We’d like to thank audible for supporting PBS.
On November 18th 1978,
over 900 members of the People’s Temple
committed mass suicide at the Jonestown commune in Guyana.
Under the paranoid leadership of Jim Jones,
the members (including approximately 300 children)
drank cyanide laced juice.
Jonestown had long been under scrutiny from Guyanese and American officials
for their coercive tactics and misdeeds.
Members of the People’s Temple reported being separated from their families,
having their earnings and homes seized by the church,
and being subjected to brutal physical violence.
Members also murdered Congressman Leo Ryan
and three reporters who had arrived at the colony to question
whether its American ex-pat members were being abused or held against their will.
Orchestrating one of the most deadly mass suicides in history,
Jones’story of abuse, mind control and violence
lives on in infamy in our collective consciousness.
While stories like the massacre at Jonestown
represent the most extreme outcome of cult indoctrination,
revisiting the story did get me wondering:
when did our culture become so obsessed with
ferreting out information about cults?
And how did we start distinguishing them from religions,
or any other type of self selecting group with a shared interest?
Before it was a word that slipped into the lingua franca to ubiquitously describe any organization
with a shady agenda and blissed out followers who have “seen the light”,
cults were one of the big fears of the late 1960s to early 1990s.
So how did these groups exit the shadows and enter center stage?
So to get things started we should first establish
how people who study the structure and psychology of cults
tend to define these organizations:
First at the top of the food chain is a charismatic leader
who is infallible to their followers
and cannot be judged negatively for any of their actions.
Their word is the law and organizing backbone of the group.
Second are members who are drawn in with promises of community,
clarity about life’s larger questions and spiritual fellowship
eventually finding themselves under the leader’s complete control.
Members of the organization
can range from the die hard faithful to the less committed
and slowly integrated newbies.
Members can move up the organization
to have greater access to the benefits bestowed on them by the leader.
And third, there are members who remain loyal to the group
eventually align their personality and their sense of self
with the leader and with the organization as a whole.
These are just a rough outline
of what I’ve culled from psychologists’ reports,
and you’re right to wonder if all of this sounds a bit too amorphous to pin down.
Because while most of the cults that
enter into the public consciousness are violent or dangerous,
not EVERY cult is.
The ones that are the most dangerous are ones
where there is some element of coercion or control.
This can include requiring members to turn over their bank account information,
making them sell their homes and move into a shared compounds,
or submitting them to psychological and physical violence.
But the other listed traits
can actually be applied to a super wide range of organizations,
including some traditionally accepted and recognized religions.
Because lots of religions have an infallible leader,
make promises of a faith based community,
and encourage you to enmesh your personality with that of the larger group.
So the biggest way that people differentiate between cults and religions
is usually based on size.
Have 3 million followers world wide? Religion.
Have 15 folks who gather every night in a basement in the middle of nowhere? Cult.
And it is also precisely their small numbers,
their sometimes secretive mythologies
and their underground (but hidden in plain sight) methods
that drove the public fascination with and fear of cults.
And as more and more stories began to crop up in the news,
cults — as a great secret threat —
became a disproportionate fixation in the latter half of the 20th century.
One of the earliest observers of the cult indoctrination process
(which later became more popularly known as “brainwashing”)
was Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer.
Dr. Singer started studying mind control techniques in the 1950s
by interviewing American prisoners of war
who were captured during the Korean War
and manipulated or tortured.
She later expanded her work to include studies of homegrown cults,
publishing numerous articles and books on her findings.
But her contributions to the field of psychology and therapy
weren’t without controversy.
Dr. Singer came to prominence in the case of heiress Patty Hearst,
who in 1974 was kidnapped
by a group called the Symbionese Liberation Army.
Hearst later participated an armed bank robbery with other members of the group.
Not everyone agreed with Singer’s interviews
that Hearst was held against her will
and effectively not responsible for her actions
because she had been “brainwashed”
and turned into a “zombie” through repeated torture by SLA members,
who threatened her with death if she did not join their cause.
The testimony ultimately proved unsuccessful
and Hearst was convicted and sentenced to 7 years in prison.
But thanks to Dr. Singer,
the concept that someone could have their mind altered
by either a persuasive leader or by good old fashioned groupthink
was now at the forefront of everyone’s minds.
And related images were splashed across TV screens around the world,
like Hearst wielding machine guns,
or members of the Manson family after they were arrested in 1969
for murdering 5 people in an attempt to start a race war
engineered by their leader Charles Manson.
Soon other high profile cases of cult abuse
started to fire across the country.
Some of the accusations ranged widely,
like the financial fraud and tax evasion of The Unification Church
founded in 1954 by Sun Myong Moon.
Then there were more violent crimes
such as kidnapping and drugging children
like in the case of Australian cult leader Anne Hamilton-Byrne,
the head of a group called “The Family”.
But in other cases the only accusation that arose against a “cult” was that
they were a slightly odd but ultimately harmless organization.
But it was also the climate of the 1970s
that made fear of cults and cult like behavior reach an all time high,
propelled in part by mainstream backlash to emerging countercultures.
(If you want a run down on all of the emerging conflicts of the 1960s
check out our “Revolutionary 1960s” playlist when you’re done with this video).
As people began to push back on the dominant culture
and its conservative values in favor of principles like equality, revolution, and rebellion,
支持诸如平等 革命 反抗等保守的价值观
cults permeated the same conversations.
Because some of the behavior patterns of these 1970s cults
were also similar or identical to other (benign and legitimate) countercultural groups.
Living on self sustaining farms,
simplifying your lifestyle, caring collectively for your neighbor,
giving away your worldly possessions
and committing to communal living
were often a big part of the rhetoric of counter culture groups
that actually did a lot to promote positive community outcomes.
For example the Black Panther Party,
established free lunch programs and medical clinics in black communities.
Also non-religious communes sprung up around the US
at an all time high in the 1960s and 70s.
Historian Timothy Miller notes that
one of the trickiest things about studying communes
is estimating exactly how many people were even staying on them at any given time.
Similarly it’s difficult to pin down hard numbers on cults,
in part because of their secrecy
and in part because we can never truly agree
on the same running definition of what a cult is.
Despite not being able to pin down the exact number of people
who lived at a commune at some point during these decades,
in the broader public,
commune members were often branded as
fringe oddballs who had peeled off from the rest of society.
Well that’s because there was some overlap in the two categories.
So from the outside looking in it was hard to say
if your 3rd cousin had gone to plant organic fruits on a farm
or if they were being indoctrinated into a more sinister off the grid enterprise.
So Americans were already uneasy about people
ditching mainstream society to seek a higher purpose in seclusion.
And coupled with that were these high profile cases of cult led murders and abuse
which often times took place on communes, like Jonestown.
The result: a panic that cult enrollment was on the rise.
Additionally psychologists and psychiatrists who were looking to help cult members
often coordinated with bereaved family members
to make emotional appeals to the media
for the safe return of their indoctrinated children.
So “Deprogramming” became the b-side to “brainwashing.”
It was posited as a way to help integrate former cult members back into society
and to reorder their thought processes after they were free from cult control.
But even these methods proved to be very controversial.
In her 2009 TED talk,
author and former member of the Unification Church Diane Benscoter
notes how she joined the group when she was 17
and remained a member for several years
before her family intervened and had her deprogrammed.
After that she became a “deprogrammer” herself for 5 years.
在那之后 她作为一个解洗脑人 工作了5年
Most her cases were “involuntary”
meaning that family members took the member of the cult away from the group
and they were isolated in “safe places” for about a week.
Which may sound a lot like kidnapping.
Because it kind of was kidnapping with a cause.
Benscoter notes that she actually was arrested for kidnapping
which led her to turn away from the work.
So the same way that were used to bring someone into a cult
could also shake them loose and have the deprogrammer arrested.
By the end of the 1970s
the surge of communal living that had swept the nation in the previous decades was on the decline.
And as the 1980s wound its way towards the 1990s,
the bubble of interest in cults as the great secret threat to our society
started to plateau and finally subside.
In 1983 a group of psychologists
under the direction of the American Psychological Association and led by Dr. Singer
made recommendations for the treatment and study of mind control techniques.
But the study’s findings were rejected by the APA
who questioned the rigor of the research
leading Dr. Singer to later unsuccessfully sue them.
Also some churches and organizations began to say that
describing their groups as cults was libelous
and violated their religious freedom.
And so amidst internal disputes over recognition and validity and a flurry of lawsuits
the public interest in real world cults as an ever present threat declined.
But even though the idea of cults taking over society
became more of an abstract idea
than a pressing fear by the 21st century,
fascination with these shadowy organizations persists in popular culture today.
I’d take an educated guess and say that after studying the historical antecedents,
our continued curiosity about cults stems from a few different impulses:
First, the stories of Jonestown, Patty Hearst, Charles Manson,
首先 关于琼斯镇 帕特·赫斯特 查尔斯·曼森
and others may be history but they’re not ancient history.
So we’re far enough away from the stories to observe them
and be frightened by them,
but still close enough to have living memories of when these things occurred.
Those who survived the communities or participated in them are still alive
and still giving their testimony to the rest of the world via the media.
Second, the question of cults is usually
“could it also be me?
Am I also potentially susceptible to mind control?”
And no one really knows the answer to that.
We’d all like to imagine that we’re independent minded,
strong willed, and impervious to deception.
But the stories of cult members are (usually)
relatively identical to our own.
And that’s part of why we can’t look away.
We’d like to thank audible for supporting PBS,
audible selections of audio books,
including audible ORIGINALS,
audio titles created by storytellers from all around the world.
for example, The Queen, the autobiography of the late great Aretha Franklin,
or text “ORIGINOFEVERYTHING” to 500 500 to learn more,
或者编辑短信“溯本求源”到500 500 了解更多内容
numbers on the books can acess them anytime
to learn more visit AUDIBLE.COM/ORIGINOFEVERYTHING,
or text “ORIGINOFEVERYTHING” to 500 500.
So what do you think?
Want to add something to this chilling tale of groups
that can wash your mind clean,
洗一洗 拧一拧 晾一晾的团体
ring it out and hang it up to dry?
Be sure to check out the works cited list down below,
and to leave those comments and questions that I love to read every week.
And if you like Origin of Everything and you want to see more,
be sure to subscribe on Youtube,
follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter
记得在脸书 Instagram 和推特上关注我们
and I’ll catch you guys here next.
We’d like to thank audible for supporting PBS.