To better understand how this aspect of relationships might relate to cultic control, we went over a chart psychologist Margaret Singer composed that correlated the research of MIT professor Edgar Schein regarding coercive persuasion with the findings of Lifton and her own interpretation of how this information applied to cults.938 Singer noted how “control [of] the person’s time and, if possible, physical environment” correlated with Milieu Control.939 We talked about how such social isolation is also one of the “key factors” sociologist Richard Ofshe cited in his explanation of coercive persuasion.940 In other words, that’s “the use of an organized peer group” to “promote conformity.”941 Singer also noted the work of Arizona State University professor Robert Cialdini,942 who included “liking” as a principle of influence used to gain compliance. Singer correlated this dimension to cults: “We obey people we like.”943 I asked the husband whether his relatively tight-knit group of Scientology friends had effectively served as an element of control in his decision-making process. Did he obey Scientology largely because he liked them? Cialdini also points out the influence of what he calls “social proof”; one way to “determine what is correct is to find out what others believe is correct.”944
We also discussed the husband’s many years of taking courses, going through auditing, and doing other Scientology-related activities. Certainly during that time Scientology or Scientologists had exercised ongoing control over the environment. Specifically we focused on how the organization can potentially encapsulate an individual. I then pointed out that Sea Organization members represented the most extreme example of Scientology’s control of an environment. Sea Org members lived in Scientology housing, were full-time staffers who were barely socializing in any meaningful way with the outside world, and became effectively cocooned in Scientology. We discussed how control of the environment and the flow of information laid the groundwork for control of the mind. As Cialdini observed, “People often view a behavior as more correct in a given situation—to the degree that we see others performing it.”945 To the extent that an organization or leader can control environment, everything a person sees, experiences, and does in social interaction, that group or leader can substantially control the mind. Ofshe summarized this control as “the manipulation of the totality of the person’s social environment to stabilize behavior once modified.”946
On the second day we also touched on other aspects of Lifton’s thought-reform criteria such as “Mystical Manipulation” and the “Cult of Confession.”947 How might those characteristics be expressed in Scientology? Scientologists are put through a process called “auditing,” which is a form of counseling based on questioning conducted by an auditor while the subject is physically connected to what is essentially a galvanic response-measuring device. Scientologists call this apparatus an “e-meter.”948 A Scientologist is told that the e-meter measures the “negative reactive mind,” but in fact it is little more than a means of measuring nervous tension during what can be seen as an interrogation process. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorized the e-meter as a “religious artifact” without any meaningful medical application.949
Perhaps auditing might be seen as somewhat like a Roman Catholic confessional process with a priest but without confidentiality and the added element of technology. The so-called e-meter is one aspect of what is often called a “lie detector” machine or polygraph. How potent and penetrating does that make Scientology’s form of confession? An auditor or confessor is aided by a form of technology, which helps him or her identify and delve deeper into the subject’s secrets and vulnerabilities. We talked about the fact that auditors take copious notes for each auditing session, which then become part of a file compiled about that individual. We discussed how the auditing process could be used to manipulate the subject, who is in a highly suggestible state.
According to Lifton, Mystical Manipulation “uses every possible device at the milieu’s command, no matter how bizarre or painful. Initiated from above, it seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously, directed as it is by an ostensibly omniscient group, and must assume, for the manipulated, a near-mystical quality.”950 This comment also parallels Ofshe’s observation concerning the primary aspects of coercive persuasion, which includes the “intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual’s sense of self to promote compliance.”951 We also reviewed Singer’s research, which identified the net result of such personal manipulation as “powerlessness, covert fear and dependency.”952
As we continued to move forward through the second day, the husband remained engaged and seemed very interested. But he did repeatedly offer counterpoints defending both Scientology and its practices. He said, “Other religions are the same.” But as the husband offered a new apology, it was also an opportunity to raise additional questions about the integrity and transparency of Scientology.
For example, other religious groups are typically much more open about their beliefs, faith claims, and doctrines. Why does Scientology deliberately withhold information about important components of its belief system? Do Christians withhold certain information they know about Jesus? Do Jews conceal the story of Abraham?
These questions emphasize the point that Scientology deliberately withholds important information about its basic beliefs. No one who enters Scientology is initially told about Xenu (pronounced Zee-new), “the head of the galactic federation” who ruled seventy-five million years ago and killed millions of people by blowing them up volcanically on earth. Only when a Scientologist reaches OT III (Operating Thetan Level 3)953 does he or she learn about how Xenu packaged disembodied spirits in “clusters” or body thetans (BTs), which would live on as one body. Only when a Scientologist reaches OT III does he or she learn the relevance of this history, which is linked to the process of cleansing oneself of negativity. This process includes addressing the negative influence of BTs, which can effectively be accomplished only through Scientology.
I asked the husband whether he thought Scientology might be seen as deceptive or at least less than forthcoming by not openly sharing the story of Xenu and BTs with people from the beginning. Would Christians neglect to explain the importance of the virgin birth or resurrection as an important part of Christianity? Would Jews fail to disclose the epoch of Exodus and its relevance to the Ten Commandments?
Despite the importance of Xenu to Scientology, his existence is not disclosed until a Scientologist reaches a predetermined point, which may take years to accomplish. Only then is this information shared. We talked about Singer’s delineation of the differences between indoctrination and thought reform—for example, that religious indoctrination is typically not deceptive but that thought reform “is deceptive.”954
There are eight OT levels in Scientology. As we discussed this aspect, everyone agreed that progressing through these various levels could be quite costly.955
But how could someone make an informed decision about such an investment of time and money if he or she doesn’t have the necessary information to fully understand Scientology? If Scientology expects someone to pay for courses and training, why isn’t there more meaningful disclosure about the beliefs that form the basis for much of that course work?
The husband struggled with these questions and could neither easily address them nor offer solid answers. His family members reiterated their concerns—that if he was going to dedicate the rest of his life to Scientology as a full-time staffer, such issues must be addressed. Again we agreed to meet the following day, ending our second day with serious questions we would follow through on the next morning.
On the third day the husband seemed almost anxious to begin. He wanted answers to the perplexing questions surrounding Scientology. We discussed yet another aspect of Lifton’s criteria concerning thought reform. Is Scientology what Lifton calls a “Sacred Science”? Lifton writes that in a group using thought reform, ther
e is “an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence.” He adds, “This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself, while thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic.”956 Singer describes this as a “closed system of logic” that will “allow no real input or criticism” as opposed to education, where a “two-way pupil-teacher exchange is encouraged.”957 Singer also says a legitimate educational effort “is not deceptive.”958
Could Scientology be considered such a “Sacred Science” and “closed system of logic”? Scientologists have said they hope to “clear the planet” through their technology. Cannot such a plan be seen as tantamount to proposing “an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence”? Is there a meaningful two-way exchange during Scientology training? Certainly there is reverence of L Ron Hubbard as the “originator of the Word” as well as considerable deference demonstrated to both the current leader, Miscavige, and the organization as “the current bearers of the Word.” And there is absolute acceptance of the word itself. We also discussed how Cialdini’s principles of influence might be applied in this context. That is, the use of authority, according to Singer, uses “a deep-seated sense of duty to authority figures” to solicit obedience and compliance.959
We watched A&E cable network’s investigative report about Scientology.960 This two-hour presentation, broadcast during December 1998, was the last media interview of David Miscavige. A&E apparently had the full cooperation of Scientology. The producers seemed to make sure that ample time was afforded for Scientologists to rebut any criticism and present the organization’s views and official positions. Miscavige noted, “All of our source materials, original teachings will be taught and practiced the same way fifty years from now, hundred years from now, thousand years from now.”961 Miscavige ultimately concluded, “Scientology, we believe, is a point where science and religion have truly met.”962
Entertainer Isaac Hayes, who was also interviewed for the A&E program, emphasized the absolute nature of Scientology teachings as written by Hubbard. Hayes said, “We will not allow it to become aberrated [subject to an aberration], [and] we will not change it.”963 This sentiment Hayes expressed seems to reflect Lifton’s description concerning “the prohibition against the questioning of basic assumptions” of the group.
But then how could Scientology be the point where “science and religion have truly met” if it is such a closed system that is not subject to change? We discussed this issue during the intervention; that is, science is certainly subject to change based on new discoveries and research. Scientologists like Hayes, however, appeared to see any change as an unwanted aberration. For example, Hubbard posited the theory that toxins are indefinitely held in the fatty tissues of the body. I pointed out that science has proved Hubbard wrong.964 Yet Scientologists who support the Scientology-linked drug rehabilitation and education program, known as Narconon, refuse to accept this scientific fact. They will not accept that L Ron Hubbard was wrong.
We discussed this issue during the third day. After all, Hubbard wasn’t a doctor or a scientist but rather a science fiction writer without a college degree. Isn’t it possible that such a man, writing decades ago, got some things wrong? For example, there is now new research regarding the brain and its chemistry. In the 1950s Hubbard wasn’t aware of this—that is, scientific research hadn’t yet been done. How could Scientology be scientific if it isn’t subject to new discoveries and research? How could it “meet science” without critical questioning or change?
As we watched the A&E investigative report, other issues came up. A Scientologist tried to explain the cost of courses and training. He said, “Donations are requested.” I asked the husband whether this statement was disingenuous; that is, Scientology has specific pricing for its courses and services, and they are not simply paid by “donations.” He agreed and was aware of the prices set for services; he saw that the word donation was misleading.
At another point during the A&E program, the practice of “disconnection” was discussed. Disconnection is the process in Scientology that provides for the official shunning of declared or designated people outside the organization. Scientologists are expected to cease association and communication with people who have been declared “suppressive persons” (SPs). During the A&E program Mike Rinder, then an official spokesperson for Scientology, claimed that those people declared for disconnection were “antagonistic.” Ironically Rinder himself would years later leave Scientology, be declared an SP, and be subject to disconnection.
I asked the husband whether in his experience everyone who went through disconnection had demonstrated that he or she was somehow antagonistic. He responded that not everyone declared that he knew had been antagonistic regarding Scientology or Scientologists. Many had simply opted to leave or discontinue their involvement with Scientology, and subsequently they had been declared SPs. We concurred on this point, then reviewed news reports about former Scientologists and affected families, who claimed Scientology had cut them off.965 Many complained about the lack of meaningful communication from loved ones in the Sea Organization.
We continued to watch the A&E report, which served to frame other issues. At one point Isaac Hayes said, “The more you know, the less likely you are to be victimized.” Hayes meant that people should learn more about Scientology. But couldn’t this concept be applicable to almost anything? I asked the husband whether this principle might be applied to our current discussion about Scientology. He agreed. Another day was ending. After we finished watching the A&E report, our third day was done.
At the beginning of the fourth day, we continued our dialogue about Lifton. At this point we delved into what Lifton called “loaded language.” He wrote, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”966 We talked about how the label SP might fit the category of a thought-terminating cliché. We discussed how labeling people as SPs not only makes them social pariahs but also effectively ends any consideration of their ideas or personal accounts of abuse in the organization. In this sense the loaded language linked to disconnection could not only terminate thinking but also dispense with the very existence of those so declared.
“The Dispensing of Existence” is yet another of Lifton’s criteria used to identify the existence of a thought-reform program or what some might call “brainwashing.” This characteristic is an expression of how “the totalist environment draws a sharp line between those whose right to existence can be recognized, and those who possess no such right.”967 At this point we discussed how this quotation might be linked to Scientology’s disconnection policy. How people passed in and out of existence depending on their status or designation, according to Scientology. A person’s existence could be dispensed with if he or she left the organization, because there was no legitimate reason to leave. Therefore, whenever someone left, he or she was wrong and was potentially an SP; he or she could be declared an SP and then be subject to disconnection. Wasn’t Scientology’s disconnection policy an expression of what Singer described as a “closed system” that was intolerant of criticism and resisted logic?
Was it simply coincidental that so many aspects of Scientology paralleled Robert Jay Lifton’s nucleus for a definition of a destructive cult? Was it happenstance that so many of Lifton’s criteria concerning thought reform and coercive persuasion techniques, as researchers such as Schein, Singer, and Ofshe explained, seemed to be evident in Scientology?
The husband didn’t experience an epiphany or sudden moment of clarity. Instead, through the days as we w
orked together, his realization of Scientology gradually unfolded. Bit by bit and piece by piece, the program instilled in his mind over a period of decades gradually unraveled and fell apart. He increasingly asked critical questions, and on the fifth day he said he would no longer be involved in Scientology. Needless to say, his family was greatly relieved. But most importantly, he came to this conclusion through his own thought processes, analysis, and critical thinking—which the intervention had only facilitated and encouraged.
On the fifth day he began to disclose previously unknown information to his family about Scientology and its inner workings. He admitted that Scientologists had encouraged him to divorce his wife and leave his family. It seems those who had advised him saw the husband as more useful in Sea Org as a full-time staffer than just continuing to take courses and receive auditing and training.
In the months that followed, I received several phone calls from the husband, his sister, and his wife. Sometimes there were concerns regarding the difficulties he was experiencing in his social transition away from Scientology. He was sometimes lonely and missed his Scientology friends. It appears that he wasn’t officially declared, but his Scientology friends began to drop him, and he needed to move on with his life. This meant finding new friends and interests.
The husband received some professional counseling, but largely found solace from the input, support and advice of family.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 35