International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 19
believed that a connection between the members
and the divine existed through Shearing. A
connection to the universal truth instilled in
them a sense of belonging to something larger
and more powerful than themselves, a feeling
that members yearned for. Liebman Jacobs
describes this affective bonding (1989:73) as an
“intense [feeling] of love, devotion, and blind
faith that become[s] associated with charismatic
bonding” (1989:77).
Authority and Abuse
Shearing maintained his charismatic leadership
and authority through effort and calculated
action. Marc Galanter (1999) suggests that
charismatically led movements often display a
monitoring component that helps sustain them,8
since movements act like social systems that
must transform input from the
environment into a form that meets [the
group’s] … needs…. [Moreover,
members who monitor the movement as
part of a system] must also observe and
regulate the actions of its component
parts, thereby assuring that their
respective activities are properly carried
out and coordinated. (96–97)
Ideally, the devotees charged with the role of
monitoring identify and observe the actions,
behaviors, and concerns that other members
have with regard to group doctrines or the leader
himself. The leader, in turn, responds to the
input reported back to him by his chosen
monitors, and makes adjustments to his actions
or doctrines to stabilize the movement and
reduce tension within the group (Galanter,
1999:97). With a comprehensive monitoring
system in place, a charismatic leader has the
ability to alter the movement’s practices or
beliefs to maintain the followers’ dependence on
him. Since the movement’s elite—who are
typically the most devout members within the
organization—observe the group’s reaction to
the leader and often gain intimate trust of fellow
members, the leader has access to any secret
8 Lalich (2004) also discusses similar monitoring movements in
her presentation of “systems of control” and “systems of
influence” (2004:17) within cults. For a more detailed discussion,
see page 17.
confessions or opinions about the group that
were revealed to the elite. The monitoring that
exists within charismatic movements reinforces
cohesiveness and loyalty among followers it
also maintains a certain level of control over
members’ interaction with each other.
When viewed as part of a social system that
relies, to a great extent, on the dependence of
members,9 the leader cannot assume (although
he presents himself as having absolute authority
and power within the movement) that his
position is absolute, nor can he idly hope that he
will maintain his authority without effort and
awareness of the ongoing concerns of his
members. Although the gift of charisma can
establish them as the leader of a movement,
“[e]ach of … [the charismatic leaders’] actions
[can] either [continue to] establish, … reinforce,
… or undermine … their own authority”
(Dawson, 2002:85) in the eyes of their members.
Insofar as leaders attempt to sustain their
position of supremacy amongst devotees, they
must suppress any deviant opinions that they
believe threaten the stability and unified
direction of the movement. Galanter asserts that
an individual member’s autonomy must give
way to the group’s needs, and any aberrant
thought or action must be quickly dealt with and
dissipated (1999:101). Thomas Robbins and
Dick Anthony seem to support aspects of
Galanter’s argument when they state that “a
charismatic leader will be tempted to use his
authority to try to simplify the environment
within the group by eliminating sources of
dissension … [and] normative diversity”
(1995:246). Moreover, “[t]he responses that
charismatic leaders make to perceived threats to
their authority will often tend to embellish this
authority and extrapolate it in an increasingly
authoritarian and absolutist direction” (Robbins
and Anthony, 1995:245-246). Seemingly, a
pattern emerges indicating that a charismatic
leader tends not to tolerate deviance because it
detracts from his ability to significantly
9 Authority within charismatic relationships depends, to a
significant extent, on members’ continued recognition of the
leader’s charismatic authority. Without this dependent relationship,
the power of charismatic authority weakens. For a more detailed
discussion on power relationships within a charismatic context, see
Richard Emerson’s article, “Power-Dependence Relations.”
believed that a connection between the members
and the divine existed through Shearing. A
connection to the universal truth instilled in
them a sense of belonging to something larger
and more powerful than themselves, a feeling
that members yearned for. Liebman Jacobs
describes this affective bonding (1989:73) as an
“intense [feeling] of love, devotion, and blind
faith that become[s] associated with charismatic
bonding” (1989:77).
Authority and Abuse
Shearing maintained his charismatic leadership
and authority through effort and calculated
action. Marc Galanter (1999) suggests that
charismatically led movements often display a
monitoring component that helps sustain them,8
since movements act like social systems that
must transform input from the
environment into a form that meets [the
group’s] … needs…. [Moreover,
members who monitor the movement as
part of a system] must also observe and
regulate the actions of its component
parts, thereby assuring that their
respective activities are properly carried
out and coordinated. (96–97)
Ideally, the devotees charged with the role of
monitoring identify and observe the actions,
behaviors, and concerns that other members
have with regard to group doctrines or the leader
himself. The leader, in turn, responds to the
input reported back to him by his chosen
monitors, and makes adjustments to his actions
or doctrines to stabilize the movement and
reduce tension within the group (Galanter,
1999:97). With a comprehensive monitoring
system in place, a charismatic leader has the
ability to alter the movement’s practices or
beliefs to maintain the followers’ dependence on
him. Since the movement’s elite—who are
typically the most devout members within the
organization—observe the group’s reaction to
the leader and often gain intimate trust of fellow
members, the leader has access to any secret
8 Lalich (2004) also discusses similar monitoring movements in
her presentation of “systems of control” and “systems of
influence” (2004:17) within cults. For a more detailed discussion,
see page 17.
confessions or opinions about the group that
were revealed to the elite. The monitoring that
exists within charismatic movements reinforces
cohesiveness and loyalty among followers it
also maintains a certain level of control over
members’ interaction with each other.
When viewed as part of a social system that
relies, to a great extent, on the dependence of
members,9 the leader cannot assume (although
he presents himself as having absolute authority
and power within the movement) that his
position is absolute, nor can he idly hope that he
will maintain his authority without effort and
awareness of the ongoing concerns of his
members. Although the gift of charisma can
establish them as the leader of a movement,
“[e]ach of … [the charismatic leaders’] actions
[can] either [continue to] establish, … reinforce,
… or undermine … their own authority”
(Dawson, 2002:85) in the eyes of their members.
Insofar as leaders attempt to sustain their
position of supremacy amongst devotees, they
must suppress any deviant opinions that they
believe threaten the stability and unified
direction of the movement. Galanter asserts that
an individual member’s autonomy must give
way to the group’s needs, and any aberrant
thought or action must be quickly dealt with and
dissipated (1999:101). Thomas Robbins and
Dick Anthony seem to support aspects of
Galanter’s argument when they state that “a
charismatic leader will be tempted to use his
authority to try to simplify the environment
within the group by eliminating sources of
dissension … [and] normative diversity”
(1995:246). Moreover, “[t]he responses that
charismatic leaders make to perceived threats to
their authority will often tend to embellish this
authority and extrapolate it in an increasingly
authoritarian and absolutist direction” (Robbins
and Anthony, 1995:245-246). Seemingly, a
pattern emerges indicating that a charismatic
leader tends not to tolerate deviance because it
detracts from his ability to significantly
9 Authority within charismatic relationships depends, to a
significant extent, on members’ continued recognition of the
leader’s charismatic authority. Without this dependent relationship,
the power of charismatic authority weakens. For a more detailed
discussion on power relationships within a charismatic context, see
Richard Emerson’s article, “Power-Dependence Relations.”
