Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 3
Psychotherapy and the “New Religions”:
Are They the Same?
Daniel Kriegman, Ph.D.
Leonard Solomon, Ph.D.
Abstract
Kilbourne and Richardson (1984) propose that cult groups (which they refer
to as ―new religions‖) and psychotherapy are ―functionally equivalent‖ and
essentially the same. In this paper, we critically examine their logic and
conclusions. The cult group seeks to lock the member into a highly dependent
relationship to the leader, thereby foreclosing the member‘s further growth
and development. Psychotherapy seeks to utilize and resolve a patient‘s
natural yearning for a dependent nurturant relationship with the therapist in
order to lead to greater internal freedom and personal autonomy. By critically
examining the deeper level differences, this paper serves to illuminate the
importance of distinguishing between such phenomena. There are, for
example, profound differences between the manipulative techniques of social
influence and control exercised by cults and the societally sanctioned and
ethically applied techniques inherent in the curative process of
psychotherapy.
Recently there has been considerable polarization of opinion in regard to cult phenomena as
noted by several authors in this journal (Ash, 1984
Galanti, 1984 Langone, 1984). Anticult and pro-cult positions have developed, and it can
be shown how the terminology they use clearly demonstrates the biases present.
Ash attempts to show that the diversity of opinion even makes the word ―cult‖ hard to
define. Authors who are critical of cults emphasize the process of ―brainwashing,‖ and the
degree of authoritarian control over all aspects of life. Those authors who are ―laissez-faire‖
or pro-cult tend to emphasize the ―structural support‖ of cult groups and how they
function as a ―way-station‖ for emotionally troubled young adults (e.g., Levine, 1984). They
(pro-cultists) tend to blur the differences between ―cult groups‖ and other types of religious
groups.
Apparently taking a relatively pro-cult stance, Kilbourne and Richardson, in an article in the
American Psychologist (1984), propose that the ―new religions‖ (Note 1). are, in essence,
the same as psychotherapy. Following their logic, cults could be best understood as an
alternative form of psychotherapy, or psychotherapy could be understood to be one of the
―new religions‖. The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate Kilbourne and
Richardson‘s proposal, and to examine its oversimplified theoretical base in the light of our
own clinical research studies with the followers of Guru Maharaj ]i‘s Divine Light Mission
(Kriegman, 1980 Kriegrnan and Solomon, 1985) and our extensive clinical practice with
young adult patients.
Based upon six commonalities they describe between psychotherapy and the ―new
religions‖, Kilbourne and Richardson posit a ―functional equivalence of these two
approaches to reality, individual adjustment, and growth‖ (p. 237). They claim that: 1)
psychotherapy and the new religions arise in the same sociohistorical context and thus are
both a response to the same cultural pressures and needs 2) the new religions and
psychotherapy tend to appeal to the same people, and that ―members‖ and ―patients‖ refer
Psychotherapy and the “New Religions”:
Are They the Same?
Daniel Kriegman, Ph.D.
Leonard Solomon, Ph.D.
Abstract
Kilbourne and Richardson (1984) propose that cult groups (which they refer
to as ―new religions‖) and psychotherapy are ―functionally equivalent‖ and
essentially the same. In this paper, we critically examine their logic and
conclusions. The cult group seeks to lock the member into a highly dependent
relationship to the leader, thereby foreclosing the member‘s further growth
and development. Psychotherapy seeks to utilize and resolve a patient‘s
natural yearning for a dependent nurturant relationship with the therapist in
order to lead to greater internal freedom and personal autonomy. By critically
examining the deeper level differences, this paper serves to illuminate the
importance of distinguishing between such phenomena. There are, for
example, profound differences between the manipulative techniques of social
influence and control exercised by cults and the societally sanctioned and
ethically applied techniques inherent in the curative process of
psychotherapy.
Recently there has been considerable polarization of opinion in regard to cult phenomena as
noted by several authors in this journal (Ash, 1984
Galanti, 1984 Langone, 1984). Anticult and pro-cult positions have developed, and it can
be shown how the terminology they use clearly demonstrates the biases present.
Ash attempts to show that the diversity of opinion even makes the word ―cult‖ hard to
define. Authors who are critical of cults emphasize the process of ―brainwashing,‖ and the
degree of authoritarian control over all aspects of life. Those authors who are ―laissez-faire‖
or pro-cult tend to emphasize the ―structural support‖ of cult groups and how they
function as a ―way-station‖ for emotionally troubled young adults (e.g., Levine, 1984). They
(pro-cultists) tend to blur the differences between ―cult groups‖ and other types of religious
groups.
Apparently taking a relatively pro-cult stance, Kilbourne and Richardson, in an article in the
American Psychologist (1984), propose that the ―new religions‖ (Note 1). are, in essence,
the same as psychotherapy. Following their logic, cults could be best understood as an
alternative form of psychotherapy, or psychotherapy could be understood to be one of the
―new religions‖. The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate Kilbourne and
Richardson‘s proposal, and to examine its oversimplified theoretical base in the light of our
own clinical research studies with the followers of Guru Maharaj ]i‘s Divine Light Mission
(Kriegman, 1980 Kriegrnan and Solomon, 1985) and our extensive clinical practice with
young adult patients.
Based upon six commonalities they describe between psychotherapy and the ―new
religions‖, Kilbourne and Richardson posit a ―functional equivalence of these two
approaches to reality, individual adjustment, and growth‖ (p. 237). They claim that: 1)
psychotherapy and the new religions arise in the same sociohistorical context and thus are
both a response to the same cultural pressures and needs 2) the new religions and
psychotherapy tend to appeal to the same people, and that ―members‖ and ―patients‖ refer
