Again, the four basic blocks or focal points of the intervention dialogue are the following:
What is the definition of a destructive cult or cultic relationship?
How does the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform really work?
What is the history of the particular group or leader who has drawn concern?
What are the concerns of those gathered for the intervention?
In my experience an intervention becomes increasingly positive as each day passes and more information is exchanged. The accumulation of information by the person who is the focus of the intervention provides him or her with an expanded body of knowledge, which can then become the basis of more informed decision making and critical thinking. As each day of the intervention is completed, there is that much more information delivered and potentially considered.
This is why some destructive cults may seek to sabotage an intervention if they become aware that it is taking place. This is also why some destructive cults will attempt to isolate their members or continuously moderate their contact with outsiders. Simply put, such groups and leaders like what they can control and don’t like what they can’t. Unfiltered exposure to an outside frame of reference may be perceived as a possible threat to their continued dominance and control.
Those involved should understand that as each day of the intervention progresses, there is usually some evidence of movement. This means the person who is the focus of the intervention will often begin to function more independently and exhibit evidence of critical thinking. For example, the person may raise his or her own questions about the behavior of the group or leader and related dynamics of relationships. Or he or she may begin to question such things as the lack of transparency regarding the group or leader’s finances or what steps for accountability actually exist. Evidence of increased critical thinking is an indication of progress.
Conclusion
As an intervention continues to progress, those involved want to know whether the intervention is moving in a positive direction. What signs can they look for? In my experience the first thing to look for is whether the person who is the focus of the intervention is meaningfully engaged. That can be seen based on the level and depth of his or her participation. Is the person attentive and acting interested? Is he or she actively involved in discussion? The worst-case scenario is when someone is shut down, angry, sullen, and not meaningfully engaged in dialogue.
Families and those concerned need to understand that they cannot reasonably expect to receive any definitive or declarative final statement at the conclusion of the intervention. Some people who are the focus of an intervention may decide at some point to openly express their decision to leave the influence of the cultic group or leader who has caused concern. But others may not make such a direct or succinct statement. There cannot be any pressure to make such a statement.
No blame or guilt can reasonably be assigned to the person who has been the focus of the intervention regarding his or her history of involvement in whatever cultic situation has drawn concern. No one knowingly consents to such undue influence and is instead tricked as the victim of deception. It is wrong and ultimately not useful or productive to be critical about past cultic involvement—for example, asking, “How could you be so gullible?” or “Why did you hurt us like this?” Such remarks that attempt to assign blame or induce guilt are both factually wrong and totally counterproductive.
Attempting to induce shame or guilt might produce a backlash or effectively create an obstacle concerning consideration to leave the group or leader. That is, if leaving the group or leader must include ongoing confrontation, which induces guilt and shame, perhaps it is preferable to stay in the cultic group rather than endure such painful humiliation.
Instead of creating such obstacles, everyone concerned must understand that his or her role is to do everything he or she can to make leaving the group or leader as easy and painless as possible. This means doing nothing during the intervention that should induce remorse. Instead, everyone concerned must express positive support that reflects care and common concerns for the welfare, security, and future happiness of the person who is the focus of the intervention. This can lead to meaningful consideration about viable alternatives to the group or leader. Everything must be done to allow for space without fear of embarrassment or some form of emotional retribution.
Families and others concerned often ask how they will know when the person who is the focus of the intervention has genuinely decided to move away from a group or leader’s undue influence if he or she hasn’t made a definitive declarative statement. In most interventions this decision becomes evident when the person who is the focus of the intervention begins to disclose previously unknown and potentially harmful information about the group or leader. He or she may share information that could somehow damage the group or leader. This might include hidden historical facts or examples of extreme and alarming behavior, unethical conduct, murky or improper finances, or criminal activities. He or she might also admit that the group or leader manipulated him or her; he or she might offer vivid examples based on criteria previously discussed during the intervention.
In my experience when people begin to disclose such potentially damaging information about the group or leader, they have probably decided to move on and leave. Again, no one must say or do anything to apply any pressure to make this declaration. And nothing should be said or implied that might make the individual feel ashamed about whatever information he or she has disclosed. Instead, those present at the intervention must do their best to express unconditional support and affirm the love and friendship they feel and value. The person has suffered enough and quite often, due to the manipulation and abuse of the group or leader, is in a fragile state. Everything must be done to sustain an atmosphere of support and safety, and deference must be given for the sake of the person’s dignity. The goal of an intervention is education, which can form the basis of more independent and informed decision making. Nothing must be done to hinder that process by causing unnecessary emotional distress.
Families will frequently ask, “What comes next?” if the intervention is successful. Some former cult members express a desire to follow up through counseling, while others do not. This is an individual choice based on personal reflection and the varying needs of each former member. Family members and others involved must not put undue pressure on the former cult member to seek professional counseling. They may simply suggest that this is a potential possibility or future option. There are very few professionals who have specific experience counseling former cult members. Many former cult members seem to prefer education rather than counseling. That is, they may engage in further research about cults, coercive persuasion, and influence techniques to better understand their experience. Issues former cult members commonly face will be discussed in more detail in the chapter “Moving On.”
An intervention is not a “magic bullet” or miracle solution that will somehow fix every problem. Typically, people who leave cults and abusive, controlling relationships will continue to have personal problems just like everyone else. The family and friends of a person who is the focus of an intervention must understand this truth and have reasonable expectations.
Net Result
The net result of the preparation meeting is that everyone who plans to participate in the intervention fully understands his or her role, specific boundaries and rules, and crucial points that will be covered during the intervention. He or she now has both a meaningful understanding of the process and realistic expectations. By addressing these issues in some depth and answering any related questions, the potential for misunderstandings, conflicts, and needless missteps during the intervention can be greatly reduced and hopefully avoided.
The preparation meeting is the time to clarify each participant’s role and the framework of the intervention so everyone involved understands what will, or may, potentially unfold. The net result of a proper preparati
on meeting are focused and fully informed participants; this is the best basis to ensure the most positive results.
Some families and others involved may not be able to locate an intervention specialist to help them. In such situations they may decide to delegate this responsibility to someone else. They might decide on a highly regarded family member, a respected mentor, a long-standing and close friend, or a paid professional they feel can effectively fulfill this role. In such a situation this book may serve as a helpful resource by providing meaningful information and practical guidelines.
The person chosen to lead and facilitate an intervention must be well spoken, have good communication and organizational skills, and the time required to complete the task.
CHAPTER 10
THE INTERVENTION PROCESS
This chapter is devoted to explaining the process of cult intervention based on my many years of experience, which has included hundreds of such efforts while working with families across the United States and internationally. I’m not a mental health professional, but based on my experience and knowledge, the cult-intervention process is an information-driven educational dialogue. It is neither counseling nor family therapy, which requires personal disclosure and a different set of distinct boundaries. As cultic studies professional and psychologist Michael Langone noted, “Humanistic counseling approaches…[run] the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client.”738 In contrast an educational approach simply offers information, which ideally provides a basis for individual decision making without such manipulation.
Keeping ethical considerations regarding manipulation in mind, we can see that neither neuro-linguistics programming (NLP) nor hypnosis should be used in the context of a cult intervention. Both are techniques used to increase the suggestibility or manipulate the subject. NLP, which is a communication approach created in the 1970s, involves the carefully planned use of subtle suggestions conveyed by certain chosen vocabulary and behaviors, which are strategically employed to influence people.739
Typically NLP is done without informed consent and thus is a deceptive form of manipulation. Similarly, hypnosis can also be used to manipulate a subject “guided by another (the hypnotist) to respond to suggestions for changes in subjective experience, alterations in perception, sensation, emotion, thought or behavior.”740 These techniques cannot be components of an ethical process of education, which is based on informed consent and an honest exchange of information.
The most important single component, which is the foundation for any intervention effort, is meaningful access. That is, the person who will be the focus of the intervention still communicates with and visits family and old friends. Without such a level of meaningful access, there is no basis to initiate an intervention. For this reason many people considering an intervention may need to wait for the right opportunity, such as a family vacation, weekend visit, or event, that may potentially provide the time and privacy needed to stage an intervention.
This may require a period of slowly developing better rapport if there has been an estrangement or rupture in communication due to a past argument or ongoing criticism of the group or leader in question. A previous chapter suggests “coping strategies” that can help to develop better communication and more meaningful access. It is important to be consistent and patient. This period of development may take months or possibly longer. When communication is good and regular visits occur, the planning can begin for an eventual intervention.
An average cult intervention is typically a multiday process that doesn’t include time for travel or preparation. Preparation with family members and other concerned parties who will participate in the intervention should normally consume about five to eight hours and take place on the day immediately before the intervention begins. A completed intervention should take approximately twenty-four to thirty-two working hours, which is spread out over three to four days at about eight hours each day, not including breaks. Structuring an intervention in this organized way ensures that adequate time will be spent on each category of concern and that nothing important will be missed. Limiting the duration of discussion to eight hours each day provides rest and relaxation time for everyone involved. People need to have proper sleep and private time to unwind and reflect. The schedule may vary according to the sleeping habits and responsibilities of participants.
There may be breaks allotted more frequently depending on specific needs. For example, someone involved in a cult may feel that frequent breaks are necessary due to the amount of information being shared. He or she may at times feel somewhat overwhelmed, and it is important to respect such considerations. A reasonable level of comfort for everyone involved in the intervention should be maintained. An intervention to extricate someone from a destructive cult should in no way replicate cultic manipulation, which frequently relies on sleep deprivation and information overload.
Most often the more time is spent on the intervention, the more likely it is that the cult member will leave the group. That is, the amount of time made available within the given multiday framework to explain and discuss concerns linked to destructive cult involvement directly corresponds to the likelihood that the cult-involved person will decide to leave the group or situation in question. The more information the cult member has to consider, the more potential there is to stimulate his or her independent critical thinking. This may be the reason some destructive cults have historically urged or often coached members to immediately leave any apparent intervention effort. Cults that have lost members through interventions seem to understand that the more time there is to share information, the more likely it is that the member won’t return to the cult. But an intervention, including the necessary preparation time with participants, shouldn’t exceed four to five days total.
Interventions require a fine balance between providing too much information too quickly, which might overload and distress the cult-involved person and cause him or her to leave, and discussing enough relevant information each day to keep him or her interested and engaged. It is also important to be receptive to the cult member’s questions and particular interests. We make it clear from the beginning that any relevant questions are welcome and that if someone thinks a certain detail or issue hasn’t been addressed sufficiently, it is all right to stop an ongoing segment of discussion to specifically address such concerns. Those setting the pace of the intervention and exchange should also be sensitive to the situation. It may be necessary to slow down or speed up the dialogue and exchange of information depending on the receptivity of the cult-involved person, the needs of those involved, and other circumstances.
Most of my interventions have been successful. That is, the individual who was the focus of the intervention decided to leave the cult, destructive group, or abusive and controlling relationship by the conclusion of the intervention process. I know of only a few occasions when people who decided to leave a group at the conclusion of an intervention later returned to that same group or situation. Conversely, some people who initially decided to stay with a group despite an intervention effort later left it, largely due to the information they had received during the intervention.
Most of my failures have occurred within the first day of the intervention. The person who was the focus of the intervention left abruptly, usually before the second day began. When someone indicates he or she wants to leave, family members and others participating in the intervention will try to persuade him or her to stay. At times when a cult-involved person leaves a family member, a friend or mentor will talk with him or her, and he or she will come back.
Only a very small fraction of cult members I have worked with for a period of three to four days chose to continue in the group. What this means is that as each day goes by and the hours spent on the intervention steadily accumulate, the likelihood that the cult member will decide to leave the group or situation increases proportionately.
If an int
ervention fails, it is important that every effort be made for it to end in positive terms. That is, despite any disagreement and stated concerns, the love, friendship, and ongoing communication of those concerned are reinforced and will continue. Following a failed intervention, the guidelines in the chapter about “coping strategies” should be followed as closely as possible.
An intervention is essentially an ongoing dialogue or discussion. During such a discussion, all those present offer their impressions, observations, and opinions as long as they do so respectfully. My role as an intervention specialist is to lead and facilitate that ongoing discussion, often directing and focusing attention on specific research material and emphasizing certain points by asking thought-provoking questions. I also organize and focus the discussion around specific points of interest based on categories of collective research or concern. The questions hopefully elicit reflection and stimulate critical thinking. Others attending the intervention contribute by offering their observations and insights as they become relevant to the points or topics being examined and discussed. This is an ongoing and fluid dialogue in what is usually a small group of three to five people including me, the cult-affected person, and his or her concerned family and friends who have agreed to participate.
If a particular family member or friend is repeatedly rude or disrespectful, interrupting him or her and reiterating the need for courtesy in the discussion may be necessary. In some situations such behavior may necessitate a time-out or break to individually discuss such behavior with the offending person. If this attempt to remedy the situation fails to correct the problem, the offending person may need to withdraw and cease participating in the intervention effort. Unchecked outbursts of anger, rudeness, or needlessly confrontational behavior can easily sidetrack the ongoing discussion and potentially lead to a breakdown that might ultimately end the intervention.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 25