1 / 18

CREDIBILITY ATTACKS AGAINST FORMER CULT MEMBERS by Stephen A. Kent FECRIS 2011, WARSAW

CREDIBILITY ATTACKS AGAINST FORMER CULT MEMBERS by Stephen A. Kent FECRIS 2011, WARSAW. 1. FORCED DECONVERTS : a. Began with 1970s deprogrammings . b. group denunciations at the end of the deprogramming as signed statements or press conferences . .

kezia
Download Presentation

CREDIBILITY ATTACKS AGAINST FORMER CULT MEMBERS by Stephen A. Kent FECRIS 2011, WARSAW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CREDIBILITY ATTACKS AGAINST FORMER CULT MEMBERSby Stephen A. KentFECRIS 2011, WARSAW

  2. 1. FORCED DECONVERTS:a. Began with 1970s deprogrammings.b. group denunciations at the end of the deprogramming as signedstatements or press conferences.

  3. Sociologists’ reactions:a. developed non-coercive conversion modelsb. asserted that deprogrammings caused trauma, not cult involvement

  4. 2. RETURNEES:a. deprogrammed/exit counseled; denounced group; then rejoinedb. called into question the integrity of the denunciations

  5. Academics’ reactions:a. deprogrammed—most critical exit counseled—somewhat critical voluntary—least criticalb. all former member accounts are untrustworthy ‘atrocity tales’

  6. 3. DELUSIONAL ALLEGED FORMER MEMBERSMentally ill; never belonged, but probably believed that they had.

  7. 3-PART (INADEQUATE) TESTA) told the same story consistentlyB) Experts confirmed that such things did happenC.) Had good character references

  8. PROBLEM: CONSISTENCY, PLAUSIBILITY, AND A CONVINCING CHARATER DO NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF HISTORICAL EVENTS.

  9. 4. CON ARTISTSa. Never belonged, and know it. b. Lie for money/power/famec. Religious, well-intentioned people most vulnerable

  10. 5. SPIES:a. Still belong, but pretend that they don’t. b. Espionage, theft, possibly subversion c. Be kind to a caught spy—some do deconvert

  11. 6. EX-MEMBERS WITH ‘HISTORIES’:a. Want to become spokespersons against their former groups b. May have done/said things that groups will throw back at them c. Anti-cult groups must help these people make best decisions for themselves

  12. 7. PROFESSIONAL FORMER MEMBER ANTI-CULTISTS:a. Become expert witnesses, authors, exit counselors, anti-cult organizational staff, etc. b. Tough positions to maintain: little money; one’s information likely becomes datedc. Must resist the impulse to embellish/overstate/perjure

  13. 8. FORMER MEMBERS WHO BECOME PROFESSIONALS:a. Can be very effective critics because they have professional credentialsb. Credentials, however, are no necessary guarantee of producing, objective, critical work

  14. 9. CONCLUSION:a. Blanket rejection of former members’ testimony is ideological—worse than bad science b. Triangulate—try to get similar information from multiple sourcesc. What happened to anti-cult groups in North America likely will repeat (is repeating) in Europed. Bottom line—former members are valuable assets; just be careful

More Related