The following is a
quote from Jeanne Mills, a defector from Jim Jones' Peoples temple. She was
murdered a year subsequent to the Nov. 18, 1978 Jonestown suicides/murders
of 911 children, woman and men. She wrote this shortly before being murdered.
Listen to what she is telling the world:
"When you meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who introduce
you to the most loving group of people you have ever encountered, and you
find the leader to be the most inspired, caring, compassionate and understanding
person you have ever met, and then you learn the cause of the group is something
you never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too good
to be true, it probably is too good to be true! Don't give up your education,
your hopes and ambitions to follow a rainbow."
THE
CONVERSION PROCESS
Farber, Harlow, & West (1957) coined the term "DDD
syndrome" to describe the essence of Korean War thought
reform with prisoners of war: debility, dependency, and dread.
Lifton (1961), who also studied thought reform employed in Chinese
universities, demonstrated that the process did not require
physical debilitation. Contemporary cultic groups, which do
not have the power of the state at their disposal, have more
in common with this brand of thought reform than with the POW
variety, in that they rarely employ physical coercion. In order
to control targets, they must rely on subterfuge and natural
areas of overlap between themselves and prospects. As with all
Korean era thought reform programs (those directed at civilians
and at prisoners), however, contemporary cultic groups induce
dependent states to gain control over recruits and employ psychological
(sometimes physical) punishment ("dread") to maintain
control. The process, in my view, can be briefly described by
a modified "DDD syndrome": deception, dependency,
and dread.
Although the process
here described is complex and varied, the following appears
to occur in the prototypical cult conversion:
A vulnerable prospect encounters a cultic group.
The
group (leader[s]) deceptively presents itself as a benevolent
authority that can improve the prospect's well-being.
The
prospect responds positively, experiencing an increase in
self-esteem and security, at least some of which is in response
to what could be considered "placebo" The prospect
can now be considered a "recruit".
Through
the use of "sharing" exercises, "confessions,"
and skillful individualized probing, the group [leader(s)]
assesses the recruit's strengths and weaknesses.
Through
testimonies of group members, the denigration of the group's
"competitors"
(e.g., other religious groups, other therapists), the tactful
accentuation of the recruit's shameful memories and other
weaknesses, and the gradual indoctrination of the recruit
into a closed, nonfalsifiable belief system, the group's
superiority is affirmed as a fundamental assumption.
Members'
testimonies, positive reinforcement of the recruit's expressions
of trust in the group, discrete reminders about the recruit's
weaknesses, and various forms of group pressure induce the
recruit to acknowledge that his/her future well-being depends
upon adherence to the group's belief system, more specifically
its "change program."
These
same influence techniques are joined by a subtle undermining
of the recruit's self-esteem (e.g., by exaggerating the
"sinfulness" of experiences the recruit is encouraged
to "confess"), the suppression or weakening of
critical thinking through fatiguing activity, near-total
control of the recruit's time, trance-induction exercises
(e.g., chanting), and the repetitive message that only disaster
results from not following the group's "change program."
These manipulations induce the recruit to declare allegiance
to the group and to commit to change him/herself as directed
by the group. He or she can now be considered a convert
embarking on a path of "purification," "enlightenment,"
"self-actualization," "higher consciousness,"
or whatever. The recruit's dependency on the group is established
and implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged. Moreover,
he/she has accepted the group's authority in defining what
is true and good, within the convert's heart and mind as
well as in the world.
The
convert is next fully subjected to the unrealistically high
expectations of the group. The recruit's "potential"
is "lovingly" affirmed, while members testify
to the great heights they and "heroic" models
have scaled. The group's all-important mission, e.g., save
the world, justifies its all-consuming expectations.
Because by definition the group is always right and "negative"
thinking is unacceptable, the convert's failures become
totally his or her responsibility, while his or her doubts
and criticisms are suppressed (often with the aid of trance-inducing
exercises such as meditation, speaking in tongues, or chanting)
or redefined as personal failures. The convert thus experiences
increasing self- alienation. The "pre-cult self"
is rejected; doubts about the group are pushed out of consciousness;
the sense of failure generated by not measuring up to the
group's expectations is bottled up inside. The only possible
adaptation is fragmentation and compartmentalization. It
is not surprising, then, that many clinicians consider dissociation
to lie at the heart of cult-related distress and dysfunction
(Ash, 1985).
The
convert's self-alienation will tend to demand further
psychological, if not physical, alienation from the
non-group world (especially family), information from
which can threaten to upset whatever dissociative equilibrium
the convert establishes in an attempt to adjust to the
consuming and conflicting demands of the group. This
alienation accentuates the convert's dependency on the
group.
"The
group supports the convert's dissociative equilibrium by
actively encouraging escalating dependency, e.g., by exaggerating
the convert's past "sins" and conflicts with family,
by denigrating outsiders, by positively reinforcing chanting
or other "thought-stopping" activities, and by
providing and positively reinforcing ways in which the convert
can find a valued role within the group (e.g., work for
a group-owned business, sell magazines on the street).
The
group strengthens the convert's growing dependency by threatening
or inflicting punishment whenever the convert or an outside
force (e.g., a visit by a family member) disturbs the dissociative
equilibrium that enables him or her to function in a closed,
nonfalsifiable system (the "dread" of DDD). Punishment
may sometimes by physical.
Usually, however,
the punishment is psychological, sometimes even metaphysical.
Certain fringe Christian groups, for example, can at the command
of the leadership immediately begin shunning someone singled
out as being "factious" or possessed of a "rebellious
spirit." Many groups also threaten wavering converts
with punishments in the hereafter, for example, being "doomed
to Hell." It should be remembered that these threats
and punishments occur within a context of induced dependency
and psychological alienation from the person's former support
network. This fact makes them much more potent than the garden-variety
admonitions of traditional religious, such as "you will
go to hell if you die with mortal sin."
The result of this
process, when carried to its consummation, is a person who
proclaims great happiness but hides great suffering. I have
talked to many former cultists who, when they left their groups
and talked to other former members, were surprised to discover
that many of their fellow members were also smilingly unhappy,
all thinking they were the only ones who felt miserable inside.
