Are Converts to New Religious Movements 'Brrin Wrshed'?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter Five Are Converts to New Religious Movements 'BrRin wRshed'? The Issue nnd Its Significflnce The followers of NRMs are brainwashed! How else can one account for the seemingly sudden and unexpected conversion of ordinary middle-class young people to such outlandish new religions? How else can one explain the sweeping changes in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour? With this oft-repeated yet little-understood accusation we move to the heart of the contemporary controversy about cults, beyond the public lectures, books, and newspaper articles and into the courts of law. The brainwashing claim has been pivotal to numerous criminal cases and civil suits. Hoping to over- ride the legal right of their adult children to choose whatever religious prac- tices or world-view they wish, parents have sought to invoke the spectre of brainwashing to convince judges that their children are incompetent and in need of rescue. Deprogrammers,1 having 'rescued' many cult members by force, have called on theories of brainwashing to defend themselves against charges of kidnapping and assault, arguing that their actions were the less- er of two evils (Bromley, 1988). Meanwhile former members of cults have sued various NRMs for damages, arguing that they have been harmed by their alleged experience of brainwashing while in a cult. But are the charges of brainwashing true? In some cases, judges and juries have been convinced; in others they have not. (See Anthony, 1990; Anthony and Robbins, 1992, 1995; Richardson, 1991, 1995b, 1996b, 1997, 2004a; and Young and Griffiths, 1992 for excellent overviews of the issues and specific legal cases.) If true, then the NRMs in question do pose a serious public risk. If the charges are not true, then the primary risk to the public is posed by those who try to use this claim to suppress the civil lib- erties and religious freedoms entrenched in the US and Canadian constitu- tions and characteristic of most modern democratic societies (Bromley and Robbins, 1993; Richardson, 2004b). It is understandably difficult for the parents of converts to see their dreams of worldly success for their children thwarted by the other-worldly demands of life in some unknown and exotic new religion. Recast as 'brain- washing', the unconventional religious choices of these young people can be seen as a medically definable deviance, subject to the same state scruti- ny and intervention as other public health and social problems, such as gang violence, drug abuse, and AIDS (see Singer, 1995: 5, 84; Robbins and Anthony, 1982b). Do NRMs indeed use sophisticated techniques of 'mind- control', 'thought reform', or 'coercive persuasion' to entice and hold their devotees? Or does the brainwashing scenario simply allow parents and other opponents of NRMs to avoid facing other unwelcome possibilities? Perhaps the NRMs are actually offering the children something that they need or desire? Or perhaps the world the parents have created for their chil- dren is unsatisfactory in some crucial regard? Most scholars associated with the academic study of NRMs have con- cluded that the charge of mind control has not been substantiated and is theoretically implausible. Most also tend to discount the admissibility of brainwashing claims made by expert witnesses in court cases. Rather, the vast majority of the scholars studying NRMs, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Kent, 2001b), are of the opinion that accusations of brainwashing sig- nificantly distort the realities of cult life as revealed by years of systematic empirical study.2 Such accusations are considered primarily to be tools of propaganda designed to persuade the public and politicians to act against the interests of NRMs. Nevertheless, despite the legal reversals suffered by the anti-cult movement, media reports indicate that there is still a nearly complete faith in the accuracy of the brainwashing supposition.3 American courts will no longer accept expert testimony on 'cult brain- washing' as scientifically credible (Young and Griffiths, 1992; Anthony and Robbins, 1995). But the same accusation has played an important role in the public reaction against 'cults' in Europe, Russia, China, and elsewhere, with very detrimental consequences for many NRMs (see, for instance, Richardson and.Introvigne, 2001 and various essays in Richardson, 2004b and Lucas and Robbins, 2004). Thus the public debate over 'mind control' or 'mental manipulation' in the new religions is far from over. I cannot pretend to be impartial here because I long ago dismissed the brainwashing scenario based on my own studies and the scholarly record, but there are many who still think otherwise, including some judges, lawyers, government officials, psychiatrists, psychologists, and even sociol- ogists. So, having declared my bias, let me summarize the arguments for and against as even-handedly as I can, drawing first on the views of such anti-cultist writers as the psychologist Margaret Singer (1995), the sociolo- gist Ronald Enroth (1977), who writes from an evangelical Christian per- spective, and Steven Hassan (1988), an ex-Moonie and exit counsellor for people who have left NRMs. Their comments display the remarkable consis- tency of the argument made against the recruitment activities of NRMs, an argument that has changed little in over thirty years. The Cnse Agoinst the Cults Early in the public debate about 'cults', the threat supposedly posed by these new religions was described as a Very frightening form of thought control or brainwashing', a 'syndrome of seduction and mental subversion' (Enroth, 1977: 156). On the basis of anecdotal accounts of life in the cults, a comparison was made to the experience of the political thought-reform of some American prisoners of war during the Korean War (1950-3). In that war, for purposes of propaganda, the Communist Chinese had attempted systematically to break the will of some American prisoners in order to make them confess publicly to war crimes or betray their allegiance to the United States.4 With repetition, the analogy drawn between the fate of these POWs and converts to NRMS soon took on an aura of factuality, and some people, like John Clark (MD) of Harvard University, even warned the American people of the extreme 'health hazards' posed by 'destructive cults' (cited by Enroth, 1977: 156). But the early analyses offered by Enroth (1977) and others were clearly speculative and based on a handful of sto- ries of cult participation. The stories in question were presented as 'atroci- ty tales', designed to galvanize anti-cult sentiment, though many of these stories were in fact ambiguous. Soon the concepts of brainwashing and cults became synonymous in the minds of a naive and fearful public. Anti- cultists like Singer and Hassan incorporate the concept of mind control into their very definition of'cults' (Hassan, 1988: 55; Singer, 1995: 7; Langone, 1993: 5), which interprets all NRMS as destructive of individual integrity and autonomy; it is merely a matter of degree how bad (in this regard) they are. Some cults, the anti-cultists admit, are less harmful than others. But the use of some measure of brainwashing is necessitated in almost every case, they argue, by the hidden and true agenda of these organizations: Cults basically have only two purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. Their sole purpose, however, is not simply to grow larger and wealthier; such groups have as goals bettering the lives of their members or humankind in general, either in this world or in a world to come. A cult may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims or gestures. In the end, all work and all funds, even token gestures of altruism, serve the cult. (Singer, 1995: 11) Of course, the cults place a near total emphasis on growth, it is assert- ed, to enhance the wealth, pleasure, and power of the cult leaders. The groups are essentially exploitive. In Singer's words (1995: 6): 'Cults seem to have no end to their peculiar practices. Cult leaders seem to have no end to their unconscionable behaviours and their capacity to abuse their follow- ers.' The statements of Enroth, Hassan, Singer, and many other anti-cultists (e.g. Conway and Siegelman, 1978; Delgado, 1980) tend to be extreme and absolute on these points. Yet Singer insists that her use of the term 'cult' is 'merely descriptive, [and] not pejorative' (Singer, 1995: ll).5 Cults, as a class of things, are to be indiscriminately feared and dis- credited because their recruitment practices run contrary to the primary value that Americans place on individual freedom. The success of the anti- cult movement rests, in other words, on the supposition that all, or at least most, cults employ brainwashing. Let me illustrate this point with a passage from Hassan (1988: 51-2): The casualties of mind control include not only the millions of cult mem- bers themselves, their children, and their friends and loved ones, but also our society as well. Our nation is being robbed of our greatest resource: bright, idealistic, ambitious people who are capable of making an enor- mous contribution to mankind. Many of the former members I know have become doctors, teachers, counsellors, inventors, artists. Imagine what cult members could accomplish if they were all set free to develop their God-given talents and abilities! What if they channelled their energies into problem solving, rather than trying to undermine America's freedoms with some warped totalitarian yision? / Here we have the standard objections to the cults: they are redirecting talented people into useless, wrong, or even subversive causes, and these people are not free to return to more useful, right, and (in the US) proper- ly American ways of life.