|
Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004
The Cult Around the Corner
Nancy O’Meara
and Stan Koehler
Foundation for Religious Freedom
International, Los Angeles, CA, 2003
For many years, it seemed
impossible to find a non-academic, “practical”
book about cults that did not advance a
countercult viewpoint. Balanced views of the
cult phenomenon seemed relegated to weighty (and
expensive) books from academic presses.
The Cult around the
Corner (TCATC) is an unabashed attempt by
Nancy O’Meara and Stan Koehler to correct this
imbalance by “bringing reason, understanding and
open communication to an often explosive subject”
(from the Introduction, p. 5). Mr. Koehler is
identified as a conflict resolution teacher. Ms.
O’Meara is identified as an interfaith hotline
volunteer. I have argued strongly that, given
the controversial nature and claims of all sides
on the cultic studies spectrum, it behooves
researchers, clinicians, and writers on these
topics to make affiliations and a priori
assumptions (or biases) known, especially when we
publish (cf. Dole & Eichel, 1981; Dubrow-Eichel,
1999; Dubrow-Eichel, 2002). Both O’Meara and
Koehler are on the Board of the new Cult
Awareness Network (CAN), which many have argued
is in fact a Church of Scientology “front”
organization. Whether or not this claim is true,
I think everyone agrees on the origins of the new
CAN and that members of the Church of Scientology
play a very active role in it. Ms. O’Meara’s
connection with CAN is only hinted at in her
biography in TCATC, and Mr. Koehler’s affiliation
is not mentioned at all. Interestingly, although
the CAN website lists some Board members’
religious affiliations (Koehler is identified as
a Buddhist, and a former Secretary is identified
as a member of the Movement for Spiritual Inner
Awareness), it says nothing about O’Meara’s
full-time staff status with, and rank within the
Church of Scientology, a fact that she proudly
indicated during our various conversations in
person.
A cursory Google search on
7/20/04 yielded 524 references or “hits” on the
Internet, a testimony to the broad dissemination
and potential influence of The Cult around the
Corner (TCATC). It is an easy-to-read,
88-page book, designed to be accessible to
parents, friends, families, educators, and clergy
concerned about group (cult) membership. It is
organized into four sections, with the majority
of the book concentrating on what loved ones and
friends of group members should and should not
do. A third section focuses on the authors’
unique explanation of the underlying cause of
teenage problems that may contribute to
involvement in “bad” cults (it’s all due to
illiteracy) and then proceeds to berate
“brainwashing” theory and other criticisms of new
religions. This section ends with an appeal to
reason and tolerance. Brief case vignettes,
presumably from CAN files, are presented to
illustrate many of the authors’ points.
Writing a balanced practical
guide to the cult phenomenon is a laudable goal,
and O’Meara and Koehler at times approach
achieving it. Unfortunately the book ultimately
descends into the usual “us” vs. “them”
dichotomy, the “us” being enlightened civil
libertarians and liberal religionists, and the
“them” being coercive deprogrammers-cum-exit
counselors (and their supporters) who continue to
hide behind discredited theories of brainwashing
in their attempts to spread hatred and religious
bigotry.
What makes this attempt so
disappointing is that it sporadically includes
advice with which I strongly agree. On page 9
the authors stress the importance of staying in
communication with the group member, that “the
importance of communication cannot be
over-stressed in a situation with deep belief
differences.” More specifically, the authors
suggest, “You write. You send letters,
packages. You send photos. You let the person
know you love them, even if you disagree with
some of his choices” (p. 48). Who can disagree
with that? The authors state that “communication
does not mean a one-way flow of ideas from you to
the other person...” Also quite true. I
strongly advise families and friends not to
argue, lecture, or harangue their loved ones.
However, the authors assume that parents (and
other nonmembers) are the only parties guilty of
one-way communication. In my experience, among
the primary complaints made by families of
cultists are how difficult (if not impossible) it
is to contact a loved one, and that their loved
one seems capable of only one-way communication
(e.g., proselytizing). Friends report to me that
the member now seems almost incapable of truly
meaningful dialog and discussion. I know one
parent with a daughter on full-time staff with
Scientology who for the past five years still
averages a dozen calls before she can reach her
daughter, even when calling during agreed-upon
times. Years ago the father gave his daughter a
cell phone in an attempt to rectify the matter,
but it soon “disappeared” (they wonder if it was
appropriated by other Scientology staff) and
their daughter declined a replacement.
The authors suggest that, if
we have difficulty understanding a group member’s
actions, “it is highly likely that you are
missing information [and] the way to get that
information is through communication” (p. 11).
O’Meara and Koehler correctly note that groups
are not static; they change, and past information
may no longer be valid. In addition to talking
to the new group member, they advise talking to
group leaders and visiting the group. They
advocate getting more information before taking
any actions, and I strongly agree with that
advice. However, according to TCATC the best
source of valid information seems to be the group
itself or the group member (that is, until the
member leaves the group). Lastly, they note that
“getting information directly from the group does
not preclude you from obtaining information from
other sources” (p. 23).
But what are these “other
sources?” Meeting group members socially,
talking with a college ombudsman, discussing your
concerns with a clergyman, and visiting the
group’s Internet website are among the “other
sources” listed. So are professors of religion,
history, and sociology (but not psychology!).
The authors also recommend visiting “independent”
websites, generalizing that those sponsored by
universities and interfaith organizations, “and
ones which clearly state the authors of the
information” are good examples. By this
standard, the current CAN website does not seem
to be a good example. As of July 22, 2004, it
listed the authors of articles listed under
“Articles/Papers,” but not all the authors of
articles that appear under the category “Into
Infamy.”
Prominent among “other
sources” not recommended by O’Meara and
Koehler are former members. Apparently, only
current members are valid information sources.
Talking with critical ex-members is denigrated,
and we are warned against taking their stories
seriously: “The vocal critics of new religious
groups are frequently sour former members...[who]
have had a bad experience with one organization
and have turned it into a generalized hysteria”
(p. 54).
I imagine there would be
hundreds of former members who would be deeply
offended by these comments, and those found in
the subchapter, “What About Negative Books.” In
this section, O’Meara and Koehler begin with the
reasonable suggestion that we “check out the
author’s agenda. You may have to read between
the lines.” (In my opinion, this advice pertains
to all books on the topic of cults,
including this one.) Former members who are
critics of new religions are relegated to those
“kicked out 20 years ago after failing to live up
to the moral standards of the group,” duplicitous
people who join undercover and were “never honest
with the group,” and are compared to a group
leader’s ex-daughter-in-law...[who does not
report] how much money she accepted [from the
group] as a cash settlement” (This latter seems
to refer to Nansook Hong, former daughter-in-law
of Sun Myung Moon). It seems offensive, even
hateful, to treat critical former members in such
a dismissive manner.
Section 2, “What Not to Do,”
begins with a rule “... carved in stone: Don’t
ever pay someone to talk anybody out of
anything.” More specifically, O’Meara and
Koehler admonish readers never to pay for a
deprogramming, an exit-counseling, or an
intervention. The ethics of hiring
exit-counselors are always worthy of reasoned
discussion. I have rarely known a family to
engage an exit-counselor except in near
desperation and after considerable moral
struggle. O’Meara and Koehler would have done
better to stick with their ethical concerns.
Instead, however, they resort to ad hominem
attacks and undocumented claims. At various
points, the authors suggest that opinions about
groups should not be based on second-hand
experiences, or strictly on the research of
“arm-chair critic[s]” whose findings are based on
“interviewing only people with negative opinions
[about a group]” (p. 35). This is good advice,
and I wish the authors had taken it when they
wrote this section. They seem to base their
findings only on people with negative opinions
about their experiences during exit-counseling.
The opinions of scores of people who describe
their exit-counseling experiences in highly
positive terms are not mentioned, let alone
thoughtfully considered. Instead,
exit-counselors are universally described in
TCATC as “browbeating,” as withholding the truth
about their “very low success rate,” and as
contributing to “mak[ing] the [family] situation
worse than ever” (p. 45). I don’t know how many
exit-counselings the authors have witnessed first
hand, but as a researcher with some expertise in
this area (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989, 1990), I do not
believe “browbeating” is an accurate description
of the process I experienced and wrote about. In
fact, the exit-counselors I know strongly advise
against any kind of “browbeating,” if only
because it is highly counterproductive. I will
admit that I do not have objective data across a
good sample of exit-counselings to state
categorically that they never involve
“browbeating.” But neither do O’Meara and
Koehler. The same holds true with their claim of
a “very low success rate.” The authors do not
provide data backing this claim. The only
deprogramming/exit-counseling outcome data I’m
aware of (which is seriously outdated) suggested
a success rate of about 60-67%, which was
comparable to the success rates reported in
hundreds of therapy outcome studies.
TCATC focuses a great deal
on the need to respect unusual and unconventional
beliefs. Again, I am in full agreement. (As I
wrote this, I was reminded of a time when I was
chastised by a Church of Scientology President
for belonging to a profession that is intolerant
of unconventional or dissenting beliefs. I
replied that anyone who believes psychologists
are coercive mind manipulators who are intolerant
of unconventional beliefs has clearly never been
to a meeting of the American Psychological
Association, where practically any and all
opinions about human behavior may be heard. If
anything, psychologists are typically accused of
being too liberal and overly tolerant of
lifestyles and beliefs that most of society finds
alien.) True, there are families and friends
whose objections to groups labeled “cults” seem
to be based primarily on the “incorrectness” of
their beliefs. However, this is typically not
what motivates families or friends to take
action. Parents come to see me because their
sons or daughters who could always be trusted
have suddenly begun to lie a lot, or they have
spent their college tuition on a group’s
“courses” (without their parents’ knowledge).
Spouses come because a husband or wife has
abruptly left their marriage and their children,
or has suddenly refused medical care. One person
contacted me because his wife began “channeling”
entities while driving. One of my most recent
cases involves a young woman who has just
announced she will not see her family again,
ever, and that she will not visit her sister who
is about to give birth. In another case, a
family contacted me because their daughter gave a
group that advocates “detachment from
materialism” her entire $350,000 inheritance.
(The leader is presumably “immune” from
materialism.) Most concerned families and
friends who have sought my help have done so
because of highly unusual behaviors, not
controversial beliefs. O’Meara and Koehler do
not address what to do when a loved one’s
behavior suddenly and drastically becomes
upsetting, hurtful, unscrupulous, or potentially
harmful after becoming involved with a group.
The third section closes
with a strongly worded invective about the “hoax
of brainwashing and mind control.” This review
is not the place to address this complicated
debate in detail. I will only address the most
obvious problems I had with the authors’
treatment of this topic. I agree that the terms
“brainwashing” and “mind control” have been over
employed and used in a simplistic and
reductionist manner. However, the authors (and
from what I can tell, a great many others)
continue to foster the false notion that “mind
control” is an updated term for a process
approaching black magic or “voodoo.” They engage
here in several logical fallacies.
On page 70, the authors
state that “the whole subject of brainwashing as
it applies to religious groups has been debunked
by competent scholars and repeated studies.
Religious people do think for themselves.”
Again, I know of no one who makes the claim that
all religious people do not think
for themselves. However, it is equally false to
claim that all people (religious or
otherwise) do think for themselves. This
is not a black or white issue. Unlike pregnancy,
it is indeed possible to be “a little bit” or
partly unduly influenced.
Secondly, there is no single
theory of “mind control,” but rather a variety of
theories of undue influence or “mind control.”
These theories are far from uniform, but they all
agree on four major points: (1) behavior and
beliefs can be influenced and even radically
changed, (2) influence can occur outside
awareness (and therefore outside one’s control),
(3) people are influenced to various degrees due
to various factors, and some people seem more
vulnerable than others, and (4) people can be
influenced to commit grave acts of harm. Nobody
argues that there are people who seem able to
resist “mind control,” or who voluntarily exit
“mind control cults.”
Nobody argues that the CIA’s
MK-ULTRA (and related) projects failed to reach
their impossible goals: Develop a perfect,
consistent and totally reliable means of
breaking Soviet agents and then convert them into
double agents, and create a cadre of
“perfect,” unknowing CIA “sleeper agents”
who, if captured by our Soviet counterparts,
could never be broken (or would commit suicide).
No such perfect technology was developed.
However, the CIA’s experiments did succeed in
some cases. If we applied the same “if it
doesn’t work 100% then it isn’t valid” criteria
to open heart surgery or antibiotic research,
there would be quite a rise in unnecessary heart
failures and deaths from bacterial infections.
We all know these medical procedures are not
100% effective and probably never will be, yet
they enjoy almost universal acceptance as being
“valid.”
Meanwhile, over half a
century of social psychology research has shown
that the behavior of “good” people can be
drastically reshaped and influenced, as recent
events in Abu Ghraib have sadly reminded us. The
behavior of U.S. prison staff was eerily similar
to those reported in Dr. Philip Zimbardo’s famous
prison study at Stanford University 30 years
ago. The concept of “undue influence” has been
recognized by law for centuries. Our own
government seems to recognize that something akin
to brainwashing occurs in Al Qaeda training camps
and, more frightening, certain Islamic schools.
My own experience in
discussions with staff and leaders of “cultic
groups,” is that they readily recognize the
existence of “mind control” when it is
purportedly practiced by psychiatrists,
psychologists, exit-counselors, and so-called
deprogrammers. The authors of TCATC ignore the
serious issues raised by these studies in favor
of a gross generalization that all cult critics
continue to buy into the Singer-Ofshe model of
“mind control.” There have always been critics
who questioned all or parts of this model
(including me), and there have been revised
theories that have incorporated the findings of
more recent social psychological studies.
Hopefully, since Ms. O’Meara has attended AFF
conferences, she has had some exposure to
theories other than the Singer-Ofshe model, and
will modify her blanket statement about the “hoax
of brainwashing” in a second edition of TCATC.
References
Dole, A., & Eichel, S.
(1981). Moon over academe. Journal of
Religion & Health, 20, 35-40.
Dole, A.,
Langone, M., & Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1990,
July). The new age movement: Fad or menace?
Paper presented at the International Council of
Psychologists, Tokyo.
Dole, A.,
Langone, M., & Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1990).
The new age movement: Fad or menace? Cultic
Studies Journal, 7, 69-91.
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1989).
Deprogramming: A case study. Part I: Personal
observations of the group process [Special
issue]. Cultic Studies Journal, 6(2).
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1990).
Deprogramming: A case study. Part II:
Conversation analysis. Cultic Studies
Journal, 7, 174-216.
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1999).
Can scholars be deceived? Empirical evidence from
social psychology and history. Paper presented
at “Religious and Spiritual Minorities in the
20th Century: Globalization and Localization,”
the 13th International Conference of the Center
for Studies on New Religions, Bryn Athyn, PA.
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (2002).
Can scholars be deceived? Empirical evidence from
social psychology and history. Cultic Studies
Review: An Internet Journal of Research, News &
Opinion, retrieved July 22, 2004 from
http://www.cultsandsociety.com/csr_articles/dubroweichel_steven.htm
|
