The star ( July 11, 2002 )Making Sense of the Nonsensical: An Analysis of Jonestown
Making Sense of the Nonsensical: An Analysis of Jonestown
Neal Osherow
Read also Special
Files on Jonestown
June24th. 2000
who do not remember the past arecondemned to repeat it.
-quotation on placard over Jim Jones' rostrum at Jonestown
Close to one thousand
people died at Jonestown. The members of thePeoples Temple settlement in Guyana,
under the direction of theReverend Jim Jones, fed a poison-laced drink to their
children,administered the potion to their infants, and drank it themselves.Their
bodies were found lying together, over 900perished.
How could such
a tragedy occur? The images of an entire communitydestroying itself, of parents
killing their own children, appearsincredible. The media stories about the event
and full-color picturesof the scene documented some of its horror but did little
toilluminate the causes or to explain the processes that led to thedeaths. Even
a year afterwards, a CBS Evening News broadcast assertedthat it was widely assumed
that time would offer some explanation forthe ritualistic suicide/murder of
over 900 people... One year later,it does not appear that any lessons have been
uncovered (CBS News,1979).
The story of the
Peoples Temple is not enshrouded in mystery,however. Jim Jones had founded his
church over twenty years before,in Indiana. His preaching stressed the need
for racial brotherhoodand integration, and his group helped feed the poor and
find themjobs. As his congregation grew, Jim Jones gradually increased thediscipline
and dedication that he required from the members. In 1965,he moved to northern
C about 100 of his faithful relocatedwith him. The membership began
to multiply, new congregations wereformed, and the headquarters was established
in San Francisco.
Behind his public
image as a beloved leader espousing interracialharmony, "Father," as Jones was
called, assumed a messiah-likepresence in the Peoples Temple. Increasingly,
he became the personalobject of the members devotion, and he used their numbers
andobedience to gain political influence and power. Within the Temple,Jones
demanded absolute loyalty, enforced a taxing regimen, anddelivered sermons forecasting
nuclear holocaust and an apocalypticdestruction of the world, promising his
followers that they alonewould emerge as survivors. Many of his harangues attacked
racism andcapitalism, but his most vehement anger focused on the "enemies" ofthe
Peoples Temple - its detractors and especially its defectors. Inmid-1977, publication
of unfavorable magazine articles, coupled withthe impending custody battle over
a six-year-old Jones claimed as a"son," prompted emigration of the bulk of Temple
membership to ajungle outpost in Guyana.
In November, 1978,
Congressman Leo Ryan responded to charges thatthe Peoples Temple was holding
people against their will atJonestown. He organized a trip to the South American
asmall party of journalists and "Concerned Relatives" of PeoplesTemple
members accompanied him on his investigation. They were inJonestown for one
evening and part of the following day. They heardmost residents praise the settlement,
expressing their joy at beingthere and indicating their desire to stay. Two
families, however,slipped messages to Ryan that they wanted to leave with him.
Afterthe visit, as Ryan's party and these defectors tried to board planesto
depart, the group was ambushed and fired upon by Temple gunmen -five people,
including Ryan, were murdered.
As the shootings
were taking place at the jungle airstrip, JimJones gathered the community at
Jonestown. He informed them that theCongressman's party would be killed and
then initi the "revolutionary suicide" that the membership
rehearsed onprior occasions. The poison was brought out. It was taken.
Jonestown s remoteness
caused reports of the event to reach thepublic in stages. First came bulletins
announcing the assassinationof Congressman Ryan along with Several members of
his party. Thencame rumors of mass-deaths at Jonestown, then confirmations.
Theinitial estimates put the number of dead near 400, bringing the hopethat
substantial numbers of people had escaped into the jungle. Butas the bodies
were counted, many smaller victims were discoveredunder the corpses of larger
ones - virtually none of the inhabitantsof Jonestown survived. The public was
shocked, then incredulous.
Amid the early
stories about the tragedy, along with the luriddescriptions and sensational
photographs, came some attempts atanalysis, Most discussed the charisma of Jim
Jones and the power of"cults." Jones was described as "a character Joseph Conrad
might havedreamt up" (Krause, 1978), a "self-appointed messiah" whose "lust
fordominion" led hundreds of "fanatic" followers to their demise(Special Report:
The Cult of Death, Newsweek, 1978a).
While a description
in terms of the personality of the perpetratorand the vulnerability of the victims
provides some explanation, itrelegates the events to the category of being an
aberration, aproduct of unique forces and dispositions. Assuming such aperspective
distances us from the phenomenon. This might becomforting, but I believe that
it limits our understanding and ispotentially dangerous. My aim in this analysis
is not to blunt theemotional impact of a tragedy of this magnitude by subjecting
it toacademic examination. At the same time, applying social psychologicaltheory
and research makes it more conceivable and comprehensible,thus bringing it closer
(in kind rather than in degree) to processeseach of us encounters. Social psychological
concepts can facilitateour understanding: viewed in terms of obedience and compliance.
Theprocesses that induced people to join and to believe in the PeoplesTemple
made use of strategies involved in propaganda and persuasion.In grappling with
the most perplexing questions - Why didn't morepeople leave the Temple? How
could they actually kill their childrenand themselves? - the psychology of self-justification
provides someinsight.
Conformity
The character
of a church . . . can be seen in its attitudetoward its detractors.
--Hugh Prather, "Notes to Myself"
At one level, the
deaths at Jonestown can be viewed as the productof obedience, of people complying
with the orders of a leader andreacting to the threat of force. In the Peoples
Temple, whatever JimJones commanded, the members did. When he gathered the community
atthe pavilion and the poison was brought out, the populace wassurrounded by
armed guards who were trusted lieutenants of Jones.There are reports that some
people did not drink voluntarily but hadthe poison forced down their throats
or injected (Winfrey, 1979).While there were isolated acts of resistance and
suggestions ofopposition to the suicides, excerpts from a tape, recorded as
thefinal ritual was being enacted, reveal that such dissent was quicklydismissed
or shouted down:
Jones: I've tried
my best to give you a good life. In spite of allI've tried, a handful of people,
with their lies, have made our lifeimpossible. If we cant live in peace then
lets die in peace.(Applause) . . . We have been so terribly betrayed . . .
What's going to happen here in the matter of a few minutes is thatone of the
people on that plane is going to shoot the pilot - I knowthat. I didn't plan
it , but I know its going to happen.. . . .So myopinion is that you used to
in ancient Greece , and step over quietly, because we are not committing suicide-its
a revolutionary act . . ..
We cant go back . . . .
First Woman : I
feel like that as there's life, there's hope.
Jones:Well, someday
everybody dies .
Crowd : That's
right , that's right!
Jones: What those
people gone and done, and what they get throughwill make our lives worse than
hell... But to me, death is not afearful thing. Its living that's cursed...
Not worth living likethis.
First Woman: But
I'm afraid to die.
Jones: I don't
think you are. I don't think you are.
First Woman: I
think there were too few who left for 1,200 peopleto give them their lives for
those people who left... I look at allthe babies and I think they deserve to
Jones: But don't
they deserve much more they deserve peace. Thebest testimony we can give is
to leave this goddam world.(Applause)
First Man: Its
over, sister... We've made a beautiful day.(Applause)
Second Man: If
you tell us we have to give our lives now, wereready. (Applause) [Baltimore
Sun, 1979.]
Above the cries
of babies wailing, the tape continues, with Jonesinsisting upon the need for
suicide and urging the people to completethe act:
Jones: Please get
some medication. Simple. Its simple There's noconvulsions with it... Don't be
afraid to die. You'll see people landout here. They'll torture our people...
Second Woman: There's
nothing to worry about. Everybody keep calmand try to keep your children calm...
They're its just a little bitter tasting...
Third Woman: This
is nothing to cry about. This is something wecould all rejoice about. (Applause)
Jones: Please,
for Gods sake, lets get on with it... This is arevolutionary suicide. This is
not a self-destructive suicide.(Voices praise, "Dad." Applause)
Third Man: Dad
has brought us this far. My vote is to go withDad...
Jones: We must
die with dignity. Hurry, hurry, hurry. We musthurry... Stop this hysterics.
Death is a million times morepreferable to spending more days in this life...
If you knew what wasahead, you'd be glad to be stepping over tonight...
Fourth Woman: Its
been a pleasure walking with all of you in thisrevolutionary struggle... No
other way I would rather go than to givemy life for socialism. Communism, and
I thank Dad very much.
Jones: Take our
life from us... We didn't commit suicide. Wecommitted an act of revolutionary
suicide protesting against theconditions of an inhuman world. [Newsweek,
If you hold a gun
at someone's head, you can get that person to dojust about anything. As many
accounts have attested, by the early1970s the members of the Peoples Temple
lived in constant fear ofsevere punishment and brutal beatings coupled with
public humiliationfor committing trivial or even inadvertent offenses. But the
power ofan authority need not be so explicitly threatening in order to inducecompliance
with its demands, as demonstrated by social psychologicalresearch. In Milgram's
experiments (1963), a surprisingly highproportion of subjects obeyed the instructions
of an experimenter toadminister what they thought were very strong electric
shocks toanother person. Nor does the consensus of a group need be soblatantly
coercive to induce agreement with its opinion, as Asch'sexperiments (1955) on
conformity to the incorrect judgments of amajority indicate.
Jim Jones utilized
the threat of severe punishment to impose thestrict discipline and absolute
devotion that he demanded, and he alsotook measures to eliminate those factors
that might encourageresistance or rebellion among his followers. Research showed
that thepresence of a "disobedient" partner greatly reduced the extent owhich
most subjects in the Milgram situation (1965) obeyed theinstructions to shock
the person designated the "learner." Similarly,by including just one confederate
who expressed an opinion differentfrom the majority's, Asch (1955) showed that
the subject would alsoagree far less, even when the "other dissenters" judgment
was alsoincorrect and differed from the subjects. In the Peoples Temple,Jones
tolerated no dissent, made sure that members had no allegiancemore powerful
than to himself, and tried to make the alternative ofleaving the Temple an unthinkable
Jeanne Mills, who
spent six years as high-ranking member beforebecoming one of the few who left
the Peoples Temple, writes: "Therewas an unwritten but perfectly understood
law in the church that wasvery important: No one is to criticize Father, wife,
or his children" (Mills, 1979). Deborah Blakey, another long-time member who
managedto defect, testified:
Any disagreement
with [Jim Jones's] dictates came to beregarded as "treason." ....Although
I felt terrible about what washappening, I was afraid to say anything because
I knew that anyonewith a differing opinion gained the wrath of Jones and other
members.[Blakey, June 15, 1978.]
Conditions in the
Peoples Temple became so oppressive, thediscrepancy between Jim Jones's stated
aims and his practices sopronounced, that it is almost inconceivable that members
failed toentertain questions about the church. But these doubts wereunreinforced.
There were no allies to support ones disobedience ofthe leaders commands and
no fellow dissenters to encourage theexpression of disagreement with the majority.
Public disobedience ordissent was quickly punished. Questioning Jones's word,
even in thecompany of family or friends, was dangerous informers and"counselors"
were quick to report indiscretions, even byrelatives.
The use of informers
went further th it alsodiminished the solidarity and loyalty
that individuals felt towardtheir families and friends. While Jones preached
that a spirit ofbrotherhood should pervade his church, he made it clear that
eachmembers personal dedication should be directed to "Father." Familieswere
split: First, children were seated away from pa then, many
were assigned to another member's and ultimately, parents
were forced to sign documentssurrendering custody rights. "Families are part
of the enemy system,"Jones stated, because they hurt ones total dedication to
the "Cause"(Mills, 1979). Thus, a person called before the membership to bepunished
could expect his or her family to be among the first andmost forceful critics
(Cahill, 1979).
Besides splitting
parent and child, Jones sought to loosen thebonds between wife and husband.
He forced spouses into extramaritalsexual relations, which were often of a homosexual
or humiliatingnature, or with Jones himself. Sexual partnerships and activities
notunder his direction and control were discouraged and publiclyridiculed.
Thus, expressing
any doubts or criticism of Jones even to afriend, child, or partner -- became
risky for the individual. As aconsequence, such thoughts were kept to oneself,
and with theresulting impression that nobody else shared them. In addition tolimiting
ones access to information, this "fallacy of uniqueness"precluded the sharing
of support. It is interesting that among thefew who successfully defected from
the Peoples Temple were couplessuch as Jeanne and Al Mills, who kept together,
shared their doubts,and gave each other support.
Why didn't more
people leave? Once inside the Peoples Temple,getting defectors
were hated. Nothing upset JimJ people who left became the targets
of his mostvitriolic attacks and were blamed for any problems that occurred.
Onemember recalled that after several teen-age members left the Temple,"We hated
those eight with such a passion because we knew any daythey were going to try
bombing us. I mean Jim Jones had us totallyconvinced of this." (Winfrey, 1979)
Defectors were
threatened: Immediately after she left, Grace Stoenheaded for the beach at Lake
Tahoe, where she found herself lookingover her shoulder, checking to make sure
that she hadn't been trackeddown (Kilduff and Tracy, 1977). Jeanne Mills reports
that she and herfamily were followed by men in cars, their home was burglarized,
andthey were threatened with the use of confessions they had signedwhile still
members. When a friend from the Temple paid a visit, shequickly examined Mills
ears -- Jim Jones had vowed to have one ofthem cut off (Mills, 1979). He had
made ominous predictionsconcerning other defectors as well: Indeed, several
ex-memberssuffered puzzling deaths or committed very questionable "suicides"shortly
after leaving the Peoples Temple (Reiterman, 1977; Tracy,1978).
Defecting became
quite a risky enterprise, and, for most members,the potential benefits were
very uncertain. They had little to hopefor outside of the Peoples T what
they had, they had committedto the church. Jim Jones had vilified previous defectors
as "theenemy" and had instilled the fear that, once outside of the PeoplesTemple,
members stories would not be believed by the "racist,fascist" society, and they
would be subjected to torture,concentration camps, and execution. Finally, in
Guyana, Jonestown wassurrounded by dense jungle, the few trails patrolled by
armedsecurity guards (Cahill, 1979). Escape was not a viable option.Resistance
was too costly. With no other alternatives apparent,compliance became the most
reasonable course of action.
The power that
Jim Jones wielded kept the membership of thePeoples Temple in line, and the
difficulty of defecting helped tokeep them in. But what attracted them to join
Jones's church in thefirst place?
Persuasion
Nothing is so
unbelievable that oratory cannot make itacceptable.
Jim Jones was a
charismatic figure, adept at oratory. He soughtpeople for his church who would
be receptive to his messages and bevulnerable to promises, and he carefully
honed his presentation toappeal to each specific audience.
The bulk of the
Peoples Temple membership was comprised of asociety's needy and neglecting:
the urban poor the black, the elderlyand a sprinkling of ex-addicts and ex-convicts
(Winfrey, 1979). Toattract new members , Jones held public services in various
cities.Leaflets would be distributed:
Pastor Jim Jones.
. . Incredible !. . . Miraculous! . . .Amazing!. . . . The Most Unique Prophetic
Healing Service You've EverWitnessed! Behold the Word Made Incarnate In Your
God Works as tumorous masses are passed in every service... Beforeyour eyes,
the crippled walk, the blind see! [Kilduff and Javers,1978.]
Potential members
first confronted an almost idyllic scene ofblacks and whites living, working,
and worshiping together. Guestswere greeted and treated most warmly and were
invited to share in thegroups meal. As advertised, Jim Jones also gave them
miracles. anumber of members would recount how Jones had cured them of cancer
or during the service Jones or one of his nurseswould reach
into the members throat and emerge with a vile mass oftissue -- the "cancer"
that had been passed as the person gagged.Sometimes Jim Jones would make predictions
that would occur withuncanny frequency. He also received revelations about members
orvisitors that nobody but those individuals could know what they hadeaten for
dinner the night before, for instance, or news about afar-off relative. Occasionally,
he performed miracles similar to morewell-established religious figures:
There were more
people than usual at the Sunday service, and forsome reason the church members
hadn't brought enough food to feedeveryone. It became apparent that the last
fifty people in lineweren't going to get any meat. Jim announced, "Even though
thereisn't enough food to feed this multitude, I am blessing the food thatwe
have and multiplying it just as Jesus did in biblical times."
Sure enough, a
few minutes after he made this startlingannouncement, Eva Pugh came out of the
kitchen beaming, carrying twoplatters filled with fried chicken. A big cheer
came from the peopleassembled in the room, especially from the people who were
at the endof the line.
The "blessed chicken"
was extraordinarily delicious, and severalof the people mentioned that Jim had
produced the best-tastingchicken they had ever eaten. [Mills, 1979.]
Those demonstrations
were dra most memberswere convinced of their authenticity
and believed in Jones's"powers." They didn't know that the "cancers" were actually
rancidchicken gizzards, that the occurrences Jones "forecast" were staged,or
that sending people to sift through a persons garbage could revealpackages of
certain foods or letters of out-of-town relatives toserve as grist for Jones
"revelations" (Kilduff and Tracy, 1977;Mills, 1979). Members were motivated
to believe in J theyappreciated the racial harmony, sense of purpose, and
relief fromfeelings of worthlessness that the Peoples Temple provided them(Winfrey,
1979; Lifton, 1979). Even when suspecting that somethingwas wrong, they learned
that is was unwise to voice their doubts:
One of the men,
Chuck Beikman... jokingly mentioned to a fewpeople standing near him that he
had seen Eva drive up a few momentsearlier with buckets from the Kentucky Fried
Chicken stand. He smiledas he said, "The person that blessed this chicken was
ColonelSanders."
During the evening
meeting Jim mentioned the fact that Chuck hadmade fun of his gift. "He lied
to some of the members here, tellingthem that the chicken had come from a local
shop," Jim stormed. "Butthe Spirit of Justice has prevailed. Because of his
lie Chuck is inthe men's room right now, wishing that he was dead. He is vomitingand
has diarrhea so bad he cant talk!"
An hour later a
pale and shaken Chuck Beikman walked out of themen's room and up to the front,
being supported by one of the guards.Jim asked him, "Do you have anything you'd
like to say?"
Chuck looked up
weakly and answered, "Jim, I apologize for what Isaid. Please forgive me."
As we looked at
Chuck, we vowed in our hearts that we would neverquestion any of Jim's "miracles"at
least not out loud. Years later,we learned that Jim had put a mild poison in
a piece of cake andgiven it to Chuck. [Mills, 1979.]
Jim Jones skillfully
manipulated the impression that his churchwould convey to newcomers. He carefully
managed its public image. Heused the letter-writing and political clout of hundreds
of members topraise and impress the politicians and press that supported thePeoples
Temple, as well as to criticize and intimidate its opponents(Kasindorf, 1978).
Most importantly, Jones severely restricted theinformation that was available
to the members. In addition toindoctrinating members into his own belief system
through extensivesermons and lectures, he inculcated a distrust of any contradictorymessages,
labeling them the product of enemies. By destroying thecredibility of their
sources, he inoculated the membership againstbeing persuaded by outside criticism.
Similarly, any contradictorythoughts that might arise within each member were
to be discredited.Instead of seeing them as having any basis in reality, membersinterpreted
them as indications of their own shortcomings or lack offaith. Members learned
to attribute the apparent discrepanciesbetween Jones's lofty pronouncements
and the rigors of life in thePeoples Temple to their personal inadequacies rather
than blamingthem on any fault of Jones. As ex-member Neva Sly was quoted: "Wealways
blamed ourselves for things that didn't seem right" (Winfrey,1979). A unique
and distorting language developed within the church,in which "The Cause" became
anything that Jim Jones said (Mills,1979). It was spoken at Jonestown, where
a guard tower was called the"playground." (Cahill, 1979). Ultimately, through
the clever use oforatory, deception, and language, Jones could speak of death
as"stepping over," thereby camouflaging a hopeless act ofself-destruction as
a noble and brave act of "revolutionary suicide,"and the members accepted his
Self- Justification
Both salvation
and punishment for man lie in the fact that ifhe lives wrongly he can befog
himself so as not to see the misery ofhis position.
---Tolstoy, "The Kreutzer Sonata"
Analyzing Jonestown
in terms of obedience and the power of thesituation can help to explain why
the people acted as theydid. Once the Peoples Temple had moved to Jonestown,
there was littlethe members could do other than follow Jim Jones's dictates.
Theywere comforted by an authority of absolute power. They were left withfew
options, being surrounded by armed guards and by the jungle,having given their
passports and various documents and confessions toJones, and believing that
conditions in the outside world were evenmore threatening. The members poor
diet, heavy workload, lack ofsleep, and constant exposure to Jones's diatribes
exacerbated thecoerciveness
tremendous pressures encouragedthem
By the time of
the final ritual, opposition or escape had becomealmost impossible for most
of the members. Yet even then, it isdoubtful that many wanted to resist
or leave. Most had come tobelieve in Jones -- one woman's body was found with
a messagescribbled on her arm during the final hours: "Jim Jones is the onlyone"
(Cahill, 1979). They seemed to have accepted the necessity, andeven the beauty,
of dying -- just before the ritual began, a guardapproached Charles Garry, one
of the Temples hired attorneys, andexclaimed, "Its a great moment... we all
die" (Lifton, 1979). Asurvivor of Jonestown, who happened to be away at the
dentist, wasinterviewed a year following the deaths:
If I had been there,
I would have been the first one to stand inthat line and take that poison and
I would have been proud to takeit. The thing I'm sad about is this: that I missed
the ending.[Gallagher, 1979.]
It is the aspect
of Jonestown that is perhaps the most troubling.To the end, and even beyond,
the vast majority of the Peoples Templemembers believed in Jim Jones. External
forces, in the form of poweror persuasion, can exact compliance. But one must
examine a differentset of processes to account for the members internalizing
thosebeliefs.
Although Jones's
statements were often inconsistent and hismethods cruel, most members maintained
their faith in his leadership.Once they were isolated at Jonestown, there was
little opportunity ormotivation to think otherwise -- resistance or escape was
out of thequestion. In such a situation, the individual is motivated torationalize
hi a person confronted with theinevitable tends to regard
it more positively. For example, socialpsychological research has shown that
when children believe that theywill be served more of a vegetable they dislike,
they will convincethemselves that it is not so noxious (Brehm, 1959), and when
a personthinks that she will be interacting with someone, she tends to judgea
description of that individual more favorably (Darley andBerscheid, 1967).
A members involvement
in the Temple did not begin at Jonestown --it started much earlier, closer to
home, and less dramatically. Atfirst, the potential member would attend meetings
voluntarily andmight put in a few hours each week working for the church. Though
theestablished members would urge the recruit to join, he or she feltfree to
choose whether to stay or leave. Upon deciding to join, amember expended more
effort and became more committed to the PeoplesTemple. In small increments,
Jones increased the demands made on themember, and only after a long sequence
did he escalate theoppressiveness of his rule and the desperation of his message.
Littleby little, the individuals alternatives became more limited. Step bystep,
the person was motivated to rationalize his or her commitmentand to justify
his or her behavior.
Jeanne Mills, who
managed to defect two years before the Templerelocated in Guyana, begins her
account, Six Years with God(1979), by writing: "Every time I tell someone
about the six years wespent as members of the Peoples Temple, I am faced with
anunanswerable question: If the church was so bad, why did you and yourfamily
stay in for so long?" Several classic studies from socialpsychological research
investigating processes of self-justificationand the theory of cognitive dissonance
(see Aronson, 1980, chapter 4;Aronson, 1969) can point to explanations for such
seeminglyirrational behavior.
According to dissonance
theory, when a person commits an act orholds a cognition that is psychologically
inconsistent with his orher self-concept, the inconsistency arouses an unpleasant
state oftension. The individual tries to reduce this "dissonance," usually byaltering
his or her attitudes to bring them more into line with thepreviously discrepant
action or belief. A number of occurrences inthe Peoples Temple can be illuminated
by viewing them in light ofthis process. The horrifying events of Jonestown
were not due merelyto the threat of force, nor did they erupt instantaneously.
That is,it was not the case that something "snapped" in peoples minds,suddenly
causing them to behave in bizarre ways. Rather, as thetheory of cognitive dissonance
spells out, people seek to justifytheir choices and commitments.
Just as a towering
waterfall can begin as a trickle, so too canthe impetus for doing extreme or
calamitous actions be provided bythe consequences of agreeing to do seemingly
trivial ones. In thePeoples Temple, the process started with the effects of
undergoing asevere initiation to join the church, was reinforced by the tendencyto
justify ones commitments, and was strengthened by the need torationalize ones
Consider the prospective
members initial visit to the PeoplesTemple, for example. When a person undergoes
a severe initiation inorder to gain entrance into a group, he or she is apt
to judge thatgroup as being more attractive, in order to justify expending theeffort
or enduring the pain. Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstratedthat students who
suffered a greater embarrassment as a prerequisitefor being allowed to participate
in a discussion group rated itsconversation (which actually was quite boring)
to be significantlymore interesting than did those students who experienced
little or noembarrassment in order to be admitted. Not only is there a tendencyto
justify undergoing the experience by raising ones estimation ofthe goal -- in
some circumstances. Choosing to experience a hardshipcan go so far as to affect
a persons perception of the discomfort orpain he or she felt. Zimbardo (1969)
and his colleagues showed thatwhen subjects volunteered for a procedure that
involved their beinggiven electric shocks, those thinking that they had more
choice inthe matter reported feeling less pain from the shocks. Morespecifically,
those who experienced greater dissonance, having littleexternal justification
to account for their choosing to endure thepain, described it as being less
intense. This extended beyond theirimpression their performance
on a task washindered less, and they even recorded somewhat lower readings on
aphysiological instrument measuring galvanic skin responses. Thus thedissonance-reducing
process can be double-edged: Under properguidance, a person who voluntarily
experiences a severe initiationnot only comes to regard its ends more positively,
but may also beginto see the means as less aversive: "We begin to appreciate
the longmeetings, because we were told that spiritual growth comes fromself-sacrifice."
(Mills, 1979)
Once involved,
a member found ever-increasing portions of his orher time and energy devoted
to the Peoples Temple. The services andmeetings occupied weekends and several
evenings each week. Working onTemple projects and writing the required letters
to politicians andthe press took much of ones "spare" time. Expected monetarycontributions
changed from "voluntary" donations (thought they wererecorded) to the required
contribution of a quarter of ones income.Eventually, a member was supposed to
sign over all personal property,savings, social security checks, and the like
to the Peoples Temple.Before entering the meeting room for each service, a member
stoppedat a table and wrote self-incriminating letters or signed blankdocuments
that were turned over to the church. If anyone objected,the refusal was interpreted
as denoting a "lack of faith" in Jones.Finally, members were asked to live at
Temple facilities to savemoney and to be able to work more efficiently, and
many of theirchildren were raised under the care of other families. Acceding
toeach new demand had two repercussions: In practical terms, itenmeshed the
person further into the Peoples Temple web and madele on
an attitudinal level, it set theaforementioned processes of self-justification
into motion. As Mills(1979) describes:
We had to face
painful reality. Our life savings were gone. Jimhad demanded that we sell the
life insurance policy and turn theequity over to the church, so that was gone.
Our property had allbeen taken from us. Our dream of going to an overseas mission
wasgone. We thought that we had alienated our parents when we told themwe were
leaving the country. Even the children whom we had left inthe care of Carol
and Bill were openly hostile toward us. Jim hadaccomplished all this in such
a short time! All we had left now wasJim and the Cause, so we decided to buckle
under and give ourenergies to these two.
Ultimately, Jim
Jones and the Cause would require the members togive their lives.
What could cause
people to kill their children and themselves?From a detached perspective, the
image seems unbelievable. In fact,at first glance, so does the idea of so many
individuals committingso much of their time, giving all of their money, and
evensacrificing the control of their children to the Peoples Temple.Jones took
advantage of rationalization processes that allow peopleto justify their commitments
by raising their estimations of the goaland minimizing its costs. Much as he
gradually increased his demands,Jones carefully orchestrated the members exposure
to the concept of a"final ritual." He utilized the leverage provided by their
previouscommitments to push them closer to its enactment. Gaining a "foot inthe
door" by getting a person to agree to a moderate request makes itmore probable
that he or she will agree to do a much larger deedlater, as social psychologists
-- and salespeople -- have found(Freedman and Fraser, 1966). Doing the initial
task causes somethingthat might have seemed unreasonable at first appear less
extreme incomparison, and it also motivates a person to make his or herbehavior
appear more consistent by consenting to the larger requestsas well.
After indoctrinating
the members with the workings of the PeoplesTemple itself, Jones began to focus
on broader and more basicattitudes. He started by undermining the members belief
that deathwas to be fought and feared and set the stage by introducing thepossibility
of a cataclysmic ending for the church. As severalaccounts corroborate (see
Mills, 1979; Lifton, 1979; Cahill, 1979),Jones directed several "fake" suicide
drills, first with the elitePlanning Commission of the Peoples Temple and later
with the generalmembership. He would give them wine and announce that it had
beenpoisoned and that they would soon die. These became tests of faith,of the
members willingness to follow Jones even to death. Jones wouldask people if
they were ready to die and on occasion would have themembership "decide" its
own fate by voting whether to carry out hiswishes. An ex-member recounted that
one time, after a while
Jones smiled and
said, "Well, it was a good lesson. I see you'renot dead." He made it sound like
we needed the 30 minutes to do verystrong, introspective type of thinking. We
all felt stronglydedicated, proud of ourselves... [Jones] taught that
it was aprivilege to die for what you believe in, which is exactly what Iwould
have been doing. [Winfrey, 1979]
After the Temple
moved to Jonestown, the "White Nights," as thesuicide drills were called, occurred
repeatedly. An exercise thatappears crazy to the observer was a regular, justifiable
occurrencefor the Peoples Temple participant. The reader might ask whether thiscaused
the members to think that the actual suicides were merelyanother practice, but
there were many indications that they knew thatthe poison was truly deadly on
that final occasion. The Ryan visithad been climatic, there were several new
defectors, the cooks -- whohad been excused from the prior drills in order to
prepare theupcoming meal -- were included, Jones had been growing increasinglyangry,
desperate, and unpredictable, and, finally, everyone could seethe first babies
die. The membership was manipulated, but they werenot unaware that this time
the ritual was for real.
A dramatic example
of the impact of self-justification concernsthe physical punishment that was
meted out in the Peoples Temple. Asdiscussed earlier, the threat of being beaten
or humiliated forcedthe member to comply with Jones's orders: A person will
obey as longas he or she is being threatened and supervised. To affect a personsattitudes,
however, a mild threat has been demonstrated to be moreeffective than a severe
threat (Aronson and Carlsmith, 1963) and itsinfluence has been shown to be far
longer lasting (Freedman, 1965).Under a mild threat, the individual has more
difficulty attributinghis or her behavior to such a minor external restraint,
forcing theperson to alter his or her attitudes in order to justify the action.Severe
threats elicit compliance, but, imposed from the outside, theyusually fail to
cause the behavior to be internalized. Quite adifferent dynamic ensues when
it is not so clear that the action isbeing imposed upon the person. When an
individual feels that he orshe played an active role in carrying out an action
that hurtssomeone, there comes a motivation to justify ones part in the crueltyby
rationalizing it as necessary or by derogating the victim bythinking that the
punishment was deserved (Davis and Jones,1960).
Lets step back
for a moment. The processes going on at Jonestownobviously were not as simple
as those in a well-controlled
several themes were going
on simultaneously. For example,Jim Jones had the power to impose any punishments
that he wished inthe Peoples Temple, and, especially towards the end, brutality
andterror at Jonestown were rampant. But Jones carefully controlled howthe punishments
were carried out. He often called upon the membersthemselves to agree to the
imposition of beatings. They wereinstructed to testify against fellow members,
bigger members told tobeat up smaller ones, wives or lovers forced to sexually
humiliatetheir partners, and parents asked to consent to and assist in thebeatings
of their children (Mills, 1979; Kilduff and Javers, 1978).The punishments grew
more and more sadistic, the beatings so severeas to knock the victim unconscious
and cause bruises that lasted forweeks. As Donald Lunde, a psychiatrist who
has investigated acts ofextreme violence, explains:
Once you've done
something that major, its very hard to admit evento yourself that you've made
a mistake, and subconsciously you willgo to great lengths to rationalize what
you did. Its very trickydefense mechanism exploited to the hilt by the charismatic
leader.[Newsweek, 1978a.]
A more personal
account of the impact of this process is providedby Jeanne Mills. At one meeting,
she and her husband were forced toconsent to the beating of their daughter as
punishment for a veryminor transgression. She relates the effect this had on
her daughter,the victim, as well as on herself, one of the perpetrators:
As we drove home,
everyone in the car was silent. We were allafraid that our words would be considered
treasonous. The only soundscame from Linda, sobbing quietly in the back seat.
When we got intoour house, Al and I sat down to talk with Linda. She was in
too muchpain to sit. She stood quietly while we talked with her. "How do youfeel
about what happened tonight?" Al asked her.
"Father was right
to have me whipped" Linda answered. "I've beenso rebellious lately, and I've
done a lot of things that werewrong... I'm sure Father knew about those things,
and that's why hehad me hit so many times.
As we kissed our
daughter good night, our heads were spinning. Itwas hard to think clearly when
things were so confusing. Linda hadbeen the victim, and yet we were the only
people angry about it. Sheshould have been hostile and angry. Instead, she said
that Jim hadactually helped her. We knew Jim had done a cruel thing, and yeteveryone
acted as if he were doing a loving thing in whipping ourdisobedient child. Unlike
a cruel person hurting a child, Jim hadseemed calm, almost loving, as he observed
the beating and countedoff the whacks. Our minds were not able to comprehend
the atrocity ofthe situation because none of the feedback we were receiving
wasaccurate. [Mills, 1979.]
The feedback one
received from the outside was limited, and thefeedback from inside the Temple
member was distorted. By justifyingthe previous actions and commitments, the
groundwork for acceptingthe ultimate commitment was established.
Conclusion
Only months
after we defected from Temple did we realize thefull extent of the cocoon in
which we lived. And only then we didunderstand the fraud , sadism, and emotional
blackmail of the mastermanipulator.
-Jeanne Mills, "Six Years with God"
Immediately following
the Jonestown tragedy, there came aproliferation of articles about "cults" and
calls for theirinvestigation and control. From Sienna to Transcendental Meditation,groups
and practices were examined by the press, which had adifficult time determining
what constituted a "cult" ordifferentiating between those might be safe and
beneficial and thosethat could be dangerous. The Peoples Temple and the events
atJonestown make such a definition all the more problematic. A fewhours before
his murder, Congressman Ryan addressed the membership:"I can tell you right
now that by the few conversations I've had withsome of the folks... there are
some people who believe this is thebest thing that ever happened in their whole
lives" (Krause, 1978).The acquiescence of so many and the letters they left
behind indicatethat this feeling was widely shared -- or at least expressed
-- bythe members.
Many "untraditional"
- to mainstream American culture - groups orpractices, such as Eastern religions
or meditation techniques, haveproven valuable for the people who experience
them but may be seen asvery strange and frightening to others. How can people
determinewhether they are being exposed to a potentially useful alternativeway
of living their lives or if they are being drawn to a dangerousone?
The distinction
is a difficult one. Three questions suggested bythe previous analysis, however,
can provide important clues: Arealternatives being provided or taken away? Is
ones access to new anddifferent information being broadened or denied? Finally,
does theindividual assume personal responsibility and control or is itusurped
by the group or by its leader?
The Peoples Temple
attracted many of its members because itprovided them an alternative way of
it gave manypeople who were downtrodden a sense of purpose,
and eventranscendence. But it did so at a cost, forcing them to disown theirformer
friendships and beliefs and teaching them to fear anythingoutside of the Temple
as "the enemy." Following Jones became theonly alternative.
Indeed, most of
the members grew increasingly unaware of thepossibility of any other course.
Within the Peoples Temple, andespecially at Jonestown, Jim Jones controlled
the information towhich members would be exposed. He effectively stifled any
dissentthat might arise within the church and instilled a distrust in eachmember
for contradictory messages from outside. After all, whatcredibility could be
carried by information supplied by "the enemy"that was out to destroy the Peoples
Temple with "lies?"
Seeing no alternatives
and having no information, a memberscapacity for dissent or resistance was minimized.
Moreover, for mostmembers, part of the Temples attraction resulted from theirwillingness
to relinquish much of the responsibility and control overtheir lives. These
were primarily the poor, the minorities, theelderly, and the unsuccessful --
they were happy to exchange personalautonomy (with its implicit assumption of
personal responsibility fortheir plights) for security, brotherhood, the illusion
of miracles,and the promise of salvation. Stanley Cath, a psychiatrist who hasstudied
the conversion techniques used by cults, generalizes:"Converts have to believe
only what they are told. They don't have tothink, and this relieves tremendous
tensions" (Newsweek,1978a). Even Jeanne Mills, one of the better-educated
Temple members,commented:
I was amazed at
how little disagreement there was between themembers of this church. Before
we joined the church, Al and Icouldn't even agree on whom to vote for in a presidential
election.Now that we all belonged to a group, family arguments were becoming
athing of the past. There was never a question of who was right,because Jim
was always right. When our large household met to discussfamily problems, we
didn't ask for opinions. Instead, we put thequestion to the children, "What
would Jim do?" It took the difficultyout of life. There was a type of "manifest
destiny" which said theCause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and
those who agreedwith him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong.
Itwas as simple as that. [Mills, 1979.]
Though it is unlikely
that he had any formal exposure to thesocial psychological literature, Jim Jones
utilized several verypowerful and effective techniques for controlling peoples
behaviorand altering their attitudes. Some analyses have compared his tacticsto
those involved in "brainwashing," for both include the control ofcommunication,
the manipulation of guilt, and dispensing power overpeoples existence (Lifton,
1979), as well as isolation, an exactingregimen, physical pressure, and the
use of confessions (Cahill,1979). But using the term brainwashing makes the
process sound tooesoteric and unusual. There were some unique and scary elements
inJones's personality -- paranoia, delusions of grandeur, sadism, and apreoccupation
with suicide. Whatever his personal motivation,however, having formulated his
plans and fantasies, he took advantageof well-established social psychological
tactics to carry them out.The decision to have a community destroy itself was
crazy, but thosewho performed the deed were "normal" people who were subjected
to atremendously impactful situation, the victims of powerful internalforces
as well as external pressures.
Postscript
Within a few weeks
of the deaths at Jonestown, the bodies had beentransported back to the United
States, the remnants of the PeoplesTemple membership were said to have disbanded,
and the spate ofstories and books about the suicide/murders had begun to lose
thepublics attention. Three months afterwards, Michael Prokes, who hadescaped
from Jonestown because he was assigned to carry away a box ofPeoples Temple
funds, called a press conference in a California motelroom. After claiming that
Jones had been misunderstood and demandingthe release of a tape recording of
the final minutes [quotedearlier], he stepped into the bathroom and
shot himself in thehead. He left behind a note, saying that if his death inspiredanother
book about Jonestown, it was worthwhile (Newsweek,1979).
Postscript
Jeanne and Al Mills
were among the most vocal of the PeoplesTemples critics following their defection,
and they topped an alleged"death list" of its enemies. Even after Jonestown,
the Mills's hadrepeatedly expressed fear for their lives. Well over a year after
thePeoples Temple deaths, they and their daughter were murdered in theirBerkeley
home. Their teen-aged son, himself an ex-Peoples Templemember, has testified
that he was in another part of the large houseat the time. At this writing,
no suspect has been charged. There areindications that the Mills's knew their
killer -- there were no signsof forced entry, and they were shot at close range.
Jeanne Mills hadbeen quoted as saying, "Its going to happen. If not today, thentomorrow."
On the final tape of Jonestown, Jim Jones had blamedJeanne Mills by name, and
had promised that his followers in SanFrancisco "will not take our death in
vain" (Newsweek,1980).}