1
The Cast of ‘The Brotherhood’ Docudrama
Since I have dubbed the film as being a variant of a docudrama it seemed appropriate that I
comment on the cast. In this document I explore how the interviewees (and the sub-groups of
the UBI referred in the film) have been represented as characters in a drama. The first
epitomised characterisations are those which I thought most viewers would gain, given the
bad-faith rendering of the filmmakers. After each of these depictions I have represented the
individuals and groups from my own perspective. While it could be said this is ‘only my
perspective’, it is mainly focused on verifiable facts and a researched position based on fair-
mindedness and good-faith. But of course both depictions include elements which can be
called subjective/objective. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh on occasions on both the
filmmakers and the interviewees; in any case it seemed important that I share my perspective
without treading to lightly or side-stepping issues as part of an exercise in diplomacy. This
document was written soon after watching the film and has not been much edited. It has
remained unpublished for well over two years while I completed my PhD. Had I released it
and my other Adjusting the Compass writings, my focus – the lives of the Robinsons prior to
the formation of the UBI – would have been compromised. Returning to this document now,
I have decided to leave it almost as I wrote it, as it retains the feelings and perspectives of the
time – and my disappointment in the way the filmmakers rewrote much of the history of the
UBI to suit their dramatic story.
———————
My 2009 Take on the Characters of the Film
In the spirit of robust discussion I write the following with an appreciation that I may have
some facts askew, and that my memories may have been distorted by subjective feelings. I
accept that my strong take on all this may be affronting to a reader with a similarly but very
different personal perspective and a dead-set-sure memory—this is likely to apply as much to
my interrogation of the film maker as the interviewee’s representations. I see all my writing
on the history and culture of the Universal Brotherhood as an ongoing responsive process.
Hopefully, something useful about the functioning of New Religious Groups like the
Universal Brotherhood will come out of the ongoing discussion with both my one-time
colleagues in the Universal Brotherhood, and my film-making friends who represented me
and the Robinsons’ movement in Compass’s ‘The Brotherhood’. In this sense the film has
kicked-off a valuable thread of invigorating inquiry. That the group is not functioning per
2
see, gives all reflectors/researchers a unique opportunity to asses it—without the problems
associated with public discussion about a presently functioning group—a problem that makes
much research on New Religious Movements too fraught to undertake successfully or
fruitfully.
Note to Readers
The first version in this upright type face is how I think the film represents the individual or
the groups depicted in the film.
The second italicised version is how I think the individuals and groups could have been
represented if the filmmakers had been more fair-minded—or allowed another alternative
perspective which questioned the anecdotes and testimony of the critics of the movement, by
allowing a more balanced right of reply either by the protagonist (myself) or the other more
positive interviewees who were not represented.
In the depictions of Fred and Mary Robinson, I have represented them as I believe they would have represented themselves. Since they are both deceased they had not reply. As their biographer I have presented my personal opinions elsewhere; however it seemed only fair to present them as I believe they saw themselves – they were both reflective people who understood their weaknesses even if they were not always able to control such tendencies. I have employed the Lucinda Calligraphy Font to typify some of Fred’s sayings, while using Freestyle Script Font for a few of Mary’s sayings.
3
Fred: The Lovely False-Prophet
The amiable lunatic and Space Captain of the 1970’s hippie space-cadets; the sincere but
deluded prophet of doom; the inspirational teacher of the movement with many ecological
insights to share; controlled by his wife and his first disciple—the ambitious, fêted, power-
hungry even more deluded young usurper-preacher; a hard-working liked-by-everyone
founder who was rejected by those who formed the community he inspired; was befriended
by some of those who had seen through the controlling leaders who had turned his well-
meant (even though outrageous) experiment into a controlling ‘cult’; died a lonely and
rejected man soon after the events portrayed in the film— a result of being ostracised by his
own wife and the ambitious preacher he had initially inspired to form the Community.
Fred: The Cosmic Visionary
A collator and distributor of Modern Revealed Knowledge; a prophet and catalyst whose
raison d’être was to inform seekers; to present the ‘cosmic point of view’ in regard to the
world and our place in it; an inadequate but willing servant; an instrument or conduit trying
to ‘get out of the way’ to allow the spirit to work through him; prepared to serve selflessly
to ‘meet the needs of the moment’ in the 11th hour prior to the economic collapse followed
by the cosmic shift; a person who found it difficult to communicate on a social and personal
level; a difficult person to live with; needed Mary (his ‘Soul Mate’) to start a ‘Fraternity’
following the blueprint of Oahspe; was grateful for Stephen’s involvement with his life and
his co-partnership with Mary (most of the time); was discombobulated by ‘The
Breakthrough’ and the ‘Breakthroughites’ (for want of a better descriptor); did not take sides
in the disagreements that caused the unfortunate split; admitted that he was not good at
discriminating relational issues; liked to focus on the cosmic issues; always saw the UBI
Community as his home; found his own old age frailty frustrating and extremely challenging;
still lived to get his message out to The World to ‘bash fresh ears’; in his final months and
death-bed hours (five years after the events referred to in the film) he was ultimately thankful
to his wife Mary for her tough-love and caring for him; was somewhat fulfilled in being a
respected grandfather figure to the Members, and great-grandfather to the young children of
the Community; appreciated the Community as a whole, seeing it as his legacy; more than
anything he did not wish to be a burden to either his wife or the Community – this being one
of the factors of his times away from the Community.
4
Mary: The ‘Nucleus’ Controller
The mystical and deluded, but politically-savvy arch controller of ‘The Brotherhood’; a Victorian kill-
joy; the battle-axe who ran her Brotherhood with an iron fist; a powerful uncompromising religionist
who inflicted punishments and unconscionable hardships, such as ‘silence fasts’, on the innocent
youths she brainwashed; who ordered those she ruled over to do her supposed divinely inspired will,
often arrived at through dreams—a proposition which is almost laughable for any sane person to even
consider; the person who also controlled he husband, marginalising him within the Community and
virtually expelling him; the person who had turned Stephen into a ‘henchman’ cum automaton; who
after The Breakthrough continued to follow her own guidance in the Community, but with little result;
was, after 1977 (the episode referred to in the film occurred), a spent force, and the Community
disintegrated.
Mary: The Burdened ‘Nucleus’
The ‘God listening’ and responsible adult co-founder; the initially unwilling but divinely
appointed nucleus/keynote of the Community and its ‘harmonic vibration’; her home
taken over by young idealists, she accepted the burden of responsibility for making them
better people; in the absence of anyone else took on the onerous job of finding a way to make
the Community happen at an organizational level; the initial organizer of the UBI
Community; intent on making sure the Community was not undermined by ‘negative
forces’, she was prepared to be unpopular and tough in her decision making; with the
good of everyone in mind she took on the thankless task of training seemingly willing
volunteers, only to see many of them turn against her—including myself; realized she made
many mistakes; in the last days of her life felt the burden of being a strong and often
uncompromising leader; a person who tried to
‘ do what she knew was right and not do what
she knew was wrong’.
5
The CentreCore: The Sycophants
The governing body of yes-people who rubber-stamped all manner of controlling evils and
supported the appalling power-toting and controlling regime of Mary Robinson and her
surviving henchman, Stephen Carthew; the CentreCore was also represented (for those who
knew the personnel) by the teary-eyed Rose Gilmore (née Woods) sitting next to Stephen at
the reunion, jointly making the apology for everything that had been said in the film; the
group who is rightly assessed as guilty of violating the natural human rights of those sincere
ex-Members, who were under its control – until they broke free.
The CentreCore: The Thoughtful Advisors
Mostly made up of the founding members of Carranya, later supplemented by intelligent and
qualified members who also harmonised with Mary; all ex-members of this group are likely
to admit that they were not able to consistently or clearly articulate concerns about some of
the guidance ‘coming through’ Mary as the God appointed ‘Nucleus’; both individually and
together the group checked, and often amended, Mary’s ‘guidance’ factor—as it was initially
designed by her to so do; was tougher on its own members—dishing out both needed and
appreciated ‘soul polishing’ – along with unnecessary and over-the-top admonishments; this
group worked hard at keeping the core vision of Fred Robinson’s alive; sidelined some of the
peripheral teachings of Fred (e.g. his prophecies) and some of Mary’s (e.g. separation from
locals) in line with the group’s more acculturated consciousness during the 1980s;
negotiated unsuccessfully with the uncompromising Breakthroughites; refused to
accommodate their insistent demands couched as threatening terms; was split in 1986 over
educational issues; two ex-members of this group continue to live on the Balingup site
making a major contribution to the secular, but religiously sympathetic, Brooklands
Community.
I did not attend the negotiations with my detractors, it was thought that it may not be helpful for me to be present when I was spoken about.
6
Stephen Carthew: The ‘Henchman’ Preacher
From a privileged background; explored the ‘hippie trail’ in India; became Fred’s press agent
and promoter; soon became enamoured of his own importance; fêted by the press and
celebrity glitterati, he developed delusions of grandeur; usurped Fred’s role as teacher and
preacher; became aligned with Mary against Fred, giving himself to her so completely he
became Mary’s mouthpiece; in the process ostracising and marginalising the founder Fred; he
is seen to acknowledge what he became; apologises for his part in it all; in so doing finds
some level of redemption; is writing a history of the community likely to be a whitewash
definitive history of his part in the cult; a salesman and personable talker is tagged as the
biggest victim of the cult; is currently selling roses for a living – likens selling Fred with
selling anything … such as roses; now a likeable older, wiser and sincere scammer who is
taking the medicine of his confrontation with the group he once controlled by eating full
helping of humble pie; the viewer feels for him in his kangaroo court appearance.
Stephen Carthew: An Untrained Executive
A sportsman type in his youth; went to Knox Grammar School, Sydney; a filmmaker and
traveller until 23; a practitioner and enthusiastic proselytiser of the Age of Aquarius to his
contemporaries a year or so prior to meeting Fred Robinson; while never agreeing with all
of Fred’s stances, joined forces with him in 1971; organised big-venue public talks in Sydney,
Melbourne and Adelaide; accompanied Fred back to Perth with a dozen strong entourage; a
sincere but untrained counselor appointed by the Robinsons as the founder and leader of the
Carranya Community; prepared to amend his own more counter-cultural positions in the
service of the greater good—the building of New Age Community/Fraternity ‘for the
children’ — Fred’s vision; expected too much of both himself and other volunteer alignees;
admits to some maverick manipulation of people and situations believing it was for the good
of the whole; one of the few appointed spokespeople of the Universal Brotherhood; was the
master of ceremonies at internal ‘fun nights’; ran most religious celebrations; gave most
Sunday sermons; was the ostensible cause of 1977 ‘Breakthrough’ schism in the UBI;
continued as a an executive in the CentreCore until 1985; renounced his position of
‘Principal’; with the help of some CentreCore members in opposition to Mary and other
CentreCore members took part in the process of finding another form of governance more
democratic than theocratic; left the Community with his spouse and two children in 1987 at
7
40; assisted his wife in marketing her craft products; became a financial advisor through
much of the 1990s; made a series of films on pilgrimage 1998-9; 2000-2006 undertook
undergraduate studies followed by an Honours Degree in Communications-Writing;
currently has a PhD under examination (about the before-story of the Universal
Brotherhood; believes he and the UBI Community he helped to start was grossly
misrepresented and that the deceased Mary was (in varying degrees) made the scapegoat of
disaffected ex-members’ inadequacies; is not content to have the Compass documentary
accepted as part of the definitive history.
8
The Brotherhood Adherents: The Controlled Members
All those who lived in the Community under their ‘rulers’ prior to the 1977; taken advantage
of by those went who wielded power over them, inculcating them with the weird ideas of the
guru/prophet on one hand, and the intra-Community political power of Mary and Stephen on
the other; always in danger of becoming just mouthpieces of the CentreCore of ‘The
Brotherhood’; grossly manipulated by Stephen and Mary; the schism known in the UBI
Community as ‘The Breakthrough’ split this group into two camps: those who had seen what
was wrong with the Community, and those who continued to be under the thrall of their
controllers/rulers; the film does not acknowledge any real membership of the Community
after the Breakthrough—just the ‘bewildered’ controlled remnant. As one of the members
who stayed on commented ‘we were depicted as the boobies’.
The Community Members: The Sincere Pioneers
Those who aligned themselves with the Robinsons basic positions of creating an alternative,
spiritually aware back-to-the land community/fraternity; all those who contributed to the
running of Shalam (Fred and Mary’s home unmentioned in the film); who helped build the
Carranya Community (unmentioned in the film); who took part in the moving and
centralising of the Community in the Balingup district; who put up with an inadequate
infrastructure to create the Community; agreed to the rules and regulations of the new
religious movement named the Universal Brotherhood Incorporated; went through some
media persecution; lived an invigorating dedicated life; was split in half by the 1977
Breakthrough insurrection/mutiny; after the departure the mutineers, the members continued
to support the agreed original principles of the Community and recognise the CentreCore as
its Governing Council.
After the 1977 events the film represents the continuing membership of the UBI quite
differently than it had before the Breakthrough.
9
The Followers: The Bewildered Boobies
Those who lived on in the Community and are seen as taking no action to change the status
quo; controlled and inculcated, they simply stayed on in (the shell of) the group after the
1977 Breakthrough; as bewildered boobies and dummies who couldn’t see what was
happening around them, they ‘felt safe’ being controlled, but were blinded by the powerful
controlling CentreCore who had usurped their freedom and forced them into all sorts of weird
practices they were unable to identify for themselves; this group is can be pitied; lacking the
courage of the freedom-fighter-dissenters, they weakly and meekly refused to see the truth of
their unfortunate situation. While not overtly represented, this group is depicted by the
Narrator and the dissenter interviewees, and via the cameo grabs of Margie Miskimmin.
The Stayers: The Considerers
Those who survived the general unpleasantness, lobbying, philosophical battles, and in some
cases mental insatiability which occurred in the Community in 1977 to stay on to consider
how to implement the initial inspirations of the Robinsons; those who refused to be taken-up
in the thrall of the supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ claimed by the
Breakthoughites; prepared to refuse the attractive laissez-faire proposition of the dissenters;
suspicious of the way in which the disaffected members were pushing for immediate changes,
even while appreciating the value of many of the changes suggested; prepared to let the
Community evolve under the founder/leaders they trusted; considered their position
carefully; assessed the motivations of the spokespersons for the dissenting ‘Breakthrough’
propositions—and then decided to stay.
This group is represented by one person – Margaret Miskimmin – and she was
misrepresented.
10
Margie Miskimmin: The Bewildered (ex) ‘Hippie’
A single ex-drug taking Californian hippie single-mother; who was ‘hitching around
Australia with her daughter’ until she ‘stumbled across’ the Brotherhood; compliant with the
prayers, disciplines and rules of the Community she sees the place as a ‘refuge’ where ‘you
felt safe’; is bewildered by the overnight changes that occurred when the courageous
freedom-fighters sought to put an end to the ‘despicable things being done’; the archetypal
follower of the controlling leaders of this unhealthy and weird cult; still lives in Brooklands
Community as one of the presumably still bewildered, or at least ‘haunted’, handful of ex-
members.
Margaret Miskimmin: The eclectic philosopher
Involved in the experimentation with drugs in California during the 1960s; an early seeker
and practitioner of the alternative lifestyle movement in far Northern Queensland; a strong-
minded single mother; heard Fred and saw the need for personal change; wanted to take part
in the building of a responsible, alternative spiritually-focused intentional community; made
the decision to come to Shalam and Carranya in 1973; travelled to the Shalam-Carranya
Community with other potential members—did not ‘hitch’ with her child (as misrepresented
in the narration); saw through the sophistries of the arguments of those wishing to radically
change the Community without a better plan; helped to democratise the Community in its
new incarnation as the Brooklands Community; two of the Miskimmins’ three children have
married locals; Margaret was office-administrator to the local Greens Member of the
Legislative Assembly of Western Australia for 8 years; continues to serve both the
Brooklands Community and the wider community, amongst other things as Secretary of the
Golden Valley Tree Park, the largest arboretum in Western Australia. The Miskimmins were
disappointed in the film and insulted by the manipulated representations; with not a word
said about her present life, she was so under-represented she is almost persona non grata; it
appears that she was included in the film for only one reason – to prove the existence of a
remnant of ‘bewildered’ followers.
The out of context use of Margaret’s dialogue is an insult to her. I suspect that all ex-
members (from either side of the 1977 schism) are unhappy with the way Margaret
Miskimmin was represented. Margaret is the gracious host of all who come to revisit the
Community from both sides of the 1977 schism. She also hosted the film crew.
11
The Leavers: The Courageous Dissenters
The innocent ones who came to find a better way of life and found themselves under the
control of power-hungry ‘rulers’; admitting their gullibility they put themselves under their
controllers; but saw through the tactics of the lazy leadership, identified mental cruelty; broke
free of their shackles; cast-off their inculcation; courageously found their own voices and
effectively disempowered the leadership and ended the dream which had become a
nightmare; came to the reunion to confront the representative controller in a ‘showdown’;
they generously forgive the surviving leader/controller.
The Breakthroughites: The Disgruntled Complainers
The four recitations of the allegations against the Universal Brotherhood are made by Linda
Ward, Anita Chauvin, Susan Allwood and Matt Taylor.
As I have already shared my perspective about Linda, Anita and Susan in the Transcript
Document ‘Making a ‘Cult’ Film’ my longer Critique of ‘The Brotherhood’ documentary, I
will focus here only on Matt Taylor who is represented as the most credible of the
interviewees—for he was not a teenager at the time (as were Linda and Anita), and revealed
no anger or emotional wounding (as did Susan). Matt comes across as the most articulate
interviewee in show – he is the show’s guru, while having the highest public profile.
Proclaimed himself as the instigator of the Breakthrough uprising, Matt seems to have
substance, it seems he has been abused and he seems to be honest and philosophical.
In a sense Matt represents this group of interviewees —the most represented sub-group in the
film—four leavers verses one stayer. At the reunion the viewer is led to assume that almost
all the people at the reunion were the once ‘controlled and manipulated ’.
The group of interviewees most represented in the film—four courageous leavers, one psychologically damaged leaver, verses one controlled stayer, and one arch-controller—until the end of the film where one is left to assumes that almost all the people at the reunion were the once ‘the-controlled’ members.
12
Matt Taylor: The Rock-Philosopher Freedom Fighter
A true spiritual seeker; is more than a rock star; is seen a few times throughout the film
singing; is unselfish enough to empty toilets; a person almost free of ego; nearly had his
music controlled by those trying to take away what was really his—his creative integrity;
stood up against the repressive ‘Nazi-like’ regime; helped to uncover all the manipulations
and inequities of the corrupt system; the leader of the necessary mutiny; makes wise
statements about ‘good people doing despicable things’—alleging that ‘mental cruelty’
occurred in the Community; being philosophically inclined, and generous of spirit, he
graciously forgives Mary’s henchman, Stephen, seeing him as a ‘the biggest victim’.
As the celebrity of the show he is depicted as a key player in the Community—a major
misrepresentation.
Matt Taylor: The Celebrity Agitator
Introduced to Fred when Hans Poulsen asked other rock performers of the day to play at the
Meyer Music Bowl to present Fred to Melbourne’s youth; following Fred’s ideas he and
some friends started a Community near the Strathbogie Ranges (Victoria); decided to come
to Western Australia with his family; kept up occasional professional tours during his few
years in the Community—he ostensibly remained a rock star and did not give up his career as
he suggests in the film; a person who never quite got what the Community was about as
indicated by his comment about it being ‘a convent for married people’; was never chosen to
be in any leadership position; was appreciated for his many fine qualities and creative
contributions; had a piercing voice that Fred and Mary found hard to take at close quarters
(somewhat easier for Fred—he just turned hearing aid off); depicts himself in the film as a
selfless-servant and genuine seeker for God; unfairly and without knowing the truth of the
matter, complains about Stephen never emptying toilets; was unable to be selfless enough to
sing a few songs from the Readers Digest Song Book for Fred and Mary, claiming
manipulation and control of his creative life; was unable to face Stephen about this ‘learning
old songs’ travesty; instead agitated and instigated an anger ridden-mutiny; helped to
suggest that a supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ had occurred and with others used
this as a trump card in a blackmail-like ‘change or we leave’ proposition; while the gamble
failed; this disgruntled celebrity agitator used his power in the local press to spread the bad-
13
word about the Community; helped to create the myth that the UBI Community was finished
and that Fred had been disowned/expelled by the Community; the film presents him as the
wise-old-rocker-guru who has the answers; makes unsubstantiated claims that border on
slander: stating that ‘mental cruelty’ occurred without proffering evidence; is able to come
across as generous in a back handed gesture of forgiveness which suggests Stephen Carthew
was the biggest victim; is probably much more sympathetic to a range of perspectives than
appears in the documentary; took part in a genial but lively debate with me at his home—
never used; provides a key element in the film: the freedom fighter and the mirror image of
the protagonist-controller Stephen.
14
Jason Hart: The Mentally Disturbed ex-Member
A miner amongst hippies; a sincere man fully convinced of Fred’s cosmic point of view and
beliefs about the Space Peoples imminent arrival; appreciated the spiritual meditations and
the following the inner spirit; had profound spiritual experiences around the time of The
Breakthrough; admits he lost the plot and began ‘spinning like top’ a line used as prelude to
the Narrators explanation: ‘Their world had crumbled—but the Elder Brothers in their space
ships never came’; the living example of one of the ‘many’ who lost their minds courtesy of
living in the Community, and particularly as a result of being controlled by those who
practiced the mental cruelty.
Jason Hart (AKA Malcolm Irving):
One of a number of members who were never hippies; a wholly sincere person; dedicated to
Fred’s message and loved him dearly; was treasured by the Community as a unique person;
had the most infectious and hearty laugh in the Community; being away during the first days
of The Breakthrough he became intensely confused by the changed situation and the
supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ being promoted by the dissenters; needed to be
taken to the local hospital for psychiatric treatment; since recuperating and controlling his
mental instability has been often in touch with many of the members—whether leavers or a
stayer; usually a fair-minded and understanding person; tends to take the side of dissenters.
15
The Narrator: The Historian and Clarifier
The factual, wise voice of reason and understanding; the one who leads the audience through
a supposedly impartial story; who explains what happens; who takes us on a fascinating
journey of beautiful visions, weird ideas, inculcation and lost dreams; who introduces the
viewers to the participants; who exposes the awful underbelly of control and power behind
the veil of smiles; who leads the absorbed audience through an onscreen trial to find the
protagonist guilty as charged; who helps the audience resolve the conflict via his apology for
all that was alleged; finds restitution for the somewhat redeemed ex-cult leader; reveals the
gracious forgiveness of those who were the victims of mental cruelty and abuse; concludes
and summarises the theme of control and abuse by the group’s leaders over their followers;
the overarching knowledge-holder who points towards true north while revealing what
happened to a Community that went spiritually south on account of Mary Robinson and her
CentreCore cohorts represented by the erstwhile preacher cum present day rose-seller
protagonist—Stephen Carthew—who seems to be happily learning his hard lesson about
abuse of power.
The Narrator: The Modifier of History
The ill-researched narrator who leads the viewer on the Director’s view of the Community;
who creatively re-configures a new history of the movement to fit the director’s own less
complex but more dramatic script; who rewrites the history pertaining to an important (but
not defining) schism which occurred in the Universal Brotherhood in 1977; who overlays a
blanket of dark narration to guide the viewer to reframe the positive experiences of all the
participants as a veil of smiles; who employs interviewees as henchwomen and henchmen in
a smear campaign of the leaders of the movement.
The Director (as the alter-ego of the supposedly fair-minded Narrator) chose not to tell me
about any specific allegation, choosing instead to present me as a representative of the
deceased scape-goated leader; then through the editing cleverly facilitated an apology from
me for all the allegations made in the film; then reinvented me as a rose-seller; she did not
have the courtesy to mention any other aspect of my present life or academic endeavours,
16
which qualified me as a serious public commentator on New Religious Movements and one of
only two academic commentators on the Universal Brotherhood.
The other is Patricia Sherwood (then Black) who presented her thesis, The Fashioning of the Earth Anew: An ethnography of the Universal Brotherhood, a religious utopian community (1984, unpublished) to gain her Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia, in the Anthropology Department. Sherwood was contacted but not used as an interviewee for the film. Her research alerted me to a number of the unhealthy dynamics that had evolved in the Community, including the unintentional manipulations of people and situations by myself, Mary and the CentreCore.
17
The Film as a Whole: Reifying the Anti-Cult Stereotype
It is not really fair to blame the directors/producers for the way they treated the UBI. While
they bear individual responsibility for the production, they are simply part of a much larger
hegemonic negative stereotyping of ‘cults’; a view that has become emplotted in almost all
media representation of New Religious Movements (NRMs). Appearing to take the high
moral ground: telling the story of supposed victims, while also telling the stories of their
assumed controllers, the media have become entrenched in biased readings of NRMs, based
almost solely on the ex-members negative experiences—something which could be called
true-believer-remorse (an uncle of buyer’s remorse). In some cases born-again-Christians
also employ anti-cult rhetoric believing their truths to be under threat. It is useful to haave a
quick look at what has become known as the ‘cult-wars’.
The following notes relate the substance of an article by a Californian journalist who in May
2000 reported on the thawing of the so-called ‘cult wars’. This watershed ‘Camp David of the
cult wars'’ was a largely peaceful gathering of defectors, devotees, heartbroken families and
assorted cult experts. J Gordon Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of American
Religion in Santa Barbara, and someone long labelled as an ‘apologist’ by leaders of the
‘alarmist’ anti-cult movement said, ‘We’ve reached the point where we’re no longer throwing
bricks.’ The two camps had been having little to do with each other since the cult wars
reached a high water mark in 1997 when lawyers and others linked to the Church of
Scientology sued the Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy. Civil libertarian scholars and
current members of NRMs argued that religious sects were relatively harmless and that anti-
cult crusaders violated religious freedoms.
Prior to this meeting, which heralded some détente in these ‘cult-wars’, the anti-cult activists
warned of ‘brainwashing’ and ‘mind control’, while their opponents told tales of violent
kidnapping and coercive ‘deprogramming’. One of the main differences between the two
camps is they are asking different questions about the dynamics of NRMs. Many of the
scholars studying NRMs focus on more abstract questions, such as how religions are born
and evolve over time, while groups like the American Family Foundation, and the Cult
Information Service, focus on the harm done to some people who join authoritarian groups
(which they insist on calling ‘cults’ a pejorative that has almost no real meaning other than as
a stereotype).However, they deal with the real anguish of fractured families whose loved ones
18
are thought to have been subjected to ‘mind control’ framed as life-changing religious
conversions.
Further complicating these weekend peace talks over a decade ago, was the joint presence of
true believers and recent defectors from the same religious groups. One evening session was
punctuated by a screaming match between past and present Scientologists. Janja Lalich,
director of the Centre for Research on Influence and Control, and a former member of a
radical political cult, said bringing peace to the cult wars would not be easy: ‘We’re dipping
into forbidden waters here’, said Lalich, ‘For many of these people, this is not some abstract
academic argument. They’ve really been harmed’ (Lattin D, ‘Combatants in Cult War
Attempt Reconciliation: Peacemaking conference is held near Seattle’, San Francisco
Chronicle, 1.5.2000).
Jonestown’s Part in Stereotyping ‘Cults’
The anti-cult stance which comes through in Critchley’s ‘The Brotherhood’ is understandable
considering that it has, in contemporary times, grown out of spectacularly despicable acts –
mainly against their own members. Jonestown particularly, defines ‘cults’ in the cultural
consciousness.
However, it has become clear, via some fair-minded, less stereotyped, less docudramatic
reflective documentaries such as Jonestown: The life and death of the Peoples Temple
(Nelson 2005), that the problem of any form of abuse of power in New Religious
Movements is as much tied up in the inherent responsibilities of the followership, as it is in
the sacred trust of the leadership. It is unfortunate that we always seem to revert to the value
of assumed binaries that misread dialectic discussion. In the domain of the NRM the
leader/follower; teacher/disciple; guru/devotee binary fails to identify that leaders are also
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple was an award winning film made by Stanley Nelson, Marcia Smith, and Noland Walker. It revealed the true, tragic story behind the enigmatic preacher Jim Jones and his promise of a world of economic and racial equality that ultimately led to the largest mass murder-suicide in history. This documentary tells the story of the people who joined Peoples Temple, following Jones from Indiana to California and ultimately to their deaths in Guyana in November 1978. Jonestown was an official selection of numerous 2006 film festivals, including Tribeca, Silverdocs, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/jonestown/introduction(Accessed 2.11.09)
19
learning (‘soul polishing’ if you like); and that teachers are often well-disciplined; and that
they were one-time disciples; that gurus are, more often than not, devoted to fine ideals and
were once devotees of someone else. Working back the other way, it is also true that
followers are often in the process of becoming leaders; that the more disciplined disciples are
the most likely to become teachers later in life; and that an astute and fair-minded devotee is
likely to become an astute and fair-minded guru. In daily life as well, just as over a lifetime,
the positions leader and follower are often reversed. A sound leader has to be able to trust
that followers are taking personal responsibility for their decision to support any group
initiative. The complexity of such relationships is avoided by the simplistic concept of the
leader/follower oppositional binary. I say this to make it clear that I am a true believer of
nuance and complexity in the discussions of religious leadership and followership.
To strengthen a follower, giving him/her the confidence to be true to her/his own conscience,
is better than blaming a leader for being excessive and in some cases abusive; and this is so
particularly in the domain of Religion—and even more so in ‘start-up religious
movements’—which axiomatically tend to be fervent.
Those ex-members of a NRM who focus only on anti-cult literature and see only biased
electronic-media artefacts such as Critchley’s ‘The Brotherhood’, tend to reify their own
reading of their personal/subjective experience, thereby intensifying their perspective on their
‘experience’—thus justifying and further reifying the stereotype—and from the ‘inside’.
Being a one-time member, and then an whistle-blowing-insider, bestows an air of genuine
authority to the allegation-making informants, convincing journalist ‘outsiders’, the public’s
allegation-publishing informers, of the truth of alleged abuse. The leaders and their loyal
adherent-defendants (usually still on the ‘inside’ and often family members) have a tendency
not to respond publicly (the Church of Scientology being an exception). This refusal to
respond with a denial can be interpreted as arrogance. While there is nothing new in this
dynamic, for the same is true of the media-representation of leaders in most domains of life, it
is particularly obvious in the stereotyped domain of New Religious Movements.
Journalists are almost by nature on the look-out for contentious and ‘exclusive’ stories about ‘cults’ as they seem to fascinate the public—perhaps as an exotic whipping-posts, sometimes deserved, but, judging by my experience, often not.
20
Media analysts and commentators within the religious domain, such as ABC’s Compass,
should, for the plethora of reasons I have enunciated in these various critiques, be wary of the
practice of stereotyping leaders as, ipso facto, the ones to blame for internal schisms and
associated allegations of abuse within such groups. Especially should media-producers be
careful not to engage in dramatic cut-and-paste kangaroo-court trials, without allowing the
right of reply to their ‘accused’, but still cooperative participants, lest the stereotyping of New
Religious Movements is reified en bloc.
Challenges in these Adjusting the Compass Documents
While the Laurie Critchley, the producer/Director of ‘The Brotherhood’ documentary, had
the freedom and right to tell the story as she saw it, she also had the responsibility to tell her
story ethically, giving all participants represented a fair hearing. As I claim to have been the
‘misrepresented protagonist-participant’, I also have the freedom and the right to tell my story
of where, how and why I claim to have been misrepresented. As an researcher of the
Universal Brotherhood I also have a duty to interrogate the films accuracy as a historical
document. As a critic of the film I question the ethics of the filmmakers in regard to
following the ABCs own guidelines. I can also draw on my ‘insider’ experience of the
making of the film. My other right and responsibility as the ‘surviving leader’, is to call my
accusers to account, while remembering that their statements too were cut-and-paste selective
statements, often out-of-context with what they may have said in a two hour filmed interview.
Something they know happened to me. In all, it is a delicate and difficult task to be fair and
considered in response to what I see as an unfair and ill-considered artefact. I have attempted
these critique documents, not just in my own defence, but also in the defence of Mary
Robinson—the maligned, deceased co-Founder and Principal; and of the CentreCore—the
governing body of the Community which the film ignorantly represents as yes-people.
It is almost useless to say, ‘I didn’t like the film because it was unfair and biased’, unless I
can show the same in detail through a studied critique that makes a sustained argument. This
cannot be done in a short document. My response has had to be a detailed close reading of the
film as well as a personal and historical document. I have tried not to engage in an ad
hominem attack on the Director, Laurie Critchley—on the contrary, because I like her as a
person, it has been difficult for me to be as strong as I have been about the artefact she made.
21
I do not accuse her of making an ad hominem attack on me either, just a faulty one, based on
stereotyping and her own gullible acceptance of the biased, self-interested interviewees she
chose to believe, without even hearing my side of their individual stories. There are many
positive things that I would like to say about her as both a filmmaker and a person, but this
paper is not about those, it is about the misrepresentation in her artefact ‘The Brotherhood’.
Top Related