I watched it tonight.
First: to answer Elizabeth I's question, The Alpha course is very very heavily promoted in this country: I get invitations to go to it through my door regularly. There are advertisments on buses and other places and it has been extensively reported becuase it has some success in recruitment. Traditional religion has been in decline here but the evangelicals are an exception no matter which denomination they are from (as a broad generalisation)
Apart from the high profile there is a clue in the title: they present as an intelligent and reasoned approach to god and religion and they aim at the "middle class". It is quite elitist really. But for this reason they do appeal to those who perhaps have lost faith because they have realised that much of what they have been taught is frankly impossible to believe: and who are looking for a more intellectually satisfying version of religion: you find the same kind of thing within catholicism: the bright kids get the jesuit version. Protestant churches have lacked that particular kind of hierarchy of expression so far as I can tell: though of course it exists in the higher echelons of the church.
Because of that pitch it will also appeal to those who are secure in their unbelief, and I imagine many will go along because they see it as a challenge.
Both groups are particularly vulnerable to this kind of programme, in my opinion. People who put a great deal of "faith" in reason and intelligence do not feel themselves vulnerable to deliberate emotional manipulation: they don't run away because they think they can handle it. But many simply do not have the tools
Other than that it works much like Amway, so far as I can tell, from the documentary. It uses those elements of "coercive persuasion" which are possible in the context of not having total control of the environment
Those who go along are placed in a small group of strangers: the groups are "led" by two people who are already christian and are part of the programme. They have a quite clear agenda and quite clear techniques. The rest are uncertain and have a variety of motivations.
In terms of the coercive persuasion model: the first strategy is to increase suggestibility: in a controlled environment that can go quite far but it is not so easy in this setting: they do what they can. they use lectures which set the tone but they mainly use seduction I think. It is very flattering to find a group of people who are so very interested in your views and who are so clearly thrilled to meet you (this is an element of "love bombing" which is very effective in the amway model): it is pleasant to share food and conversation with others. "Flirty fishing" is in the mix as well: bright shiny young women who serve the food and smile a lot. All of this predisposes the subject to value the intelligence and discrimination of those who run the course: we like those who like us and we listen to them
Social isolation ( a very important strategy in coercive persuasion) is not open to them directly: But they do have this advantage: in this country religion is not something much discussed. So reality checking outside the group is not as readily accessible as you might think. The documentary of course interfered with this particular aspect by virtue of being made: some participants certainly discussed the experience with Mr Ronson: but he was carefully non directive, so far as I could see.
A third strategy is to limit the acceptable topics of conversation. That is achieved by the nature of the course and they don't need to make rules about it: it is intrinsic to the exercise. As too is the introduction of a shared vocabulary and conceptual framework: at least within the course
In most coercive set ups there is a need to undermine the subject's sense of causality: they are required to re-evaluate their experience in the context of the persuaders' version of reality. This is done in two ways, so far as I can see: the members of the subject group do not form a group outside of the agenda.Their only bonds with each other are dictated by christianity, as presented by the alpha course. It is inevitable that they will share personal experience in the course of discussion. Their interpretation of that experience will be challenged in particular ways by the two christians who are leading the group: and will not be validated by the others, who are strangers to them and will not share their world view. In addition the nature of the conversation in each session is already framed by the introductory talk: a particular way of seeing things has already been primed and that is all they will share at least some of the time
Naturally the members of the group voice objections and questions: these have been heard before and so the "leaders" are equipped with plausible answers. Thus those with the agenda can take control of the discussion and re-frame experience more readily than the members can: and each can see intelligent people make arguments which they cannot sustain. As they are bright and presumably honest people this is apt to undermine what they previously believed to be true. And it is a matter of pride for sceptics that they will abandon a position they cannot defend. This is used against them, and very effectively. It is the way that the next strategy, undermining self confidence, can be implemented in an environment not fully controlled.
Two of the people in the documentary became very uncomfortable at a certain point and they left. We were not shown much about many of the participants as it focussed on a few, so I am not certain of the variety of responses. Those who left seemed to me to be those who recognised an emotional discomfort and who gave that sufficient weight that they did not have to justify it intellectually to themselves: others were unable to do that.
The breaking point for those who left seemed to be the "speaking in tongues" part. That seemed to me to be very interesting: it is the culmination of this process. It was done in a more controlled environment (though in practice this failed because of factors beyond the course's control) on a residential weekend. It was introduced after a session which clearly used the "increased suggestiblity" strategies almost to the point of hypnotic compliance: and then they attempted to "overload emotions". Effectively they invited people to take part in an exercise (speaking in tongues) which would embarrass or humiliate their normal selves. Those who participate in this kind of ritual surrender a part of their conception of themselves. It is what is called "breaking" and it means they must re-evaluate who they are. Cognitive dissonance will do the rest.
The two who left seemed to recognise this but did not articulate it well in the documentary.
Sorry to have made this very long post but I found the whole thing disgusting
