Steve K. D. Eichel, Ph.D., ABPP
The deprogramming of Ken Butler was primarily a cognitive and
social-affiliative intervention within a specific form of
extended, intensive conversation. There were some notable changes
in content and group process over time. These changes and shifts
suggested that Ken's deprogramming had different modalities as
well as phases. The information conveyed and eventually accepted,
along with the strong trust, rapport and affiliative bonds
developed between the deprogrammers and the cultist, combined to
produce a dramatic change in Ken.
Summary of conversation analysis
For deprogrammers, the beginning stage was marked primarily by
(in order of proportional representation): giving information,
questioning, agreeing and self-disclosing. For the cultist, the
beginning was marked by self-disclosing, questioning, giving
information and citing doctrine.
For deprogrammers, the middle stage (the snap) was marked
primarily by giving information, self-disclosing, agreeing, and
questioning. For the cultist, the middle phase was marked by
giving information, self-disclosing, citing doctrine and
questioning.
For the deprogrammers, the end stage was marked primarily by
giving information, self-disclosing, agreeing and citing doctrine.
For the cultist, it was marked primarily by giving information,
citing doctrine, self-disclosing and agreeing.
The cultist's level of participation increased from the
Beginning to the Snap, and over the three time periods as a whole.
He both produced more thoughts and accounted for a significantly
greater proportion of the overall conversation over these time
periods. This shift indicated an increment in Ken's active
involvement in the deprogramming; it was also reflective of
increased ideational activity (thinking).
The deprogrammers' level of participation remained fairly
constant throughout the deprogramming. The deprogrammers were
fairly consistent in their level of involvement and ideational
productivity.
The cultist increased his level of information-giving and
decreased his questioning from the Beginning to the Snap. Over all
three time periods, he agreed more, cited doctrine more, and gave
more information. Self disclosing and questioning decreased from
Beginning to End. Again, these shifts suggested increased
ideational activity.
The deprogrammers increased their self disclosing from the Snap
to the End, and over all three time periods as a whole. Their
level of information-giving decreased from Beginning to End.
The cultist's attention to cult-related material increased from
Beginning to the Snap, and over the deprogramming as a whole. His
degree off-cult focus did not change over time. His motility
decreased overall during these three time periods. The increase in
on-cult focus was related to Ken's increased critical thinking
about ISKCON doctrine. The decreased motility was related to a
shift in consciousness toward enhanced concentration.
All the participants in this deprogramming were more involved
with exchanging information than any other aspect of
conversation.
Summary of deprogramming process observations
Cognitive process. The cultist, Ken, entered the
deprogramming with many suppressed doubts, some missing
information, and some information that was present but was
interpreted in an ISKCON context. Initially, the information
presented to him had to do with the deprogramming process itself:
what to expect, who the deprogrammers were, what they intended to
do. In addition to having an affective impact (lowering his
anxiety about the immediate situation), the manner in which this
information was relayed contradicted ISKCON's statements about
deprogrammers. On a social-affiliative level, this information
served to decrease his anxiety and set the stage for growing
trust. On a cognitive level, the immediate violation of Ken's
expectations jarred his consciousness, and stimulated information
processing (Kahnemann, 1973).
Information processing and persuasion
As expected, the primary focus of the deprogramming was on
exchanging information both of an impersonal and a personal
nature. The content of the conversation reflected my impression
that the cognitive and social-affiliative realms were the ones in
which I saw the greatest activity. The development and maintenance
of interpersonal rapport seemed intimately connected with the
effective communication of information relevant to the cult.
Taken all together, the deprogrammers appeared to employ a
comprehensive persuasive strategy (Burgoon & Bettinghaus,
1980) in which they skillfully utilized: (a) objective evidence;
(b) a familiar message structure (e.g., common familiarity with
ISKCON philosophy terminology, and membership); (c) moderate
emotionalism; (d) rewards; and (e) language of relative low
intensity (with little confrontation).
Shifts in attention and consciousness. Ken's attention
tended to be more stable toward the end of the deprogramming; as
he stated, "flitting" tended to be his ideational (attentional)
style while in the cult. I was correct to predict a change in
attentional motility, although I predicted the wrong direction.
However, this finding did not contradict the correlation between
less motile attention (increased concentration) and higher levels
of information analysis, as reported by Neisser (1967), Norman
(1969) and Hochberg (1970). The overall increase over time in
Ken's ideational activity also supported this interpretation:
although they were not directly related, Ken demonstrated a trend
toward improved concentration concurrent with his trend toward
increased ideational activity (thought productivity).
The relationship between Ken's attentional motility and focus
(target) was interesting. His decreased attentional motility
(increased concentration) was correlated with the on-cult focus of
the deprogrammer(s); since most of the ISKCON-related content
offered by the deprogrammers disparaged the cult, this finding
indicated increased concentration on critical material.
However, Ken's ability to concentrate was significantly lessened
(his motility increased) when his thoughts were focused on-cult.
For Ken, ISKCON-related thoughts were in fact associated with the
"flitting" ideational activity he perceived as associated with
Krishna consciousness.
Ken's agreement to at least temporarily cease chanting his
rounds was another significant event in this deprogramming's
cognitive process. This action served to break the
thought-stopping cycle, thereby removing the most active barrier
to information processing. As an autohypnotic technique, chanting
may have also contributed to Ken's "flitting" state of
consciousness. By ceasing his daily "rounds," Ken facilitated a
change in attentional motility and an increase in information
processing, which thereby resulted in a shift in
consciousness.
Utilization of dissonance : As predicted by
deprogrammers I interviewed prior to Ken's deprogramming, Ken's
deprogrammers tended to ask him to reflect on his precult life.
Most deprogrammers and exit counselors have acknowledged the
importance of focusing on the cultist's personal history during
deconversion (Hassan, 1988). In Ken's deprogramming, these
requests tended to come most often from Steven Eisenberg, whose
background was most similar to Ken's. The request to reflect on
the past served to generate tension and to reconnect Ken with his
own internal fund of information that contradicted ISKCON. For
example, after Ken admitted to having cheated someone out of his
money, Steven asked him if "that [was] something you would
have done before you got involved" with ISKCON. When Ken replied
in the negative, Steven responded: "So that's something you picked
up from hanging around Krishnas...how to con, to cheat." This
question reminded Ken that he had violated his own ethical values
(the ideals that led him to ISKCON in the first place), which
generated a moderate level of anxiety, enhanced his listening and
motivated him toward change. The statement that immediately
followed also served to confirm Ken's suspicions that ISKCON
utilized an inverted moral system. Thus, Steven's statement served
to make internal information (previously stored and suppressed
memories) more salient.
The role of suggestion : I noticed a tendency to ask
Ken to verify certain pieces of critical information. In addition,
it seemed important for the deprogrammers to present Ken with
information he already knew, but was suppressing. To me, this
tactic seemed to add weight to the validity of the deprogrammers'
information and presented them as credible and honest individuals.
As the deprogramming progressed, the amount of new
information being presented to Ken seemed to increase; the
acceptability of this new information was enhanced by its temporal
association with past, more painstakingly verified
information.
Some of the statements made by the deprogrammers seemed
especially powerful; these tended to convey subtle suggestions for
change. For example, at one point Mark stated that "I don't mean
to be facetious, but I am being a little bit, because I think that
it's like, you wanna...not you, but Krishnas...I hear the same
raps all the time..." In stating "not you, but...Krishnas" Mark
seemed to be subtly suggesting to Ken that he was not a Krishna.
Subtle, embedded messages that distinguished between Ken and
ISKCON devotees (thereby implying that the two identities were
separate) occurred fairly often throughout the deprogramming.
Models of change
Cognitively, the deprogrammers very closely followed the model
mapped out by Dennis: The deprogrammers began with a critical
review of ISKCON's activities, comparing them to their claims.
Concurrently, they critiqued Prabhupada and the Governing Body
Commission, the council of gurus that formed the governing body of
ISKCON after the swami's death. The second day was devoted to a
more thorough critique of ISKCON doctrine as it was expressed and
practiced by ISKCON leaderships and devotees. Ken renounced ISKCON
that evening; the next day, the deprogrammers began the process of
educating Ken about coercive persuasion.
Social-affiliative process. Like most individuals
vulnerable to the social engineering that typifies destructive
cults, Ken was responsive to his interpersonal setting. From the
beginning, the deprogrammers treated him with honesty and
acceptance, which was contrary to his expectations. Ken found it
difficult (as did I) not to like the deprogrammers; they were
informed, articulate, interesting, very witty and highly
charismatic. Yet he had been told by ISKCON that deprogrammers
were worthy only of hate; liking both deprogrammers and ISKCON
leadership was inconsistent (Heider, 1958), generating an urge to
restore some kind of affiliative balance (by rejecting ISKCON).
The deprogrammers also immediately introduced the idea that they
took issue with Ken's Krishna practices, but not with Ken as a
person; they insisted on a demarcation between Ken's precult and
cult identities, accepting the former while challenging the
latter. This seemed to throw Ken off; he was expecting only to be
attacked, and in fact had become accustomed to deeply personal
attacks at the hands of his guru and other ISKCON leaders. The
fact that Ken was already deeply involved with his own internal
struggle between his precult and cult personalities was of
considerable help to the deprogrammers; the deprogramming served
to provide a powerful and ultimately deciding "push" toward
intensifying this ongoing conflict and making the precult
self-system more salient. By raising his anxiety moderately and
facilitating self-examination, the deprogrammers enhanced Ken's
need to affiliate (Festinger, 1954; Gerard & Rabbie, 1961). As
the deprogramming progressed, team members continued to be
generally accepting of Ken.
Violating expectations and counteracting social
manipulation
As their behavior continued to violate Ken's preconceptions,
the deprogrammers began to chip away at the motives and intentions
of the ISKCON devotees (e.g., his guru) with whom Ken felt the
most affiliation. A crucial phase in this process appeared to be
when Mark and Dennis utilized Ken's own letters to his guru, along
with the latter's replies. They made it clear that Ken's
relationship with his guru was a perversion both of the
father-son/teacher-student intimacy Ken was clearly missing in his
life, and of his own stated desire for an egalitarian and
spiritually-based love. Mark's quick introduction of Steven and
later introduction of Debbie utilized an established affiliative
pattern: We tend to affiliate fastest with others most like
ourselves (Schachter, 1959). I observed the fastest and earliest
bonding between Ken and Steven. They were from a similar
social-cultural, religious and demographic background, were not
too far apart in age, were both male (an important consideration
with Krishnas) and, of course, Steven had been an ISKCON devotee.
My analysis of individual deprogrammers' conversational style
tended to support Steven's central role as a bridge between Ken
and those deprogrammers to whom he was relatively dissimilar.
In general, I was surprised at how rarely the deprogrammers
engaged in personal confrontations of Ken. Some of the anecdotal
literature, including the more critical reviews (e.g., Barker,
1984; Beckford, 1985; Bromley, 1979; Bromley & Richardson,
1983; Levine, 1984) as well as friendly reports (e.g., Patrick
& Dulack, 1976), suggested that confrontation played a central
role in successful deprogrammings. Like the previous ones I had
observed, Ken's deprogramming lacked strong personal
confrontations.
Affiliative behavior can be increased by introducing moderate
levels of anxiety (Gerard & Rabbie, 1961). Charlie spoke of
the "management of tension" which involves a "very artful use of
confrontation." The deprogramming generated a certain level of
tension, and the cultist almost had to affiliate to obtain some
relief. Charlie noted that "the most successful deprogrammers have
a range...[they] use what's necessary" to generate
moderate levels of anxiety. The use of guilt, however, was
avoided. Instead, with Ken, the deprogrammers quickly sensed that
Ken had many suppressed doubts, and they constantly referred back
to these to generate tension.
Target of conversation and focus of group process. As a
unique form of group process, Ken's deprogramming had two distinct
modes differentiated by the target of conversation.
The "Formal Deprogramming" mode: Throughout the deprogramming,
there seemed to be some clear differences in the group process. In
the early deprogramming period (Days 1 and 2), the deprogramming
was clearly focused on Ken, with most conversation flowing to and
from Ken and the various deprogrammers present. During this
period, there were very few "lapses" into smaller, concurrent and
independent conversations. I have termed these periods the
"Cultist-focused" (CF) or Formal Deprogramming mode.
The "Casual Deprogramming" mode: Later, as the deprogrammers
became increasingly more convinced of Ken's decision to exit the
cult, the deprogrammers loosened up and the conversation flowed
more spontaneously. This loosening led to occasional subgroupings
of dyads and triads that talked amongst themselves, which allowed
for more one-to-one bonding.
Therapeutic relationship and counseling process. The goal
of any deprogramming is change, on both cognitive and behavioral
levels. All interactions between people involve influence and
change, but therapeutic relationships differ from other
interactions in discernable ways. Ken's deprogramming met the six
criteria of therapeutic relationships as summarized by Marmor
(1987):
Nature of the relationship : Ken's deprogramming was
contingent upon the establishment of rapport. His relationship
with the deprogrammers was (eventually) based on trust, empathy,
and the belief that they would be supportive. As Rogers (1987)
noted, decades of psychotherapy research has repeatedly
demonstrated the importance of empathy as a change agent in
therapeutic relationships, regardless of the therapist's school of
thought. In contrast to casual relationships, Ken was not expected
to return empathy and support to the deprogrammers.
Cognitive learning : A major goal of Ken's
deprogramming was the imparting of new information specifically
aimed at giving him "an intelligible, meaningful and rational
framework for understanding why and how his problem developed"
(Marmor, 1987, p. 269). A very significant portion of the
deprogramming's content consisted of suppressed information about
ISKCON, new information about totalism and theories of coercive
persuasion. By virtue of their goal-directed questions and
interpretations, the deprogrammers, like therapists, presented Ken
with a cognitive framework: His cult conversion was covertly
coerced.
Operant conditioning : Like all change-oriented
interactions, some of Ken's behaviors were approved while others
were disapproved. In this study, the amount of direct
reinforcement (as measured by the incidences of the DSC codes
"Agree" and "Disagree") was relatively minimal; however, the
incidence of less direct reinforcement was substantially
higher.
Modeling and identification : Social learning (the
modeling of appropriate coping strategies) is an important facet
of the therapeutic relationship. Psychoanalytically-oriented
therapists use the term "identification" to describe the tendency
of clients to begin to act, feel and think in ways that resemble
their analysts. For Ken, self disclosure was one behavior that was
repeatedly modeled. As the deprogramming progressed, Ken began to
identify with his deprogrammers. Half-way through the
deprogramming, he announced that he would be interested in
becoming a deprogrammer himself. (He eventually did, for about a
year.)
Suggestion and persuasion : Traditionally, counseling
relationships tend to be less directive than therapy
relationships; Ken's deprogramming involved a great deal of
persuasion and suggestion. Although there were few overt
directives (as measured by the DSC "Orienting" code), suggestions
tended to be ever present in the background; when they were overt,
they were often well-timed and highly incisive (as when Mark
suggested that Ken forgo chanting) if sparse.
Rehearsal and repetition : In therapy, rehearsing and
repeating new behaviors aimed at improved coping increase the
likelihood that they will replace maladaptive behaviors and helps
the client to be more confident. In Ken's deprogramming, the
deprogrammers often repeated key themes (e.g., ISKCON corruption,
comparisons between ISKCON and other totalistic movements) and the
deprogrammee was continually encouraged to think (e.g., to view
his ISKCON experiences from the deprogrammers' perspective),
interpret, explain, view alternatives and reminisce (e.g., about
his precult past).
What is deprogramming?
In Ken's case, deprogramming was characterized by three
overlapping change processes: a counseling-like, therapeutic
relationship (with social-affiliative, group and affective
components); a cognitive process (with information-processing and
consciousness components); and a communication process (with
conversational or discourse factors).
Deprogramming as a therapeutic relationship. Ken's
deprogramming satisfied most of the criteria used to define
"counseling;" in its directiveness and use of persuasion and
suggestion, however, Ken's deprogramming also resembled clinical
psychotherapy, as it has been traditionally defined. As Blackham
(1977, p. 11) noted, the aim of clinical psychotherapy has
traditionally been personality change, whereas counseling "tries
to help clients make choices." Clinical psychotherapists generally
work with severe behavior problems, whereas counselors work with
clients who are "experiencing educational, vocational, situational
and developmental problems." In counseling, the duration of
treatment tends to be shorter. Ken's deprogramming resembled
counseling in its emphasis on resolving a situational problem and
making a choice (exiting vs. remaining in ISKCON), and it
was clearly of short duration. Yet clearly Ken's "problem" could
be construed as a "severe behavior problem," although the
deprogrammers' stated goal of reawakening Ken's precult
personality did not constitute true "personality
change."
The inauguration of Ken's deprogramming was contingent upon the
deprogrammers establishing rapport with him; its ultimate success
depended on their ability to maintain their empathic stance. As a
distinctive form of counseling, Ken's deprogramming was also
marked by cognitive learning, operant conditioning, modeling
(identification), suggestion, persuasion, rehearsal and
repetition. Consistent with Zeig's (1987) report of trends in the
evolution of counseling and psychotherapy, Ken's deprogramming
utilized humor, and it emphasized mobilizing resources (i.e.,
critical thinking skills) rather than uncovering pathology. It was
client-specific (i.e., tailored to meet the needs of the client),
results-oriented and specialized, using informed
paraprofessionals.
As of this writing, most deprogrammers call themselves "exit
counselors." The engagement of "exit counselors" who may have
little or no formal graduate- or even college-level training (but
who have themselves "recovered" from destructive cultism, and
typically learn their craft by serving as "apprentices" to more
experienced exit counselors) seems analogous to the use of former
drug and alcohol addicts as "certified alcoholism counselors"
(CACs). In the case of CACs, many state certifying agencies have
multitiered certification processes that accept supervised
experience (i.e., apprenticeship) in lieu of formal training.
Deprogramming as "snapping:" Altering states of
consciousness. As I pointed out in Chapter II, deprogrammers
believe their clients were unduly influenced when they became
involved with cults. They employ theories of "mind control" to
justify their actions. With the possible exception of Lifton's
(1961) formulations, mind control models are based in varying
degrees on the belief that cult indoctrination induces altered
states of consciousness analogous to hypnosis. My own experience,
together with my conversations with deprogrammers and review of
the literature on cults, supported this concept.
There was a significant and quantifiable change in Ken's
attentional motility. Several years after proposing that the
cultic state of consciousness involves decreased motility, I
discovered anecdotal evidence that, at least in the case of the
ISKCON devotee, Krishna (cultic) consciousness may actually
involve increased attentional motility in the
form of ideational disorganization, "frenzy" and "flightiness."
(Although Hubner & Gruson, 1988, concentrated on ISKCON's
illegal activities and tended to portray the Krishna leadership
and many devotees as criminals, they did on occasion describe the
"frenzied" mentality of those who took their Krishna practices
seriously.) In addition, Singer (1979, p. 79), in describing the
tendency of her group therapy clients to "float" into and out of a
state of altered (cultic) consciousness, noted that "we often see
members float off [and] have difficulty concentrating."
During his deprogramming, Ken made one very telling remark about
his state of consciousness: He referred to his Krishna thinking
style as "flitting." This statement was consistent with Singer's
(1979) findings. As the deprogramming proceeded, Ken became more
focused, and his attentional motility decreased. The correlation
between Ken's decreased motility and the deprogrammers' increased
focus on cult-related material indicated that his enhanced
concentration was positively associated with critical thinking
about this material.
In addition, Ken's increased productivity and involvement in
the deprogramming implied increased ideational activity (thinking)
in general. On the other hand, Ken's assessed level of
"experiencing" increased during the snapping period, only to then
decrease toward the end of the deprogramming.
Thus, my study has provided limited support for the hypothesis
that Ken's deconversion involved an alteration of
consciousness.
Deprogramming as discourse. As a group process,
Ken's deprogramming was clearly change- and task-oriented (while
in the Formal Deprogramming mode). Since it required specialized
roles and had a clear agenda involving persuasion and change, it
was more than a conversation. Yet my content and process analysis
of this deprogramming suggests that it allowed for considerable
spontaneity, self-disclosure and give-and-take on everyone's part.
Hence, it contained many of the elements typically associated with
casual conversation.
I believe my study supports a conceptualization of
deprogramming, at least in Ken's case, as a specialized form of
discourse involving three characteristics:
Deprogramming as persuasive conversation : As a group
process, Ken's deprogramming had a clear and overt agenda:
persuading Ken to re-evaluate and forsake his membership in
ISKCON. The deprogrammers promised Ken that, if he gave them
enough time (one week) to present his case, he would be able to
make an informed choice about his membership in ISKCON. I have
known Mark to make and keep this promise in other cases, even when
the cultist decided to return to the group. Ken's deprogrammers
would have clearly interpreted a return to ISKCON as a "failed"
deprogramming, however. While allowing some choice, the
deprogrammers' bias was clearly stated to Ken: A rational
reappraisal of cult involvement inevitably leads to
deconversion.
Deprogramming as teaching : The single most prevalent
activity during this deprogramming was the imparting and
discussion of three specialized content areas: facts about ISKCON,
about destructive cults in general, and about "mind control."
Therefore, Ken's deprogramming was an educational activity in
which the deprogrammers served as instructors and Ken as an
informed student.
Deprogramming as moral discourse : The nature of the
information provided to Ken was heavily weighted, especially in
the first two days of the deprogramming, toward: (a) debunking
ISKCON philosophy by pointing out its inherent flaws and
contradictions (even when compared with traditional Hinduism); (b)
demonstrating that ISKCON leaders have intentionally distorted
known fact and therefore invalidated Ken's "Search for Truth;" (c)
providing clear and overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing and
violation of self-proclaimed ethical standards; (d) demonstrating
how ISKCON practices are anti-humanistic and therefore spiritually
bankrupt; (e) providing a clear rationale for interpreting the
behavior of ISKCON leadership as motivated by personal gain rather
than altruism. Therefore, Ken's deprogramming was largely
concerned with ethical, or moral discourse.
These three processes were both independent and interdependent,
and can be viewed as comprising a three-dimensional model of
deprogramming.
Communicative dimension. Ken's deprogramming could be
characterized as a specialized form of persuasive conversation,
with moral discourse, teaching and education being the primary
conversational activities. The contents of this conversation
primarily involved exchanging information and self-disclosing.
Cognitive dimension. Ken's deprogramming involved a
change in consciousness, marked by a shift in attentional motility
and increased ideational activity, especially at the time of
greatest decision-making (the "Snap"). The "Snap" was also
characterized by enhanced self-awareness and increased focus on
integration of personal experiences (experiencing). Overall, Ken's
deprogramming involved considerable intellectual activity
(information processing).
Social-affiliative dimension. Ken's deprogramming
involved a counseling-like therapeutic relationship with his
deprogrammers, based foremost on the establishment of rapport and
an interpersonal process based on empathy. As a small-group
process, this deprogramming had two distinct modes: a formal,
cultist-focused mode and a casual, subgroup-focused mode.
Deprogramming, coercive conversion and psychological
"doubling. " How do otherwise intelligent, articulate,
educated, and idealistic young people become fanatically devoted
to a movement that, according to its critics, is the very
antithesis of the idealism and humanism that inspired its members
to seek it out in the first place?
Deprogrammers believe their activities are the antithesis of
cultic "programming" and hypnotic-like states of consciousness. My
investigation of deprogramming has provided some support for the
theory that deprogramming involves altering consciousness. There
was clearly an increase in Ken's ideational activity, and a shift
in his ability to concentrate. There also was a discernable
snapping event, which on a qualitative level involved a moment of
intense decision-making and heightened realization, and on an
quantitative level involved enhanced integration of self-awareness
(experiencing).
Ken's spontaneous self-report during the deprogramming
suggested that the snap was a "reintegration" event, a dramatic
point when the two halves of Ken--his Krishna and his non-Krishna
selves--came together and were reunited. Yet Ken's shift in
consciousness seemed subtle. My findings seemed in need of a
theoretical framework that might explain what occurred during
Ken's deconversion in a more satisfying and complete manner. This
framework would also need to shed light on the process of cultic
conversion.
Doubling (Lifton, 1986) may be the process that Ken
experienced during and following his "conversion;" his
deprogramming seemed to be an "undoing" of that doubling. Doubling
helps explain the violent and antisocial behaviors of many ISKCON
leaders (Hubner & Gruson, 1988), and it seems to explain the
relative ease with which Ken, who had been a law-abiding student
prior to becoming a devotee, could commit crimes involving fraud
and theft and condone even worse among his peers and gurus. Ken
could commit fraud and "transcendental trickery" and his cult-self
did not feel guilty because the nature of "right" and "wrong" had
been redefined. In fact, doubling explains the irony of Ken's
guilty feelings when he felt like walking on a beach rather than
carrying out his leader's order to engage in fraud during
sankirtan.
Lifton's theory of doubling in large part subsumes his earlier
theory of thought reform, and it dovetails with dissociation
theories (including the neodissociation theory of hypnosis).
In Ken's deprogramming, the barrier between the precult self
and the cult "double" seemed to be removed, and the deprogrammee
began to feel "normal" guilt (his apology to his mother is an
example of the resurgence of normal guilt): His conscience was
reclaimed by his "old" self. In this study, doubling also permits
a reinterpretation of Ken's early denial of fraudulent activity
(he later admitted to numerous "cons"). Was he in fact "lying"
when he first denied committing fraud? Or was he telling the
truth, as the conscience of his double understood the meaning of
the "truth?"
ISKCON clearly distinguishes between the world of the
non-devotee (maya, the "world of illusion") and the world
of the devotee (Krishna consciousness); it also distinguishes
between the spiritually advanced devotee and the spiritually
bankrupt karmi. Moreover, ISKCON leaders have often
explained to devotees that it is morally and spiritually
acceptable to behave in less than "spiritual" ways in their
dealings in maya, and with karmi. This "splitting" of the
world and people into two distinct, polar opposites facilitates
the doubling process.
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1989). Deprogramming: An investigation of
change processes and shifts in attention and verbal
interactions. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. See also:
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1989). Deprogramming: A case study. Part I:
Personal observations of the group process [Special
issue]. Cultic Studies Journal, 6 (2).
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1990). Deprogramming: A case study. Part II: Conversation analysis. Cultic Studies Journal, 7, 174-216.
