Toward a new model of “cult control”

Toward a new model of "cult control" by Robert Vaughn
Young

Monday, February 21, 2000

(Preface: I am making this long post to ARS because I am stepping
away from this work and I want to get it into the hands of people
who study or are concerned with this issue. I do not know who has
taken this view. It is merely my perspective and opinion and can
certainly prompt debate, not to mention screams of horror from any
cult. I just want it to be seriously considered by the professionals
who deal with this. Others should be interviewed on it and the model
developed and tested. Nor do I think it is the only model. I merely
think it might help some who could not be helped before. I only
ask that someone provide a copy of this to whoever might be interested
in the issue of "cult control.")

After I left Scientology in 1989 with 21 years in the cult, the
hardest question people posed to me was why I stayed in it so long
if I knew it was such an abusive system. I didn’t have an answer
that satisfied me, let alone anyone else. I think I’ve come up with
a reply and a model. It at least satisfies me today.

My own background and basic interests also demanded an answer
to that question. I had a pursued and obtained a BA in philosophy
(from what was then known as San Francisco State College) because
of a strong interest in what we called philosophy of behavior/mind/psychology.
(The choice often depended on the school, as well as the emphasis
within the field.)

I was then accepted into the PhD program at the University of California
at Davis. I picked them because they had a strong program in this
new, growing field of study. (Twenty years later I discovered that
the field of "cognitive science" had emerged with entire
departments devoted to it and PhDs being granted at some universities.
Cognitive Science is a blend of philosophy, psychology and some
computer science, namely in the area of AI or artificial intelligence,
which was exactly what I was looking for. AI was posing new philosophical
problems but back in the late 1960s, departments had yet to integrate
them as full subjects.)

It was this interest of mine that prompted me to read Hubbard.
I was intrigued with elements of his philosophy, namely some of
the epistemological and cosmological presentations. Scientology’s
Dept 20/RTC and their attorneys (especially in my last deposition
in Tampa a couple of weeks ago) can’t grasp this. When they ask
why I got into Scientology, they make all sorts of assumptions,
from "personal improvement" to my wanting to join a religion.
No, I say, trying to explain, but it never sticks. For an "applied
religious philosophy" they haven’t a clue what "philosophy"
even means, let alone "religious philosophy." (They think
that a "religious philosophy" is a religion. Get a clue!)
But then, Hubbard didn’t understand it either, as I finally came
to learn.

Which brings it back to the issue of why I stayed. There was one
incident that happened in 1988 that I kept as my litmus test. I
knew if I could understand it, I could understand it all.

I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at "Golden
Era Studios" at Gilman Hot Springs CA. (For the sake of brevity,
let’s skip why I was there and the way it works and the like and
just cut to the chase. Besides, it’s irrelevant to the point I’m
making and I think I’ve written about it before.) My situation had
deteriorated to the point that I was afraid I was either going to
go crazy on the RPF or die so I escaped one night. They found me
at a motel in nearby Hemet and wanted to talk. I said
okay and the next thing I knew, I agreed to return to the "program"
and to finish the RPF. I did and was on it another 5-6 months (total
16 months) before "graduating."

Here is my litmus test. More than why did I stay in here, why did
I return if I felt it was so abusive that I escaped? And here’s
the kicker: they TALKED me back in. They didn’t lay a hand on me.
By just talking with me, they convinced me to give up what I had
planned for weeks and executed. They convinced me to go back to
the very condition that I feared would kill me. Why did I do it?

And this must be remembered: I can look back (11 years after fleeing)
and see that I was right to escape the RPF and wrong to return.
So why did I return and then stay?

Here’s where the "mind control" advocates might argue
their point. After all, isn’t this what "mind control"
is all about where I was "controlled" to do something
that was inherently against my will?

Or the "brainwashing" school might give their explanation
from that perspective. After 21 years in the cult, they might say,
I was "conditioned" and like some "Manchurian Candidate"
or Pavlovian dog, someone merely rang some bell or pushed a button
and I complied.

I never bought either model. As I tried to understand, I read
some articles by "experts" on the subject of "cult
control" but they just didn’t fit. It was like putting on an
expensive but oversized coat that hung off the fingertips and draped
across me like a double-breasted. Yeah, it was a "coat"
and the "label" was impressive but?

I wondered if it was me. Maybe I resented the idea that I had
been "brainwashed" or there was "mind control"
and so that was why I didn’t like the theories. I found myself in
an amusing situation where I was agreeing with the cult that the
models didn’t work but there was still SOMEthing, some point of
control. Why was I talked back into a situation that I detested
and that I could look back on years later and agree, yes, something
else was at work. There WAS some sort of "control" but
"mind control"? It didn’t work.

It wasn’t until my first trip to Wellspring that I found the model
that worked for me. It had nothing to do with them. It was some
books that were on their shelves that I was reading in my spare
time that let me realize the model that worked for me: the battered
or abused woman. The idea didn’t take hold fully then. It took further
reading (including some on the Web) some months later to bring it
together.

Various "experts" can (and do) argue if "mind control"
or "brainwashing" really exists or if we are just talking
about various forms of "influence" that is found in everything
from advertising to conversations. But they can’t argue with the
fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in abusive situations
and there are women who flee and when found by the husband are talked
BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape and then it
repeats.

Until a very few years ago, our society didn’t even ADMIT to these
women, let alone try to help them or try to understand the phenomenon.
Being the male-dominated society we are, it was even legal in many
states for a husband to hit his wife, and may still be. If a woman
went to the police, they simply called the husband. But now women
are stepping forward and it isn’t easy. It is like being a rape
victim and speaking out. It takes courage and it took some women
to force this issue on our (American) male-dominated society and
MAKE it an issue. That is why it is a new issue. It is not that
it hasn’t existed. It has undoubtedly existed for as long as there
have been men and women but - like civil rights and other issues
- it took some "victims" FORCING the issue before anyone
even admitted that it existed.

The first time I saw the parallel between my own experiences in
the cult of Scientology and battered women was when I was reading
"Captive Hearts, Captive Minds," which is an excellent
book. It was in the Intro or maybe the first chapter that they cited
and quoted the singer Tina Turner who had been in an abusive relationship
for something like 10 or 15 years. She remarked how being with Ike
Turner was like being in a small cult. The remark jumped off the
page at me. Given the success of Tina Turner as an entertainer,
one is not prone to say she is a stupid woman but there she was
in a marriage where she was beaten constantly and yet she stayed.
When she finally escaped, as she tells her story, it was after a
beating that left her head so swollen that she couldn’t put on a
wig. She wrapped her head in a scarf and fled, taking no money or
anything and finally got away from Ike Turner.

One wonders how often she has been asked since, "Tina, you’re
such a talented woman, so intelligent, how could you stay with a
man for 10/15 years who was beating you?" Maybe she has an
answer in her autobiography. I don’t know. It is on my to-read list.
But I know she was asked that question. Every woman who escapes
a man who has been beating them must get that question and it is
probably the hardest one in the world to answer. After all, it’s
not that you don’t KNOW you’re getting beaten. And it didn’t happen
just once. Nor twice. It happens week after week, month after month,
year after year.

Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for
example, and she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to
the store, buys food, and brings it home, to the very place where
she is being beaten and she makes dinner. She doesn’t keep driving.
SHE COMES BACK. To what? More abuse.

There are also plenty of cases where the women DID escape, where
they finally got up their courage and maybe grabbing the kids, they
fled and the man managed to find them. Then, with no physical abuse,
he TALKED HER BACK. And then when the abuse started again, she stayed.
Some leave, but some stay.

When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and
these women, I went back and re-read Lifton’s 10 or however many
points that he makes for his model and I realized that it was based
on studying prisoners of war! That was hardly a secret but when
he and others were making their models of "mind control"
or "brainwashing" or however you call it, battered women
weren’t even a subject which, for me, was a telling difference.
After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to go
back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed
to go into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where
they were abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model
breaks down and where the model of the abused or battered woman
takes over.

Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled
my situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were
able to cross into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions
in East Berlin were as bad as we were being told in the West, how
could they step into the West, see the difference, buy the things
they didn’t have back home and then return? I don’t cite this as
an exact parallel, but there is a similarity. Why would a person
go BACK to a condition that is worse? I don’t think "mind control"
or "brainwashing" fits that situation any more than it
fits the abused woman or that it fit mine.

One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I
mentioned the East German parallel and the person made an excellent
point. "East Germany was their home," she said. "People
don’t easily leave their homes unless they have someplace better
to go."

And that nearly tied the two together for me, as well as back into
my situation. Where can the abused woman go? Can she just take off
for nowhere? I don’t know. I do know that when I escaped the RPF,
I didn’t have anywhere to GO, which was why I went to a motel. (There
was another reason but it is somewhat immaterial for this point.)
When Stacy and I successfully fled in 1989, we were in the same
bind. We didn’t have anyplace to GO. We knew that the cult had the
names and addresses and phone numbers of every single family member
and friend. If nothing else, our mail had been monitored and read
for years and there is no doubt in my mind that the already-existing
list was expanded from that monitoring. (Their excuse for opening
and reading all mail that comes to staff at the org is to watch
for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are then
pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)

Knowing that they had such a list, we knew we could not go to any
of those people so we just hit the road and drove. I had already
been talked back in once. And there was one other time when I tried
to escape and got as far as the gate and was talked back. So that
was one thing I knew I had to avoid. I had to get enough space and
time to get my own wits about me to fend off another attempt, if
they could find us.

That is also why I believe cult members have to escape in secret:
they are afraid they will be talked back in or convinced to stay.
I know what that feels like.

After I began to apply the abused or battered woman model (for
want of better words) to my own situation, I had an inadvertent
and unintentional opportunity to test it and I will never forget
the experience. I was back on Vashon Island, sometime in 1999, where
I had been living. (For those who don’t know, Vashon is an island
in Puget Sound.) Vashon is an incredibly unique community. When
you live there, you are an "islander" and it grants you
a number of unstated privileges. It took me a long time to realize
what it reminded me of. It is what the Old West (in the US) used
to be like. A person was accepted for who they said they were until
they proved otherwise. You answered to the locals, not outsiders.
That was how Vashon islanders lived.

There were two bars on the island, across the street from each
other. One of them was where the "kids" and off-islanders
hung out. It had a pool table and a big screen TV for watching games.
The other was quiet, sedate and for the "old timers" who
knew each other and everything that was happening on the island.
Even if you were new on the island, by the time you visited, they
knew you and more than you imagined. It was the sort of place where
you could sit down, have a beer and catch up on the local gossip.
Any visitors to the island looking for a place to hang out would
stick their heads in and then leave and choose the one across the
street, leaving us to our own rhythm. It was also a place where
you could just sit and if you wanted to be alone, you were left
alone. It was that sort of place.

One night I went in, getting the usual hi’s and nods and maybe
a slap on the back or giving one in return. ‘Hey, where ya been!"
someone asked. "Oh, hanging around," I answered. Such
a reply would be enough. If I wanted to say more, I would. No one
would pry. I pulled up a bar stool, ordered a beer and sat watching
ESPN. It was the only acceptable station because one could watch
it with no sound, and it was kept at no sound so people could play
the juke box if they wanted.

I was there relaxing for about 15 minutes when a woman sat down
next to me. More out of reflex than anything else, I turned and
looked and nodded and she nodded back. Then I went back to the TV
to watch how the Mariners were doing. The barkeep said hi to her
in a way that meant she was a local.

After a couple of minutes she spoke up. "You’re the one they’ve
been picketing, aren’t you?"

I turned to her. She was sipping on her beer. She was maybe 45
and dressed as islanders dress. (Nine times out of ten, you can
spot an off-islander by their attire.) She was clearly a local,
although I didn’t recognize her. That was easy enough on this island.
"Yeah," I said.

"How’s it going? They still doing it?"

No, I said, it’s been quiet lately. She told me how she thought
it was terrible, how they come onto the island like that. It’s not
how islanders behave, she said. Yeah, I replied with a shrug. They
just don’t get it.

"I saw you on the ‘Dateline’ show," she said. I nodded
as she remarked some more about it. Finally she asked the question.
"So how long were you in Scientology?"

"About 21 years," I said.

"Wow," she said actually surprised. "If it really
is as bad as I hear, how could you stay in it that long?"

There it was, that same question. Well, this time I had a new answer.

"I guess that’s like asking an abused women why she stayed
in that relationship for so long when?"

She suddenly turned to me and raised her hands in front of her,
one of those "halt" motions and said, "Say no more!
I just ended an abusive marriage of 12 years. I know exactly what
you are talking about."

And right there, we became friends. We had something in common.

We exchanged a few more words on the subject of coming to one’s
senses and then the entire subject was dropped. Neither of us were
interested in it. We each understood the other fully and spent the
next hour talking about the island, the Mariners and other pleasantries
of life until she finally paid her bill and got off the stool, shook
my hand, wished me well and said she’d tell her friends about us.

After she left and in the year since, I’ve thought about that conversation
many times, how there was an instant connection by her, an immediate
recognition. She never said how long it had been since she ended
the marriage but it had probably been long enough to be asked the
same question that she found herself asking me. But it was by an
incredibly stroke of luck that the first person I said that to happened
to be a women who escaped from an abusive relationship. It could
have been someone who would have let me finish my statement and
said, "You know, I’ve never understood that either," but
it wasn’t. It was a woman who said, say no more, I know exactly
what you’re talking about. And she did. Our situations were entirely
different but they were the same.

After that I realized that for the first time I had a model that
I could use in the most difficult situations and the understanding
would be based on that person’s grasp of the situation of the abused
woman. With this model/analogy, I could go on the "Oprah"
show and with that response she would get it, as would millions
of women watching the show. Nothing else would be needed. There
wouldn’t have to be arguments about "mind control" or
"brainwashing" and if it really exists. Abused women exist
and whatever keeps them there or brings them back, it happens. That
fact cannot be denied.

Now that I’ve made my point, let me expand it. In my opinion, this
model/analogy extends much further than the control of a cult. I
think it can be found in jobs where the person feels trapped and
wants to leave but can’t. There might be a difference that the "boss"
may not try to talk them back, but I think this model/analogy goes
farther than merely cults and abused women. That would be up to
others to pursue. My point is that I’m not targeting Scientology.
The model worked for me in my situation and I think it would help
others who have had difficulty understanding the "control"
they felt. It helped me because it lifted out of the subjects of
"mind control" and "brainwashing" and told me
that it was not exclusive to the cult. In turn, I understood - or
at least sympathized - with the plight of the abused woman. I no
longer wondered why they stayed or returned. I didn’t have an answer,
but I was no longer puzzled.

At my last deposition in Tampa, there was a point where this came
up. I don’t recall what it was but I was asked something that prompted
me to say that I thought the abused woman syndrome was a good model
for what I had experienced. Of course, there were the guffaws and
laughs of severe denial from their part. It is to be expected from
the abusers, isn’t it? No abusive husband admits to it and no abusive
cult will either and for the same reasons.

Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.

No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are
that if the guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn’t
be a second one. No, the abusive relationship starts with sweetness.
When I was reading about abusive relationships, that came up constantly,
how the guy was so nice and sweet. No, the abuse is gradual. It
starts with some criticism and when the woman accepts it, then there
is a little bit more. When she accepts that, the man does more as
he introduces CONTROL. If she protests, he backs off until he can
reestablish the control. It is called a GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists
will be familiar with that word.) The woman comes to accept more
and more and becomes convinced that it is something SHE is doing
wrong. As it is increased, the sweetness tapers off until it is
finally dangled in front of her like a carrot. Somewhere along the
line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too hard, he is sweet
and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back under
control. That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists
know well. Hubbard even had his own definition for it and processing
addressing control.) Then one day the beatings are regular and she
loses her self-respect and dignity.

Let me draw another parallel to my own situation. I mentioned
in one of my other posts to ARS that I am making with this one about
the woman who asked me if there was anything anyone could have said
to me to change my mind while I was in Scientology. No one had asked
me that and I realized - and told her - that no, there was nothing
anyone could have said.

That happens with the abused woman too. I read how they would later
recount the advice of friends who kept telling them that their husband/lover
was abusing them and that they should leave. I don’t recall any
who said, you know, you’re right! I’m going to leave him! No, they
explained the abuse! They would say - actually believing it, until
they finally escaped - that he was really a nice guy, that he was
misunderstood, that he was trying, that they would work things out,
etc., etc., etc.

You know who usually changes the woman’s mind? The abuser. Those
who flee - like Tina Turner - simply say one day, I’ve had enough,
and escape. Some do it sooner. Some later. Until that moment, they
rationalize their situation. Friends or family might be able to
intervene but not in the hard core cases. In those instances, the
abuser is the only one who can change the person’s mind.

Until then money and resources are also a factor. People stay in
abusive situations because they have no money or anywhere else to
go. Maybe if the abused woman had $100,000 in the bank she would
have given him the finger and taken off long before. But what abuser
would allow the woman to keep that money for herself? (I have yet
to learn of a Sea Organization member who escaped with ample personal
resources. The amount of money one has on joining - if any - is
quickly discovered and one is convinced to spend it on the cult,
thus effectively wiping out any resources.) These are the points
that have to be researched to understand this phenomenon and to
offer help.

Meanwhile you might ask, how can a person rationalize a beating?
Good question indeed. If the plight of the abused women had been
known longer than it has, maybe we would have a better understanding.
Each woman will have her own answer but until we get a grasp of
it the fact remains that it exists and there are some disturbing
parallels between them and cult members. I wasn’t "abused"
when I joined. It was like the "love bombing" found in
another cult. Everything is wonderful and the future is bright and
this is the place to be. Then one day, there is a little "correction."
If one balks, one is talked through it gently until it is grasped
and one is willing to accept it. The next one is attached to that
one. ("Remember how well we did last time when you were able
to understand it and you had a win?") And the next until one
day you find yourself working 12 hours a day at hard labor, under
guard, seven days a week, unable to talk to friends and family,
your body racked in pain and undergoing constant interrogation to
give up your "crimes" and you accept it as necessary for
your own "rehabilitation." And if you try to escape and
they catch you, you can be talked back to the very same situation
and you convince yourself that this is right as you haul the next
load of rocks out in 110 degree heat and a blazing sun for $5 a
week. It is all part of your "rehabilitation."

No, when people asked me how I could stay for so long when I knew
it was abusive, that’s a loaded question. I didn’t know it any more
than the abused woman knew it. I kept telling myself that they really
are okay, that it must be my fault, that it is being done to help
me and things really will get better. I carried that attitude right
into the RPF until one day I broke and decided to escape. Then they
talked me back and I was convinced that it would get better. All
they did was back up the gradient to where I would accept the control.

That is another place where I find that the "mind control/brainwashing"
models break down. It is crucial in cult control that the person
feel in control and in fact IS "in control." One is always
making the decision to stay. To that degree, it is "consensual."
But how "consensual" is the abused woman? Just because
she has the freedom to drive to the store and back and no one is
keeping her in chains, does that mean she is "consenting"
to her situation? Can the husband argue that he isn’t "controlling"
her because she has that freedom? Then what IS "consent"?
That may be a legal quandary as much as a psychological one but
I don’t think we are ready to walk away from the woman being beaten,
saying she is "consenting to it," are we?

Thanks to video cameras, we can watch shows like "Cops"
where the police are called out to a real life "domestic disturbance."
If you have watched that show enough, you finally saw the all-to-familiar
scene of the woman with a bloody nose who has clearly been beaten
(the cops were called by neighbors hearing the fight) and is standing
there explaining it all away, insisting that the police take no
action. No, she’s fine, she says. No, it’s nothing. To the questions
from the police about the bloody nose or the swelling around the
eyes, she’ll say anything but the facts, that he was beating her.
Do we need more evidence? There are the very people - the police
- who can take him off to jail and end the abuse if she will simply
speak up and she refuses while wiping the blood from her nose or
pulling the torn clothing up around her shoulder and telling them
that everything is okay. Of course, the police cannot legally intervene
unless she complains and she will not.

Now let me make a harrowing admission. If the police had shown
up that day when I was at the motel trying to escape, when the security
guards were parked outside to make sure I didn’t disappear on them,
and if the police had asked me if everything was okay or if I needed
any help, do you know what I would have said and done? The same
thing as that woman. No, it’s fine, I would have said. I’ll handle
it. It stuns me to think it, let alone say it right now, but that
is the truth. That is exactly what I would have done. And do you
know why? Because I didn’t want to be in trouble with the cult.
If you can figure that one out, give it to the experts.

That is why people who flee the cult - even into the arms of the
authorities - can be talked back. They can no more say "help
me" than the woman standing there with a bloody nose can tell
the police. Give them a few days rest and time to get their wits
about them and maybe they can. That is why those first few hours
or days are crucial. The more time the person gets away from the
person suppressing them, the more they recover their own sense of
self. That, of course, infuriates the abuser, until he/they finally
give up and look for their next victim. Meanwhile, some degree of
control remains until the person finally sheds it.

And don’t think that all abused women are abused physically. The
abuse might be merely verbal, with other controls like control of
money, sleep, clothing, friends, beliefs, free time etc. (Gee, sound
familiar?)

Now if one were interested in studying the "abused woman"
syndrome, who would one study? This may sound like a ridiculous
question but it goes to a point the cult is making.

First of all, one has to decide if such women exist. (This may
sound like I’m contradicting myself but hang on.) How does one decide?
The obvious answer would seem to be the stories of women themselves.
But can we believe them? Maybe they are making it up. So let’s ignore
them for the moment and go to marriages/relationships and ask the
women, are you abused? Let’s ask the men, are you abusing this woman?
What sort of answer will we get? Done in this way, we can conclusively
"prove" that there are no abused women because all of
the women - including the ones with the bloody noses - will deny
it as will the men. Case closed. No woman is abused.

That is exactly what the cult is doing. They are saying that those
who have left and claim abuse are "apostates" (one who
has abandoned one’s belief or cause) and can’t be believed. (They
even paid some "experts" to "conclude" this.)
Meanwhile, they will suggest, all you have to do is ask Scientologists
if they feel abused. In fact, you can even go into the RPF and ask
and chances are (unless there is one rocky one who will be quickly
stashed somewhere else) they will respond to the man and woman that
they are not being abused. Case closed. No one is abused.

In other words, as long as we listen to someone who has abandoned
a belief or a cause (from a marriage to a "religion")
cannot be believed.

And that is one of the reasons why abused women were not believed
until just a few years ago. Think on that. Women have been abused
for thousands of years and it wasn’t until a few years ago that
it was even admitted that it happened and that something should
be done about it. How many women went to the police and were turned
away or were killed or destroyed before someone believed them? How
many have simply fled and disappeared and are still too ashamed
to talk, preferring to just live quiet lives where they can choose
their own friends, have their own bank accounts, pick their own
meals, select their own clothes, keep private diaries and not have
to answer or explain themselves again? Can anyone imagine what a
joy that is to a person whose life was controlled down to the point
of what it was they could say or believe, where their very thoughts
and opinions were monitored, that they can now forget it? How many
women are out there? Compare that to how many go to the authorities
or champion the cause of abused women and take it to the media and
the courts. How many of THOSE are there? Three? Five? Ten? Should
these "apostates" be believed?

How many ex-cult members are there? How many have of them have
spoken out? Three? Five? Ten? Should these "apostates"
be believed?

I think there are many, many reasons to draw a parallel between
the two groups not only in their situation but in those who speak
out and I hope that this might spark some interest within some professional
circle. I’m no more an "expert" on sociological parallels
than that woman with the bloody nose is an expert but we do have
a level of understanding.

Robert Vaughn Young
2/22/00
copyright (c) Robert Vaughn Young
all rights reserved