International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 57
maximum leader was the saviour of Peru and the
world.”
Discussion and Conclusions
Studying terrorist groups from the point of view
of a cult provides a fresh psychosocial
perspective by focusing our gaze on the
particular internal dynamics of atypical groups
in order to try to analyse the characteristics they
have in common and those that are distinct.
Both cults and terrorist groups are complex, and
it is difficult to define them or make
generalisations about their characteristics, as
there is often a great deal of diversity of
elements and conditions within each category.
Despite this there is an inherent element that
unites them: This is the use of different forms of
violence and abuse as a strategic means to
achieving their objectives. In both cases they
become organisations that violate human rights
in particular, people’s rights to physical and/or
psychological integrity.
It has been seen that there are important points
of intersection between both types of groups,
with specific variations occurring that can bring
cults or terrorist groups closer together.
Likewise, although we cannot talk of exact
psychological profiles in either of the two cases,
it can be said that the members of both groups
can share some personal characteristics. Indeed,
as the people involved do not have clear and
specific profiles, the interaction occurring
between the person, the group, and the social
context becomes even more interesting, leading
to the psychosocial construction of a fanatical
militant.
As a radical expression of this fanaticism, it can
be seen that both cult followers and terrorists
have been prepared, in some cases, to commit
suicide for their cause and have carried this out.
In the case of terrorists, they are often from
Islamist environments typified by a “culture of
the martyrdom.” Among the personal
characteristics that identify them, following
Merari (2007), we should highlight the fact of
their having received indoctrination, in this
sense, having lived through traumatic
experiences close at hand that could be blamed
on the enemy and that could generate feelings of
revenge and a way of their leaving a public
testimony of their personal commitment (in the
form of letters or video recordings).
As far as the bonding to the group is concerned,
the terrorist group, in particular, is nourished by
people from its social base through a process of
interpersonal interaction in which the key lies in
the network of contacts. This explains why
terrorist groups often include many people with
family ties and with ties of friendship prior to
joining the group, as also occurs in cults,
although the established network is less
extensive. If ties of friendship are generally an
important factor in joining social movements,
these become particularly important and strong
in the case of clandestine organizations in which
it is also essential to develop a strong degree of
group cohesion (Javaloy, Rodríguez-Carballeira,
and Espelt, 2001).
It seems rather clear that, without an active
recruitment plan, terrorist groups would find it
difficult to attract new members. Nevertheless, a
terrorist group can go through stages of greater
social support during which potential candidates
approach their doors, with what we could even
describe as a top-to-bottom link (Sageman,
2004), as seems to have taken place with certain
Jihadist cells. One small difference between
them lies in the fact that while some groups need
a specific recruitment campaign, others have a
larger social base, which already socialises the
subjects in ideas that are very close to those of
the group. This may be the case of certain
madrasahs or mosques in which pupils are
indoctrinated in the Jihad, or even the case of an
autonomous group of friends who study together
in this direction, making use of documents and
exchanges available on certain Web pages. This
is why bonds in both terrorist groups and cults
must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in
order to ascertain the degree of autonomy of the
subject in the process, or, in contrast, the level of
indoctrination with more or less coercive
methods.
When one looks at life inside closed dogmatic
groups, such as terrorists and cults, it can be
seen that the people involved on many occasions
undergo experiences of a strong emotional
intensity that would be very difficult to
maximum leader was the saviour of Peru and the
world.”
Discussion and Conclusions
Studying terrorist groups from the point of view
of a cult provides a fresh psychosocial
perspective by focusing our gaze on the
particular internal dynamics of atypical groups
in order to try to analyse the characteristics they
have in common and those that are distinct.
Both cults and terrorist groups are complex, and
it is difficult to define them or make
generalisations about their characteristics, as
there is often a great deal of diversity of
elements and conditions within each category.
Despite this there is an inherent element that
unites them: This is the use of different forms of
violence and abuse as a strategic means to
achieving their objectives. In both cases they
become organisations that violate human rights
in particular, people’s rights to physical and/or
psychological integrity.
It has been seen that there are important points
of intersection between both types of groups,
with specific variations occurring that can bring
cults or terrorist groups closer together.
Likewise, although we cannot talk of exact
psychological profiles in either of the two cases,
it can be said that the members of both groups
can share some personal characteristics. Indeed,
as the people involved do not have clear and
specific profiles, the interaction occurring
between the person, the group, and the social
context becomes even more interesting, leading
to the psychosocial construction of a fanatical
militant.
As a radical expression of this fanaticism, it can
be seen that both cult followers and terrorists
have been prepared, in some cases, to commit
suicide for their cause and have carried this out.
In the case of terrorists, they are often from
Islamist environments typified by a “culture of
the martyrdom.” Among the personal
characteristics that identify them, following
Merari (2007), we should highlight the fact of
their having received indoctrination, in this
sense, having lived through traumatic
experiences close at hand that could be blamed
on the enemy and that could generate feelings of
revenge and a way of their leaving a public
testimony of their personal commitment (in the
form of letters or video recordings).
As far as the bonding to the group is concerned,
the terrorist group, in particular, is nourished by
people from its social base through a process of
interpersonal interaction in which the key lies in
the network of contacts. This explains why
terrorist groups often include many people with
family ties and with ties of friendship prior to
joining the group, as also occurs in cults,
although the established network is less
extensive. If ties of friendship are generally an
important factor in joining social movements,
these become particularly important and strong
in the case of clandestine organizations in which
it is also essential to develop a strong degree of
group cohesion (Javaloy, Rodríguez-Carballeira,
and Espelt, 2001).
It seems rather clear that, without an active
recruitment plan, terrorist groups would find it
difficult to attract new members. Nevertheless, a
terrorist group can go through stages of greater
social support during which potential candidates
approach their doors, with what we could even
describe as a top-to-bottom link (Sageman,
2004), as seems to have taken place with certain
Jihadist cells. One small difference between
them lies in the fact that while some groups need
a specific recruitment campaign, others have a
larger social base, which already socialises the
subjects in ideas that are very close to those of
the group. This may be the case of certain
madrasahs or mosques in which pupils are
indoctrinated in the Jihad, or even the case of an
autonomous group of friends who study together
in this direction, making use of documents and
exchanges available on certain Web pages. This
is why bonds in both terrorist groups and cults
must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in
order to ascertain the degree of autonomy of the
subject in the process, or, in contrast, the level of
indoctrination with more or less coercive
methods.
When one looks at life inside closed dogmatic
groups, such as terrorists and cults, it can be
seen that the people involved on many occasions
undergo experiences of a strong emotional
intensity that would be very difficult to
