Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 25
relatives have been substantially and chronically disturbed and unhappy for
many years. A large share of this group actively had sought conversions
repeatedly. About 40%, however, were by history and examination essentially
normal, maturing persons. Their susceptibility to conversion was either an
artifact of the aggressive manipulation of a proselytizer or the result of a
normal painful crisis of maturation. Singer‘s estimate indicates an even larger
percentage of normal persons (75%), while Galanter et al., in their
questionnaire study of 237 members of the Unification Church, found ―9%
who felt they had serious emotional problems in the past‖ that had ―led to
professional help (30%) and even hospitalization (6%).‖ (Clark, 1979, 279-
281.)
The actual act of cult affiliation frequently occurs within a group setting. This
aspect of the complex problem of affiliation and conversion is often dealt with
under the rubric of ―group pressures,‖ without attempting to define or
understand the dynamics that are operative within the group setting. This
article explores the process of cult affiliation and the maintenance of cult
membership from the vantage point of group dynamics. The recent additions
to our understanding of group processes provided by object relations theory
and the work of Bion (Kernberg, 1977) and Ezriel (1952) are particularly
important as they reflect upon the inherent potential within all groups for
cultlike transformation and on the regressive potential within individuals for
loss of individuality and autonomy. (Halperin, 1982, p. 13)
But cults do not step into a vacuum. Each recruit brings a unique personal
history that includes character, life aspirations, and family background, as
well as distinctive qualities of development and maturation. Many cults are
skilled at assessing these subtleties and tailoring an enticing approach around
them. Through cult indoctrination, a person‘s sense of self is often drastically
altered. Recruits are likely to have internal experiences they cannot explain.
They frequently form intense new friendships and assimilate a new language
as well as new beliefs and mannerisms. The changes resulting from cult
indoctrination can leave family and friends frightened and bewildered. The
respect and mutuality which normally sustain their bonds with the recruit are
often ruptured by the cultist‘s new identity. Familiar and habitual patters of
communication no longer seem to affect the cult member. This often leads
families to feel that ―programming‖ has replaced the individual they once
knew. (Scharff &Zeitlin, 1984, pp. 1-2)
In treating individuals and/or families reporting adverse cult involvement,
clinicians should not assume that all such involvements are necessarily
harmful or a result of unethical persuasion. Rather, they should remain alert
to alternative explanations of and responses to reported distress.
Sometimes, for example, family members aver, through ignorance rather
than motivated distortion, that a convert has been ―brainwashed‖ by a group
when, in fact, he or she has made an informed, unpressured decision to join.
Sometimes family members and/or former cultists avoid confronting family or
personal distress by attributing all problems to the cult, which may be at most
only partly responsible. And sometimes family members and/or clinicians may
try to persuade a convert, particularly one who had psychological problems
before conversion, to leave a cult which, even though being harmful in some
respects, offers him or her more psychological support (e.g., friends, a
simplified environment, a vocational niche) than the non-cult environment
provides. On the other hand, clinicians should not adopt a ―blame-the-
relatives have been substantially and chronically disturbed and unhappy for
many years. A large share of this group actively had sought conversions
repeatedly. About 40%, however, were by history and examination essentially
normal, maturing persons. Their susceptibility to conversion was either an
artifact of the aggressive manipulation of a proselytizer or the result of a
normal painful crisis of maturation. Singer‘s estimate indicates an even larger
percentage of normal persons (75%), while Galanter et al., in their
questionnaire study of 237 members of the Unification Church, found ―9%
who felt they had serious emotional problems in the past‖ that had ―led to
professional help (30%) and even hospitalization (6%).‖ (Clark, 1979, 279-
281.)
The actual act of cult affiliation frequently occurs within a group setting. This
aspect of the complex problem of affiliation and conversion is often dealt with
under the rubric of ―group pressures,‖ without attempting to define or
understand the dynamics that are operative within the group setting. This
article explores the process of cult affiliation and the maintenance of cult
membership from the vantage point of group dynamics. The recent additions
to our understanding of group processes provided by object relations theory
and the work of Bion (Kernberg, 1977) and Ezriel (1952) are particularly
important as they reflect upon the inherent potential within all groups for
cultlike transformation and on the regressive potential within individuals for
loss of individuality and autonomy. (Halperin, 1982, p. 13)
But cults do not step into a vacuum. Each recruit brings a unique personal
history that includes character, life aspirations, and family background, as
well as distinctive qualities of development and maturation. Many cults are
skilled at assessing these subtleties and tailoring an enticing approach around
them. Through cult indoctrination, a person‘s sense of self is often drastically
altered. Recruits are likely to have internal experiences they cannot explain.
They frequently form intense new friendships and assimilate a new language
as well as new beliefs and mannerisms. The changes resulting from cult
indoctrination can leave family and friends frightened and bewildered. The
respect and mutuality which normally sustain their bonds with the recruit are
often ruptured by the cultist‘s new identity. Familiar and habitual patters of
communication no longer seem to affect the cult member. This often leads
families to feel that ―programming‖ has replaced the individual they once
knew. (Scharff &Zeitlin, 1984, pp. 1-2)
In treating individuals and/or families reporting adverse cult involvement,
clinicians should not assume that all such involvements are necessarily
harmful or a result of unethical persuasion. Rather, they should remain alert
to alternative explanations of and responses to reported distress.
Sometimes, for example, family members aver, through ignorance rather
than motivated distortion, that a convert has been ―brainwashed‖ by a group
when, in fact, he or she has made an informed, unpressured decision to join.
Sometimes family members and/or former cultists avoid confronting family or
personal distress by attributing all problems to the cult, which may be at most
only partly responsible. And sometimes family members and/or clinicians may
try to persuade a convert, particularly one who had psychological problems
before conversion, to leave a cult which, even though being harmful in some
respects, offers him or her more psychological support (e.g., friends, a
simplified environment, a vocational niche) than the non-cult environment
provides. On the other hand, clinicians should not adopt a ―blame-the-
