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
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
