Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 6
interaction, social isolation, and a dynamic of powerful leaders and dependent followers all
provide the context for familial styles of coercion‖ (Cartwright and Kent 1992:351) and
violence associated with radicalized religions. Indeed, a leading expert on family violence,
David Finkelhor, used language to describe domestic violence that closely resembles what
‗cult-critics‘ say about abusive religions:
All forms of family abuse seem to occur in the context of psychological abuse
and exploitation, a process victims sometimes describe as ‗brainwashing.‘
Victims are not merely exploited or physically injured: their abusers use their
power and family connection to control and manipulate victims‘ perceptions of
reality as well (Finkelhor 1983:20).
While not wishing to ignore the exemplary work that many religions do for peace and life-
enhancement, we also must acknowledge that some religions have, at their core, an
intimate relationship between what Renee Girard called ―violence and the sacred‖ (Girard
1972).
The family violence literature is vast, with various models seeking to explain the use of force
and coercion in the home or between intimates. One theoretical formulation, however, that
seems especially apt when drawing analogies to violent religious danger appeared in 2000,
when Kenneth G. Roy proposed ―a set of conditions for the four levels of human behavior—
intrapsychic, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup—that are [sic] necessary, but not
sufficient in and of themselves, to determine the expression of violent behavior‖ (Roy
2000:389). Drawing from recent, prominent studies on violence, Roy showed how each of
these four levels (or domains, as I prefer to call them2) of human behavior often contains
conditions that enhanced the likelihood of violence. This likelihood escalates in a ‗value-
added‘ fashion (Smelser 1962:13-14) as circumstances develop from individual (i.e.,
intrapsychic) conditions to intergroup interactions. I propose that a refined and adapted
version of Roy‘s model is useful in evaluating the danger posed by religious groups of
whatever age or lineage. Although the four domains overlap to some degree as one
examines the complexities of conflict (Sapsford 1998:69, 71), this model allows me to draw
upon family-violence literature at crucial junctures. It also allows me to refer to other key
concepts from the social sciences (such as social-movements theory) when the issues
warrant.
Typically, social scientists have examined issues such as intergroup violence WITHOUT
looking at issues related to the leader. So, for example, sociologists have studied
intergroup violence by examining access to weapons, outside support, historical ideologies
of social change, etc. One can do such analyses within any of the four "domains" and not
necessarily trace how the biopsychosocial issues around the leader/founder come into play.
The model presented here adapts Roy's model to sociological concepts by drawing attention
to the vital role of the leader in all domains.
I. Intrapsychic or Biopsychosocial Contributors to Religious Dangers
Many predictions about subsequent danger in social settings begin with analyses of
psychiatric and psychosocial factors among key players—factors that Roy calls intrapsychic
but that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) calls
biopsychosocial (American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV, 1994:25 see also Pilgrim
2002). These factors, especially ones related to childhood, can provide foundational
experiences whose lessons last a lifetime. Some of these experiences will stem from
interaction with the social environment others are complexly connected to biophysiological
conditions. These factors limit or frame what many people can experience or understand,
and the restrictions that they impose carry into adulthood. During any life stage, substance
abuse further complicates people‘s personalities, including their ability to express and cope
with feelings such as anger, disappointment, and shame. As Roy concluded about the
interaction, social isolation, and a dynamic of powerful leaders and dependent followers all
provide the context for familial styles of coercion‖ (Cartwright and Kent 1992:351) and
violence associated with radicalized religions. Indeed, a leading expert on family violence,
David Finkelhor, used language to describe domestic violence that closely resembles what
‗cult-critics‘ say about abusive religions:
All forms of family abuse seem to occur in the context of psychological abuse
and exploitation, a process victims sometimes describe as ‗brainwashing.‘
Victims are not merely exploited or physically injured: their abusers use their
power and family connection to control and manipulate victims‘ perceptions of
reality as well (Finkelhor 1983:20).
While not wishing to ignore the exemplary work that many religions do for peace and life-
enhancement, we also must acknowledge that some religions have, at their core, an
intimate relationship between what Renee Girard called ―violence and the sacred‖ (Girard
1972).
The family violence literature is vast, with various models seeking to explain the use of force
and coercion in the home or between intimates. One theoretical formulation, however, that
seems especially apt when drawing analogies to violent religious danger appeared in 2000,
when Kenneth G. Roy proposed ―a set of conditions for the four levels of human behavior—
intrapsychic, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup—that are [sic] necessary, but not
sufficient in and of themselves, to determine the expression of violent behavior‖ (Roy
2000:389). Drawing from recent, prominent studies on violence, Roy showed how each of
these four levels (or domains, as I prefer to call them2) of human behavior often contains
conditions that enhanced the likelihood of violence. This likelihood escalates in a ‗value-
added‘ fashion (Smelser 1962:13-14) as circumstances develop from individual (i.e.,
intrapsychic) conditions to intergroup interactions. I propose that a refined and adapted
version of Roy‘s model is useful in evaluating the danger posed by religious groups of
whatever age or lineage. Although the four domains overlap to some degree as one
examines the complexities of conflict (Sapsford 1998:69, 71), this model allows me to draw
upon family-violence literature at crucial junctures. It also allows me to refer to other key
concepts from the social sciences (such as social-movements theory) when the issues
warrant.
Typically, social scientists have examined issues such as intergroup violence WITHOUT
looking at issues related to the leader. So, for example, sociologists have studied
intergroup violence by examining access to weapons, outside support, historical ideologies
of social change, etc. One can do such analyses within any of the four "domains" and not
necessarily trace how the biopsychosocial issues around the leader/founder come into play.
The model presented here adapts Roy's model to sociological concepts by drawing attention
to the vital role of the leader in all domains.
I. Intrapsychic or Biopsychosocial Contributors to Religious Dangers
Many predictions about subsequent danger in social settings begin with analyses of
psychiatric and psychosocial factors among key players—factors that Roy calls intrapsychic
but that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) calls
biopsychosocial (American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV, 1994:25 see also Pilgrim
2002). These factors, especially ones related to childhood, can provide foundational
experiences whose lessons last a lifetime. Some of these experiences will stem from
interaction with the social environment others are complexly connected to biophysiological
conditions. These factors limit or frame what many people can experience or understand,
and the restrictions that they impose carry into adulthood. During any life stage, substance
abuse further complicates people‘s personalities, including their ability to express and cope
with feelings such as anger, disappointment, and shame. As Roy concluded about the
