Answers to these questions can potentially demonstrate the existence of milieu control and lead to a better understanding of how group controls work in the environment. We should understand that some destructive cults or leaders exercise overt control, while others choose to exercise control in a more covert manner. Some groups can therefore achieve Milieu Control through a subtle process of implied rules and suggestions rather than overt demands. The choice of using a subtle process can nevertheless limit associations, control the allocation of personal time, and ultimately control the environment.
2. “Mystical Manipulation,” Ofshe explains, is “emotional and behavioral manipulation” done through the guise of group beliefs and practices. Lifton also calls this “planned spontaneity.”
What has the group or leader done that seemed spontaneous but was actually carefully planned? For example, were people knowingly targeted for recruitment in a deceptive manner? Is training or study undertaken in a specific way to obtain specific results without the knowledge of those affected? Are they led to believe such results are spontaneous? How has the leadership knowingly misled and manipulated group members?
3. “The Demand for Purity” is what Ofshe describes as “demands for absolute conformity to behavior as prescribed and derived from the group ideology.” To some extent all destructive cults have an ultimate idealized prototype. This prototype is the required paradigm to measure each individual member’s success or attainment of ideal purity.
What is the preferred profile or prototype of a perfected member of the group being discussed? What constitutes a member in good standing? Does the group tolerate ambiguity in this regard? Or does the group tend to express its ideal prototype in terms of black and white without any meaningful room for ambiguity? Specifically, how much room is there for individual, personal expression outside the rigid profile of an ideal member?
4. “The Cult of Confession” or what Ofshe sees as the “obsessive demands for personal and group confession,” renders those involved increasingly vulnerable and transparent, and it diminishes any sense of real privacy.
What is actually allowed to remain private in the group or situation? Is there anything explicitly immune and off limits to scrutiny? Are those involved expected to answer virtually any question when asked? What group activities exist that would tend to promote or solicit personal disclosure? This might potentially include some type of group encounter session, a religious practice, a retreat observance, or some other mandated activity.
5. “The Sacred Science” is what Ofshe explains as “agreement that the group ideology is absolutely perfect, faultless” or what Lifton calls its “ultimate vision for the ordering of all human existence.”
This criterion solicits questions about how the group or leader sees his or her role in society and the world. Does the group or leader believe he or she has the ultimate solutions or answers to virtually any problem? Or has the group or leader admitted there are many questions or problems he or she is unable to address or answer? Does the group or leader essentially express that his or her beliefs, ideas, or philosophy is the means for resolving just about any problem? Is this belief somehow expressed in the confidence and confirmation that the group or leader’s answers represent a kind of “one size fits all” solution for virtually anything? Does the group or leader acknowledge that other groups and leaders are equally equipped to address problems with their answers and solutions? What can develop from these points being discussed is that the group or leader believes his or her philosophy and answers exclusively represent the only and ultimate set of solutions for everyone without any meaningful exceptions.
6. “Loading the Language,” Ofshe explains, is the “manipulation of language often characterized by thought terminating clichés, which substitute for critical and analytical thought.”
What specific insider language or terms typify the group or leader in question? Do members redundantly recite group terminology that reflects a particular world view or mindset? For example, are negative labels routinely applied to outsiders or those who offend the group? Are there similar clichés that label unwanted thoughts and feelings? Do members of the group tend to categorize people, things, thoughts, and feelings using the same verbiage? For example, Scientologists label those perceived as negative as suppressive persons or SPs. Bible-based cults often refer to themselves as “true Christians” while dismissively categorizing and labeling those outside their group as “lukewarm Christians” who are somehow not completely committed. Former members of such groups have also been derisively described as “backsliders.”
7. “Doctrine Over Person,” Ofshe describes, is the “reinterpretation of human experience and emotion as seen through the lens and according to the terms of group doctrine.”
The following questions should be asked: Do members tend to categorize their thoughts and feelings in terms of either negative or positive, as determined by the group’s beliefs? Do members likewise see those outside the group through a similar lens per their rules and beliefs? Thus can almost anything be potentially categorized in accordance with the group’s doctrine?
8. “The Dispensing of Existence” is what Ofshe sees as the “classification of those not sharing the group’s beliefs as inferior and not worthy of respect.” This criterion represents the culmination of thought reform, and it explains how cult members can dismiss and ultimately eliminate family and old friends from their lives. For example, Scientologists are often encouraged to disconnect from so-called suppressive persons.
Has the group or leader in question somehow encouraged a similar pattern of behavior? Has anyone been cut off? Under what circumstances might this rejection potentially occur? Have any disagreements about the group or leader with family and old friends somehow diminished communication or led to estrangement? Has the group or leader caused individuals to disengage from the outside world? Has the group or leader somehow diminished former members? Has a disagreement or lack of compliance led to the diminishing of some members in the group in some way?
At this point distinctions should be made between the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform used by destructive cults and other forms of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda, and indoctrination. Psychologist Margaret Singer provides an excellent chart for this matter that draws distinctions between these various forms of persuasion and demonstrates those differences based on focus of body of knowledge, direction and degree of exchange, ability to change, structure of persuasion, type of relationship, deceptiveness, breadth of learning, tolerance, and methodology.747 Discussing these distinctions, using Singer’s chart on the next page, is important. Go over each form of persuasion one by one to clarify that thought reform is a unique and separate category of persuasion. For example, thought reform is coercive, intolerant of another frame of reference, and deliberately deceptive.
Singer also expands on the three stages of coercive persuasion Edgar Schein, a professor at MIT, defined; these outlined the process of coercive persuasion in three basic steps.748 Going over these three steps offers an opportunity to examine the dynamic process of coercive persuasion and how change in that process is obtained.
1. “Unfreezing” is what Singer describes as “the destabilizing of a person’s sense of self.” This process includes “keeping the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place. Controlling the person’s time and if possible their physical environment. Creating a sense of powerless covert fear and dependency. And suppressing much of the person’s old behavior and attitudes.”
Did group members initially explain in detail what their ultimate goals were and what changes they expected from people? Did they completely explain what needed to be done to achieve those goals? What exactly was said, and did this genuinely constitute meaningful and detailed disclosure? How did the group or leader expect the daily schedule of new members to change as they became more involved? Was the group or leader critical of new participants? How exactly was this c
riticism expressed, and how did the criticized people respond? Did the group or leader do or say anything that caused people to feel fearful, apprehensive, or anxious about anything? Did fear of something in any way seem to motivate people to be more receptive to change?
2. “Changing” is what Singer describes as “getting the person to drastically reinterpret his or her life’s history and radically alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality and causality.”
This definition raises relevant questions such as the following: As people became more involved with the group or leader, did they feel different about the meaning and direction of their lives? How did they express this change? Did people in the group express anguish or unhappiness about their past? In what context did such personal disclosures take place, and what seemed to be their net effect? How was unhappiness about the past sorted out within the group? Were there any comments or sentiments expressed about how the group contributed or helped people in a sorting-out process concerning past experiences? Were the subsequently expressed sentiments increasingly consistent with the group or leader’s beliefs and world view?
3. “Refreezing,” Singer says, is to “put forth a closed system of logic; [to] allow no real input or criticism.”
As people in the group evolved and changed, did their schedules also somehow change? That is, did they spend increasingly more time with the group or leader? At meetings and in discussions with leaders, what level of overt and challenging criticism was allowed or tolerated? What specific examples can be given of such a free exchange of ideas the group or leader tolerated? When have long-term members of the group directly challenged authority or questioned the basic assumptions of the group? How was criticism of those outside the group viewed? Were people in the group discouraged in any way, shape, or form from associating with outsiders or those who expressed criticism? How did the group and its leaders view former members?
The answers to these questions can demonstrate that the group essentially represents a closed system, which is intolerant of an outside frame of reference. Group members are deliberately sealed inside this static system and strategically maintained in a type of stasis within a controlled environment.
Documentary DVDs may also be shown at this juncture in the intervention process to demonstrate these specific coercive persuasion techniques in action. These DVDs might include news reports about destructive cults that demonstrate their internal behavior and also research regarding the suggestible states achievable through hypnosis, trance induction, meditation, yoga, chanting, and various other exercises.
Questions at this point may focus on how such states of suggestibility can be manipulated through various techniques such as “guided imagery” and “indirect directives.” For example, guided imagery might occur gently through a soft voice suggesting certain images and feelings to someone while he or she is in a hypnotic trance. This may have a lasting effect on both his or her perception of reality and emotions. An indirect directive might also be used, which is done to convey a directive without telling someone explicitly. That is, rather than through a direct verbal command, an indirect directive may rely on nonverbal clues evident through such things as body language, vocal inflection, or facial expressions. When employed, this technique affords the user the apology that no direct influence appeared to take place.
An excellent documentary titled Captive Minds: Hypnosis and Beyond can effectively illustrate these points.749 This one-hour presentation explains how hypnosis works and describes the inherent suggestibility people experience while in trance states. The film also examines the activities of purported “cult” leaders such as Rev. Moon of the Unification Church and Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. It also explores the cloistered and controlled lifestyles of less controversial groups such as Roman Catholic monks as well as the rigid training used by the US Marines. What the documentary demonstrates is the vulnerability and apparent fragility of the human mind. It also features firsthand accounts by former participants in the various groups, who explain their personal encounters and experiences. The film can be an effective tool to vividly illustrate specific points regarding the various manipulative persuasion techniques used to gain undue influence, which have already been discussed.
The discussion should then focus on how the group in question may express these criteria and coercive persuasion techniques. Does the group use some form of hypnosis or trance induction through meditation, yoga, devotional activities, or some other routinely repeated exercise? Does the group or leader encourage this as an avenue or basis for change? What changes are solicited through such activities? Is there any evidence of guidance being given during or shortly after participants achieved altered states of consciousness? How have such exercises ultimately impacted, influenced, and shaped the group experience for those involved? What can be seen as the goal or end result of such experiences? Do such exercises somehow promote a particular point of view, a framework for gaining some insight or meaning? Those participating in the intervention can offer their perspectives on how they see that these points may be relevant to the situation.
Now a review of more general influence techniques should be discussed. This discussion is based on the writings of Robert Cialdini, author of the seminal book Influence.750 In his book Cialdini, professor of psychology at Arizona State University, offers what he identifies as the “six principles of influence.”
1. “The rule of reciprocity,” Cialdini says, “requires that one person try to repay what another person has provided.”751 Singer explains that cults that take credit for, and seemingly provide, a sense of security, salvation, well-being, and love but expect to be repaid with obedience and compliance use this rule.
Questions can be asked, such as the following: What has the group or leader objectively provided? Has the group or leader ever directly expressed that someone owed him or her consideration? How was this expressed exactly? Do members of the group ever express a sense of indebtedness? What examples can be given to clarify this? Can the group or leader legitimately take credit for something if he or she didn’t directly or physically provide it? What is the nature and basis for any sense of well-being the group provides?
2. “Commitment and consistency,” Cialdini says, are expressed by the “desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done.”752 Singer explains that a cult can turn this rule around and make members feel guilty whenever they fall short regarding their consistent performance of duties and obligations through commitments made to the group.
But can anyone completely or perfectly maintain his or her commitments with total consistency? On that basis do group members have unrealistic expectations? Do they feel they are good enough? Does a failure to be consistent in commitments frequently make people feel they haven’t been good enough? Would a feeling of failure tend to increase or decrease a person’s self-esteem? Are people with low self-esteem more or less sure of themselves? Are people with low self-esteem therefore more prone to look to authority figures to provide answers? Does this make them more or less easily influenced?
3. Cialdini describes “social proof” as “one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what others believe is correct.”753 Within a cult environment Singer explains that “if you look around in the group, you will see people behaving in particular ways. You imitate what you see and assume that such behavior is proper, good, and expected.” Singer further says that people then “assume that such behavior is proper, good, and expected.”754
To what extent does the group environment promote and sustain similar patterns of behavior? Is the group or leader providing what can be seen as the dominant template or frame of reference in the situation? Do members of the group mirror this dominant template or prototype and exemplify an identical frame of reference? What has occurred when participants act or speak out in a discordant way that is inconsistent with that frame of reference? Is such discordance the reason why some members are asked to leave or h
ave left the group? How are such departures later characterized? Are there examples of any former members who acted contrary to the group social norms but weren’t characterized negatively? Is the group maintaining a consistent social environment as a means of manipulation and influence?
4. “Liking,” Cialdini states, is the principle that “we most prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.”755 Singer explains that new initiates in a cultic group may be the target of seemingly unconditional love, which has been called “love bombing.” This can soften people up by making them feel wanted and loved—and correspondingly less wary and defensive. This technique, which ultimately promotes reciprocal “liking,” can make people feel obligated to comply with the concerns and suggestions of those they have come to like.
The following questions should be raised: Is the love received from the group or leader really genuine and unconditional? Or is it instead highly conditional and dependent on continued compliance with the group’s norms and expectations? Do members of the group still like or love former members who have left? Does the group or leader respond kindly to criticism? Is liking someone easier, or does it become more difficult if he or she disagrees with the group or leader? How can you objectively test whether someone is a genuine friend? What examples would you give of genuine and valued friendships or relationships? Do these examples reflect typical relationships in the group? How does the influence of the group and its leaders affect relationships? How are relationships in the group different from those outside of the group? How are they the same?
5. “Authority,” Cialdini explains, means “we are trained from birth that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong.”756 Singer says this tendency to respect authority can be easily applied to a cult leader who claims superior knowledge, power, and a special mission. Members may then accept the cult leader as an ultimate authority.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 27