Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 94
(1961), set always within a model of thinking reformation, is nonetheless full of
psychoanalytical references. One of the most important observations within this research is
that, within each individual, parts exist that can be totalized.
At a group level, the ―cult-group‖ is the result of a process, largely unconscious, in which all
members participate. Psychoanalytical work with groups shows how the entire group carries
the bud of what would be a ―cult-group.‖ The work by Anzieu (1998) on groups shows, for
example, the description of the state of ―group illusion,‖ understood as the group majority‘s
shared fantasy of believing one is doing very well and lacking problems, along with the
conviction of having a good leader. At another level, the group as a dream triggers a triple
regression (topic, formal, and chronological), to a large extent due to the cultural isolation
(in the same way that a dream takes place isolated from external reality).
From this perspective of group, we can understand ―mental manipulation‖ as an indicator of
group evolution in a process that we know to be continuous, though we do not yet have a
scale available to establish degrees. This state is characterized by the emergence and
imposition of the dogmatic voice of the group leader upon a group member, later extended
upon other people. In this sense, it is interesting to observe that the majority of ―cult-
groups‖ reveal a founding couple at the start. (We will leave for a later publication,
however, a clinical description of the configuration of such a process in a group we had the
opportunity to study.)
―Mental manipulation‖ rests also upon a very intense transferential bond exploited for
personal purposes. Contrary to the objective of an analysis, what happens in these
situations is that the regression of the follower is favored and increased to maintain him in a
greater state of dependency. The imaginary relationship, established at a fantasy level in
transference, is taken as real by the leader, who presents himself as the sole object capable
of satisfying the follower.
As seen from a relational point of view, cult involvement can be understood as a mutual
dependence: on the one hand, a leader who esteems himself as chosen, and on the other, a
follower who ends up yearning to be chosen by the leader. Inasmuch as the leader needs
the grandiosity, he looks for followers to enlarge himself, and if he is without these
followers, he tends to feel a lack of structure. On their part, the followers come to confide in
the leader, expecting him to offer the certainty of absolute conviction. Underneath this
mutual dependence, we find a perverse relationship that affects a great part of the
narcissistic links of the follower. In a sense, we could consider the leader as the first
follower in this case, a follower of his own omnipotent fantasies.
From this relational framework, and from the fruit of the work carried out with ―cult-groups‖
in Barcelona between 1990 and 1992, the psychopathologists Atotxegi &Font (1995)
isolated certain characteristics, based on psychoanalytical nosology, that merit our
attention:
 Perverse psychopathology that would be expressed through relationships based on
deceit, domination, and abuse of someone, and where personal benefits are obtained at
the expense of suffering or destruction. Within these manifestations, narcissistic
personality traits and sadomasochistic traits stand out.
 Paranoid psychopathology, expressed through a doctrine, which places the subject in
partial object functioning, where that inside the group is good and that external to the
group is negative. Fanatical manifestations may appear in this line.
 Obsessive psychopathology, which is expressed through individual and group control
aspects, such as information restriction, imposition of certain rituals, rigidity when
complying with group norms, harsh discipline, and so on.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 95
Combining the observations, Atotxegi and Font isolated specific behavior that could appear,
among followers with greater frequency: (1) dissociative type functioning in its manic
aspect (perverse, paranoid, and obsessive pathology) and (2) dissociative type functioning
in its depressive aspect (emphasizing masochistic dependence-type pathology). Between
both types is a possibility of a collusion of a dominating (manic-dissociative) and subjugated
(depressive-dissociative) type.
Reverse Diagnosis
Although a diagnosis of dependence should enable us to increase our comprehension about
a case and facilitate approaching the patient, in practice we find that people who surround
the affected parties often behave counter-therapeutically. In these cases, and independently
of the manipulation that the group can exert, we find another source of manipulation that
comes from someone close to the affected person and that can interfere with the
therapeutic process. Here is an example from our clinical records:
Maria is a 50-year-old woman with two children. Within a year, her parents
died, she had to undergo a delicate surgical procedure, and her son died in a
car accident. In the past six months, the patient has been connecting to an
Internet chat group, and the connection frequency has kept increasing. In the
chat sessions, she connects with a group of about 40 people, and occasionally
she has met up with some of these. Although her husband claims she is
dependent on the Internet, throughout our interviews with both of them, we
observed that he shows serious difficulties listening to his wife and
recognizing the lack of emotional commitment on his part. Although we
prescribed a couples‘ treatment so they could talk in depth about their current
situation, the husband refused to attend any sessions, since he considered
the problem to be his wife‘s and in no way his own.
In situations such as these, the diagnosis is used as means of defense on the part of those
close to the affected person, and as a way to deny any responsibility in the matter.
Although in this case the patient‘s dependence on the Internet was real, and within the chat
sessions there was a person linked to a group who tried to captivate her, the problem that
Maria presented was one more symptom of a larger and more profound conflict within the
couple.
On other occasions, our task is not only to differentiate group dependence from a syndrome
or a symptom of another situation, but to be able to understand diagnosis management
within the couple or the family. We have found, with certain frequency, that the cult is
employed to attack the person who either took part in a group or who initiated contact with
a group without further commitment. The following demonstrates such a situation:
Beth is a woman in the process of a divorce that began a couple of years
back. The marriage deteriorated due to lack of affect, and she decided to end
the relationship. Faced with a negative response to a divorce from her
husband, Beth decided to consult, along with him, a ―therapist.‖ After a
month went by, the ―therapist‖ turned out to be a ―group captivator‖ and
suggested to the partners that they take group courses, which they did, but
soon quit. This action left Beth needing to find another therapist to help solve
couple problems. Once the judicial process was initiated, the husband accused
her of being part of a cult and thus being incapable of taking care of the
children he provided all kinds of documents to prove that the group was a
cult and that his wife was still in contact with it.
One of the most obvious demonstrations of harmful diagnostic management is found among
those groups with a healing and/or therapeutic base. In these cases, the diagnosis is