From what I can gather, wouldn’t a rationalist overwhelmingly utilize exit counseling almost exclusively (as in, only extreme, pathological situations would seem to ever merit use of force for deprogramming).
Only if you accept a definition of deprogramming that includes the implication of coercion[]. IMHO, deprogramming* is—or should be—a general term with no implication of coercion.
Linking deprogramming to coercion seems likely to be a negative marketing move by exit counsellors (who pride themselves on not using coercion).
Aside from the FUD, “deprogramming” seems like a better, more general term than “exit counseling”.
[*] Even then if you want a rescue attempt to succeed, drastic measures may be necessary—cults can put up a fight.
Linking deprogramming to coercion seems likely to be a negative marketing move by exit counsellors (who pride themselves on not using coercion).
This is plausible, but is not how it happened. Historically, “deprogramming” became associated with coercion, so “exit counselling” was set up to do the same thing without coercion.
I appreciate your concerns that “deprogramming” shouldn’t imply coercion, but in normative usage it does.
Some people are trying to screw up this perfectly good word. I suspect that is probably for marketing reasons. Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding. Whatever reasons there are, they are not anything to do with good terminology. The proposed meaning involving coercion necessarily being involved totally sucks. I recommend not promoting such ugly nonsense.
Only if you accept a definition of deprogramming that includes the implication of coercion. IMHO, deprogramming is—or should be—a general term with no implication of coercion.
I totally agree, and to avoid confusion over words, I was merely using the definition of deprogramming from the Wikipedia link you provided, where it says:
Deprogramming refers to actions that attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. Similar actions, when done without force, are called “exit counseling”.
It doesn’t matter to me which words we choose to refer to these concepts with, as long as we make a distinction between types of exit counseling / deprogramming that involve coercion and types that don’t. Making that distinction with the two phrases “deprogramming” and “exit counseling” seems as good as any to me, although “coercive deprogramming” and “noncoercive deprogramming” is more clear to the layman and allows exit counseling to claim itself as a subset of noncoercive deprogramming.
I was merely using the definition of deprogramming from the Wikipedia link you provided, where it says:
Deprogramming refers to actions that attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. Similar actions, when done without force, are called “exit counseling”.
Yes, but this is very bad terminology because it conceals unnecessary technical gumph (coercion) behind a perfectly ordinary-looking word (deprogramming). Of course, it should be:
Only if you accept a definition of deprogramming that includes the implication of coercion[]. IMHO, deprogramming* is—or should be—a general term with no implication of coercion.
Linking deprogramming to coercion seems likely to be a negative marketing move by exit counsellors (who pride themselves on not using coercion).
Aside from the FUD, “deprogramming” seems like a better, more general term than “exit counseling”.
[*] Even then if you want a rescue attempt to succeed, drastic measures may be necessary—cults can put up a fight.
This is plausible, but is not how it happened. Historically, “deprogramming” became associated with coercion, so “exit counselling” was set up to do the same thing without coercion.
I appreciate your concerns that “deprogramming” shouldn’t imply coercion, but in normative usage it does.
Not really. Here are some better definitions:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deprogramming
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deprogramming
Some people are trying to screw up this perfectly good word. I suspect that is probably for marketing reasons. Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding. Whatever reasons there are, they are not anything to do with good terminology. The proposed meaning involving coercion necessarily being involved totally sucks. I recommend not promoting such ugly nonsense.
I totally agree, and to avoid confusion over words, I was merely using the definition of deprogramming from the Wikipedia link you provided, where it says:
It doesn’t matter to me which words we choose to refer to these concepts with, as long as we make a distinction between types of exit counseling / deprogramming that involve coercion and types that don’t. Making that distinction with the two phrases “deprogramming” and “exit counseling” seems as good as any to me, although “coercive deprogramming” and “noncoercive deprogramming” is more clear to the layman and allows exit counseling to claim itself as a subset of noncoercive deprogramming.
Yes, but this is very bad terminology because it conceals unnecessary technical gumph (coercion) behind a perfectly ordinary-looking word (deprogramming). Of course, it should be:
(deprogramming (coercive deprogramming) (non-coercive deprogramming / exit counseling))