Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 34
Defense Structure. Spero (1982) suggested that cult devotees commonly reflect ―a strongly
preoedipal rather than oedipal quality in defense structure, reality orientation, and object-
relational needs‖ (p. 338). For Spero, this meant narcissistic trends, passive-dependent
cognitive qualities, and impairment in the ego function of psychological differentiation (pp.
334-339). While the first two were not completely eliminated by the termination of Spero‘s
long-term individual psychotherapy (p. 339). the ―cult-induced dedifferentiation of self-
boundaries‖ with its resulting. idealization of the therapist was seen by Spero as ―perhaps
one of the most important characteristics of the cult devotee in therapy‖ (P. 341). This is
because dedifferentiation, or extension of the ego interpersonally, is probably the most
overt sign of the maladaptive ego functioning of most stable dissociative disorders. Just as
―these two processes--splitting and symbiotic extension of ego boundaries--define (the)
very pathology ...(of) the narcissistic and borderline personalities‖ (Beahrs, 1982, P. 38
cf. Kernberg, 1975), so do they also denote the essence of the pathology of the atypical
dissociative disorder of cult conversion. In addition to the material on splitting or
dissociation, support may be seen for the utilization of the following defense mechanisms by
cult members: denial (Deutsch, 1980 Deutsch &Miller, 1983 Pruyser, 1977 Spero, 1980,
1982 Ungerleider &Wellisch, 1979b) externalization (Spero, 1982) overcompensation
(Spero, 1980) overconventionality (Clark 1979b Ungerleider &Wellisch, 1979b)
projection (Spero, 1982) rationalization (Deutsch, 1980 Kemperman,1982 Pruyser,
1977) reaction-formation (Pruyser, 1977 Ungerledier &Wellisch, 1979b West &Singer,
1980). Together these defenses form a rigid coalition (Spero, 1980, pp. 149, 151) to aid the
maintenance of dissociation in its frozen emergency mental state.
While most of these defenses will function in the cult recovery stages, the rigid coalition of
these defenses and dissociation will either be broken by the reality induction of marathon
deprogramrning (Gilmartin in Sage, 1976, p. 47) or the return to more healthy, reality
oriented self-other boundaries through the gradual distancing from cultic allegiance and/or
the analysis of the therapeutic transference in psychodynamic reevaluation therapy (Spero,
1982, p. 341). Spero did not specify when the latter would take place, except that it would
be made evident by the surfacing of a powerful fear of being overwhelmed. This suggests
caution in the use of power techniques such as marathon deprogramming since an
experience of being overwhelmed by the unmerging of self-other boundaries can precipitate
a psychosis in individuals who had weak pre-cult personality ego boundaries (est examples:
Kirsch &Glass, 1977, p. 1257 cf. Glass, Kirsch, &Parrish, 1977 Higgitt &Murray, 1983).
As stated earlier, movement from reevaluation to initial post-deprogramming will result in a
metamorphosis in dissociation from a stable, frozen state to transient symptoms of
dissociation such as cognitive slippage and floating, as yet to be described. Assuming a
normal pre-cult personality, a proposed metaphor of the individual‘s ego functioning during
this time will move from the ―ice‖ of reevaluation to. the ―slush‖ of initial post-
deprogramming to the ―steam‖ of reemergence before the normal temperature of ―liquid
water‖ returns. Assuming pre-cult psychopathology, the reemergence stage of cult
recovery will reflect the resurfacing of any pre-cult personality defense mechanisms and
coping styles that had not been utilized by the cult.
Low ego strength. This reflects itself in a split approach toward self and authority, in a way
somewhat suggestive of the borderline personality disorder. One difference between the two
cases appears to be that the borderline will vacillate between idealization and devaluation
toward self and authority (i.e., Idealize self/devalue authority, devalue self/idealize others
cf. Kernberg, 1967, 1968, 1975), while the individual in reevaluation and the first stage of
recovery from cult-induced dissociation will tend to be stuck in the idealization of authority
and the devaluation of self.
The idealization of the cult brought the individual an increase in ego strength via symbiotic
linkage/extention. Unfortunately, once a cultist leaves his source of strength, he will be seen
Defense Structure. Spero (1982) suggested that cult devotees commonly reflect ―a strongly
preoedipal rather than oedipal quality in defense structure, reality orientation, and object-
relational needs‖ (p. 338). For Spero, this meant narcissistic trends, passive-dependent
cognitive qualities, and impairment in the ego function of psychological differentiation (pp.
334-339). While the first two were not completely eliminated by the termination of Spero‘s
long-term individual psychotherapy (p. 339). the ―cult-induced dedifferentiation of self-
boundaries‖ with its resulting. idealization of the therapist was seen by Spero as ―perhaps
one of the most important characteristics of the cult devotee in therapy‖ (P. 341). This is
because dedifferentiation, or extension of the ego interpersonally, is probably the most
overt sign of the maladaptive ego functioning of most stable dissociative disorders. Just as
―these two processes--splitting and symbiotic extension of ego boundaries--define (the)
very pathology ...(of) the narcissistic and borderline personalities‖ (Beahrs, 1982, P. 38
cf. Kernberg, 1975), so do they also denote the essence of the pathology of the atypical
dissociative disorder of cult conversion. In addition to the material on splitting or
dissociation, support may be seen for the utilization of the following defense mechanisms by
cult members: denial (Deutsch, 1980 Deutsch &Miller, 1983 Pruyser, 1977 Spero, 1980,
1982 Ungerleider &Wellisch, 1979b) externalization (Spero, 1982) overcompensation
(Spero, 1980) overconventionality (Clark 1979b Ungerleider &Wellisch, 1979b)
projection (Spero, 1982) rationalization (Deutsch, 1980 Kemperman,1982 Pruyser,
1977) reaction-formation (Pruyser, 1977 Ungerledier &Wellisch, 1979b West &Singer,
1980). Together these defenses form a rigid coalition (Spero, 1980, pp. 149, 151) to aid the
maintenance of dissociation in its frozen emergency mental state.
While most of these defenses will function in the cult recovery stages, the rigid coalition of
these defenses and dissociation will either be broken by the reality induction of marathon
deprogramrning (Gilmartin in Sage, 1976, p. 47) or the return to more healthy, reality
oriented self-other boundaries through the gradual distancing from cultic allegiance and/or
the analysis of the therapeutic transference in psychodynamic reevaluation therapy (Spero,
1982, p. 341). Spero did not specify when the latter would take place, except that it would
be made evident by the surfacing of a powerful fear of being overwhelmed. This suggests
caution in the use of power techniques such as marathon deprogramming since an
experience of being overwhelmed by the unmerging of self-other boundaries can precipitate
a psychosis in individuals who had weak pre-cult personality ego boundaries (est examples:
Kirsch &Glass, 1977, p. 1257 cf. Glass, Kirsch, &Parrish, 1977 Higgitt &Murray, 1983).
As stated earlier, movement from reevaluation to initial post-deprogramming will result in a
metamorphosis in dissociation from a stable, frozen state to transient symptoms of
dissociation such as cognitive slippage and floating, as yet to be described. Assuming a
normal pre-cult personality, a proposed metaphor of the individual‘s ego functioning during
this time will move from the ―ice‖ of reevaluation to. the ―slush‖ of initial post-
deprogramming to the ―steam‖ of reemergence before the normal temperature of ―liquid
water‖ returns. Assuming pre-cult psychopathology, the reemergence stage of cult
recovery will reflect the resurfacing of any pre-cult personality defense mechanisms and
coping styles that had not been utilized by the cult.
Low ego strength. This reflects itself in a split approach toward self and authority, in a way
somewhat suggestive of the borderline personality disorder. One difference between the two
cases appears to be that the borderline will vacillate between idealization and devaluation
toward self and authority (i.e., Idealize self/devalue authority, devalue self/idealize others
cf. Kernberg, 1967, 1968, 1975), while the individual in reevaluation and the first stage of
recovery from cult-induced dissociation will tend to be stuck in the idealization of authority
and the devaluation of self.
The idealization of the cult brought the individual an increase in ego strength via symbiotic
linkage/extention. Unfortunately, once a cultist leaves his source of strength, he will be seen
