Everyone present assured the wife that the final decision to separate, divorce, or continue with the yoga group was hers to make. We expressed hope that part of her decision-making process about these issues might include consideration of relevant research and the information to be shared through our discussion.
In response to her questions about my background, I talked about my many years of experience dealing with controversial groups and movements, some that were quite similar to her guru-led yoga group. I also pointed out that I had reviewed materials the guru had produced about his history and the organization he headed, which pertained to the structure, practices, and purpose of the group. I concluded by telling the wife that an organization with nothing to hide has no reason to fear examination or discussion about its practices and behavior. At this point the wife agreed to stay and participate.
During the first day of the intervention, we discussed an array of topics linked in some way to the four blocks of the intervention process. I previously outlined. This included talking about what can be seen as the nucleus for a definition of a destructive cult as psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton outlined in his paper “Cult Formation,”1138 which proposes the primary characteristics, general structure, and dynamics of a thought-reform program as expressed by destructive cults.
We also touched on some of the concerns her spouse and family had expressed regarding dramatic recent changes in her life that seemed related to group influence. Our first day of discussion laid the foundation for further dialogue, tested what areas of discussion were most important to her, and maintained her interest. The first day easily consumed eight hours.
At the conclusion of the first day, I asked the wife whether she would agree to meet again the following day. I also asked her to refrain from having contact in any way, shape, or form with anyone associated with the yoga group or guru. This prohibition specifically included e-mail, text messaging, phone calls, and communication of any kind. I explained that the many hours she had previously spent with the group and guru had been uninterrupted. Therefore, in fairness our discussion on balance must also not be interrupted. The family also expressed concern that her responses to the information presented must be genuine and spontaneous. Whatever she said would be her thoughts and not something coached or somehow based on instructions from the group or guru.
These conditions prompted another emotional outburst. The wife expressed considerable anger toward her parents and especially her husband, accusing them of interfering in her life and trying to control her. At this point her brother stood up and offered his emotional response to the situation. He stated that, in his opinion, the situation was so serious that he’d given up time with his wife and children, driving several hours to attend the intervention. The wife noted her brother’s concern and responded positively to the importance of continuing our dialogue. We agreed to meet the following morning, and she also specifically agreed that there would be no communication with the group. The wife also decided not to return to her apartment and instead stayed overnight with her family at the house.
As the husband drove me to my hotel, we went over the instructions I’ve given them during the previous day of preparation. I warned him to avoid an argument that might explode without me there to moderate the situation.
The following morning we resumed our discussion. During this second day we focused specifically on the primary characteristics of a destructive cult in considerable detail. This discussion included specific examples of cultlike behavior, dynamics, and structure; we covered how these might parallel the yoga group and its guru. For example, what is the role of the guru in this particular yoga group? Is he a charismatic leader? Is he the defining element and driving force of the group? Can this yoga group be seen as personality driven and totalitarian? Working from this foundation, we reviewed the yoga group’s published literature, website information, and some e-mail communication between members of the group and the guru, which the husband had copied.
We also watched a documentary, You Can Go Home Again,1139 which contains some historical footage about an assortment of groups called “cults.” The documentary also puts considerable emphasis on interviews with former cult members. We discussed the repeated pattern and similarity of their statements. Even though the former cult members came from completely different groups, they seemed to share a common experience. That is, they had all been involved in groups that a charismatic and authoritarian leader had dominated and defined. The former members interviewed for the documentary also said they had been deceived, subjected to various levels of environmental control, and manipulated, resulting in their personal exploitation. This documentary concluded our second day.
At this juncture the wife seemed to be curious. She repeatedly asked questions to further understand the points made in our discussion and was neither angry nor argumentative. She readily agreed to meet again a third day without any difficulty.
On the third day we discussed in some depth the thought-reform process various cults use and the specific techniques of coercive persuasion they employ. This conversation included discussion about the published works of psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton,1140 psychologist Margaret Singer,1141 Professor Edgar Schein,1142 sociologist Richard Ofshe,1143 and the study of influence as defined researcher and Professor Robert Cialdini in his book Influence.1144
Core excerpts of the assembled material were printed out and reviewed. These studies and research formed the basis for much of our discussion on the second day. Once again, frequent comparisons were made between the internal dynamics and behavior of the guru-led yoga group and what Lifton described as “thought reform.” For example, we discussed how the group had increasingly dominated her time and social interaction, and how this influence could be seen as effectively controlling her environment and frame of reference. We also discussed the three fundamental stages of coercive persuasion as Schein defined them—“unfreezing,” “changing,” and then “refreezing.”
Had the group encouraged her to abandon her “ego” and former identity? What changes had group members encouraged? How had they used peer pressure to enforce this process? How did the group reinforce changes once they were accomplished? We connected these questions and issues with the experiences of ex-cult members we’d seen in the documentary and which we had discussed the day before.
Toward the end of the third day, we watched another documentary on DVD, Captive Minds: Hypnosis and Beyond,1145 which very specifically focuses on psychological and emotional manipulation. The documentary included a detailed review of the trance-induction process through hypnosis, meditation, and other techniques. For example, the documentary demonstrated how easily people could be manipulated by a stage hypnotist but also showed how a trance state could be achieved by other means, such as the overload of the senses or through rhythmic drumming and chanting.
The documentary also included some discussion about the use of indirect directives, which can be seen as a covert means of obtaining compliance. This can be done through such things as the tone of voice, body language, or a repeated emphasis on certain words. The documentary demonstrated the seemingly benign use of indirect directives in a counseling session with a psychiatrist.
We then discussed how suggestible people are once they are in an altered state of consciousness. We then correlated this state of suggestibility to the yoga group and certain meditation practices the guru encouraged. How suggestible and vulnerable were the people in the yoga group during such an experience? Did the guru sometimes subtly employ indirect directives to gain compliance?
At the conclusion of the third day, the wife appeared to be intensely interested in, though deeply disturbed by, the information we had covered. She also seemed to be much more at ease with her family and particularly comfortable with her husband. There was no hesitation regarding an agreement to meet for a fourth day.
On the fourth day we discussed the history of the small yoga group and its guru. We reviewed certain corporate documents
, disclosure statements, real estate records, and finally personal e-mail communications between the guru and some of his followers, which the husband had copied and printed out for me. A pattern emerged regarding the guru’s evident financial gain and accumulated assets through the group. Also clear was how he had repeatedly exploited and profited from the free labor his followers had provided.
The yoga group as an organizational entity purportedly had a charitable purpose, which supposedly was based on human improvement. However, the guru apparently lived a life of ease and luxury at the expense of his followers. We could see this fact in the documentation, in living arrangements at the group retreat in Southeast Asia, and through the persistent personal demands the guru made through his e-mails. Did this evidence reflect the personality of an “egoless” or “enlightened” being? Or was it rather the behavior of a selfish opportunist?
We reviewed news reports about controversial gurus that encouraged some practice to achieve an altered state of consciousness for the purported purpose of self-improvement and fulfillment. For example, the notorious Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,1146 the Japanese cult Aum “Supreme Truth,”1147 both found guilty of terrorism, and the so-called Hare Krishna movement, which declared bankruptcy when faced with child abuse claims.1148
The family repeatedly interjected their personal observations about the yoga group and its influence on the wife’s life, including how group activities had overwhelmed her daily schedule and how she had become increasingly isolated. As her group involvement increased, family members said, they saw her less, and communication began to wither away. This isolation became even more pronounced when she moved into an apartment building other group members also occupied. Near the conclusion of the fourth day, the wife was very quiet, and finally she began to cry. She asked her family for their forgiveness. She said, “How could I be so stupid?” At this point I interjected that it had been impossible for her to realistically evaluate the group given the deceptive way in which she had been recruited and gradually manipulated. I said that her harsh self-judgment seemed misplaced. How could she have made an informed decision about group involvement without having the necessary information? What about the group and its leader? Didn’t the guru, and perhaps some of his prominent devotees, have the responsibility to disclose their agenda from the beginning? Weren’t they responsible for the negative consequences of their influence? Why didn’t they deserve some, if not all, of the blame?
The conclusion of this intervention was quite emotional, but it was a happy one. The husband and wife reconciled, and she had no further contact with the group or the guru. Not long after the intervention, the wife contacted me about her concerns that the group might harass or bother her in some way. I assured her that if she ignored them by refusing to respond to their e-mails, text messages, and calls, they would eventually give up and move on. It seems they did just that.
CHAPTER 21
AMWAY INTERVENTION
A college student became involved in a multilevel marketing scheme known as Amway or Quixtar, Inc. Over a period of months, the young man became so obsessed with Amway that he neglected his studies. As his grades slipped and the possibility arose that he might have to leave college, his parents became concerned. His father, a certified public accountant (CPA), tried to explain the flaws and pitfalls linked to multilevel marketing schemes like Amway. But despite the father’s effort, his son refused to be dissuaded from his commitment to the company.
As the prospects for the young man’s successful completion of college continued to dim, his father contacted me. We soon arranged for an intervention schedule based on a long weekend visit that had already been planned. I would be the family’s surprise guest during that weekend to facilitate the intervention effort.
On the day before the intervention began, we met to discuss details. The father explained that he couldn’t understand how his son, who was bright and studying business in college, could have been so easily fooled by what he considered to be a blatantly opportunistic scheme. As a trained professional accountant, he had explicitly explained to his son why Amway’s business plan often failed to generate any significant income for those involved. But no matter how many times the father went over the numbers and identified the flaws he saw in Amway’s business plan, his son seemed to be beyond reason and somehow unable or unwilling to acknowledge the facts.
The father asked me whether it was possible that Amway had “brainwashed” his son. When we went over the basic structure of the intervention, I noted that one of the primary topics we would focus on during our discussion was coercive persuasion, which is commonly called “brainwashing.”
The father seemed convinced that if an outside consultant presented more negative information, such as a more in-depth, critical analysis of the Amway business plan, this would be the key to unlock his son’s ability to independently and critically think again. It is impossible to predict which specific area or category of discussion is most likely to connect and solicit a thoughtful and meaningful response during an intervention. It could be the negative history of a particular group or leader or perhaps the emotional pull of family concerns. Or it could be the unmasking of a process of manipulation a group employed to shut down critical thinking. I urged the parents not to press any specific point or category during the intervention but rather to let the dialogue unfold in a way that allowed their son to focus on whatever interested him the most.
During the preparation process I also explained to the parents that though there would be four basic blocks of the intervention, there was no specific order in which these blocks would be covered. I again emphasized the need to stay focused on whatever topic drew their son’s interest to keep him engaged and interested in the conversation. The ultimate purpose of any intervention is to stimulate independent thinking by engaging in an educational process that includes critical analysis. The person who is the focus of the intervention must be personally engaged and interested, or no meaningful exchange of ideas will occur, and the effort will fail.
On the morning when the intervention began, the young man was courteous and deferential to his mother and father. He repeatedly said he wanted to satisfy whatever concerns they had about his involvement in Amway and agreed not to contact anyone associated with the company during our time together. His father’s persistence in pursuing the subject of Amway somewhat annoyed him, but ultimately he welcomed the opportunity to explain the positive aspects of the Amway business plan once again.
Initially, our conversation centered on Amway‘s troubled history, which included a pattern of complaints about its practices, negative press reports, and litigation.
We discussed some of the fundamental flaws in many multilevel marketing schemes. These often included the issue of market saturation—that is, “a situation in which no more of a product or service can be sold because there are no more possible customers.”1149 For example, similar businesses so saturate a given area that the prospects of other similar businesses in the same area become limited. This is why many businesses do studies regarding the issue of market saturation to determine whether an area is oversaturated.
As an example I offered a study done in Wisconsin concerning the casino market to determine whether more casinos would benefit the state and were therefore feasible. The study determined that the market was already saturated and that adding more casinos was therefore not advisable.1150 I asked the young man what limits Amway had set regarding how many distributors were selling its products in a given area to avoid market saturation. What specific policies or rules reflected Amway’s ongoing effort to avoid having too many distributors in the same place? Did Amway set limits concerning distributors by area? The young man couldn’t think of any limitations Amway had ever set regarding the number of distributors in an area. In fact, distributors were encouraged to recruit more distributors in their area regardless of how many there might already be in the neighborhood, city, state, or region.
Another focus of discuss
ion was how Amway or Quixtar people make money. That is, what is the primary focus of Amway? Is it the sale of its products or the promotion of its multilevel business plan in an effort to recruit more distributors? I pointed out that historically lawsuits filed against Amway have asserted that distributors are pressured to buy products and “motivational materials” and that it is a relatively small group of “kingpins” presiding over thousands of down-line distributors who make significant amounts of money. Reportedly, I said, Amway‘s elite make most of their money selling materials, known within Amway or Quixtar as the “tool and function” end of the business. The ratio of tools income as opposed to regular Amway business is reportedly “nine-to-one or more.”1151
The son readily admitted that he had paid for such motivational materials and that based on his experience, the focus in Amway was often on recruiting more distributors rather than on simply selling company products. He also acknowledged that he and other distributors were pressured to purchase Amway products.
I pointed out that reportedly “Amway distributors earn an average of just $115 a month.” And that “just a quarter of 1% (0.26%) make more than $40,000 a year.”1152 I asked the young man whether it was really possible for him to make enough money through Amway to support himself, considering the expense of buying Amway products and tools. This analysis seemed to disturb the young man. He said that all businesses included some risk but admitted that it wasn’t rational to be in a business without the reasonable hope of future success and profitability. He, like other Amway distributors, hoped to somehow be not an average distributor but rather an exceptional one. But was it reasonable to expect this outcome given the numbers?
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 41