Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 23
when they return to the States after an extended absence (cf, Levine, 1984). This paper
will argue against these positions as well.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the available literature into a theoretical overview
of the psychopathology resulting from membership in extremist cults. A subsequent paper
will provide an overview of psychotherapeutic treatment issues and guidelines. The intent is
to provide a conceptual framework for a more comprehensive view of this psychological
impairment and its treatment. Future research may add, delete, or revise various parts of
this conceptualization according to our ever-expanding knowledge. Nothing said here is
intended to be the final word.
In certain ways this paper was meant to be a revision of the only available prior attempt to
provide such a synthesis, the American Family Foundation‘s work, Destructive cult
conversion: Theory, research, and treatment (Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981
hereafter referred to as ―AFF‖). While the etiological aspects of the problem, assumed to be
the cult conversion process itself, are only summarized here (cf. Ash, 1983, pp. 46-103 for
a more systematic view), this paper still transcends the AFF work by providing: 1) a
delineation of the individual personality factors during the cult conversion process and its
resulting pathology, and 2) the utilization of stages of cult departure and cult recovery,
which provide a framework upon which clinical picture and treatment issues may be placed.
The comprehensive picture which will be portrayed is that of individuals who have been
psychologically impaired by their participation in an extremist cult. It should be
remembered, however, that not all individuals will experience all the problems described.
Nevertheless, the more extremist the cult the greater the liklihood that the specific clinical
pathology of a cult-induced dissociative disorder and post-cult readjustment problems will
result. In other words, extremism or a lack of balance in groups will undoubtedly result in a
lack of balance in its members. Group pathology will generate individual psychopathology.
In earlier papers (1983, 1984a), I proposed detailed criteria for evaluating the level of
extremism in groups. I suggested that cultic extremism is a function of two main categories
of factors: 1) an exclusive, ultra-authoritarian (or totalitarian) closed ―family‖ system that
has rigid boundaries and promotes deep emotional dependency, blind obedience,
unquestioning compliance, and conformity to its leadership and 2) the deceptive use of
mind-manipulating, dissociation-inducing techniques during the recruitment, conversion,
and retention of its members. The psychopathology which will be portrayed in this paper
results from participation in groups which would fit or approximate this definition of an
extremist cult.
Not all individuals involved in cults will suffer psychological impairment in the sense of
inability to cope with life apart from the group. The author believes that those who don‘t
show such impairment are most likely either very healthy individuals who were not in any
transition or crisis at the time of the conversion process or are psychopathic or narcissistic
personality types (see ―Diagnostic Comments‖ section below). Nonetheless, with the
exception of the latter (and possibly the very healthy) the ―poison‖ of the extremist cult
conversion process will affect all participants to some degree. At the very least, all those
leaving extremist cults are forced to deal with both the external realities of day-to-day life
outside the cult and the shock of having to use their minds again without the cult‘s
direction. just a,,, freedom from emotional distress while in the group had its price tag of
relinquishing personal control, regaining personal autonomy has its price tag too.
when they return to the States after an extended absence (cf, Levine, 1984). This paper
will argue against these positions as well.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the available literature into a theoretical overview
of the psychopathology resulting from membership in extremist cults. A subsequent paper
will provide an overview of psychotherapeutic treatment issues and guidelines. The intent is
to provide a conceptual framework for a more comprehensive view of this psychological
impairment and its treatment. Future research may add, delete, or revise various parts of
this conceptualization according to our ever-expanding knowledge. Nothing said here is
intended to be the final word.
In certain ways this paper was meant to be a revision of the only available prior attempt to
provide such a synthesis, the American Family Foundation‘s work, Destructive cult
conversion: Theory, research, and treatment (Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981
hereafter referred to as ―AFF‖). While the etiological aspects of the problem, assumed to be
the cult conversion process itself, are only summarized here (cf. Ash, 1983, pp. 46-103 for
a more systematic view), this paper still transcends the AFF work by providing: 1) a
delineation of the individual personality factors during the cult conversion process and its
resulting pathology, and 2) the utilization of stages of cult departure and cult recovery,
which provide a framework upon which clinical picture and treatment issues may be placed.
The comprehensive picture which will be portrayed is that of individuals who have been
psychologically impaired by their participation in an extremist cult. It should be
remembered, however, that not all individuals will experience all the problems described.
Nevertheless, the more extremist the cult the greater the liklihood that the specific clinical
pathology of a cult-induced dissociative disorder and post-cult readjustment problems will
result. In other words, extremism or a lack of balance in groups will undoubtedly result in a
lack of balance in its members. Group pathology will generate individual psychopathology.
In earlier papers (1983, 1984a), I proposed detailed criteria for evaluating the level of
extremism in groups. I suggested that cultic extremism is a function of two main categories
of factors: 1) an exclusive, ultra-authoritarian (or totalitarian) closed ―family‖ system that
has rigid boundaries and promotes deep emotional dependency, blind obedience,
unquestioning compliance, and conformity to its leadership and 2) the deceptive use of
mind-manipulating, dissociation-inducing techniques during the recruitment, conversion,
and retention of its members. The psychopathology which will be portrayed in this paper
results from participation in groups which would fit or approximate this definition of an
extremist cult.
Not all individuals involved in cults will suffer psychological impairment in the sense of
inability to cope with life apart from the group. The author believes that those who don‘t
show such impairment are most likely either very healthy individuals who were not in any
transition or crisis at the time of the conversion process or are psychopathic or narcissistic
personality types (see ―Diagnostic Comments‖ section below). Nonetheless, with the
exception of the latter (and possibly the very healthy) the ―poison‖ of the extremist cult
conversion process will affect all participants to some degree. At the very least, all those
leaving extremist cults are forced to deal with both the external realities of day-to-day life
outside the cult and the shock of having to use their minds again without the cult‘s
direction. just a,,, freedom from emotional distress while in the group had its price tag of
relinquishing personal control, regaining personal autonomy has its price tag too.
