56 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
the manipulation of the feeling of blame and the
need to confess any deviation, are in principle
not very common amongst the terrorist groups.
However, coercive forms used with those who
dare to criticise, dissent, or consider leaving the
group are in fact similar. As such groups
demand total devotion, when a member
questions them or seeks a personal escape, the
group tends to aggressively employ contempt,
humiliation, or rejection toward the dissident
when not resorting to intimidation or crude
threats.
Both threats and punishment function as
efficient methods of control. Because of this,
both cults and terrorist groups can resort to high
levels of cruelty in their use of such controls,
while also seeking to make an example of
dissident members. The case of Yoyes should be
remembered here. Yoyes was an ex-member of
ETA who was murdered by her old comrades in
order to demonstrate, above all to the rest of the
militants, that they could not leave the group,
that their commitment had to be total, and that
any attempt to leave in this way could cost them
their lives.
Indoctrination in a System of Absolute and
Manichean Beliefs
The two types of groups analysed here, at least
in their most radical forms, coincide in that the
ideology or doctrine on which each is based is
made up of a system of beliefs that gives an
absolutist character and that is sustained in a
fanatical fashion by its militants. This means
that the members of the group claim to be in
possession of the truth (Centner, 2003), making
the famous axiom of “the end justifies the
means” their own, situating their objectives and
their truth above the people and the law. It is
evident that its absolutist and dogmatic nature
can vary in each cult and in each terrorist group,
and therefore it is necessary to establish degrees.
Among the terrorist groups, those of a religious
character, such as Al Qaeda, show most
genuinely the belief in an absolute, in a dogma
that enables them to legitimise their actions.
A key element to discuss here is how this degree
of fanaticism is reached. In cults it is understood
that this intensive indoctrination is carried out by
the cult on the followers whom it has managed
to recruit for its cause. However, in terrorist
groups the job of indoctrination is less important
or is merely necessary in terms of ideological
socialization, as at least during the early stages
the job is carried out by the social base or
environment that supports the beliefs of the
group. Some characteristic elements of political
mobilization of this environment may contribute
to facilitating identification with the doctrine
and its application for example, the presence of
identifying symbols and a certain aesthetic or
dress style, flags, anthems, or tributes to released
prisoners or dead terrorists, as is frequently the
case in the social environment surrounding ETA
(Echeburúa and Corral, 2004).
Nevertheless, some terrorist groups do employ
specific systems of ideological indoctrination on
new members. This was the case with Shining
Path, which, together with weapons training,
also politically indoctrinated new members in its
so-called “people’s schools” before sending
them out to form specific attack cells (Switzer,
2007).
Imposition of Single and Unquestionable
Authority
An important difference between cults and
terrorist groups lies in the exercise of the role of
leadership. In cults, the authority of a leader
(dead or alive) is imposed absolutely, and is
afforded special, even divine, qualities or
powers. The leader is also in most cases the
creator of the doctrine followed by the group.
Terrorist groups do not usually afford their
leadership such special characteristics (Centner,
2003), with the function of leadership being
occupied by the ideology and beliefs that the
group represents.
Terrorist groups with a strong charismatic
leadership are more likely to adopt the strategies
of cults. An example is that of Shining Path,
over which Abimael Guzmán, self-proclaimed
“President Gonzalo,” exercised a leadership
similar to that of a cult (Centner, 2003), to the
extent that after his arrest and imprisonment, the
group lost its way and began to significantly
transform itself. According to the Commission
of Truth and Reconciliation (2003), his
followers had the “absolute belief that their
the manipulation of the feeling of blame and the
need to confess any deviation, are in principle
not very common amongst the terrorist groups.
However, coercive forms used with those who
dare to criticise, dissent, or consider leaving the
group are in fact similar. As such groups
demand total devotion, when a member
questions them or seeks a personal escape, the
group tends to aggressively employ contempt,
humiliation, or rejection toward the dissident
when not resorting to intimidation or crude
threats.
Both threats and punishment function as
efficient methods of control. Because of this,
both cults and terrorist groups can resort to high
levels of cruelty in their use of such controls,
while also seeking to make an example of
dissident members. The case of Yoyes should be
remembered here. Yoyes was an ex-member of
ETA who was murdered by her old comrades in
order to demonstrate, above all to the rest of the
militants, that they could not leave the group,
that their commitment had to be total, and that
any attempt to leave in this way could cost them
their lives.
Indoctrination in a System of Absolute and
Manichean Beliefs
The two types of groups analysed here, at least
in their most radical forms, coincide in that the
ideology or doctrine on which each is based is
made up of a system of beliefs that gives an
absolutist character and that is sustained in a
fanatical fashion by its militants. This means
that the members of the group claim to be in
possession of the truth (Centner, 2003), making
the famous axiom of “the end justifies the
means” their own, situating their objectives and
their truth above the people and the law. It is
evident that its absolutist and dogmatic nature
can vary in each cult and in each terrorist group,
and therefore it is necessary to establish degrees.
Among the terrorist groups, those of a religious
character, such as Al Qaeda, show most
genuinely the belief in an absolute, in a dogma
that enables them to legitimise their actions.
A key element to discuss here is how this degree
of fanaticism is reached. In cults it is understood
that this intensive indoctrination is carried out by
the cult on the followers whom it has managed
to recruit for its cause. However, in terrorist
groups the job of indoctrination is less important
or is merely necessary in terms of ideological
socialization, as at least during the early stages
the job is carried out by the social base or
environment that supports the beliefs of the
group. Some characteristic elements of political
mobilization of this environment may contribute
to facilitating identification with the doctrine
and its application for example, the presence of
identifying symbols and a certain aesthetic or
dress style, flags, anthems, or tributes to released
prisoners or dead terrorists, as is frequently the
case in the social environment surrounding ETA
(Echeburúa and Corral, 2004).
Nevertheless, some terrorist groups do employ
specific systems of ideological indoctrination on
new members. This was the case with Shining
Path, which, together with weapons training,
also politically indoctrinated new members in its
so-called “people’s schools” before sending
them out to form specific attack cells (Switzer,
2007).
Imposition of Single and Unquestionable
Authority
An important difference between cults and
terrorist groups lies in the exercise of the role of
leadership. In cults, the authority of a leader
(dead or alive) is imposed absolutely, and is
afforded special, even divine, qualities or
powers. The leader is also in most cases the
creator of the doctrine followed by the group.
Terrorist groups do not usually afford their
leadership such special characteristics (Centner,
2003), with the function of leadership being
occupied by the ideology and beliefs that the
group represents.
Terrorist groups with a strong charismatic
leadership are more likely to adopt the strategies
of cults. An example is that of Shining Path,
over which Abimael Guzmán, self-proclaimed
“President Gonzalo,” exercised a leadership
similar to that of a cult (Centner, 2003), to the
extent that after his arrest and imprisonment, the
group lost its way and began to significantly
transform itself. According to the Commission
of Truth and Reconciliation (2003), his
followers had the “absolute belief that their
