Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 67
feeling of elitism is the suppression of their individuality, independence, and critical
thinking.
The conflict between elitism and self-suppression led one ex-member of a group to call his
cult a ―prison of specialness.‖ This conflict also helps explain why the concept of
dissociation, of internal ―splitting‖ of the self, resonates with so many ex-cult members. A
high-demand, high-control group puts members at war with themselves. Eventually, this
enduring inner conflict takes its toll and people leave their groups. Some leave feeling that
they are failures for not having had the strength to endure. Others might defect because
they are exposed to outside critical information, or they may share forbidden thoughts with
an intimate, or they may no longer be able to overlook the leader‘s inconsistencies (Wright,
1987). As one ex-member put it: ―The shelf on which I placed my rationalizations
collapsed.‖
Why Conversion to Extremist Groups?
The preceding exposition sheds light, I hope, on the conversion process. It suggests that
conversion to extremist or destructive groups is not that much different from conversion to
benign or mainstream groups. Why, then, do some join benign groups while others join
destructive groups, such as Aum Shinrikyo, which released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in
1994?
Bad luck, in my opinion, has more to do with destructive conversions than is at first
apparent. Many people, especially adolescents and young adults, go through life transitions
or other difficulties that cause them to question the adequacy of the worldview that has
steered their lives and conclude that their lives aren‘t working for them. Such distressed
people may turn toward religion or some other cause as they seek a way out of their
difficulties. Chance factors may determine which of the myriad of available groups gets their
attention. One group member told me that he was browsing through the religion section of
a library when a book fell off the shelf and hit him in the head. He began reading it, liked
what the author said, and was captured by the idea that the book had fallen on his head
because God wanted him to follow this particular guru (which he later did). Other people
have joined groups because of chance encounters with recruiters on the street, or because a
friend in a group said ―come and check us out,‖ or because of a book, article, or Web site
they stumbled across. Rarely is the choice of a group affiliation the result of diligent
research and informed consideration of many alternatives. Since few groups present a
negative face to prospective members, luck may determine whether or not a seeker enters
a conversion pathway into a benign or a destructive group.
Cultural factors and trends might influence which groups or which types of groups a seeker
is most likely to encounter. In the 1960s and early 1970s, for example, many young
Americans searching for purpose and meaning were swept up in the revolutionary political
fervor of the time, a fervor that was religious in form, even though it may have been secular
in content. Most became involved in relatively benign organizations, while others got caught
up in violent groups, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, which kidnapped and
indoctrinated heiress Patty Hearst. With the end of the Vietnam War, alternative political
groups lost their appeal and spiritual groups became more prominent (Kent, 2001). Social
commentators talked about the ―Jesus Revolution‖ and young people ―turning East‖ to refer
to conversions to Christian and Hindu/Buddhist groups, respectively. Although the cultural
climate does not determine what group a person will join, it can alter the probabilities with
regard to the kind of group he or she is likely to encounter and, hence, consider.
The personality, values, needs, and goals of seekers can also narrow the range of options to
which seekers might remain open. Thus, a practicing Christian youth going through a
troubled time may be open to groups that claim to be more ―authentic‖ Christians than
mainstream churches but be uninterested in guru or New Age groups. Similarly, a

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 68
scientifically inclined atheist whose hallucinogenic drug experimentation opens him up to the
existence of what D. H. Lawrence called ―vast ranges of experience, like the humming of
unseen harps, we know nothing of, within us‖ (from ―Terra Incognita‖) may sneer at
Christian proselytizers but listen attentively to people advocating a mystical Buddhism or
monistic Hinduism.
The range of options to which people remain open can further narrow as a result of
pathological psychological needs for example, when ―anger issues‖ incline seekers toward
violence or paranoia concerning racial or ethnic minorities or nations. Using the
psychodynamic model alluded to earlier, one could hypothesize that such individuals, by
joining a violent group, receive not only social support for violent acts but religious meaning
and approbation, as well. For example, the Christian Identity follower can reframe beating
up ―niggers‖ from an antisocial emotional release that society frowns upon to a sacred duty
that pleases God. The Islamic terrorist who kills ―infidels‖ might employ a similar
rationalization, but one that twists the Koran instead of the Bible.
Thus, the pathway into a group that advocates a violent worldview depends upon many
variables within the person, the group, and the culture that encompasses them both. There
is no simple explanation, no ―equation,‖ that can predict who will join what violent group.
Each case must be analyzed individually and in context.
The Pathway to Violence
Luck, as noted above, may determine whether or not a seeker encounters a benign or a
destructive group. The tendency of groups to present a benign face can prevent recruits
from seeing the end of the trail, so to speak, should they join certain groups. Although
psychodynamic analyses might help explain why some individuals are especially attracted to
violent groups, there are many cases of individuals who participate in group violence even
though they have no history of violence proneness or psychological difficulty. Why, one may
ask, do not such seemingly normal persons leave when they begin to see the group for what
it is?
First of all, many people do leave, even in groups that are thought to be highly controlling.
In Barker‘s study of Moonie recruitment in England, for example, 10 percent of those who
attended an introductory Unification Church workshop ended up joining the group, while
only 50 percent of joiners were still members two years later (Barker, 1984). The loss of
new members through attrition should not surprise us, for people are very different and will
respond differently even in powerful environments. Sometimes minor events determine
whether a particular prospect leaves a group. One person who attended a Moonie workshop
in California maintains that smokers were probably less likely to move on to the next step
because they snuck out of the dormitory late at night to smoke and, in so doing, met up
with other smokers, with whom they shared their doubts about the high-pressure weekend
workshop (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989).
Commitment is not automatic, so groups must work at developing commitment among new
members, and that takes time. Zablocki says:
Moreover, the high turnover rate in cults is more complex than it may seem.
While it is true that the membership turnover is very high among recruits
and new members, this changes after two or three years of membership
when cultic commitment mechanisms begin to kick in. This transition from
high to low membership turnover is known as the Bainbridge Shift, after the
sociologist who first discovered it (Bainbridge, 1997, pp. 141-3). After about
three years of membership, the annual rate of turnover sharply declines and
begins to fit a commitment model rather than a random model. (Zablocki,
2001, p. 176)