Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, Page 85
called? We could call it ―cult-induced pseudo-creativity.‖ I believe this pseudo-creativity was
ultimately an enforced creativity in service to the authority of the leaders. I suggest that the
creativity or pseudo-creativity was coming from the pseudo-personality and not from the
cult member‘s pre-cult personality.
Suffering can bring a deeper, richer experience of life and creativity to individuals (Yancey,
1990 Cassidy, 1990), and members of the Community experienced much emotional and
physical pain. Perhaps in spite of the pressures, thought reform, and hurt, might the
creative and expressive activities of the group have offered members a way of expressing
their deeply buried pre-cult personality and its suffering? This issue of where the creative or
expressive arts originated from within the individual is hard to answer without research.
Anecdotal evidence might suggest that even cult-induced pseudo-creativity may allow some
room for the pre-cult personality to express itself.
Winnicott (2005, p. 92) explores the possibility that
there cannot be complete destruction of a human individual‘s capacity for
creative living and that even in extreme compliance and the establishment of
a false personality, hidden away somewhere there exists a secret life that is
satisfactory because of its being creative or original to that human being.
There may be as many possibilities as there are individuals who have been harmed by these
abuses, and perhaps the answers will come only when the individuals themselves assess the
situation from the perspective of post-cult recovery.
Lalich (2004) sets out her argument that cult members act with ―bounded choice‖ their
decisions make sense in the cult setting, even if they do not make sense to someone
looking in from the outside. She looks at the idea of a ―charismatic commitment‖ that takes
root quickly that can enmesh and trap people, in some cases psychologically and that
causes the individual to be at the service of the charismatic leader or ideology (p. 14). This
argument is applicable to the Community. Creativity in the Community was at the service of
the grandiosity and narcissism of the leaders, and ultimately of the members too, because it
was viewed as the expression of the Community‘s success.
It is interesting to note that creativity is very often challenging and subversive, and pushes
society‘s boundaries and thinking. One example of this would be the artist Damien Hirst,
who pickled half a cow and shocked many people. In cult-induced pseudo-creativity, this
challenge is less likely to occur. It is not true creativity but simply creative arts used for the
aims of the cult and the leaders, and therefore used to hold back and stultify the cult
members‘ uniqueness and individual creativity (Hassan, 2000, p. 38). The art may express
the cult‘s challenge to the outside world, but it may not be the individual‘s challenging
expression. The singing and creative expression in the Community came out of fear and
compliance and was not a playful and spontaneous expression of the pre-cult personality of
the individual members it did not challenge the status quo of the group until the end.
Natalie Rogers (Internet, 2008) notes that ―creativity threatens those who demand
conformity. Dictators squelch self-expression and the creative process.‖ The cult leaders in
the Community could not afford to allow true creativity because it could lead to a challenge
to their control and thought reform. Having said that, I wonder if perhaps the leadership
ultimately undid itself because this restriction may have opened the door to the members‘
doubt. It is possible that ultimately the creativity in the members of Brian‘s household
helped them to reconnect with their pre-cult personality. This in turn may have led to their
challenge of Brian‘s leadership and the demise of the Community. Perls et al. (1951, p. 189)
suggest that to
eliminate introjects from your personality the problem is not to accept and
integrate dissociated parts of yourself. Rather it is to become aware of what is
called? We could call it ―cult-induced pseudo-creativity.‖ I believe this pseudo-creativity was
ultimately an enforced creativity in service to the authority of the leaders. I suggest that the
creativity or pseudo-creativity was coming from the pseudo-personality and not from the
cult member‘s pre-cult personality.
Suffering can bring a deeper, richer experience of life and creativity to individuals (Yancey,
1990 Cassidy, 1990), and members of the Community experienced much emotional and
physical pain. Perhaps in spite of the pressures, thought reform, and hurt, might the
creative and expressive activities of the group have offered members a way of expressing
their deeply buried pre-cult personality and its suffering? This issue of where the creative or
expressive arts originated from within the individual is hard to answer without research.
Anecdotal evidence might suggest that even cult-induced pseudo-creativity may allow some
room for the pre-cult personality to express itself.
Winnicott (2005, p. 92) explores the possibility that
there cannot be complete destruction of a human individual‘s capacity for
creative living and that even in extreme compliance and the establishment of
a false personality, hidden away somewhere there exists a secret life that is
satisfactory because of its being creative or original to that human being.
There may be as many possibilities as there are individuals who have been harmed by these
abuses, and perhaps the answers will come only when the individuals themselves assess the
situation from the perspective of post-cult recovery.
Lalich (2004) sets out her argument that cult members act with ―bounded choice‖ their
decisions make sense in the cult setting, even if they do not make sense to someone
looking in from the outside. She looks at the idea of a ―charismatic commitment‖ that takes
root quickly that can enmesh and trap people, in some cases psychologically and that
causes the individual to be at the service of the charismatic leader or ideology (p. 14). This
argument is applicable to the Community. Creativity in the Community was at the service of
the grandiosity and narcissism of the leaders, and ultimately of the members too, because it
was viewed as the expression of the Community‘s success.
It is interesting to note that creativity is very often challenging and subversive, and pushes
society‘s boundaries and thinking. One example of this would be the artist Damien Hirst,
who pickled half a cow and shocked many people. In cult-induced pseudo-creativity, this
challenge is less likely to occur. It is not true creativity but simply creative arts used for the
aims of the cult and the leaders, and therefore used to hold back and stultify the cult
members‘ uniqueness and individual creativity (Hassan, 2000, p. 38). The art may express
the cult‘s challenge to the outside world, but it may not be the individual‘s challenging
expression. The singing and creative expression in the Community came out of fear and
compliance and was not a playful and spontaneous expression of the pre-cult personality of
the individual members it did not challenge the status quo of the group until the end.
Natalie Rogers (Internet, 2008) notes that ―creativity threatens those who demand
conformity. Dictators squelch self-expression and the creative process.‖ The cult leaders in
the Community could not afford to allow true creativity because it could lead to a challenge
to their control and thought reform. Having said that, I wonder if perhaps the leadership
ultimately undid itself because this restriction may have opened the door to the members‘
doubt. It is possible that ultimately the creativity in the members of Brian‘s household
helped them to reconnect with their pre-cult personality. This in turn may have led to their
challenge of Brian‘s leadership and the demise of the Community. Perls et al. (1951, p. 189)
suggest that to
eliminate introjects from your personality the problem is not to accept and
integrate dissociated parts of yourself. Rather it is to become aware of what is
