|
|
At the end of 1980 I helped a young lady reassess her affiliation with a small, authoritarian church. No one asked me to talk to her and I was not paid. She had not communicated with her distraught family for six months because they belonged to a "fallen" church, the Baptists, and they initially criticized her group affiliation. It was the beginning of my long career as a deprogrammer/exit counselor, one that began professionally in 1986. [The vast majority, and all since 1992, of my interventions involved no coercion or potentially illegal restraint]. After many hundreds of interventions, I retreated from the field a year ago. I took a job as the Assistant Director of the "crisis residential program" of a psychiatric hospital, Montgomery County Emergency Services of Pennsylvania, as a "mental health professional." Before and after I graduated from a university in 1969, I spent over a decade exploring alternative spiritual "paths" and exotic teachings. I got caught up in one "cult" that caused my first wife to divorce me in 1979. I rejected that group after considerable psychological struggle in 1980. As I look back, my "cult" track began while I was in college on campus. A paper I researched about William Blake introduced me to Theosophical sects--the "cult" I rejected in 1980 sprung from a theosophical sect. I graduated as an art major who developed a deep interest in early "moderns" like W. Kandinsky and P. Mondrian, both of whom belonged to theosophical sects at one time. While in college I was introduced to alternative books that opened many doors to the esoteric ideas often used by the controversial cult groups with which I am now all too familiar. Personally, I could argue that what I learned in college led me into a harmful group, although I was not recruited on campus. I recall only a few, anti-social or bizarre organizations that passed through and recruited on my campus. I remember a few students who "joined" them, who subsequently presented the psychological closure and family alienation so alarming to cult critics involved in the MD Task Force. I am aware of the research that shows how little we know of actual numbers involved in spurious sects, and research that indicates most members will leave such sects of their own volition within several years of recruitment. In one response, Professor James T. Richardson stated:
"Research has shown us that chances are quite good that the son or daughter will, on their own, decide to leave the group after a time. Those interested in such an outcome should maintain contact with their son or daughter, and make sure they know they are welcome to return at any time." The good professor's remarks parrot anti-anticult social scientists "conclusions" of the past fifteen plus years. I am not arguing with the "defection" statistics--I agree with them--but I have always been concerned, as a "cult intervention specialist," in shortening and relieving the harm or potential harm caused by "cult" affiliation. Many social scientists like to degrade ex-member's recovery claims as "atrocity tales," but they all know that the harm and exit costs experienced by ex-members are very real. The "benefits" of "cult" affiliation posted by Professor Richardson:
1. Termination of illicit drug use; The above are all "true" by my observation, especially when reported by the true believer. Even ex-members will continue to confirm many of these same benefits during some portion of their role as devotee. But this problem goes much deeper than reports over alleged benefits or harm, over statistics that reassure us that most members leave cults on their own. I view the "task" of the Task Force as sorting out how to best provide education to all students about cult activity without leaning toward a repressive solution. As much as I despise the harm I continually hear about from ex-members and distraught relatives of members of "cults," I share the concern of the social scientists who do not want government to dictate or enforce a spiritual "norm."
JOIN THE DEBATE
|
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education