50 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
we would be speaking of their double condition
as cults and terrorist groups. This may have been
the case of the cult The Supreme Truth, if the
security forces and the justice department had
not been successful after its first mass attack.
The basic aim of this study is not to analyse
cults and their risk of becoming terrorist groups,
but rather the opposite: to analyse the dynamics
of terrorist groups from the perspective of cults.
Our initial ideas concentrated on the potential
cruelty of their actions in order to analyse the
similarity between cults and terrorist groups, but
what this study really wishes to analyse is the
process that takes place beforehand that allows
them to carry out such actions. Specifically, the
aim is to see to what extent terrorist groups
adopt strategies typical of the internal
functioning of cults. From a psychosocial
perspective, the study will look at the process of
bonding people to the group, their integration in
it, and the group dynamic, trying to elucidate to
what extent they use so-called strategies of
coercive persuasion or strategies based on
control, abuse, and psychological violence. The
aim, thus, is to carry out a comparative
assessment and in parallel to the membership of
cults and terrorist groups, starting with the more
general and defining aspects.
Terrorist Groups and Cults: Defining
Elements
When beginning a comparative analysis of both
types of groups, a first distinction should be
made between means and ends. Both groups call
and define themselves by emphasising
ideological-doctrinal aims that they wish to
achieve (liberation of the people, salvation of
humanity, and other objectives of a similarly
ambitious ilk). The ends pursued often have an
idyllic nature and, thus, in abstract, can be
shared, at least in part, by more or less extensive
sectors of the general public. But what makes
these groups significant from a social and
scientific viewpoint are, rather than their
declared aims, the abusive and violent methods
that are used to achieve them. If they did not use
these means, they could be classified as other
social movements or organizations of a political,
religious, or cultural nature, and the like. The
use of such cruel means is precisely what allows
us to talk of them as terrorist or cult
organizations, with their ideology or doctrine
being obligatorily relegated to the background.
This ideological element is that which is used to
later qualify and classify the cult or terrorist
group as a religious, political, or other type of
group. Hence, religious terrorism
(Juergensmeyer, 2001), based on the
predominance of beliefs of this type and of
being prepared to kill in the name of their god
(e.g., Al Qaeda and its fight to establish the
Nation of Islam), is that which a priori would be
closest to the classic dynamic of cults, wherein
doctrinal fundamentalism and the imposition of
a unique and absolute authority are signs of their
own identity.
In accordance with the idea that the fundamental
defining elements, both of cults and terrorist
groups, lie in the means they use, rather than in
their desired aims, a cult is defined as “a
totalitarian group which uses techniques of
coercive persuasion in order to recruit people
and submit them to the dependency of the
group” (Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1999). Hence,
the most common abusive and exploitative
actions are carried out by the cults toward their
own members, toward the interior of the group.
We will look later at to what extent this also
happens in terrorist groups, but what defines
these groups is the violent actions carried out
against those considered as an exterior enemy.
Therefore, the centre of action of the cult lies in
the in-group and is defined by its internal
dynamics, while the terrorist group is defined by
its external actions with its centre of action in
the enemy out-group, as Centner also indicated
(2003), claiming that a cult can become a
terrorist group and vice versa.
In this study we will look at terrorist groups in
the sense of insurgent groups, leaving to one
side so-called State terrorism, and without
judging the political ideals that each group
claims to follow. Despite this, terrorism is a
phenomenon of great complexity and diversity,
and it is difficult to come to a consensus as to a
definition. A characteristic common to all
definitions is the strategic use of terror to attain
objectives, as was noted by Kruglanski and
Fishman (2006). This entails a planned and
we would be speaking of their double condition
as cults and terrorist groups. This may have been
the case of the cult The Supreme Truth, if the
security forces and the justice department had
not been successful after its first mass attack.
The basic aim of this study is not to analyse
cults and their risk of becoming terrorist groups,
but rather the opposite: to analyse the dynamics
of terrorist groups from the perspective of cults.
Our initial ideas concentrated on the potential
cruelty of their actions in order to analyse the
similarity between cults and terrorist groups, but
what this study really wishes to analyse is the
process that takes place beforehand that allows
them to carry out such actions. Specifically, the
aim is to see to what extent terrorist groups
adopt strategies typical of the internal
functioning of cults. From a psychosocial
perspective, the study will look at the process of
bonding people to the group, their integration in
it, and the group dynamic, trying to elucidate to
what extent they use so-called strategies of
coercive persuasion or strategies based on
control, abuse, and psychological violence. The
aim, thus, is to carry out a comparative
assessment and in parallel to the membership of
cults and terrorist groups, starting with the more
general and defining aspects.
Terrorist Groups and Cults: Defining
Elements
When beginning a comparative analysis of both
types of groups, a first distinction should be
made between means and ends. Both groups call
and define themselves by emphasising
ideological-doctrinal aims that they wish to
achieve (liberation of the people, salvation of
humanity, and other objectives of a similarly
ambitious ilk). The ends pursued often have an
idyllic nature and, thus, in abstract, can be
shared, at least in part, by more or less extensive
sectors of the general public. But what makes
these groups significant from a social and
scientific viewpoint are, rather than their
declared aims, the abusive and violent methods
that are used to achieve them. If they did not use
these means, they could be classified as other
social movements or organizations of a political,
religious, or cultural nature, and the like. The
use of such cruel means is precisely what allows
us to talk of them as terrorist or cult
organizations, with their ideology or doctrine
being obligatorily relegated to the background.
This ideological element is that which is used to
later qualify and classify the cult or terrorist
group as a religious, political, or other type of
group. Hence, religious terrorism
(Juergensmeyer, 2001), based on the
predominance of beliefs of this type and of
being prepared to kill in the name of their god
(e.g., Al Qaeda and its fight to establish the
Nation of Islam), is that which a priori would be
closest to the classic dynamic of cults, wherein
doctrinal fundamentalism and the imposition of
a unique and absolute authority are signs of their
own identity.
In accordance with the idea that the fundamental
defining elements, both of cults and terrorist
groups, lie in the means they use, rather than in
their desired aims, a cult is defined as “a
totalitarian group which uses techniques of
coercive persuasion in order to recruit people
and submit them to the dependency of the
group” (Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1999). Hence,
the most common abusive and exploitative
actions are carried out by the cults toward their
own members, toward the interior of the group.
We will look later at to what extent this also
happens in terrorist groups, but what defines
these groups is the violent actions carried out
against those considered as an exterior enemy.
Therefore, the centre of action of the cult lies in
the in-group and is defined by its internal
dynamics, while the terrorist group is defined by
its external actions with its centre of action in
the enemy out-group, as Centner also indicated
(2003), claiming that a cult can become a
terrorist group and vice versa.
In this study we will look at terrorist groups in
the sense of insurgent groups, leaving to one
side so-called State terrorism, and without
judging the political ideals that each group
claims to follow. Despite this, terrorism is a
phenomenon of great complexity and diversity,
and it is difficult to come to a consensus as to a
definition. A characteristic common to all
definitions is the strategic use of terror to attain
objectives, as was noted by Kruglanski and
Fishman (2006). This entails a planned and
