ICSA e-Newsletter, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2008
A Remarkable Consensus
Edward Lottick, M. D.; Jean O’Brien, Ph.D.; Charles Brooks,
Ph.D.
Psychology Department, King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Abstract
This paper presents a summary
presentation of data from the 2004 King’s College Psychology Department survey
of psychology professionals. The paper also discusses “brainwashing” and
advocates for a focused law to discourage deceptive, abusive, haphazard
applications of demonstrably dangerous forms of brainwashing. The paper is
based on a lecture presented at International Cultic Studies Association Annual
International Conference, Fondation Universitaire, Brussels, Belgium, June 29 –
July 1, 2007.
In the summer of 2004, we sent a 53-item survey to 2,980
members of the Pennsylvania Psychological Association. The survey consisted of
six sections. Each section contained different questions. The six sections are
as follows: (1) demographics, involving age, gender, level of education,
occupation, and association membership; (2) sources of information about cults
and self-rating of extent of knowledge; (3) professional experience with cults;
(4) personal experience with cults; (5) miscellaneous (cult retribution,
criminal sanctions for “brainwashing,” and usefulness of various terms); and (6)
opportunities to express further thoughts. Completed surveys were returned by
695 members, a 23.3% return. This rate of return compares well with an earlier
collaboration with the Pennsylvania Medical Society, (Lottick, 1993). That 1992
survey of 5,400 Pennsylvania primary-care physicians and psychiatrists was
shorter but had a slightly lower rate of return.
More than two-thirds of the 2004 survey of psychology
respondents had a doctoral degree (70.9%), and most of the remaining respondents
had a master’s degree (26.8%). The respondents practiced in 43 specialty areas;
the group included a number of academic teaching and research psychologists,
school psychologists, psychologists in industry, and some students who were
completing psychology degrees. The great bulk of respondents consisted of
practicing clinical psychologists, of whom 81.8% indicated that they were
licensed. The ages of respondents ranged from 23 years to 96 years, with an
average age of 51.
The 1992 survey showed that about 20% of primary-care
physicians and about 50% of the psychiatrist respondents had experience with
cults. In the current survey of psychologists, about half of the 695 respondents
had experience with cults and half did not, which corresponds very well with the
psychiatrists’ 50% experience with cults.
Of those psychologists with experience, 33% reported
professional experience in treating active or former cult members, and 20.4%
reported professional experience in treating family or friends of the
cult-involved. Also, 13.1% reported personal experience with cults that involved
themselves, family members, or friends. Two-thirds of those reporting experience
with cults believed psychological symptoms in their cult clients were
directly the result of their cult involvement. This finding suggests that
these psychologists believe that cult experience contributes to mental-health
problems. They often found that it was not, for example, the clients’ childhood,
but their recent cult experience that was causative of mental-health problems.
Specific psychological pathologies included depression, anxiety, dissociation,
delusions, psychosis, suicide attempts, completed suicides, and a variety of
other symptom constellations totaling 30.
For their efforts in treating those with mental health
problems, fully half the psychologists (350) were subjected to retaliation by
the cult. This retaliation consisted of much harassment, some investigation, and
litigation.
During its development, this presentation has had a number
of titles. Most noteworthy is “A Remarkable Consensus.” Let me explain. Two of
the questions in the miscellaneous section of the survey developed when I read
an article while I was writing the questions for the survey. I was at that time
pursuing a computer search of the highly publicized kidnapping of 14-year-old
Elizabeth Smart, when I came across an editorial by legal scholar and Supreme
Court litigator Marci Hamilton (Hamilton, 2003). She subsequently published a
book (Hamilton, 2005) which I reviewed for the Cultic Studies Review
(Lottick, 2006). In her editorial, Hamilton advocated that the vagrant who
kidnapped 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart should be indicted for brainwashing as
well as aggravated kidnapping. That perspective suggested to me that I might ask
psychologists how they felt about a law for Pennsylvania against brainwashing.
Hamilton’s response to the Elizabeth Smart case is a
dramatic reconsideration of a law against brainwashing. And the psychologists
apparently liked my fortuitous questions. When asked if they would like a law
similar to the proposal for Elizabeth Smart for Pennsylvania, 21.4% responded
“strongly support,” 35.0% checked “support,” 29.0% checked “can’t say,” 10.1%
checked “oppose,” and 4.5% checked “strongly oppose.” The remarkable consensus
is that respondents who were apparently expectantly open to further discussion
totaled 85.4%, and the percentage of those whose response was negative was only
14.6%. Although awareness of brainwashing legislation is relatively new, and the
topic was presented without much qualification or specification, respondents who
were opposed totaled only 10.1% and those who were strongly opposed totaled only
4.5%. Also when asked how inclusive such a law should be, 15.3% checked “for
minors only,” 7.7% checked “for minors and young adults,” 9.2% checked “for
minors, young adults, and senior citizens,” and 67.9% checked “for all
citizens.”
This consensus is important enough for me to digress into a
concise but complete discussion of a law against brainwashing. How might such a
law be formulated and enacted? Abusive practices, which might be addressed in
such a law, were alluded to using Elizabeth Smart as an example, but the time is
ripe to be more specific. The term “brainwashing” can be very general. In common
usage, the term has become generic for all persuasion and influence. But let me
specify. For the purpose of our discussion, we would use the more restricted
connotation of brainwashing:
-
Brainwashing consists of orchestrated deception,
constraint, and manipulation; and
-
Brainwashing is generally harmful. (The harm spectrum
of brainwashing ranges from not necessarily being in the best interest of
its subjects all the way to being frankly abusive to its subjects, even unto
their death.)
I will now rely upon Margaret Singer, to discern some
specific abusive practices of brainwashing. Margaret Singer first wrote about
the practices I will cite in several scientific papers (Ofshe & Singer, 1986;
Singer & Ofshe, 1990) and discussed them further in her book, Cults In Our
Midst, Second Edition (Singer 2003). I have devised more precise terminology
for the practices.
Abusive practices that might form the basis for a specific
law about brainwashing are
-
Sustained, nonconsensual, mental and physical
constraint;
-
Orchestrated, deceptive, and malicious manipulation;
and
-
Subversion of the self-concept, or
“attack-on-the-self.”
The object of such constraint and manipulation is to create
malleable, deployable agents for the cult and its leaders and, let us not
forget, for terrorist provocateurs, as well. These above-three-cited abusive
practices might serve as anchor points for a specific law. They are not meant to
be limiting, since manipulation for nefarious purposes can occur outside of the
above parameters. The basis of bringing a criminal action against an individual
or a group is the judgment that there is abuse. If a prosecutor has a clear bill
of complaints regarding abuse, whether or not that abuse fits proposed
parameters, an action should be initiated that would lead to an injunction or an
arrest. The perpetrator would be charged. Thus, sustained abuse would properly
become an ongoing crime, subject to interruption, and subject to prosecution and
defense before a jury. Extremely intense abuse, psychological as well as
physical, might even require emergency action, including police intervention.
In itself, having a law might not be a solution for every
affected individual. The victim, like the frog in the kettle of gradually hotter
water, might never jump out, and family or friends might not perceive the
situation clearly enough to make a complaint. But having a law on the books
would be a deterrent toward preventing criminal manipulation. A law would send a
resounding message to the manipulators and abusers of this world and put them on
notice. As things stand, there is nothing clearly in place to bring this mental
abuse before a traditional court. Our survey of psychologists suggests that they
themselves have become a default court-of-last-resort for cult victims of abuse.
Helping with recovery from such abuse indeed is beneficial, but that help does
not mitigate the crime or the criminal impulses.
Is the above list of these abusive practices concrete
enough for inclusion in a law? When someone is murdered, there is generally a
corpse to clarify the fact that a crime has been committed. But when there is
abuse, we must look to other indicators of crime. Overt acts such as victim
suicide are suggestive. And lesions or scars on the person of the victim may be
quite clear. But what about the predominantly mental, physiological, and
basically invisible lesions of mental bondage, mental deception, mental
manipulation, or mental assault? Is anyone justified in saying that such crimes
are too vague for the police, or the jury, or the judge? Would anyone argue the
conclusion that because there is no photographic physical evidence, there is no
crime?
Let us spend a little more time on the last abuse on the
list of Margaret Singer’s specific brainwashing abuses, subversion of the
self-concept. This consequence can be devastating. Survey participants indicated
that 62% of cult adherents with whom they had experience were 25 years old or
younger, which confirms that much cult abuse is directed at young persons who
are still undergoing developmental change, and whose higher brain centers
involving judgment, reason, and planning have not yet fully matured (see
Goldberg, 2001). The age group, 25 years or younger, is especially vulnerable to
self-concept destabilization. These individuals deserve careful scrutiny and
assistance.
We still have not discussed the half of the survey
participants whose information about cults came only from sources other than
direct contact. The sources of information for all participants were varied. The
survey revealed the following sources of information in order of greatest to
least percentages of citing respondents: professional literature (45.3% of
respondents); magazines (40.3%); colleagues (29.9%); clients (23.6%); continuing
education courses (22.9%); professional meetings (22.6%); mass-market books
(19.5%); friends (16.0%); self-study books (15.5%); graduate course work
(14.6%); college course work (10.7%); computer Web sites (7.9%); independent
research (7.4%); family (6.5%); and conference workshops on cults (3.1%).
Because professional literature leads this list, we need to underline the
importance of getting more scholarly information about cults into publication.
As we move into this new century, recent reading about our
new understanding of brain function (Cozolino, 2002; Kandel, 2006; Restak, 2003;
Schwartz & Bagley, 2002; Taylor, 2004) suggests to me a further question that
probably should be included in any future survey. Although the respondents went
to great lengths to list a complete panoply of symptoms affecting present, or
recent, victims of constraint or manipulation, I failed to include the option
“cult indoctrinee syndrome.” Described by Margaret Singer in Cults In Our
Midst, this syndrome consists of five basic aspects: “During their initial
processing, recruits of cults often become dependent, lose much of their
self-identity, suffer a destabilization of their world view, suffer disruption
of traditional ties and beliefs, and lose emotional control” (Singer, 2003).
[Also see Delgado (1977) and Lottick (2006)] I think the cult indoctrinee
syndrome is better named the “cult subjugation syndrome,” because subjects of
constraint, deception, and manipulation are not merely indoctrinees, but are
brainwash victims.
These days, a variety of psychological symptom
constellations are being subjected to brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
study. I would like to suggest that in choosing psychological syndromes for
these studies, cult subjugation syndrome should be included. Although “cult
subjugation syndrome” suggests dependence on a new group, it is far more than
simple dependency. I don’t think I would be very far out of line to suggest that
the reason cult subjugation syndrome is not mentioned by respondents when they
are listing psychological syndromes affecting cult victims is because it is so
commonly overlooked by much of the professional psychologist community,
including our neglect of it in our survey. Thus, it might be very helpful to
focus MRI study on the cult subjugation syndrome during cult recovery processes
such as exit counseling—essentially, a study of brainwashing in reverse.
Now, what should the half of my respondents who are
therapists with no hands-on experience with cult victims do about the cult
subjugation syndrome if it should turn up in future encounters? The numerous
standard psychological symptoms are more than enough for practitioners who have
no prior experience with cult victims to deal with. These practitioners would
benefit greatly from the help of a cult information specialist, or what is
commonly called an “exit counselor.” It is becoming more and more clear that
cult subjugation syndrome, like many of the other symptom constellations, is a
matter of radical brain pathway or circuit reconfigurations (Cozolino, 2002;
Kandel, 2006; Restak, 2003; Schwartz & Bagley, 2002; Taylor, 2004) that need
reversal. The relatively new profession of exit counselor can augment the
therapeutic program of the more traditional therapist who might not have an
extensive knowledge of cults. Exit counselors are largely self-taught and are
often ex-members of the relevant cult. They can offer much insight about the
overall psychological recovery of the brain.
There is some additional detail to the results, which I
will share if any of you have questions (elottick@aol.com).
But these are the major findings. This effort is, after all, a pilot survey that
could be paralleled in your locale. I hope this survey information has expanded
your understanding of the Pennsylvania’s psychologists’ views on cults, and
their problems in coping with cults and assisting cult victims and their
families and friends. I am also pleased to have offered some possibilities for
future exploration.
My most basic insights from all of the above are as
follows: Not only is brainwashing associated with abuse, but brainwashing
techniques such as sustained nonconsensual mental and physical constraint,
orchestrated deceptive and malicious manipulation, and subversion of the
self-concept, are abuse.
And finally, perhaps the most monumental conclusion: Our
study provides very significant confirmation that certain forms of brainwashing
are not just a random public health problem limited to psychiatrists or
psychologists. Little is to be gained from constricting the discussion of this
significant public danger and threat to the common good. We believe the time is
now ripe to expand the discussion and extend it into public-policy dimensions,
and include much of the legal profession. Constriction of discussion to the same
old partisans does not promote the common good.
References
Cozolino, L. J. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy:
Building and rebuilding the human brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Delgado, R. (1977). Religious totalism: Gentle and
ungentle persuasion under The First Amendment. Southern California Law
Review, 51(1), 3–98.
Goldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes
and the civilized mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hamilton, M. A. (2003). The Elizabeth Smart case: Why we
need specific laws against Brainwashing. FindLaw.com
Hamilton, M. A. (2005). God vs. the gavel: Religion and
the rule of law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of memory: The
emergence of a new science of mind. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Lottick, E. A. (1993). Survey reveals physicians’
experience with cults. Pennsylvania Medicine, 96, 26–28.
Lottick, E. A. (2005). Book review: God vs. the gavel:
Religion and the rule of law by Marci A. Hamilton. Cultic Studies Review,
4(3).
Lottick, E. A. (2006). The forgotten freedom, The
Torch, 79(3), 26–30.
Ofshe, R. & Singer, M. T. (1986). Attacks on peripheral
versus central elements of self and the impact of thought reforming techniques.
Cultic Studies Journal, 3(1), 3–23.
Restak, R. M. (2003). The new brain: How the modern age
is rewiring your mind. Rodale, St. Martin’s Press.
Schwartz, J. M. & Begley, S. (2002) The mind and the
brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York:
HarperCollins.
Singer, M. T. (2003). Cults in our midst. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Singer, M. T. & Ofshe, R. (1990). Thought reform programs
and the production of psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric Annals, 20:4
(April).
Taylor, K. (2004). Brainwashing: The science of thought
control. New York: Oxford University Press.
|
