogramming) of he programmed victim is necessary to restore free will and rational choice.
• Enslaved individuals have no rights because they have been taken away by the group.

Part II: The Character of Deprogramming

Deprogramming involves a wide array of practices ranging from:

• Involuntary (Coercive) methods to
• Voluntary (Noncoercive) methods

Deprogramming involves a wide array of practices

• Involuntary vs. Voluntary

Involuntary Deprogramming (Coercive)

• The abducted person is taken to an isolated location from which he/she is not free to leave
• The abductors engage in intense, virtually non-stop, interrogation
• The abducted one is compelled to listen to prolonged defaming of the group and its leader.
• The abducted person is pushed to physical and mental exhaustion..
• Deprogrammers work toward one goal -- forcing the abductee to renunciation of the group, its leader, and its beliefs
• Initiated by kidnapping or luring an NRM member under false pretenses.

Voluntary Deprogramming (Non-coercive)

• The goal of voluntary deprogramming is the same as involuntary deprogramming-- to "talk people out" of their new faith commitment.
• The dividing line between voluntary and involuntary deprogramming is whether or not the invidiual has agreed to participate.
• In reality, there is great variability in how voluntary deprogramming is conducted. An individual may agree to "talk" about their new faith and then later discover they have entered a situation from which it is extremely difficult to exit.
• Thus, voluntary deprogramming may vary from coercive-like to a much kinder, gentler, informal process from which the cult member may or may not elect to continue memberhip.

Part III: Deprogramming and the Law

Deprogramming and the Law

• The Lesser of Evils
• Convervatorships
• Covert Deprogramming

The Lesser of Evils

• Not all deprogrammings have been successful.
• Some NRM members who escaped or faked a renunciation of the faith sued their parents and/or the deprogrammers for kidnapping.
• Where these individuals were legally adults, the facts of the case were pretty clear cut.
• The defense of the deprogrammers has been the "lesser of evils" argument.
• There have been quite a number of convictions, but sentences have tended to be quite light.

Further observation on the "lesser of evils" defense

• Deprogrammers view their activity as rescuing innocent victims from the sinister influence of pernicious cults.
• Note the parallelism in this argument and the leadership of "Operation Rescue," the anti-abortion movement.

Conservatorships

• Conservatorship defined: a court order granting legal guardianship to one individual over the affairs of another because the latter is judged to be incompetent to conduct their own affairs.

Conservatorships and "cults"

• As early as 1975 some parents took advantage of conservatorship laws to have their adult children declared mentally incompetent.
• Once a temporary conservatorship was granted by a court, parents rushed their child off for deprogramming.
• Under the protection of the conservatorship, the deprogrammings were legal.
• These temporary conservatorships were challenged by the religious movements.
• The deprogrammers and their supporters, in turn, sought conservatorhips legislation with broader powers.

The battle for broader conservatorships

• The battle ground for broader latitude in conservatorship legislation took place in New York state where as legislator named Leshner introduce a broad sweeping bill.
• Nearly identical legislation was introduced in approximately 35 states
  • The Leshner Bill was twice passed by the NY legislature, but First Amendment proponents rallied and two different governors vetoed the bill.
• As a result, the conservatorship legislation failed to make inroads across the nation.

Covert deprogramming

• Deprogramming is alive and well in America today, but most of it is ostensibly voluntary.
• Involuntary deprogramming has become a precarious business -- but it still exists.
• Galen Kelley convicted of kidnapping .in Northern Virginia in 1993.

Part IV:The Effects of Deprogramming

The Effects of Deprogramming

• Deprogrammers Have High Levels of Success
• Why Is Deprogramming Successful?
  • What Are the Psychological Consequence of Leaving?

Deprogrammers Have High Levels of Success

• In 1987 David Bromley was able to obtain data from the files of the Unification Church on 400 members who were deprogrammed.
• This profile of Unification Church members is the only data of its kind that has ever been publically available.
• It offers some important clues both about the demographics and the success rates of deprogramming.

Unification Church deprogrammings by year: 1973-1986

Who is deprogrammed?

Deprogramming success rates

Age at deprogramming	Success	Failure
<18-20	76%	24%
21-25	60%	40%
26+	54%	45%
Average	64%	36%

Sex of deprogrammee	Success	Failure
Male	61%	39%
Female	68%	32%

Membership length	Success	Failure
< 1 year	86%	14%
1-3 years	61%	39%
3 years +	41%	59%

Why is Deprogramming Successful?

1. May already have doubts
2. May be burned out by the hectic, demanding life-style of the group
3. May feel acute guilt/grief over turmoil family has experienced
4. Deprogrammers present shocking information about the unsavory behavior of the individual's group and leader.
5. The individual is identified as a victim of brainwashing perpetrated by the "cults."
6. The beliefs of the group are presented as heretical to their family's faith tradition.
7. Deprogrammers seek to capitalize on all of these factors, especial guilt.

What Happens to People Who Leave Cults and Sects?

James Lewis study of former NRM members who left groups by three routes:

• Own volition>
• Voluntary exit counseling
• Involuntary exitc counseling

Lewis concludes:

• People who leave NRMs involuntarily do suffer a mental disorder found in DSMIII

Post traumatic Stress Syndrome

• But the cause is not membership, but the trama people are subjected to as a result of deprogramming (exit counseling)

Part V: Reading Bibliography on Deprogramming

Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, eds. 1983.

The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy: Sociological, Psychological, Legal and Historical Perspectives. Lewiston, New York: Edward Mellen Press.

Kelley, Dean M. 1977.

"Deprogramming and Religious Liberty," The Civil Liberties Review. (July/August): 23-33.

Patrick, Ted. 1976.

Let Our Children Go. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Ungerleider, J. Thomas, and David K. Wellisch, 1989.

"Deprogramming (Involuntary Departure), Coercion, and Cults," in Marc Galanter, ed. Cults and New Religious Movements. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. pp. 239-253.