David Ruffin – circa 1967
“It was hard times / I needed something to ease my troubled mind” – ’Cloud Nine’ (Norman Whitfield, Barrett Strong)
The emergency room of a hospital is a busy place. The emergency room of the Hospital at the University of Philadelphia, situated at 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. is no exception to this rule. The staff regularly deals with a parade of human misery. This catalogue of woe includes drug overdoses. So, in a way, the events that take place in the early hours of 1 June 1991 are a familiar story. It’s one more drug overdose that has to be treated. However, most such patients are not helped into the emergency room by the driver of their limousine. David Ruffin, former lead singer of the African-American male vocal group The Temptations, is the newest patient at the Hospital of the University of Philadelphia. Ruffin collapsed in a crack house. His driver sped him to the hospital and brought him inside. Despite the best efforts of the medical staff, Ruffin expires at 3.55 a.m. He was 50 years old and had thirty thousand dollars in cash on his person. David Ruffin’s death is later ruled to be due to an overdose of cocaine.
Although David Ruffin may be the best known member of The Temptations, he was not part of the group’s original line-up. Perhaps the best place to start the story of The Temptations is with Otis Williams.
Otis Williams is born Otis Miles, Jr. on 30 October 1941 in Texarkana, Texas, U.S.A. He will become known for his booming baritone voice, leading to him sometimes being called ‘Big Daddy’. Otis is the child of an unmarried couple, Otis Miles and Hazel Louise Williams. The couple separate shortly after the child is born. Hazel Williams moves to Detroit, Michigan, leaving Otis to be raised in Texas by his grandmother. “I had to listen to a lot of gospel singers,” he recalls. When he is 10, Otis goes to live with his mother in Detroit. Rock ‘n’ roll comes along in the mid-1950s and, as Otis puts it, “I was turned on to the secular music of the time – Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Clyde McPhatter and The Drifters, Billy Ward and his Dominoes. Then I used to go and see the great rock ‘n’ roll shows at the Fox Theater [in Detroit]. The reaction to what The Cadillacs were doing – they were a vocal group – they had command of five thousand plus people at the Fox Theater. And I said, ‘That’s what I want to do.’ I was 14 or 15 years old at the time. That was the start of it all.”
Otis Miles, Jr. adopts his mother’s surname for his stagename, becoming Otis Williams. In 1958 he puts together his first vocal group, Otis Williams & The Siberians. The line-up is: Otis Williams (vocals), Eldridge ‘Al’ Bryant (vocals), James ‘Pee-Wee’ Crawford (vocals), Vernon Plain (vocals) and Arthur Walton (vocals). Only one of these boys is fated to join Otis Williams in The Temptations: Elbridge ‘Al’ Bryant (28 September 1939 – 26 October 1975). Otis Williams & The Siberians record only one single, ‘Pecos Kid’, in 1958.
In 1959 Otis Williams & The Siberians transform into Otis Williams & The Distants. In the process, only Otis Williams and Al Bryant are retained. They are joined by Melvin Franklin (vocals), Richard Street (vocals) and Albert ‘Mooch’ Harrell. Only Melvin Franklin will go forward with Otis Williams and Al Bryant into The Temptations – though Richard Street will join The Temptations in later years.
Melvin Franklin (12 October 1942 – 23 February 1995) is born David Melvin Franklin in Montgomery, Alabama, U.S.A. His mother is Rose English. His biological father is a preacher. The child is the result of non-consensual sex. Rose English goes on to marry Willard Franklin and move to Detroit. In similar fashion to Otis Williams, Melvin stays with his grandmother until he is 10. Melvin then goes to Detroit to live with his mother and stepfather. Taking an interest in singing groups, Melvin Franklin becomes a bass vocalist.
Otis Williams & The Distants release two singles, both on Northern Records. The songs are ‘Come On’ in 1959 and ‘Open Your Heart’ in 1960. Neither of them is very successful. They are credited to The Distants – without Otis Williams taking top billing.
Otis Williams checks out the competition around Detroit. One act that impresses him is a vocal trio called The Primes. The three members are Eddie Kendricks, Paul Williams (no relation to Otis Williams) and Kell Osborne. Two of them – Eddie Kendricks and Paul Wiliams – will become part of the founding line-up of The Temptations.
Eddie Kendricks (17 December 1939 – 5 October 1992) is born Edward James Kendrick (without the ‘s’) in Union Springs, Alabama, U.S.A. He is the son of Johnny and Lee Bell Kendrick. Eddie has a sister, Patricia, and three brothers: Charles, Robert and Clarence. Eddie Kendricks – as he will become known – is nicknamed ‘Cornbread’ because of his fondness for this item of ‘soul food’ popular in the African-American community in the southern United States. (Cornbread is made from cornmeal rather than the wheat flour used in more traditional bread.) Eddie possesses a high, falsetto voice. In the late 1940s, he and his family move to Birmingham, Alabama, and there he meets Paul Williams when they both sing in a church choir.
Paul Williams (2 July 1939 – 17 August 1973) is born in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the son of Rufus and Sophia Williams. Rufus Williams is a gospel singer, so Paul follows in his father’s footsteps. As well as singing in the church choir with Eddie Kendricks, the two boys attend the same elementary school. Paul Williams not only sings; he has a gift for dancing. It is Paul Williams who choreographs the dance steps for which The Temptations will become justly renowned.
Eddie Kendricks and Paul Williams move to Cleveland, Ohio, in search of fame and fortune as singers. In 1955, they join forces with local singers as a vocal group called The Cavaliers. The other members are Kell Osborne (12 March 1939 – 29 January 2012) and Wiley Waller. In 1957 Wiley Waller drops out of the act, leaving The Cavaliers a trio. Informed of the thriving music scene in Detroit, The Cavaliers decamp to that locale in 1959.
In Detroit, The Cavaliers change their name to The Primes. The name is suggested by Milton Jenkins. It is also Jenkins who suggests The Primes sponsor some ambitious local girls as a female spin-off of their act, The Primettes. These girls are Diana Ross, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson and Betty McGlown. After McGlown (and her replacement, Barbara Martin) exit, the trio goes on to greater notoriety as The Supremes. Initially, Paul Williams acts as manager for the girls, but he soon cedes this responsibility to Milton Jenkins, who acts as the manager of both The Primes and The Primettes. The Primes are a well-regarded live act but never make it into the recording studio. In 1960 Kell Osborne moves to California and The Primes disband. Eddie Kendricks and Paul Williams go back to Alabama.
Otis Williams & The Distants also disband in 1960 – though it might be more accurate to say they go through a restructuring. Otis Williams, Al Bryant and Melvin Franklin agree to keep working together, but they part company with Richard Street and Albert ‘Mooch’ Harrell. ‘After learning that Otis Williams…has two openings in his group’s line-up’, Eddie Kendricks and Paul Williams return to Detroit to fill the vacancies. This quintet is dubbed The Elgins.
In 1960 Otis Williams begins dating Josephine Rogers. In 1961 the couple wed. They have a son, Otis, Jr. (born 1961). (Otis, Jr. grows up to be a construction worker in Detroit. He dies in a workplace accident in 1983.)
The most notable record label in Detroit in the early 1960s is Motown Records. The name is a contraction of ‘motor town’, a reference to Detroit’s automobile manufacturing industry. Motown Records is lorded over by Berry Gordy, a former automobile assembly-line worker turned songwriter and record producer. Motown is a label owned by an African-American (Gordy) and whose recording artists are also African-American. Up to this point, black singers were all too often exploited by white record company owners. Motown is different. Yet the label’s slogan is ‘The Sound of Young America’, not ‘The Sound of Black America’. Berry Gordy is not interested in his business being confined to the African-American community; he wants to sell as many records as possible and doesn’t care about the colour of the skin of the purchasers, only the colour of their money.
The Elgins audition for Motown and win a recording contract. Berry Gordy decides he doesn’t like the act’s name though and christens them The Temptations instead. The founder members are: Eddie Kendricks (high, falsetto vocals), Paul Williams (vocals), Al Bryant (vocals), Otis Williams (baritone vocals) and Melvin Franklin (bass vocals).
The music of The Temptations – and Motown in general – is derived from gospel (i.e. church music), rhythm and blues (i.e. dance music closely identified with the African-American community) and pop (i.e. popular and catchy songs with widespread appeal). What distinguishes The Temptations from other Motown acts? Two things: Their southern gospel roots and a more flexible approach than their peers.
Motown makes its home in Detroit, Michigan – a northern State. The African-American population largely live in Detroit’s housing projects. Most of those people work in the city’s main industry, automobile manufacture. The members of The Temptations grew up in southern States where African-Americans were still largely working in rural, agricultural, positions. Although gospel is enjoyed in both the north and south, in the south it tends to be even more conservative and fundamentalist. Otis Williams recalls he “had to listen to a lot of gospel singers.” ‘Of all the Motown acts…The Temptations were the closest to church and gospel roots.’
The flexibility of The Temptations is demonstrated in both their vocals and their musical style. While other Motown vocal acts had a fixed lead singer (i.e. Diana Ross of The Supremes, Smokey Robinson of The Miracles and Levi Stubbs of The Four Tops), The Temptations could change their lead singer. Granted, at first Eddie Kendricks probably has the lion’s share of the spotlight, but other members of the group sometimes step up or share the lead. This trait only accelerates as the group’s career continues. Secondly, when the basic Motown formula begins to wear thin, The Temptations prove capable of stepping outside their earlier preordained sound. “Luckily for The Temptations, we’ve been able to adapt to whatever the musical trends called for at the time,” notes Otis Williams.
The Temptations are not really songwriters. They are largely at the mercy of the Motown machinery. During the group’s glory days, there are primarily two men charged with guiding them: Smokey Robinson and Norman Whitfield. They do not work together. Broadly, Robinson is in charge up to the mid-1960s, and then Whitfield pilots them from the late 1960s. Robinson and Whitfield each pull double duty as songwriters and record producers. Smokey Robinson also performs with his own group, The Miracles. Otis Williams tries to define The Temptations’ philosophy: “It always revolves around great songs, great music, great lyrics, great melodies that stay in the subconscious after it’s off the radio. Those are the hallmarks of…great songs that will stand the test of time.”
As a vocal group, The Temptations depend on others to provide musical backing. As with songwriting and production, Motown assigns musicians to their recording sessions. The same pack of players work with all Motown’s vocal groups and solo singers. In later years, this fraternity comes to be known as The Funk Brothers. Some of their more notable members are: Joe Messina (guitar), Robert White (guitar), Earl Van Dyke (keyboards), James Jamerson, Sr. (bass), Benny Benjamin (drums) and James Giddons (percussion).
The Temptations get off to a slow start. Their first seven singles meet with minimal success on pop charts. Some of them do quite well on the rhythm and blues charts, but that is not enough for the populist agenda of Motown boss Berry Gordy. In 1961 The Temptations release ‘Oh Mother Of Mine’ and ‘Check Yourself’; in 1962 there is ‘Dream Come True’, ‘Mind Over Matter (I’m Gonna Make You Mine)’ [this song is actually credited to The Pirates, an alias for The Temptations] and ‘Paradise’ (US no. 122); while 1963 brings ‘I Want A Love I Can See’ and ‘Farewell My Love’. Eddie Kendricks shares vocals with Paul Williams on ‘Oh Mother Of Mine’; ‘Check Yourself’ spreads the vocals between Paul Williams, Otis Williams and Melvin Franklin; Eddie Kendricks sings lead on the all the 1962 singles and Paul Williams takes the lead on the 1963 singles.
In 1963 Al Bryant ‘resigns or is fired after physically attacking Paul Williams.’
In 1964 the open slot in The Temptations is first offered to Jimmy Ruffin but winds up going to his younger brother, David Ruffin, instead.
Davis Eli ‘David’ Ruffin (18 January 1941 – 1 June 1991) is born in Whynot, Mississippi, U.S.A. He is the son of Elias ‘Eli’ Ruffin and Ophelia Ruffin (nee Davis). David has three siblings: Quincy, Rita and Jimmy (born 7 May 1939). Their father, Eli Ruffin, is a Baptist minister who also works as a truck driver at a lumber mill. Eli Ruffin is characterised as ‘strict and abusive.’ Ophelia Ruffin dies just months after David’s birth. Eli Ruffin remarries in 1942. David’s stepmother, Earline, is a schoolteacher. David Ruffin begins singing and touring ‘at a very young age’, appearing with his father and siblings in a gospel group. “I knew I always wanted to sing,” claims David. At 13, David Ruffin leaves home to study for the ministry in Memphis, Tennessee. David appears with his brother, Jimmy, at some talent shows in Arkansas. In the meantime, David Ruffin does some construction work. One of the buildings on which he labours is ‘Hitsville, U.S.A.’, the home of Motown Records in Detroit. David Ruffin begins recording in 1958. Under the name of Little David Bush, he releases ‘Believe Me’ on the Vega label. As David Ruffin he puts out ‘I’m In Love’ in 1960 on the Anna label, a subsidiary of Motown. This is followed by two singles on the Checkmate label: ‘Actions Speak Louder Than Words’ in 1961 and ‘Knock You Out’ in 1962. None of these four singles has much impact. In 1960 David Ruffin begins dating a girl named Sandra, who becomes his wife in 1961. David and Sandra go on to have three daughters: Cheryl, Nedra and Kimberley (also known as Mone). When David Ruffin joins The Temptations in 1964, it brings him into closer contact with Melvin Franklin who is actually a distant cousin of Ruffin. A ‘whimsical, charismatic man’, David Ruffin is perhaps the most visually distinctive member of The Temptations. He wears thick-framed spectacles and, at six feet, 3 inches, in height, is ‘tall [and] slender.’ (At six feet, and one-and-a-half inches, Eddie Kendricks is not much shorter.) Otis Williams describes David Ruffin as “very funny, colourful, good-natured and hard-working.”
The addition of David Ruffin creates probably the most famous incarnation of The Temptations: David Ruffin (vocals), Eddie Kendricks (high, falsetto vocals), Paul Williams (vocals), Otis Williams (baritone vocals) and Melvin Franklin (bass vocals).
Things begin to fall into place for The Temptations with the release on 8 February 1964 of the single, The Way You Do The Things You Do’ (US no. 11). This is the group’s first real hit and the beginning of a series of successful hit singles. Although David Ruffin has been added to the line-up, it is Eddie Kendricks who handles the lead vocals on this track. “You’ve got a smile so bright, you know you could’ve been a candle / I’m holding you so tight, you know you could’ve been a handle,” begins the lyrics, eventually observing, “Well, you could have been anything that you wanted to and I can tell / The way you do the things you do.” This song is written by Smokey Robinson and his Miracles colleague, Bobby Rogers. It’s difficult not to see Eddie Kendricks as a surrogate for Smokey here; both have similarly high voices. Kendricks has a ‘wispy falsetto’ that is ‘high, sweet and soft.’ Despite being centre-stage on The Temptations’ breakthrough, Kendricks says, “I don’t really know what a superstar is…I don’t think I want to get that big.”
The debut album, ‘Meet The Temptations’ (1964) (US no. 45), is released in March. It includes ‘The Way You Do The Things You Do’. Like most of The Temptations’ albums of the 1960s, multiple producers are credited for the disc (in this case including Smokey Robinson and Berry Gordy). In this era, neither Motown nor The Temptations are emphasising albums; the hit single is the main focus. This means that the albums are usually a hodgepodge of a hit single or two and some other bits and pieces. Note: The Temptations’ discs are actually on the Gordy label, a subsidiary of the Motown organisation.
Eddie Kendricks provides lead vocals on the following 1964 Temptations singles: May’s ‘I’ll Be In Trouble’ (US no. 33) backed with ‘The Girl’s Alright With Me’ (US no. 102), and September’s ‘Girl (Why You Wanna Make Me Blue)’ (US no. 26). The last-named is crafted under the supervision of producer Norman Whitfield.
Otis Williams divorces his wife, Josephine, in 1964. He dates Florence Ballard of The Supremes for a while, but his next major relationship is with another singer, Patti Labelle. Otis Williams actually begins seeing Patti Labelle in 1963 and the relationship continues until 1965, including an engagement, before concluding. Otis Williams’ flirtation with Florence Ballard is not the only liaison between The Temptations and The Supremes; Melvin Franklin reportedly chases after Mary Wilson for a while.
The Temptations release one more single in 1964, though it doesn’t chart until January 1965. It is The Temptations’ finest moment. The single is ‘My Girl’ (US no. 1, UK no. 43), a track written by Smokey Robinson and another one of his group The Miracles, Ronnie White. The genius of this song is in its counter-intuitive approach. While Eddie Kendricks’ vocal style is an easy fit with Robinson’s own – and Kendricks would have been the obvious choice for this song – it is instead handed to David Ruffin. Where Kendricks’ voice is high and silky smooth, Ruffin has a ‘raspy voice’ that is ‘gritty and emotion laden.’ “I don’t know what I kind of voice I have. I really don’t. It’s just about the feeling I get for a song,” says Ruffin. He also proves to be a dynamic frontman, employing ‘dramatic hand gestures’ and even ‘falling to his knees.’ ‘My Girl’ is positively beatific. “I’ve got sunshine on a cloudy day,” beams Ruffin, “When it’s cold outside, I’ve got the month of May / I guess you’d say, what can make me feel this way? / My girl.” “I would have to say that, first and foremost, ‘My Girl’ is my favourite and then everything else falls in line after that,” admits Otis Williams.
David Ruffin’s marriage to his wife, Sandra, breaks down in 1964 and he begins a ‘well publicised relationship’ with Tammi Terrell, another Motown recording artist, from 1965 to 1967.
‘The Temptations Sing Smokey’ (1965) (US no. 35) in March is, as the name suggests, an album of the quintet performing Smokey Robinson’s compositions – but they are not new songs. In addition to ‘My Girl’ and (again) ‘The Way You Do The Things You Do’, the disc consists of songs recorded previously by Robinson’s group The Miracles or other Motown acts to whom he had provided material. Naturally, Smokey Robinson produces this album. The success of ‘My Girl’ with David Ruffin as lead vocalist results in Ruffin singing lead on The Temptations’ three other 1965 singles: April’s ‘It’s Growing’ (US no. 18, UK no. 45), July’s ‘Since I Lost My Baby’ (US no. 17) and October’s ‘My Baby’ (US no. 13). The group’s third album, ‘The Temptin’ Temptations’ (1965) (US no. 11), is issued in November.
In 1965 Paul Williams has an affair with Winnie Brown, the hairstylist for The Supremes.
1966 is a transitional year for The Temptations. The March single, ‘Get Ready’ (US no. 24, UK no. 10), is the last of their hits penned by Smokey Robinson. This track places Eddie Kendricks back in the role of lead vocalist. However, just as the harsh tones of David Ruffin formed a counterpoint to the creamy music of ‘My Girl’, here Kendricks’ light voice overlays a hard-charging arrangement, making a virtue of the unexpected contrast. “I’m bringing you a love that’s true / So get ready,” urges Kendricks in this hot – but precise – number. Norman Whitfield takes the baton from Smokey Robinson at this point, becoming the driving force behind The Temptations’ output. Under Whitfield, ‘their records become ever rougher and more muscular.’ This is first demonstrated with ‘Ain’t Too Proud To Beg’ (US no. 13, UK no. 21) in May, a song Whitfield co-writes with Eddie Holland. David Ruffin handles the lead vocals. Otis Williams recalls the spectacles slipping off Ruffin’s face repeatedly during the recording session due to the amount of sweat Ruffin is putting out. “Ain’t too proud to beg / Sweet darlin’, please don’t leave me,” petitions Ruffin over a hard-edged marching rhythm. The album, ‘Gettin’ Ready’ (1966) (US no. 12, UK no. 40), comes out in June. As previously mentioned, albums are not really The Temptations’ forte, but this is as good a candidate as any to be called their best album. With both Robinson’s ‘Get Ready’ and Whitfield’s ‘Ain’t Too Proud To Beg’, it has high quality representations from both of the act’s main producer/songwriters. As a bonus, there is also ‘Too Busy Thinking ‘Bout My Baby’, a song Whitfield co-writes with Barrett Strong and Janie Bradford. It goes unheralded in 1966 but becomes a hit for another Motown singer, Marvin Gaye, in 1969. David Ruffin holds forth as lead singer on The Temptations’ other two hits for 1966. August’s ‘Beauty Is Only Skin Deep’ (US no. 3, UK no. 18) has him advising, “A pretty face you may not possess / But what I like about you is your tenderness.” This horn-buttressed, strong and forceful number is co-written by Norman Whitfield and Eddie Holland. This duo is joined by Cornelius Grant to write ‘(I Know) I’m Losing You’ (US no. 8, UK no. 19), released in November. In this twangy, rough-edged song, David Ruffin sings, “I fooled myself as long as I can / I feel the presence of another man.”
In 1966 Otis Williams begins dating Ann Cain, who becomes his second wife in 1967.
The Temptations start 1967 with the album ‘The Temptations Live’ (1967) (US no. 10, UK no. 20) in March. This concert recording is followed by the David Ruffin led ‘All I Need’ (US no. 8), a single released in May. The previous year’s ‘(I Know) I’m Losing You’ is included on ‘The Temptations With A Lot O’ Soul’ (1967) (US no. 7, UK no. 19) in July. Perhaps the best 1967 single by The Temptations is ‘You’re My Everything’ (US no. 6, UK no. 26), released in August. David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks share the lead vocals. “I was blessed the day I found you / Gonna build my whole world around you / You’re everything good, girl / And you’re all that matters to me,” runs the lyric of this optimistic, strings-enhanced, composition from Norman Whitfield, Roger Penzabene and Cornelius Grant. October’s ‘(Loneliness Made Me Realize) It’s You That I Need’ (US no. 14) boasts a vocal shared amongst all The Temptations. The year is closed out with the album ‘The Temptations In A Mellow Mood’ (1967) (US no. 13) in November, a Frank Wilson – Jeff Bowen co-production.
Sometime around here, Eddie Kendricks marries Patricia ‘Pat’ Stokes. They have three children: a daughter named Aikia (born 1971) and two sons, Parris (born 1973) and Paul (born 1977).
In January 1968 The Temptations have a hit with ‘I Wish It Would Rain’ (US no. 4, UK no. 45). Accompanied by the mournful cries of seagulls, an anguished David Ruffin pleads, “Sunshine, blue skies / Please go away / My girl has found another / And gone away.” Broken-hearted, he concludes, “I know it might sound strange / But I wish it would rain,” and hide his tears. Norman Whitfield collaborates with Barrett Strong and Roger Penzabene on this sad, but classy, ballad. David Ruffin is credited with ‘creating the four-headed microphone’ and this device can be seen during The Temptations’ performance of this song. While Ruffin holds centre-stage, the other Temps cluster about a microphone that almost resembles a tree – a single stand (trunk) with branching microphones for each individual singer. This song appears on the next album for the group and is adapted into its name: ‘The Temptations Wish It Would Rain’ (1968) (US no. 13) – released in April. May’s ‘I Could Never Love Another (After Loving You)’ (US no. 13, UK no. 47) is fated to be Ruffin’s last lead vocal for The Temptations. Eddie Kendricks takes the lead for August’s ‘Please Return Your Love To Me’ (US no. 26).
Trouble is brewing for The Temptations. David Ruffin is ‘one of the first Motown artists who demands regular accounting of the group’s financial status.’ Although this may be admirably prudent, it causes friction with label boss Berry Gordy as it suggests Gordy is untrustworthy. Ruffin is also getting on the nerves of the other Temptations. ‘He starts missing rehearsals and shows and is addicted to cocaine.’ Ruffin believes the name of the act should be changed to David Ruffin And The Temptations. Though this may appear to reek of egotism, in context it is not that strange. The Miracles became Smokey Robinson And The Miracles in March 1967 and The Supremes became Diana Ross And The Supremes in August 1967. Otis Williams is of the opinion that fame gives Ruffin ego problems and drug addiction makes him erratic. It all comes to a head when David Ruffin fails to show up for a 1968 Temptations concert in Cleveland, Ohio. Consequently, Ruffin is fired.
David Ruffin’s place in The Temptations’ line-up is filled by Dennis Edwards. Formerly with fellow Motown act The Contours, Dennis Edwards is born 3 February 1943 in Fairfield, Alabama, U.S.A. to Reverend and Mrs Dennis Edwards, Senior.
In a bizarre twist, David Ruffin does not go quietly. He follows The Temptations around on tour and crashes their performances. When a song on which he sang lead, such as ‘My Girl’ or ‘Ain’t Too Proud To Beg’, begins, Ruffin ‘walks on stage, grabs the microphone from [Dennis] Edwards and steals the show.’ Ruffin pleads for another chance with the group. When he is cautiously given this opportunity, Ruffin continues to miss shows. His dismissal is then confirmed. Duelling lawsuits between Ruffin and The Temptations follow.
David Ruffin goes on to a solo career. His most successful solo singles are his first, ‘My Whole World Ended (The Moment You Left Me)’ (US no. 9) in February 1969 and ‘I’ve Lost Everything I Ever Truly Loved’ (a hit on the rhythm and blues charts only) in July 1969. The former was originally intended for The Temptations. David Ruffin releases the following albums: ‘My Whole World Ended’ (1969) (US no. 31) in May; ‘Feelin’ Good’ (1969) (US no. 148) in November; ‘I Am My Brother’s Keeper’ (1970) (US no. 178), a disc co-credited to his brother, Jimmy Ruffin; ‘David Ruffin’ (1973) (US no. 160); ‘Me And Rock ‘N’ Roll Are Here To Stay’ (1974); ‘Who I Am’ (1975) (US no. 31) ; ‘Everything’s Coming Up Love’ (1976) (US no. 51); and ‘In My Stride’ (1977). In 1977 he leaves Motown for Warner Bros., blaming Motown for not promoting his music properly. For Warners, David Ruffin creates two more albums: ‘So Soon We Change’ (1979) and ‘Gentleman Ruffin’ (1980). In 1975 David Ruffin marries his second wife, Joy Hamilton, but they divorce in 1976. Ruffin has a relationship with Genna Sapia from 1977 to 1979 and she gives birth to his fourth child and only son, David, Jr. (After David Ruffin’s death, Genna Sapia takes to calling herself Genna Sapia-Ruffin, but the couple never officially wed.)
The Temptations begin a new phase of their career with the single ‘Cloud Nine’ (US no. 6, UK no. 15), released in November 1968. Influenced by Sly And The Family Stone, James Brown and Jimi Hendrix, producer Norman Whitfield introduces The Temptations to ‘psychedelic soul.’ This style has ‘dramatic use of recording effects and rock-influenced arrangements’ as well as ‘didactic social commentary.’ ‘Cloud Nine’, ‘its title a thinly veiled drug allegory’, is co-written by producer Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong. “Depressed and downhearted, I took to cloud nine,” states the lyric, observing that now, “You’re a million miles away from reality.” It seems The Temptations are becoming ‘not only the globe’s biggest selling soul group, but its most musically exciting.’ Dennis Edwards makes his recording debut here with The Temptations but the vocal is shared amongst the whole group. Ominously, amidst all the fanfare, Eddie Kendricks dislikes the new psychedelic soul sound. A concert recording, ‘Live At The Copa’ (1968) (US no. 15) is released in December. The album, ‘Cloud Nine’ (1969) (US no. 4, UK no. 32), in February consolidates the new psychedelic soul sound.
By this time – and possibly earlier – Shelly Berger is acting as the manager of The Temptations. His association with the group continues for decades, up to at least 2010.
The Temptations record two albums of duets with their former sidekicks, the erstwhile Primettes, ‘Diana Ross & The Supremes Join The Temptations’ (1968) (US no. 2, UK no. 1) and ‘Together With Diana Ross And The Supremes’ (1969) (US no. 28, UK no. 28). A volley of duet singles from the two vocal groups is issued: ‘I’m Gonna Make You Love Me’ (US no. 2, UK no. 3), ‘I’ll Try Something New’ (US no. 25), ‘I Second That Emotion’ (UK no. 18), ‘The Weight’ (US no. 46) and ‘Why Must We Fall In Love’ (UK no. 31). Eddie Kendricks, on behalf of The Temptations, provides the male lead vocal for most of these songs since his high voice is the best match for Diana Ross.
On their own, in 1969 The Temptations issue the singles ‘Runaway Child, Running Wild’ (US no. 6) in March, and ‘Don’t Let The Jones’ Get You Down’ (US no. 20) in May, but the best is August’s ‘I Can’t Get Next To You’ (US no. 1, UK no. 13). The group vocal alternates amongst the members as they chant such sentiments as, “I can turn the grey skies blue / I can make it rain whenever I want it to…But I can’t get next to you, babe.” ‘I Can’t Get Next To You’ is composed by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong and features on the album ‘Puzzle People’ (1969) (US no. 5, UK no. 20), released in September.
‘Psychedelic Shack’ (US no. 7, UK no. 33), released in January 1970, is a far-out groovy song penned by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong. “Right around the corner / Just across the tracks / People, I’m talking about the psychedelic shack,” runs the group vocal that stresses, “That’s where it’s at.” The album, ‘Psychedelic Shack’ (1970) (US no. 9) arrives in February. Whitfield and Strong also write ‘Ball Of Confusion (That’s What The World Is Today)’ (US no. 3, UK no. 7), the May single with another group vocal. “The only person talking about love and mercy is the preacher / And it seems nobody is interested in learning but the teacher,” notes ‘Ball Of Confusion’, its punishing beats underscoring the mantra, “Segregation, demonstration, integration, determination, aggravation, humiliation, obligation to our nation.” A concert album, ‘Live At London’s Talk Of The Town’ (1970) (US no. 21) is released in July. Dennis Edwards takes the lead vocal for October’s ‘Ungena Za Ulimwengu (Unite The World)’ (US no. 33). ‘The Temptations’ Christmas Card’ (1970) (US no. 4), an October album of holiday tunes, closes out the year.
Eddie Kendricks (with an assist from Paul Williams) takes the lead vocal for ‘Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)’ (US no. 1, UK no. 8), the February 1971 single. Written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong, this is a lovely old school ballad, a break from psychedelic soul. In his feathery, light voice, Kendricks gently pronounces, “To have a girl like her / Is truly a dream come true / Out of all the boys in the world / She belongs to you / But it was just my imagination / Running away with me.” This song is featured on the April album, ‘Sky’s The Limit’ (1971) (US no. 16). Tired of the psychedelic soul, Eddie Kendricks leaves The Temptations in 1971, bound for a solo career. Paul Williams also departs in 1971, but his exit is due to poor health. Paul Williams is having problems with sickle cell anaemia.
In his solo career, Eddie Kendricks records the albums ‘All By Myself’ (1971), ‘People…Hold On’ (1972), ‘Eddie Kendricks’ (1973), ‘Boogie Down’ (1974), ‘For You’ (1974), ‘The Hit Man’ (1975), ‘Goin’ Up In Smoke’ (1976) and ‘Slick’ (1977). He then departs Motown, cutting two albums for Arista – ‘Vintage ‘78’ (1978) and ‘Something More’ (1979) – and one for Atlantic, ‘Love Keys’ (1981). His most successful solo singles are 1971’s ‘Keep On Truckin’ (US no. 1, UK no. 18), 1974’s ‘Boogie Down’ (US no. 2, UK no. 39) and 1975’s ‘Shoeshine Boy’ (US no. 18). Eddie Kendricks divorces his wife, Pat Stokes, in 1976.
Ricky Owens (24 April 1939 – 6 December 1996) has a brief stint with The Temptations in 1971.
Replacing Eddie Kendricks and Paul Williams in The Temptations are Damon Harris (17 July 1950 – 18 February 2003) and Richard Street (5 October 1942 – 27 February 2013). Both are tenors. It may be remembered that Richard Street was a member of Otis Williams & The Distants back before The Temptations officially came into being. Street shares the vocal spotlight on the July 1971 single ‘It’s Summer’ (US no. 51) with Dennis Edwards and Melvin Franklin. The entire group shares the vocals for November’s cautionary tale, ‘Superstar (Remember How You Got Where You Are)’ (US no. 18, UK no. 32). Written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong, the lyrics urge, “But remember how you got where you are / Oh ho ho, ‘cause the same folks that made you / Uh hum, you better believe they can break you.”
Motown relocates its head office from Detroit, Michigan, to Los Angles, California, in 1971 and there is a feeling that it is the end of an era.
‘Superstar (Remember How You Got Where You Are)’ is included on the album ‘Solid Rock’ (1972) (US no. 24, UK no. 34) in January. The same disc also boasts the heavily orchestrated and socially conscious ‘Take A Look Around’ (US no. 30, UK no. 13), sung by the group as a whole. The song is written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong. Dennis Edwards takes the lead for ‘Mother Nature’ (US no. 92), but a group vocal adorns the year’s best single for The Temptations, ‘Papa Was A Rollin’ Stone’ (US no. 1, UK no. 14) (another Whitfield – Strong composition). Hushed, pulsing and ominous, this is deep, hard soul. “’Momma, I’m depending on you to tell me the truth’ / Momma just hung her head and said, ‘Son / Papa was a rollin’ stone / Wherever he laid his hat was his home / And when he died, all he left us was alone’,” runs an excerpt from the dramatic lyrics. The song is included on the July album, ‘All Directions’ (1972) (US no. 2, UK no. 19).
‘Masterpiece’ (1973) (US no. 7, UK no. 28) is released in February and its title track, ‘Masterpiece’ (US no. 7), is the next single for The Temptations. It features a group vocal, as does their next single, ‘Plastic Man’ (US no. 40). Other 1973 singles highlight individual performances. Richard Street takes centre stage for ‘Hey Girl (I Like Your Style)’ (US no. 35). The neo-Native American groove of ‘Law Of The Land’ (UK no. 41) shares the vocals between Street, Dennis Edwards and Damon Harris. Written by Norman Whitfield alone, the anti-poverty ‘Law Of The Land’ is perhaps the best Temptations song for 1973.
On 17 August 1973 former member of The Temptations, Paul Williams, is found dead. He is discovered in an alley, slumped over the wheel of his car, clad only in swimming trunks. The gun in his hand is responsible for the bullet through his forehead. His death is ruled a suicide. Paul Williams not only sang with The Temptations, he was also their choreographer, though over the years, that task increasingly went to Cholly Atkins, Motown’s in-house choreographer. Paul Williams’ health had been declining due to sickle cell anaemia, but he was also ‘long plagued by alcoholism and other personal demons.’ He was 34 when he took his own life.
‘1990’ (1973) (US no. 19), released in December, is the last Temptations album overseen by Norman Whitfield, as their lengthy association with the producer/songwriter comes to an end.
The Temptations issue ‘A Song For You’ (1975) (US no. 13) in January. This is followed in November by ‘House Party’ (1975) (US no. 40), an album of songs that had been set aside previously. Damon Harris leaves The Temptations in 1975. His replacement is another tenor, Glenn Leonard (born 11 June 1947). ‘Wings Of Love’ (1976) (US no. 29) and then ‘The Temptations Do The Temptations’ (1976) (US no. 53) are The Temptations’ last albums for Motown – at least for a while.
Dennis Edwards exits The Temptations in 1977 and Louis Price (born 29 March 1953) takes over his role. The group records two disco-influenced albums for Atlantic Records – ‘Hear To Tempt You’ (1977) (US no. 113) and ‘Bare Back’ (1978) – before returning to Motown.
Former Temptation Dennis Edwards is ‘briefly married’ to Ruth Pointer in 1977. Ruth Pointer comes from the vocal group The Pointer Sisters. Dennis and Ruth have a daughter together, Issa Pointer.
Dennis Edwards returns to The Temptations in 1980, displacing Louis Price. Once more on Motown, The Temptations release the albums ‘Power’ (1980) (US no. 45), ‘Give Love At Christmas’ (1980) (US no. 6), and ‘The Temptations’ (1981) (US no. 119).
By this time, the solo careers of David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks are on the decline, as are The Temptations’ fortunes. Ruffin and Kendricks are enticed to work with the five current Temptations (Dennis Edwards, Richard Street, Glenn Leonard, Otis Williams and Melvin Franklin) as a seven-piece act. The resultant album is the appropriately titled ‘Reunion’ (1982) (US no. 37). It includes ‘Standing On The Top’ (US no. 66, UK no. 93), a track written and produced by Rick James, a well-known identity in the funk rock field at the time. The seven-piece Temptations undertake a tour as well, but it is not long before David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks leave again.
Eddie Kendricks goes back to using the surname from his birth, Kendrick (without the ‘s’) in the early 1980s. He releases ‘I’ve Got Eyes On You’ (1983) on the Ms. Dixie label.
David Ruffin suffers from ‘substance abuse and depression’. He spends eighteen months in prison for tax evasion.
Eddie Kendrick stays in touch with David Ruffin and both of them guest-star on ‘Live At The Apollo’ (1985) (US no. 21), an album by white ‘blue-eyed soul’ act Daryl Hall And John Oates.
A 1987 cocaine arrest puts David Ruffin back behind bars.
David Ruffin and Eddie Kendrick work together again on ‘1988’ (1988) or ‘Ruffin & Kendrick’ (1988), and album of duets by the former Temptations frontmen.
Otis Williams marries his third wife, Arleata ‘Goldie’ Carter, in 1983. They have a daughter named Elan.
The Temptations continue to record and tour, but the line-up is increasingly subject to change. ‘Surface Thrills’ (1983) (US no. 159) in February is followed by Glenn Leonard’s departure. Ron Tyson (born 8 February 1948) joins in time for ‘Back To Basics’ (1983) (US no. 152). Dennis Edwards leaves (for the second time) in 1984 and Ali-Ollie Woodson (12 September 1951 – 30 May 2010) joins The Temptations. ‘Truly For You’ (1984) (US no. 55) in October includes ‘Treat Her Like A Lady’ (US no. 48, UK no. 12), an upmarket dance song Woodson co-writes with Otis Williams, and for which Woodson is the lead vocalist. ‘Touch Me’ (1985) (US no. 146) is followed by ‘To Be Continued’ (1986) (US no. 74), the last Temptations album issued under the Gordy imprint as the subsidiary is then absorbed into Motown Records’ main label. Ali-Ollie Woodson leaves the group in 1987 and Dennis Edwards returns for a third tour of duty beginning with ‘Together Again’ (1987) (US no. 112) in September.
‘The Temptations’ (1988) is Otis Williams’ autobiography of the group, co-written with journalist Patricia Romanowski. It is made into an NBC television mini-series in 1998.
Dennis Edwards leaves The Temptations (for the third and final time) in 1989 but, comically, his replacement is Ali-Ollie Woodson – the man Edwards replaced. ‘Special’ (1989) and ‘Milestone’ (1991) are the next albums the group releases, the latter celebrating The Temptations’ thirtieth anniversary.
On 1 June 1991 David Ruffin dies due to ‘an adverse reaction to drugs.’ Despite the official cause of death being confirmed as a cocaine overdose, Ruffin’s family believe that ‘foul play is involved’ in his demise. David Ruffin was 50 years old.
Eddie Kendrick dies of lung cancer on 5 October 1992. He was 52 years old.
The Temptations carry on, but members come and go. Richard Street exits in 1992, with Theo Peoples (born 24 January 1961) taking his place.
On 17 February 1995 Melvin Franklin suffers a brain seizure and slips into a coma. He never wakes, passing away on 23 February 1995. He was 52. Since the late 1960s Melvin Franklin had battled rheumatoid arthritis. He developed diabetes in the 1980s. With his passing, Otis Williams becomes the only surviving member of the original Temptations line-up.
Melvin Franklin’s place in The Temptations is taken by Ray Davis (29 March 1940 – 5 July 2005) in 1995. ‘For Lovers Only’ (1995) is Ray Davis’ only album with The Temptations. He departs in 1996, to be replaced by Harry McGillberry (19 January 1950 – 3 April 2006). Ali-Ollie Woodson quits The Temptations (for the second time) in 1997 and his position is filled by Terry Weeks (born 23 December 1963). Otis Williams and his third wife, Arleata ‘Goldie’ Carter, divorce in 1997.
Theo Peoples departs The Temptations in 1988 and Barrington ‘Bo’ Henderson (born 10 June 1956) joins. ‘Phoenix Rising’ (1998) (US no. 44) marks a new era and is followed by ‘Ear-Resistable’ (2000) (US no. 54) and ‘Awesome’ (2001) (US no. 140). Harry McGillberry and Barrington ‘Bo’ Henderson both leave The Temptations in 2003.
George Curtis ‘G.C.’ Cameron (born 21 September 1945) becomes the twentieth member of The Temptations when he joins the group in 2003. Also signing up in 2003 is Joe Herndon (born 5 January 1949). ‘Legacy’ (2004) (US no. 163) is The Temptations’ final album for Motown. They move to the New Door label for ‘Reflections’ (2006) (US no. 80) and ‘Back To Front’ (2007) (US no. 108). G.C. Cameron leaves The Temptations in 2007, making way for Bruce Williamson (born 28 September 1970). On the 10/30 International label, The Temptations release ‘Still Here’ (2010).
The death of David Ruffin in 1991 meant the loss of the most identifiable member of The Temptations. Although he had not been part of the group since 1968 – aside from the 1982 ‘Reunion’ album and tour – his influence on their history was deep. Eddie Kendricks, who died soon after in 1992, was the next best known member of the act and, like Ruffin, his days as a regular part of the act were decades in the past. David Ruffin, Eddie Kendricks, Paul Williams, Otis Williams, Melvin Franklin, Al Bryant and Dennis Edwards are the men most identified with The Temptations. The other singers with the group had less impact. Of course, The Temptations recorded history was also shaped by the likes of Motown boss Berry Gordy and producer/songwriters Smokey Robinson and Norman Whitfield. ‘My Girl’, ‘Just My Imagination’, ‘Ball of Confusion’, etc. live on long after the men who made them. The Temptations were ‘the finest vocal group in 1960s soul. They could outdress, outdance and outsing any competitors in sight.’ ‘One of Motown’s most elastic acts, they tackled both lush pop and politically charged funk with equal flair.’
- ‘The Temptations: Motown’s Greatest Hits’ – Sleeve notes by Chris Wells (Motown Record Company, L.P., 1992) p. 2, 3, 7
- Complex City Guide by Ross Scarano (1 June 2011) (complex.com)
- famously.dead.com – David Ruffin – no author credited, as at 25 June 2011
- Internet movie database imdb.com as at 25 June 2014
- wikipedia.org as at 5 May 2014
- ‘Behind the Scenes’ (U.S. radio program, WCRN – Worcester, Massachusetts) – Otis Williams interview at the Hanover Theater conducted by Lisa Condett (?) (7 February 2013?)
- allmusic.com, ‘The Temptations’ by Jason Ankeny as at 16 June 2014
- wikianswers.com as at 27 June 2014
- allmusic.com, ‘The Primes’ – no author credited – as at 27 June 2014
- bhamwiki.com/w/Paul.Williams as at 27 June 2014
- whosdatedwho.com as at 25 June 2014
- ‘The Rolling Stone Illustrated History Of Rock ‘N’ Roll’, ‘Motown’ by Joe McEwen, Jim Miller (Plexus Publishing, 1992), p. 278, 282, 286, 290, 291, 292
- ‘The History of Rock’ by Mark Paytress (Parragon Books, 2011) p.76
- brainyquote.com as at 25 June 2014
- democraticunderground.com – information on David Ruffin’s children by Catherine Vincent (5 November 2009)
- ‘Rolling Stone Rock Almanac’ by the Editors of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine (Papermac, 1984) p. 85, 217
- ‘The Illustrated Rock Handbook’ edited by Roxanne Streeter, Ray Bonds (Salamander Books, 1983) p. 210
- ‘The Best Of Marvin Gaye’ – Sleeve notes by David Ritz (Motown Record Company, 1994) p. 6
- soulwalking.co.uk/Michael%Stokes.html – no author credited, as at 27 June 2014
- You Tube, video for ‘I Wish It Would Rain’ (1968)
- lyricsfreak.com as at 23 June 2014
- metrolyrics.com.au as at 23 June 2014
Song lyrics copyright EMI Songs Aust. P/L
Last revised 15 July 2014
Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization
A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories
© 1994 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino. "You've got to get my daughter back," Margaret pleaded. "She was such a beautiful girl, such a good student! It's like she's another person. She used to think for herself, she used to spend time with us. Now her whole life is consumed by the Center. Please help us -- I don't care what it costs or how long it takes!"
This article first appeared in Cornerstone Magazine
Margaret's adult daughter had joined a religious cult, and she was now talking to an exit counselor, a professional who specialized in "interventions" for persons supposedly trapped under mind control in cultic movements.
The exit counselor explained that Margaret's daughter was a victim of mind control and described its four components: (1) behavior control, (2) thought control, (3) emotional control, and (4) information control. He said these techniques had combined to rob her daughter of the ability to make responsible and rational choices. The counselor informed them that neither the family nor the daughter were to blame for this cult involvement: at the right time, mind control could bring anyone into a cult.
The exit counselor said he would seek to break through her daughter's bondage to the cult leader and restore her to mental, emotional, and physical freedom. He assured her his work was not the same as the deprogrammers of the 1980s who forcibly kidnapped cult members and held them against their will. If the intervention were successful, Margaret's daughter would return to the mental stability she possessed before joining. Away from the pressures of the cult, she would be free to make an informed religious choice, unlike the controlled "choices" presented to her while in the group.
Finally, the terms of the agreement were discussed. Margaret assured the exit counselor that her daughter had voluntarily agreed to come home for the weekend specifically to discuss her devotion to the Center. The daughter understood that her mother and father would have a knowledgeable friend with them to speak with her, though she did not realize that the "friend" would be the exit counselor. For the fairly typical sum of $3,000 plus expenses, the exit counselor and his assistant would devote the next four days to the intervention. Of course, there were no guarantees: some ex-cultists needed additional in-patient counseling at a special "recovery" center, and one study put deprogramming failure rates at above 35 percent.
Margaret left her meeting with the exit counselor with confidence and optimism. With a trained professional, a backlog support of sociological and psychological literature, and her own determination to rescue her daughter, Margaret actually looked forward to the coming weekend.
Countless times across America scenes like this are played out for real as desperate parents of adult cult converts seek to understand how their children could change so drastically and pledge their lives to bizarre, exclusivistic religious movements. For many people, especially secular cult observers, the theory of mind control is used to explain this phenomenon. The cult mind control model is so commonly raised in explanation that many people assume its validity without question.
In this article, we look behind the assumptions of the mind control model and uncover the startling reality that "cult mind control" is, at best, a distorted misnomer for cult conversion that robs individuals of personal moral responsibility. While mind control model advocates rightly point out that cults often practice deception, emotional manipulation, and other unsavory recruitment tactics, we believe a critical, well-reasoned examination of the evidence disproves the cult mind control model and instead affirms the importance of informed, biblically based religious commitment.
Assumptions Of Mind ControlThe theory of cult mind control is part of a contemporary adversarial approach to many cults, new religious movements, and non-traditional churches. In this approach sociological and psychological terminology has been substituted for Christian terminology. Cult involvement is no longer described as religious conversion, but as mind control induction. Cult membership is not characterized as misplaced religious zeal but as programming. And the cultist who leaves his group is no longer described as redeemed, but as returned to a neutral religious position. And rather than evangelism of cult members, we now have "intervention counseling."
And biblical apologetics has been replaced by cognitive dissonance techniques. A parent's plea has changed from "How can my adult child be saved?" to "How can my adult child revert to his/her pre-cult personality?" Biblical analysis and evangelism of the cults has become overshadowed by allegedly "value neutral" social science descriptions and therapy-oriented counseling.
The principal assumptions of the cult mind control model can be summarized under eight categories:
- Cults' ability to control the mind supersedes that of the best military "brainwashers."
- Cult recruits become unable to think or make decisions for themselves.
- Cult recruits assume "cult" personalities and subsume their core personalities.
- Cultists cannot decide to leave their cults.
- A successful intervention must break the mind control, find the core personality, and return the individual to his/her pre-cult status.
- Psychology and sociology are used to explain cult recruitment, membership, and disaffection.
- Religious conversion and commitment may be termed "mind control" if it meets certain psychological and sociological criteria, regardless of its doctrinal or theological standards.
- The psychological and sociological standards which define mind control are not absolute, but fall in a relative, subjective continuum from "acceptable" social and/or religious affiliation to "unacceptable."
According to most cult mind control model advocates, no one is immune to the right mind control tactics used at the right time. Anyone is susceptible. For example, Steven Hassan, recognized as a premier source for the cult mind control model, writes in his book, Combatting Cult Mind Control, "Anyone, regardless of family background, can be recruited into a cult. The major variable is not the person's family but the cult recruiter's level of skill." Dr. Paul Martin, evangelical director of a rehabilitation center for former cultists, writes,
"But the truth of the matter is, virtually anyone can get involved in a cult under the right circumstances. . . . Regardless of one's spiritual or psychological health, whether one is weak or strong, cultic involvement can happen to anyone."Evangelical exit counselor Craig Branch told us in an interview that, even though he was extremely knowledgable and experienced regarding cult mind control, he still could be caught by cult mind control administered at the right time by the right person.
The cult mind control model is based on a fundamental conviction that the cultist becomes unable to make responsible and rational choices or decisions (particularly the choice to leave the group), and that psychological techniques are the most effective ways to free them to make decisions once more. This foundation is non-negotiable to the mind control model, and is at the root of what we consider so flawed about the mind control concept.
We find this foundational conviction assumed in a 1977 article describing recovery from cult mind control by evangelical sociologist Dr. Ronald Enroth, who quotes Dr. Margaret Singer, an outspoken advocate of the cult mind control model:
In a situation removed from the reinforcing pressures of the cult, the ex-members are encouraged to think for themselves so that they are "once again in charge of their own volition and their own decision-making."
Hassan asserts that, both from his personal testimony and his field experience, cult recruits cannot think for themselves or initiate decisions:
Members [of the Unification Church] . . . become totally dependent upon the group for financial and emotional support, and lose the ability to act independently of it.
Paul Martin asserts that cult mind control renders its victims virtually unresponsible for their actions or beliefs:
. . . the process whereby he or she was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful force over which he or she had little or no control and therefore they need not feel either guilt or shame because of their experience.
Cult mind control must be distinguished from "mere" deception, influence, or persuasion. At the core of the distinctive of mind control is the idea that the individual becomes unable to make autonomous personal choices, not simply that his or her choices have been predicated on something false. British sociologist Eileen Barker, a critic of the mind control concept, points out this difference:
Recruitment that employs deception should, however, be distinguished from "brainwashing" or "mind control." If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement -- the decision is made for them. If, on the other hand, it is just deception that is being practised, converts will be perfectly capable of making a decision -- although they might make a different decision were they basing their choice on more accurate information.Fundamentally, the mind control model assumes inability to choose, while deception interferes with the accuracy of the knowledge one uses to make a choice.
Objection: The Brainwashing ConnectionRepresentatives of the mind control model contradictorily both distance mind control from classic brainwashing and yet also see continuity between cult mind control and the classic brainwashing attempts in the 1950s by North Koreans and Chinese among American prisoners of war and by American CIA researchers. When critics of the mind control model point out the abysmal failures of classic brainwashing (discussed later in this article), advocates like Michael Langone say they have "misrepresented the critics' [of the cults] [supporters of the mind control model] position by portraying them as advocates of a robotization theory of cult conversion based on The Manchurian Candidate."
However, there is also concensus among mind control model advocates that classic brainwashing is the precursor to contemporary cult mind control. Psychologist Dr. Margaret Singer underscores this connection in her preface to this same Langone book, Recovery from Cults:
[M]y interest [in cult psychology and mind control] began during the Korean War era when I worked at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and studied thought-reform, influence, and intense indoctrination programs. Since then, I have continued the study of group influence.
In the 1960s I began to heed the appearance of cults and heard the descriptions of hundreds of parents who noticed certain changes in the personality, demeanor, and attitudes of their young-adult offspring who had become involved in cults. . . . The cults created programs of social and psychological influence that were effective for their goals. And I noticed especially that what had been added to the basic thought-reform programs seen in the world in the 1950s was the new cultic groups' use of pop psychology techniques for further manipulating guilt, fear, and defenses.
This contradictory embracing and rejecting of the brainwashing connection is partially reconciled only by the nonsubstantive differences pointed out by mind control model supporters: (1) "Brainwashing" is considered primitive and often ineffective; (2) "Mind control" is claimed to be extremely powerful and compelling.
Hassan says, "Today, many techniques of mind control exist that are far more sophisticated than the brainwashing techniques used in World War II and the Korean War", and explains further:
Mind control is not brainwashing. . . .
Brainwashing is typically coercive. The person knows at the outset that he is in the hands of an enemy. It begins with a clear demonstration of the respective roles -- who is prisoner and who is jailer -- and the prisoner experiences an absolute minimum of choice. Abusive mistreatment, even torture, is usually involved. . . .
Mind control, also called "thought reform," is more subtle and sophisticated. Its perpetrators are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much less defensive. He unwittingly participates by cooperating with his controllers and giving them private information that he does not know will be used against him. The new belief system is internalized into a new identity structure.
Mind control involves little or no overt physical abuse. . . . The individual is deceived and manipulated -- not directly threatened -- into making the prescribed choices. On the whole, he responds positively to what is done to him.
Even though the evidence shows the unreliability and limits of hypnosis, Hassan also argues that "hypnotic processes are combined with group dynamics to create a potent indoctrination effect . . . . Destructive cults commonly induce trances in their members through lengthy indoctrination sessions . . . . I have seen many strong-willed people hypnotized and made to do things they would never normally do." Hassan states that hypnosis enables mind control perpetrators to increase their success rates impressively above what is possible through other mind control techniques.
Despite attempts to distinguish the generations of mind control development, there are no qualitative differences and what was once "brainwashing" became "snapping," which now is "mind control," "coercive persuasion," "menticide," "thought reform," etc. Each term focuses, however, on the power of the cult recruiters and on the inability of the recruit to think and/or decide independently from the cult.
However, it stretches one's credulity to believe that what CIA, Russian, Korean, and Chinese highly trained and technologically supported experts could not accomplish under extremes of mental, emotional, and physical abuse, self-styled modern messiahs like David hgate (high school dropout), Charles Manson (grade school dropout), and Hare Krishna founder Braphupada (self-educated) accomplished on a daily basis and on a massive scale with control methods measurably inferior to those of POW camp torturers. Do we really believe that what the Soviets couldn't do to Alexander Solzhenitsyn during years of forced labor and torture in the Gulag, Sun Myung Moon could have done by "love bombing" for one week at an idyllic wilderness retreat? Sociologists Bromley and Shupe point out the absurdity of such a notion:
Finally, the brainwashing notion implied that somehow these diverse and unconnected movements had simultaneously discovered and implemented highly intrusive behavioral modification techniques. Such serendipity and coordination was implausible given the diverse backgrounds of the groups at issue. Furthermore, the inability of highly trained professionals responsible for implementing a variety of modalities for effecting individual change, ranging from therapy to incarceration, belie claims that such rapid transformation can routinely be accomplished by neophytes against an individual's will.
Objection: The Deterministic FaultWe believe the data presented here shows that people join, stay in, and leave cults on their own responsibilities, even if their decisions may have been influenced or affected by deceit, pressure, emotional appeal, or other means. We do not believe the evidence supports the mind control model. In this article we express the concerns and fears of conservative, evangelical, and knowledgable counter-cult apologists not only our own concerns but those of other counter-cult workers (Christian and non- Christian) who firmly believe that the mind control model misdiagnoses the problem, mis-prescribes the solution, and (for Christians) is contrary to a biblical cult evangelism model.
Those holding to the mind control model have made the generalization that most cults have internal social pressures and religious practices which, if not identical in nature, are similar in effect; and that average cult members are similarly affected by these teachings, techniques, and practices. We reject this generalization, though we will grant -- and in fact have stated publicly -- that many cults have made deceptive claims, used faulty logic, misrepresented their beliefs, burdened their followers with unscriptural feelings of guilt, and sought to bring people into financial or moral compromise to unethical demands. Yet it does not necessarily or automatically follow that these pressures, practices, or demands remove an individual's personal responsibility for his or her actions.
The cult mind control model assumes that a combination of pressure and deception necessarily disables personal responsibility. Exit counselor Hassan recognizes that the cult mind control model (which he has adopted) is incompatible with the traditional philosophical and Christian view of man as a responsible moral agent:
First of all, accepting that unethical mind control can affect anybody challenges the age-old philosophical notion (the one on which our current laws are based) that man is a rational being, responsible for, and in control of, his every action. Such a world view does not allow for any concept of mind control.
Objection: The Double - BindHassan provides no means of knowing, testing, or proving whether people who are under emotional pressure, personal stress, or actual deception are in fact "not responsible" for their actions or not making free choices. Nor does Hassan suggest any way to clearly determine when techniques of "influence" or "persuasion" might become so great that one being influenced is no longer responsible, no longer rational, or no longer has a personal will. Medical doctor J. Thomas Ungerleider and Ph.D. David K. Wellish show the fallacious presuppositions used by the deprogrammers (now exit counselors):
If the member never does renounce the cult then he or she is regarded by the deprogrammers as an unsuccessful attempt or failed deprogramming, not as one who now has free will and has still chosen to remain with the cult.
Whether this is called this circular reasoning or a "double-bind," the net result is that the "proof" that the cultist has been coerced is unfalsifiable, and he cannot prove that he has freely chosen to join his group. If you leave the cult as a result of deprogramming (or exit counseling), that proves you were under mind control. If you return to the cult, that proves you are under mind control. The standard for determining mind control is not some objective evaluation of mental health or competency, but merely the assumed power of mind control the critic accords to the cult.
Recently certain of the model's proponents seem to blur the definition of mind control, perhaps because there is no corroborating evidence that mind control techniques produce qualitatively different results in religious conversion.
It appears that some evangelicals especially have problems reconciling a classic cult mind control model with other religious considerations and with later developments in this area. For example, sociologist Ronald Enroth, an evangelical professor at Christian Westmont College, is reluctant to be perceived as a mind control model advocate, even though he his support appeared clear in the late 1970s and continues at least tacitly today.
Enroth promoted the model in his 1977 book Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults and also in a 1977 Christian magazine article, "Cult/Countercult." His most recent book (1992), Churches that Abuse, is peppered with language concerning victimization, lack of personal control, and autocratic decision-making control. Additionally, he endorses the work of other mind control advocates such as Hassan (1990) and Singer, and serves on the editorial advisory board of the pre-eminent mind control model journal, Cultic Studies Journal, edited by Langone. In a personal letter to us he describes Martin and Langone's Christian Research Journal "Viewpoint" article as "a helpful correction to the earlier article and it, too, reflects my own thinking re exit counseling, even though I have never personally witnessed or engaged in formal exit counseling."
Despite these several apparent (sometimes tacit) endorsements of the mind control model, in the same letter to us he declared, "You do NOT have my permission to represent my 1977 writing about thought reform and brainwashing as my current position on the topic. That doesn't mean that I necessarily disavow what I said then; it means that it is not academically/professionally current and I have not had time nor inclination to update, in writing, in this area."
Geri-Ann Galanti and co-authors Philip Zimbardo and Susan Andersen reflect this change in the recent book, Recovery from Cults, edited by Michael Langone of the American Family Foundation.
Galanti says that mind control (which she equates with brainwashing) "refers to the use of manipulative techniques that are for the most part extremely effective in influencing the behavior of others." These influence techniques work to change our beliefs and attitudes as well; we encouter these pressures constantly "in advertising, in schools, in military basic training, in the media." They are a part of the socialization process, a part of life, Galanti maintains.
Yet when describing her own visit to a Moonie indoctrination center, where contrary to expectations, she was allowed plenty of sleep, food, and to observe horsing around among the Moonies (some even joking about brainwashing!), Galanti concludes: "What I found was completely contrary to my expectations and served to underscore both the power and the subtlety of mind control." While she was there, she felt much of the experience to be a positive one.
Later, Galanti decides that what she really experienced, despite all evidence to the contrary, was an even more seductive, subversive form of mind control than she'd previously imagined could exist. It nearly fooled even her. In short, the lack of evidence for mind control among the Moonies was really evidence for just how insidious their methods of mind control had become! Such argumentation points to the frustrating nature of the belief in mind control; so often evidence offered against the mind control model is mis-used to illustrate how true it must be.
Zimbardo and Andersen offer a mind control definition similar to Galanti's: a tool to "manipulate others' thoughts, feelings, and behavior within a given context over a period of time . . . " The chapter deals at length with common uses of manipulation so that definitions of mind control techniques multiple to include anything from flattery to social etiquette to hard-of-hearing salesmen. Again, the move is apparently away from seeing mind control as insidious, powerful techniques that rob individuals of personal freedom, and toward a new, "broader" definition which sees mind control as a synonym for "means of persuasion." However, if mind control loses its distinctive power and unique techniques, then it ceases to have any relevance as a term descriptive of special cult indoctrination processes.
By almost interchanging the terms "persuasion" and "manipulation," Zimbardo and Anderson gloss over ethical, connotative differences between these two terms. Second, and more important, the new trend to define mind control to include nearly all "manipulative techniques" implicitly contradicts a key element of the traditional model, namely, that mind control renders its subjects unable to think rationally or choose independently.
A definition of mind control that removes its involuntary component is intrinsicaly at odds with the prevailing teachings of Singer, Langone, Hassan, Martin, and others that cult victims are unable to think for themselves or make decisions. Instead, it is more in agreement with the case we have been arguing -- that cult members are capable of independent thought and rational choice-making, but because of factual and spiritual deception, faulty presuppositions, fallacious reasoning, and improper religious commitments, they make unwise choices and adopt false beliefs instead.
Contemporary mind control model advocates want to have the best of both worlds: They want to distinguish cult recruitment techniques from normal socialization activities to substantiate their claims about the insidious powers of the cults, even to the point of pressing for anti-cult legislation; But as soon as anyone asks for concrete evidence and qualitative definitions, mind control becomes just another term for the myriads of forms of non-candid persuasion.
Objection: The Brainwashing EvidenceIn addition to philosophical and logical problems with the cult mind control model, the evidence contradicts it. Neither brainwashing, mind control's supposed precursor, nor mind control itself, have any appreciable demonstrated effectiveness. Singer and other mind control model proponents are not always candid about this fact: The early brainwashing attempts were largely unsuccessful. Even though the Koreans and Chinese used extreme forms of physical coercion as well as persuasive coercion, very few individuals subjected to their techniques changed their basic world views or commitments.
The CIA also experimented with brainwashing. Though not using Korean or Chinese techniques of torture, beatings, and group dynamics, the CIA did experiment with drugs (including LSD) and medical therapies such as electroshock in their research on mind control. Their experiments failed to produce even one potential Manchurian Candidate, and the program was finally abandoned.
Although some mind control model advocates bring up studies that appear to provide objective data in support of their theories, such is not the case. These studies are generally flawed in several areas: (1) Frequently the respondents are not from a wide cross-section of ex-members but disproportionately are those who have been exit-counseled by mind control model advocates who tell them they were under mind control; (2) Frequently the sample group is so small its results cannot be fairly representative of cult membership in general; (3) It is almost impossible to gather data from the same individuals before cult affiliation, during cult affiliation, and after cult disaffection, so respondents are sometimes asked to answer as though they were not yet members, or as though they were still members, etc. Each of these flaws introduces unpredicatiblity and subjectivity that make such study results unreliable.
Objection: Low Recruitment RatesThe evidence against the effectiveness of mind control techniques is even more overwhelming. Studies show that the vast majority of young people approached by new religious movements (NRMs) never join despite heavy recruitment tactics. This low rate of recruitment provides ample evidence that whatever techniques of purported mind control are used as cult recruiting tools, they do not work on most people. Even of those interested enough to attend a recruitment seminar or weekend, the majority do not join the group. Eileen Barker documents that out of 1000 people persuaded by the Moonies to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week, and less than 4% remained members in 1981, two years later:
". . . and, with the passage of time, the number of continuing members who joined in 1979 has continued to fall. If the calculation were to start from those who, for one reason or another, had visited one of the movement's centres in 1979, at least 999 out of every 1,000 of those people had, by the mid-1980s, succeeeded in resisting the persuasive techniques of the Unification Church."
Of particular importance is that this extremely low rate of conversion is known even to Hassan, the best-known mind control model advocate whose book is the standard text for introducing concerned parents to mind control/exit counseling. In his personal testimony of his own involvement with the Unification Church, he notes that he was the first convert to join at the center in Queens; that during the first three months of his membership he only recruited two more people; and that pressure to recruit new members was only to reach the goal of one new person per member per month, a surprisingly low figure if we are to accept the inevitable success of cult mind control techniques.
Objection: High Attrition Rates Additionally, natural attrition (people leaving the group without specific intervention) was much higher than the self-claimed 65% deprogramming success figure! It is far more likely a new convert would leave the cult within the first year of his membership than it is that he would become a long term member.
This data, confirming low rates of conversion and high rates of disaffection, is deadly to the mind control model. The data reveals that the theory of cult mind control is not confirmed by the statistical evidence. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and signficance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but personally responsible decisions nontheless.
As Barker summarizes, "far more people have left the very NRMs from which people are most commonly deprogramed than have stayed in them, and the overwhelming majority of these people have managed to leave without the need for any physical coercion."
Objection: The Anti-Religious Bias Of Mind Control AssumptionsAlthough most secular mind control model advocates deny that they are critical of any particular beliefs, but only of practices, Shupe and Bromley note, "It quickly became apparent that brainwashing served as a conclusionary value judgment rather than as an analytic concept."
A look at the historical evidence underscores the anti-religious basis of the brainwashing/mind control model. As sociologists Anthony and Robbins note,
[I]n a sense the project of modern social science, particularly in its Enlightenment origins, has been to liberate man from the domination of retrogressive forces, particularly religion, which has often been seen as a source of involuntariness and a threat to personal autonomy, from which an individual would be liberated by "the science of freedom" (Gay, 1969). This view of religion had been present in the cruder early models of brainwashing such as Sargant (1957), who saw evangelical revivalism as a mode of brainwashing, and who commenced his studies after noting similarities between conversions to Methodism and Pavlovian experiments with dogs . . . (Robbins and Anthony, 1979).
William Sargant, approvingly cited by many cult mind control model advocates, also made statements arguing that Christian evangelistic preaching techniques are similar to communist brainwashing methods. As Sargant wrote in his Battle for the Mind:
Anyone who wishes to investigate the technique of brain-washing and eliciting confessions as practiced behind the Iron Curtain (and on this side of it, too, in certain police stations where the spirit of the law is flouted) would do well to start with a study of eighteenth-century American revivalism from the 1730s onward. The physiological mechanics seem the same, and the beliefs and behavior patterns implanted, especially among the puritans of New England, have not been surpassed for rigidity and intolerance even in Stalin's times in the U.S.S.R.
Sargant's anti-Christian bias is also reflected by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, 1970s popularizers of the cult mind control theory. Expressions of offense at the exclusive claims of Christianity appear in their bestselling book, Snapping. Some born-again Christians "shocked us considerably," they state, for telling us that "we would be condemned to Hell for the opinions we expressed and the beliefs we held." Among groups cited as suspect by Conway and Siegelman was Campus Crusade for Christ. The two miscontrues as a threat what Campus Crusade founder Bill Bright describes as conversion to Christ: "surrender of the intellect, the emotions, and the will -- the total person." Conway and Siegelman conclude: "In its similarity to the appeals of so many cult recruiters and lecturers, this traditional Christian doctrine -- and the suggestion contained within it -- takes on new and ominous overtones."
"What is the line between a cult and a legitimate religion?" Conway and Siegelman ask. "In America today that line cannot be categorically drawn. In the course of our investigation, however, it became clear to us that many Born Again Christians had been severed from their families, their pasts, and society as a whole as a result of a profound personal transformation. It is not in keeping with the purpose of this investigation to comment on the far-flung Evangelical movement in its entirety, but our research raised serious questions concerning the techniques used to bring about conversion in many Evangelical sects."
Conway, Siegleman, and many other anti-cult workers presuppose the harmfulness of any religious allegiance that includes exclusivity and total commitment. Looking back in history, such anti-religious bias is not uncommon. There were those who thought Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi were mentally incompetent to make their religious commitments.
In short, there is no objective, evidential way to define groups that are "good" (not using mind control) versus groups that are "bad" (using mind control). Without evidence, the accusation of mind control against any group or individual becomes a matter of personal bias. Once one points to particular doctrines, teachings, or practices as inherently bad, one has abandoned the supposedly religiously "neutral" position of the cult mind control advocates and must make religious judgments. Although this is not the focus of this article, we note here that as evangelical Christians we openly admit that we make religious judgments regarding the cults, and that those religious judgments are based on the Bible, not on our own subjective opinions or some concensus of social science professionals.
Objection: Creating VictimsMany people who join cults want to help the needy, forsake materialism, or develop personal independence from their families, not necessarily bad goals, although misguided by false cult teachings. The cult mind control model, however, attributes cult membership primarily to mind control and thereby denigrates or discounts such positive activities and goals, misaffiliated to cults as they are.
The mind control model also fails to give proper weight to the role natural suggestibility plays in making one vulnerable to the cults. Highly suggestible people are especially susceptible to religious salesmanship as well as many other "sales pitches."
The cult mind control model instead focuses on victimization, that a cult member joins as a result of mind control and not as the result of personal choice. Adopting a "victimization" perspective actually strips the cult member of his capacity for rational activity. The cult mind control model epitomizes a "victim" mentality. Hassan explains his approach to counseling a cult member:
First, I demonstrate to him that he is in a trap -- a situation where he is psychologically disabled and can't get out. Second, I show him that he didn't originally choose to enter a trap. Third, I point out that other people in other groups are in similar traps. Fourth, I tell him that it is possible to get out of the trap.
This kind of victimization is very popular in our society today, although it has not demonstrated any evidential validity nor any ability to set the foundation for emotional or mental health.
Problems with the cult victimization idea can be illustrated by looking at other areas outside the new religous movements. We have the Bradshaw "model" of adults as "inner children" who never grew up because of their "dysfunctional" families. We have the many twelve-step spawned derivative groups where members seem to focus more on their powerlessness against whatever addictive "illness" they have than on another twelve-step maxim: personal responsibility. And we have the many "Adult Children" support groups where members uncover the sources of all their problems -- dysfunctional parents.
One of the most visible applications of the mind control model today is in the area of repressed memories of early childhood abuse (of satanic ritual abuse, simple child abuse, alien or UFO abduction, past lives, etc.). Amazingly, the mind control model is used to describe two contrasting portions of this problem. First, therapists and clients who believe they have uncovered previously repressed memories of early childhood abuse believe that the original abusers practice mind control on their victims. One of the most extreme examples of this is psychologist Corry Hammond, who postulates a sophisticated system of mind control he believes was developed from experimental Nazi systems.
Second, falsely accused parents and other family members often believe the mind control model, applied to the relationship between the therapist and the accusing client, explains how adult children could sincerely believe and accuse their own fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, and grandparents of performing unspeakable horrors on them as children, including human sacrifice, rape, incest, mutilation, etc. Many times these adult children have publicly denounced their parents and refused any contact with them for years. Surely to believe such outrageous fictions, they must be under therapeutic mind control! Finally, once adult "survivors" come to the realization that their memories are false, they must deal with the reality that they have accused their loved ones of horrible atrocities. One alleged survivor, struggling to maintain belief in her alleged recovered memories, acknowledged this painful responsibility:
I wish I could say that I knew [my memories] were 100 percent true. But I can't. If they are all based on falsehoods, I deserve to be damned, and that is really tough. I've made some really important decisions that have affected a lot of people. I still get back to [the feeling that] the essence of the belief has to be true."
How could they have ever caused their families such anguish? They must have been victims of therapeutic mind control!
And yet, such a view fosters a crippling victimization that says, in effect, "you couldn't do anything to prevent this insidious mind control" and, consequently, what could you possibly do to protect yourself or your loved ones in the future?
Speaking about cults, Barker makes this clear, saying,
Those who leave by themselves may have concluded that they made a mistake and that they recognized that fact and, as a result, they did something about it: they left. Those who have been deprogrammed, on the other hand, are taught that is was not they who were responsible for joining; they were the victims of mind- control techniques -- and these prevented them from leaving. Research has shown that, unlike those who have been deprogrammed (and thereby taught that they had been brainwashed), those who leave voluntarily are extremely unlikely to believe that they were ever the victims of mind control.
An improper victimization model, whether used to understand cult recruitment, repressed memories, adult emotional distress, or false accusations of abuse does not provide the education, critical thinking apparatus, or coping mechanisms necessary to protect oneself from further victimization, and, most importantly, such theories do not focus on the life-transforming gospel as the ultimate solution.
Additionally, true victims, such as small children, victims of rape, robbery, or murder, those who truly are unable to predict or prevent their victimization, have their predicament cheapened and obscured by those who are not truly defenseless victims.
This model has become standard for many evangelical Christians who have therapists, attribute their current problems to "dysfunctional" relationships, and trace their personal inadequacies to emotionally harmful childhoods (everyone's a dysfunctional "adult child" of alcoholism, or abuse, or isolationism, or authoritarianism). Everyone is a victim. One doesn't need to be saved from one's own sins as much as from the sins of others. Psychology and sociology have replaced Scripture for understanding human behavior and developing emotionally and spiritually healthy persons. Yet nowhere in Scripture do we find support for the idea complaint first voiced by Eve that "the devil -- or the cult leader -- made me do it." One cannot remove human responsibility without also destroying human morality:
Some social scientists object to the idea that humans are free to choose. They claim that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological, and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Thus, B. F. Skinner holds that autonomous man is a myth. All of man's so-called "decisions" are actually determined by previous experience. Even some Christians believe that all of men's actions are determined by God . . . . , and that they have no free choice.
Such a view of man must be met head-on. If free choice is a myth, so is moral obligation. C. S. Lewis notes that a deterministic view brings about the abolition of man. In an impassioned plea he argues that you cannot strip men of autonomy without denuding them of responsibility: "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Objection: Theological InconsistenciesIf the cult recruiter's skill at manipulation is considered so coercive that members are not responsible for their own beliefs, actions, or even the decision to join/stay in the cult, then many biblical affirmations about personal responsibility and decision-making are jeopardized. To a secular mind control model advocate, this may seem a trivial objection. But several advocates are Christian evangelicals and must come to terms with the theological inconsistencies introduced when the cult mind control model is adopted.
For example, in the Garden, Satan personally appeared to orchestrate the temptation of Eve -- and who could be more persuasive? Our first parents succumbed to the temptation and were cast out of the Garden, and all of humanity thereafter have been penalized by this primal sin. If our first parents could be held morally responsible when confronted by the Ultimate Tempter, how is it that we seek to excuse ourselves or our offspring when confronted by human tempters of far less power, skill, and charisma?
Moreover, we observe that both Adam and Eve were penalized alike, even though the temptation was very well different for each. Eve's temptation was mediated by the direct approach of Satan; Adam's temptation occurred via his wife, and we are not told that Satan appeared to Adam as he did to Eve. Yet, regardless of whether Satan's presence was immediate or remote, firsthand or secondhand, both shared ethical culpability for their action.
It is also instructive to note that the second sin of Adam and Eve was blameshifting, the attempt to elude personal responsibility. Eve blamed the Serpent, and Adam blamed Eve. Though God loved them deeply, He did not accept this rationalization then, and He will not accept similar excuses made today for our own wrong beliefs and behavior.
ConclusionThis carefully focused evaluation has shown that the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless.
As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant. The power of the gospel (Romans 1:16) erases spiritual ignorance and provides the best opportunity possible for right moral and religious choices. "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).
ReferencesAlnor, William M. and Ronald Enroth. "Ethical Problems in Exit Counseling" Christian Research Journal 14:3:1992::14-19.
Andersen, Susan M. and Philip G. Zimbardo. "Resisting Mind Control" USA TODAY 11/90, 44-47.
Anthony, Dick and Thomas Robbins. "Law, Social Science and the 'Brainwashing' Exception to the First Amendment" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::5-30.
Bach, Marcus. Strange Sects and Curious Cults. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1961.
Barker, Eileen. New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1989.
Bjornstad, James. "Cultic and Christian Conversion: Is There a Difference?" Update 6:1:1982::50-64.
Bromley, David G. and Edward F. Breschel. "General Population and Institutional Elite Support for Social Control of New Religious Movements: Evidence from National Survey Data" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::39-52.
Bromley, David G. and Anson D. Shupe. Strange Gods. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981.
__________________________________. "Public Reaction Against New Religious Movements" Cults and New Religious Movements (Marc Galanter, ed.). Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Budansky, Stephen, Erica E. Goode, and Ted Gest, "The Cold War Experiments" Newsweek 116:3::January 24, 1994, pp. 32-38.
Collins, Gary. Search for Reality. Santa Ana, CA: Vision House Publishers, 1969.
Conway, Flo and Jim Siegelman. Snapping: American's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc., 1979.
Cornerstone. "Deprogramming Deprogrammed," 6:36::9.
Dart, John. "Doubt Cast on 'Brainwashing' by Cults" Los Angeles Times 11/19/83.
Davis, Deborah (Linda Berg) with Bill Davis. The Children of God: The Inside Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Davis, Deborah with Bill Davis. "Cults, Brainwashing and Personal Responsibility" Forward, Summer 1985, 12-30.
Duncan, R. and M. Weston-Smith, compilers. Lying Truths. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979.
Enroth, Ronald. Churches that Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
______________. "Cult/Countercult" Eternity November 1977, pp. 19-34.
_____________. Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.
Freyd, Pamela, ed. Newsletter. Philadelphia, PA: False Memory Syndrome Foundation 1990-current (monthly).
Galanter, Marc. Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
____________, ed. Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Griffin, Em. The Mind Changers. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1976.
Hassan, Steven. Combatting Cult Mind Control. Rocester, VT: Park Street Press, 1990.
"Hypnosis," Macropaedia 9:138, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1978.
Kilbourne, Brock K. "Psychotherapeutic Implications of New Religious Affiliation" Cults and New Religious Movements. (Marc Galanter, ed.) Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Langone, Michael D. "Treatment of Individuals and Families Troubled by Cult Involvement" Update 7:1:1983::27-38.
Langone, Michael D. and Paul R. Martin. "Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics: Clarifying the Confusion" Christian Research Journal 15:3:1993::46-47.
Langone, Michael D., ed. Recovery From Cults. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1993.
MacHovec, Frank. "Cults: Forensic and Therapeutic Aspects" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::31-38.
Martin, Paul R. Cult-Proofing Your Kids. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
_____________. "Dispelling the Myths: The Psychological Consequences of Cultic Involvement" Christian Research Journal Winter/Spring 1989, 9-14.
____________. "Wellspring's Approach to Cult Rehab" and "Recent Court Victories" Wellspring Messenger 4:5:November/December 1993, pp. 1-4.
Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1986.
Metz, Gary. "Is Christianity a Cult?" Cornerstone 9:50:1980::25-26.
Ogloff, James R. P. and Jeffrey Pfeiffer. "Cults and the Law: A Discussion of the Legality of Alleged Cult Activities" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::117-140.
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1949.
Passantino, Robert and Gretchen. Answers to the Cultist at Your Door. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1981.
____________________________. "The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse" Christian Research Journal Winter 1992::21-34.
____________________________. "Satanic Ritual Abuse in Popular Christian Literature: Why Christians Fall for a Lie while Searching for the Truth" Journal of Psychology and Theology 1992:20:3::299-305.
Pfeifer, Jeffrey and James R. P. Ogloff. "New Religious Movements and the Law: Past Interactions and New Directions" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::1-4.
Richardson, James T. "The Psychology of Induction: A Review and Interpretation" Cults and New Religious Movements (Mar Galanter, ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Robbins, Thomas and Dick Anthony, eds. In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981.
Sargant, William. Battle for the Mind. London: Pan Books, 1957.
Shupe, Anson and David G. Bromley. "The Modern American Anti-Cult Movement: A Twenty-Year Retrospective," Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, August, 1991.
_______________________________. The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and the New Religions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Library of Social Research, 1980.
______________________________. "Witches, Moonies, and Accusations of Evil" In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America. (Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony, eds.) New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981.
Singer, Margaret Thaler. "Coming Out of the Cults" Psychology Today January 1979, 72-82.
Solomon, Trudy. "Integrating the 'Moonie' Experience" In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America. (Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony, eds.) New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981. Sparks, Jack. The Mind Benders. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977.
Tucker, Ruth. Another Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.
Ungerleider, J. Thomas and David K. Wellisch. "Deprogramming (Involuntary Departure), Coercion, and Cults" Cults and New Religious Movements. (Marc Galanter, ed.) Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1989.
Watters, Ethan. "Doors of Memory" Mother Jones Jan/Feb 1993, pp. 24-77.
Wollersheim, Lawrence. What is F.A.C.T.'s Purpose and Project Plan? Golden, CO: F.A.C.T., 1993.
Young, John L. and Ezra E. H. Griffith. "A Critical Evaluation of Coercive Persuasion as Used in the Assessment of Cults" Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:1:1992::89-102.