Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, Page 120
risks in doing so. Each time she left Scientology, she applied free decoding, showing her
rejection of leadership‘s authority over her life. We assume that she applied negotiable
encoding in between her departures, in order to tolerate group life and birth her sCS. She
kept her creative urge hidden as a default to her secret self, while appearing to obey the
leader and accept his labeling, so as not to lose her position with the group or her husband.
Living in the RPF, she was able to think and act independently while her husband, in
contrast, appeared to use the peripheral route of thinking during his Sea Org years. Karen‘s
choice to finally cut all ties with Scientology showed total rejection of the leader‘s authority
and her transfer of sovereignty from leadership back to herself. To preserve her sCS, and
allow it to emerge as an SCS, she finally risked loss of group membership and her marriage.
Despite the institutionalization that both Miriam and Karen experienced in their respective
cults, which made return to normal life highly difficult, they were both able to change the
power dynamics of their lives. As the HCM illustrates, they shifted the role of sovereign from
their leaders back to themselves. Once out of the COG and CSI, both Miriam and Karen‘s
SCS emerged with predominance, as evidenced by their pursuits in educational
advancement, creative writing, and other professional accomplishments. In both of these
case studies, we see testimony to the development of a strong resilience to power dynamics
outside the cults.
Despite the psychological and social effects of institutionalization that make it highly difficult
for cult members to resume normal life after they leave the group (Lalich, 2006), the
individual can change position in the power dynamics of his or her life by shifting the role of
sovereign from others and reclaiming it to self. What was once an sCS emerges and can be
expressed openly. Reclaiming sovereignty of self enables the creator to manage power
dynamics in general, and restores the balance of creativity and humanity in the individual,
which were out of balance in the cult. The creator is likely to develop resilience to new
power dynamics outside the cult that label, define, or stifle creativity.
Conclusion
In this paper, we support the idea that individual creativity is suppressed in cult
environments. However, we propose that the power dynamics in cults that result in extreme
suppression can also stimulate individuals to birth an sCS while in the group that is able to
fully emerge after they leave the suppressive environment. We suggest that an sCS may
develop in the cult and emerge into an SCS after one leaves the cult. As case studies
supporting these hypotheses, we used our own experiences. Here we employed sociological
and communication perspectives to explain how an sCS is birthed in a cult environment and
how it emerges as an SCS once freed from the cult environment. We know that two case
studies do not make a new theory. However, the processes we propose are supported and
explained by existing theory. More studies are needed to support and further develop the
conceptual processes we propose in this paper.
The processes we propose create more questions than answers at this point. For example,
do they occur more in some oppressive environments than others? Does anything else
affect the birth of an sCS within cults? How do the exiting process and social situation after
one leaves the cult influence the development of an SCS? Although Karen‘s case study
shows that she was involved in creative professions prior to her participation in Scientology,
we do not explore what effects that precult creativity may have on the eventual birthing of
an sCS once one is in a cult. We leave this for future exploration. Here, we examined the
effects of power dynamics, cult hegemony, and a cult member‘s self-sovereignty as
contributing factors that allow the birth of an sCS within the cult.
The ideas we have presented here also raise questions regarding processes involved in
power dynamics. Although we did not explore it above, the idea that suppressed individuals
can birth an sCS by resisting very powerful and influential people needs further
risks in doing so. Each time she left Scientology, she applied free decoding, showing her
rejection of leadership‘s authority over her life. We assume that she applied negotiable
encoding in between her departures, in order to tolerate group life and birth her sCS. She
kept her creative urge hidden as a default to her secret self, while appearing to obey the
leader and accept his labeling, so as not to lose her position with the group or her husband.
Living in the RPF, she was able to think and act independently while her husband, in
contrast, appeared to use the peripheral route of thinking during his Sea Org years. Karen‘s
choice to finally cut all ties with Scientology showed total rejection of the leader‘s authority
and her transfer of sovereignty from leadership back to herself. To preserve her sCS, and
allow it to emerge as an SCS, she finally risked loss of group membership and her marriage.
Despite the institutionalization that both Miriam and Karen experienced in their respective
cults, which made return to normal life highly difficult, they were both able to change the
power dynamics of their lives. As the HCM illustrates, they shifted the role of sovereign from
their leaders back to themselves. Once out of the COG and CSI, both Miriam and Karen‘s
SCS emerged with predominance, as evidenced by their pursuits in educational
advancement, creative writing, and other professional accomplishments. In both of these
case studies, we see testimony to the development of a strong resilience to power dynamics
outside the cults.
Despite the psychological and social effects of institutionalization that make it highly difficult
for cult members to resume normal life after they leave the group (Lalich, 2006), the
individual can change position in the power dynamics of his or her life by shifting the role of
sovereign from others and reclaiming it to self. What was once an sCS emerges and can be
expressed openly. Reclaiming sovereignty of self enables the creator to manage power
dynamics in general, and restores the balance of creativity and humanity in the individual,
which were out of balance in the cult. The creator is likely to develop resilience to new
power dynamics outside the cult that label, define, or stifle creativity.
Conclusion
In this paper, we support the idea that individual creativity is suppressed in cult
environments. However, we propose that the power dynamics in cults that result in extreme
suppression can also stimulate individuals to birth an sCS while in the group that is able to
fully emerge after they leave the suppressive environment. We suggest that an sCS may
develop in the cult and emerge into an SCS after one leaves the cult. As case studies
supporting these hypotheses, we used our own experiences. Here we employed sociological
and communication perspectives to explain how an sCS is birthed in a cult environment and
how it emerges as an SCS once freed from the cult environment. We know that two case
studies do not make a new theory. However, the processes we propose are supported and
explained by existing theory. More studies are needed to support and further develop the
conceptual processes we propose in this paper.
The processes we propose create more questions than answers at this point. For example,
do they occur more in some oppressive environments than others? Does anything else
affect the birth of an sCS within cults? How do the exiting process and social situation after
one leaves the cult influence the development of an SCS? Although Karen‘s case study
shows that she was involved in creative professions prior to her participation in Scientology,
we do not explore what effects that precult creativity may have on the eventual birthing of
an sCS once one is in a cult. We leave this for future exploration. Here, we examined the
effects of power dynamics, cult hegemony, and a cult member‘s self-sovereignty as
contributing factors that allow the birth of an sCS within the cult.
The ideas we have presented here also raise questions regarding processes involved in
power dynamics. Although we did not explore it above, the idea that suppressed individuals
can birth an sCS by resisting very powerful and influential people needs further
