Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 102
attentional depleting procedures including overwork, sleep deprivation, regimentation, and
various emotional manipulations. This is a common feature of indoctrination in most totalist
groups (Baron, 2000). We feel this not only leads to inadequate and superficial scrutiny of
group doctrine, but also heightens the members‘ reliance on the leader as a source of
decision making and interpretation. A fourth commonality is that these leaders showed little
tolerance for opinion deviates or member innovation. Individuals who persisted in such
behavior found themselves the object of humiliation, and/or physical discipline. As several
writers have noted, the existence of such deviates does serve a function for the organization
in that the group‘s reaction marks the boundary of acceptable behavior and serves as an
object lesson to other members regarding the consequences of norm violation (e.g., Hogg,
2001).
Fifth the three leaders availed themselves of various material and erotic privileges that
separated them from the rank and file membership. While this does not invariably occur in
totalist groups (The Heavens Gate group is one exception), it is a common pattern
(Pratkanis &Aronson, 2000). This separation is enhanced by the adulation directed at such
leaders. The result is that the leader and close associates occupy a higher caste than the
membership. These facts, suggest that such leaders are not seen as just another group
member, albeit prototypical. Hogg argues that such separateness eliminates the leader‘s
prototypic status thereby forcing her/him to utilize coercive power over time. This did tend
to occur in the Peoples Temple, and to some extent in Synanon, as well. Note however, that
according to most accounts, there was relatively little overt defiance to control in Jonestown
(Layton, 1998). It seems that Jones‘ use of coercive methods had more to due with his own
mental deterioration than it did with the need to maintain control over the followers. It is
important to note while we are considering this topic, that although David Berg set himself
well apart from the followers in the Children of God Sect, he generally did not rely upon
overtly coercive control tactics.
It would seem that leadership emergence, at least in the Peoples Temple and the Children
of God, was not due to Jim Jones and David Berg happening to possess attitudes or traits
that matched some prototypic standard. Instead, these leaders proactively specified for the
group, who the out-groups would be and what in-group norms would consist of. Although
the loyalty and sacrifice exhibited by group members seems attributable to their intense
social identification with the group, leadership seems, in these two groups, to be based
more on power dynamics and charismatic features than on the members‘ admiration of
individuals who happen to adhere most to prototypic norms. Our feeling is that this
charismatic view of leader emergence will provide a good description and account of
leadership in many totalist groups. Our reasoning here is that such groups are most
frequently the ―creations‖ of single innovative leaders who are able to recruit followers
based on the allure of their style and message. As such, the leader does not ―emerge‖ from
an existing group of individuals on the basis of matching a prototypic standard. Rather, the
group exists because of the leader‘s charisma and his or her skill at recruitment. In such
―boutique‖ groups, leadership is not ―decided upon‖ but rather is presented as a fait
accompli. As a result, we feel the social identity view of leadership does not provide a
particularly good explanation for leadership emergence in the totalist groups with which we
are familiar. The social identity view may have more application in cases in which
leadership passes from an original leader to a second or third generation of leaders. In
addition, the extent to which the leader matches the group prototype may play a crucial role
in leadership maintenance in that such a match almost certainly contributes to the leader‘s
attraction and social power (Hogg, 2000).
We offer these observations with an obvious caveat. The case history descriptions we
discuss above can not constitute strong verification for any view. Problems of restricted
sample size, and selective sampling forces us to offer our discussion more as illustrations
attentional depleting procedures including overwork, sleep deprivation, regimentation, and
various emotional manipulations. This is a common feature of indoctrination in most totalist
groups (Baron, 2000). We feel this not only leads to inadequate and superficial scrutiny of
group doctrine, but also heightens the members‘ reliance on the leader as a source of
decision making and interpretation. A fourth commonality is that these leaders showed little
tolerance for opinion deviates or member innovation. Individuals who persisted in such
behavior found themselves the object of humiliation, and/or physical discipline. As several
writers have noted, the existence of such deviates does serve a function for the organization
in that the group‘s reaction marks the boundary of acceptable behavior and serves as an
object lesson to other members regarding the consequences of norm violation (e.g., Hogg,
2001).
Fifth the three leaders availed themselves of various material and erotic privileges that
separated them from the rank and file membership. While this does not invariably occur in
totalist groups (The Heavens Gate group is one exception), it is a common pattern
(Pratkanis &Aronson, 2000). This separation is enhanced by the adulation directed at such
leaders. The result is that the leader and close associates occupy a higher caste than the
membership. These facts, suggest that such leaders are not seen as just another group
member, albeit prototypical. Hogg argues that such separateness eliminates the leader‘s
prototypic status thereby forcing her/him to utilize coercive power over time. This did tend
to occur in the Peoples Temple, and to some extent in Synanon, as well. Note however, that
according to most accounts, there was relatively little overt defiance to control in Jonestown
(Layton, 1998). It seems that Jones‘ use of coercive methods had more to due with his own
mental deterioration than it did with the need to maintain control over the followers. It is
important to note while we are considering this topic, that although David Berg set himself
well apart from the followers in the Children of God Sect, he generally did not rely upon
overtly coercive control tactics.
It would seem that leadership emergence, at least in the Peoples Temple and the Children
of God, was not due to Jim Jones and David Berg happening to possess attitudes or traits
that matched some prototypic standard. Instead, these leaders proactively specified for the
group, who the out-groups would be and what in-group norms would consist of. Although
the loyalty and sacrifice exhibited by group members seems attributable to their intense
social identification with the group, leadership seems, in these two groups, to be based
more on power dynamics and charismatic features than on the members‘ admiration of
individuals who happen to adhere most to prototypic norms. Our feeling is that this
charismatic view of leader emergence will provide a good description and account of
leadership in many totalist groups. Our reasoning here is that such groups are most
frequently the ―creations‖ of single innovative leaders who are able to recruit followers
based on the allure of their style and message. As such, the leader does not ―emerge‖ from
an existing group of individuals on the basis of matching a prototypic standard. Rather, the
group exists because of the leader‘s charisma and his or her skill at recruitment. In such
―boutique‖ groups, leadership is not ―decided upon‖ but rather is presented as a fait
accompli. As a result, we feel the social identity view of leadership does not provide a
particularly good explanation for leadership emergence in the totalist groups with which we
are familiar. The social identity view may have more application in cases in which
leadership passes from an original leader to a second or third generation of leaders. In
addition, the extent to which the leader matches the group prototype may play a crucial role
in leadership maintenance in that such a match almost certainly contributes to the leader‘s
attraction and social power (Hogg, 2000).
We offer these observations with an obvious caveat. The case history descriptions we
discuss above can not constitute strong verification for any view. Problems of restricted
sample size, and selective sampling forces us to offer our discussion more as illustrations
