Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, Page 11
compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and
easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis‖ (p. 429).
Particularly cogent to an understanding of loading the language as a vehicle for
dehumanization in cults is that ―man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-
misusing) animal‖ (Burke, 1966, p. 16). Sawyer (2006), speaking from an anthropological
perspective, states that
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin speculated on the evolution of art,
suggesting that our sense of beauty is shared with other animals including
birds and apes, and that music was the origin of human language. (p. 90)
Sawyer says that experts disagree about when, where, and how creative and symbolic
thinking first occurred. People closely resembling modern humans appeared more than
130,000 years ago. Many cave paintings in Europe date back 20,000 years, but other
creative objects were found from much earlier periods, and some claim that artifacts
possessing esthetic qualities appeared as far back as 2,000,000 years. Whatever the
historical truth, it is clear that artistic sensibilities have deep roots in human evolution.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) discusses humans as having the particular sensory equipment to
create symbols as a way to make sense of the world, linking this capacity to the
development of domains. He states,
[T]he knowledge conveyed by symbols is bundled up in discrete domains—
geometry, music, religion, legal systems, and so on. Each domain is made up
of its own symbolic elements, its own rules, and generally has its own system
of notation. ...The existence of domains is perhaps the best evidence of
human creativity. (p. 37)
The notion of man as the symbol-using animal underlies a key premise of this introduction
and my article in this issue—i.e., that cults often dehumanize members by impairing,
suppressing, restricting members‘ subjective creation of symbols.
Philosopher Susanne Langer, who has wide-ranging influence on the neo-Kleinian and
postmodern orientations of psychoanalysis upon which I draw, expounded upon the salience
of symbol use as intrinsically human. Her thinking draws on Sigmund Freud and Alfred
Whitehead. The views of all three thinkers focus on the interdependence of thought and
emotion for symbol formation and use as a feature of mental health. The fate of these
mental processes in cults thus informs this discussion about the impact of cults on
creativity.
I was interested to learn that the term creativity was associated with demonic possession in
Greek and Roman times and during the Christian Middle Ages it was thought that creativity
was associated only with the divine, that only the divine creates. During the Renaissance it
was believed that art production was all about reason. It is only since the Romantic Period
200 years ago that emotion and imagination have been of interest to the arts and
humanities (Sawyer, 2006). It is interesting that across several fields—history of Western
art and philosophy, humanistic and psychodynamic psychology, and neuroscience—emotion
increasingly is becoming central in the study of the creative process.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) notes that, ―in cultures that are uniform and rigid, it takes a
greater investment of attention to achieve new ways of thinking‖ (p. 9). Preoccupation with
fear of being thrown out of the cult or otherwise distanced from receiving the leader‘s love
and approval often precludes the attention or state of uninterrupted concentration
necessary for creativity. As one respondent said, ―. ..the emotional energy of trying to live
every day while in this group left little energy for or desire to be creative.‖
compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and
easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis‖ (p. 429).
Particularly cogent to an understanding of loading the language as a vehicle for
dehumanization in cults is that ―man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-
misusing) animal‖ (Burke, 1966, p. 16). Sawyer (2006), speaking from an anthropological
perspective, states that
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin speculated on the evolution of art,
suggesting that our sense of beauty is shared with other animals including
birds and apes, and that music was the origin of human language. (p. 90)
Sawyer says that experts disagree about when, where, and how creative and symbolic
thinking first occurred. People closely resembling modern humans appeared more than
130,000 years ago. Many cave paintings in Europe date back 20,000 years, but other
creative objects were found from much earlier periods, and some claim that artifacts
possessing esthetic qualities appeared as far back as 2,000,000 years. Whatever the
historical truth, it is clear that artistic sensibilities have deep roots in human evolution.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) discusses humans as having the particular sensory equipment to
create symbols as a way to make sense of the world, linking this capacity to the
development of domains. He states,
[T]he knowledge conveyed by symbols is bundled up in discrete domains—
geometry, music, religion, legal systems, and so on. Each domain is made up
of its own symbolic elements, its own rules, and generally has its own system
of notation. ...The existence of domains is perhaps the best evidence of
human creativity. (p. 37)
The notion of man as the symbol-using animal underlies a key premise of this introduction
and my article in this issue—i.e., that cults often dehumanize members by impairing,
suppressing, restricting members‘ subjective creation of symbols.
Philosopher Susanne Langer, who has wide-ranging influence on the neo-Kleinian and
postmodern orientations of psychoanalysis upon which I draw, expounded upon the salience
of symbol use as intrinsically human. Her thinking draws on Sigmund Freud and Alfred
Whitehead. The views of all three thinkers focus on the interdependence of thought and
emotion for symbol formation and use as a feature of mental health. The fate of these
mental processes in cults thus informs this discussion about the impact of cults on
creativity.
I was interested to learn that the term creativity was associated with demonic possession in
Greek and Roman times and during the Christian Middle Ages it was thought that creativity
was associated only with the divine, that only the divine creates. During the Renaissance it
was believed that art production was all about reason. It is only since the Romantic Period
200 years ago that emotion and imagination have been of interest to the arts and
humanities (Sawyer, 2006). It is interesting that across several fields—history of Western
art and philosophy, humanistic and psychodynamic psychology, and neuroscience—emotion
increasingly is becoming central in the study of the creative process.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) notes that, ―in cultures that are uniform and rigid, it takes a
greater investment of attention to achieve new ways of thinking‖ (p. 9). Preoccupation with
fear of being thrown out of the cult or otherwise distanced from receiving the leader‘s love
and approval often precludes the attention or state of uninterrupted concentration
necessary for creativity. As one respondent said, ―. ..the emotional energy of trying to live
every day while in this group left little energy for or desire to be creative.‖
