Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2009, Page 8
fans, again in Philadelphia. The pounding drums had no effect on me as I slumped in my
stadium seat. One of my friends woke me when it was over, and I became the brunt of their
jokes on the way home. In any case, for me, the band‘s charisma had worn off. When I first
encountered him, Jim Morrison intrigued me as the dark shaman on stage with his mystical
lyrics but later, he was merely another good entertainer whose stage antics turned stale.
His was a cult of personality driven by the ephemeral spirit of the sixties.
The charisma of a guru or transformational group leader is different than that of a music
idol because the individual‘s purpose is different. For example, gurus with an elitist cult
following often require an intense transformation of self. The purpose is to acquire eternal
freedom or salvation, and not to provide mere temporal entertainment. However, charisma
exists in a relationship of perceived qualities.
Although the group or devotee invests the lion‘s share of power in the leader, the leader
nevertheless depends on responses and cues from his audience to manage that power. A
clever narcissist will feed his admirers with what they want to perceive and feel.
If the guru wants to maintain power, he must manage the demands of his cult, and he must
perform convincingly. His identity depends on how well he evokes devotion from his cult
following. It is a job with intense duties. All living rivals must be devalued. In totalist cults,
the demands can be overwhelming, even on the most narcissistic of gurus. Like rock music
idols and entertainers, charismatic gurus need breaks from performing for devotees. It is
not unusual for well-established gurus to create devotional tension by remaining
inaccessible to their cults for long periods.
Once established, charisma acts like a psychic leash on a devotee‘s emotional and spiritual
life. This powerful link with the leader is one-sided because only one can control the leash.
Some in my business call this mind control. A system of managed beliefs, rituals, and
regulations sustains the personal connection with the central figure, idea, or object of
devotion. Ironically, in cults the devotee often agrees to the leash arrangement because he
is convinced that he needs one.
The leader and group will supply the new recruit with an interesting foundation myth that
supports the leader‘s claims to authority. The foundation myth generally reflects a profound
spiritual experience and private journey the leader has taken. As a full-fledged guru, the
leader‘s story often contains an initial reluctance or confusion to take on his mission. This
hesitancy indicates that the leader was not merely naive—he actually applied some
skepticism and tested the spirits!
Once enlightened about the calling as a new messiah, prophet, or avatar, the leader exhibits
courage against all odds to proclaim his mission. Like Christ or Joan of Arc, the leader
experiences barbs of criticism and social persecution. And the leader is often quick to point
to that similarity: ―They persecuted Jesus, too!‖ Both the popular press and rival groups can
be especially cynical and demeaning about the grandiose claims of cult leaders, thus
fulfilling the persecuted god complex.
As to a leader‘s magical self-story of enlightenment or entitlement, listeners can take or
leave a collection of extraordinary tales that no one can readily prove. If there is a counter
history to the leader‘s claims, then the group‘s job is to deflect any and all disconfirmation.
Doing this is not easy if the basis of the irrational claim or the evidence for it comes solely
from the leader‘s testimony. Thus, the circular ideation of most cult leaders: ―If you do not
believe me, just ask me.‖ (Similar justifications based on solipsism come from the devotee:
―It is my experience that it is true because I resonate with the leader and the path works for
me.‖) Whether you can judge a cult leader by his fruits is a loaded question, but it remains
the primary avenue for critics. Devotees, in defense, will argue that outsiders cannot grasp
the true value of the leader or group experience by what that leader or group appears to do.
fans, again in Philadelphia. The pounding drums had no effect on me as I slumped in my
stadium seat. One of my friends woke me when it was over, and I became the brunt of their
jokes on the way home. In any case, for me, the band‘s charisma had worn off. When I first
encountered him, Jim Morrison intrigued me as the dark shaman on stage with his mystical
lyrics but later, he was merely another good entertainer whose stage antics turned stale.
His was a cult of personality driven by the ephemeral spirit of the sixties.
The charisma of a guru or transformational group leader is different than that of a music
idol because the individual‘s purpose is different. For example, gurus with an elitist cult
following often require an intense transformation of self. The purpose is to acquire eternal
freedom or salvation, and not to provide mere temporal entertainment. However, charisma
exists in a relationship of perceived qualities.
Although the group or devotee invests the lion‘s share of power in the leader, the leader
nevertheless depends on responses and cues from his audience to manage that power. A
clever narcissist will feed his admirers with what they want to perceive and feel.
If the guru wants to maintain power, he must manage the demands of his cult, and he must
perform convincingly. His identity depends on how well he evokes devotion from his cult
following. It is a job with intense duties. All living rivals must be devalued. In totalist cults,
the demands can be overwhelming, even on the most narcissistic of gurus. Like rock music
idols and entertainers, charismatic gurus need breaks from performing for devotees. It is
not unusual for well-established gurus to create devotional tension by remaining
inaccessible to their cults for long periods.
Once established, charisma acts like a psychic leash on a devotee‘s emotional and spiritual
life. This powerful link with the leader is one-sided because only one can control the leash.
Some in my business call this mind control. A system of managed beliefs, rituals, and
regulations sustains the personal connection with the central figure, idea, or object of
devotion. Ironically, in cults the devotee often agrees to the leash arrangement because he
is convinced that he needs one.
The leader and group will supply the new recruit with an interesting foundation myth that
supports the leader‘s claims to authority. The foundation myth generally reflects a profound
spiritual experience and private journey the leader has taken. As a full-fledged guru, the
leader‘s story often contains an initial reluctance or confusion to take on his mission. This
hesitancy indicates that the leader was not merely naive—he actually applied some
skepticism and tested the spirits!
Once enlightened about the calling as a new messiah, prophet, or avatar, the leader exhibits
courage against all odds to proclaim his mission. Like Christ or Joan of Arc, the leader
experiences barbs of criticism and social persecution. And the leader is often quick to point
to that similarity: ―They persecuted Jesus, too!‖ Both the popular press and rival groups can
be especially cynical and demeaning about the grandiose claims of cult leaders, thus
fulfilling the persecuted god complex.
As to a leader‘s magical self-story of enlightenment or entitlement, listeners can take or
leave a collection of extraordinary tales that no one can readily prove. If there is a counter
history to the leader‘s claims, then the group‘s job is to deflect any and all disconfirmation.
Doing this is not easy if the basis of the irrational claim or the evidence for it comes solely
from the leader‘s testimony. Thus, the circular ideation of most cult leaders: ―If you do not
believe me, just ask me.‖ (Similar justifications based on solipsism come from the devotee:
―It is my experience that it is true because I resonate with the leader and the path works for
me.‖) Whether you can judge a cult leader by his fruits is a loaded question, but it remains
the primary avenue for critics. Devotees, in defense, will argue that outsiders cannot grasp
the true value of the leader or group experience by what that leader or group appears to do.
