Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 42
syndromes will differ in that the borderline will vacillate between idealization of
authority/devaluation of self and devaluation of authority/idealization of self, the cultist will
tend to get stuck on the idealization of authority/devaluation of self, and the narcissist will
demonstrate the converse (cf. Grotstein, 1981, pp. 182-183 Masterson, 1981, p. 30). More
will be said about the handling of this transferential idealization of the therapist as an
authority figure in a subsequent article.
The literature Is silent on what occurs to the ex-cultists‘ view of authority when the
reemergence of the pre-cult personality during stage two brings an increase in self-
confidence (i.e., ego strength). A reduction in the idealization of, and passive receptivity to,
such figures may obviously be assumed. But an immediate resumption of a realistic view of
authority should not be so easily taken for granted. Complicating this path toward reality
testing and perception are the factors of stage two anger and the reemergence of pre-cult
personality tendencies.
Anger felt toward the cult leaders, the parents, and even toward deprogrammers may be
transferred onto the therapist during stage two. The author has found in his own ex-cultist
rehabilitation counseling experience that this transference is particularly intense if the client
came out of a dysfunctional family system (cf. Zerin, 1982) or encountered an unethical)
manipulative deprogrammer.
Negative transference coming from pre-cult dysfunctions family systems may be related to
the reemergence of pre-cult individual psychopathology and/or the reemergence of anger
regarding family conflicts or problems. Anger which the cult helped to channel and control
(cf. Salzman, 1966 pp. 17-19 Pruyer, 1977, pp. 345-347 or see the role of guilt in cult
conversion as ―anger turned inward,‖ Ash, 1983, pp 68-69) is no longer being displaced so
effectively, and the therapist is a much safer replacement for channeling than the family.
Furthermore, Clark (1977) reported that 58% of cultists suffered from previous emotional or
personality disorders, Galanter et al. (1979) reported that 39% had previous serious
psychopathology, and most recently Sullivar (1984) reported 44% having prior emotional
troubles or crises (pp. 96, 97). Furthermore, Doress and Porter (1978), Levine (1980), and
West and Singer (1980) have all suggested that leaving the cult does precipitate the return
of any such pre-cult conflicts and problems.
Family problems. The ex-cultist has to deal with previous familial conflicts he avoided
through cult conversion and a new set of problems related more specifically to his cult
conversion. Schwartz and Kaslow (1979), for example, have suggested that parents receive
their returning children with a mixture of joy and anger, or confusion regarding the sense of
rejection precipitated by their offspring‘s preference for the cult family. These parents also
tend to revert toward overprotectiveness the ―caretaker urge‖ (AFF, p. 77) to reassure
themselves that their offspring will not return to the cult. Singer (1984, p. 80) labeled the
resulting feeling of constantly being watched by family and friends the ―fishbowl effect.‖
Concluding Diagnostic Comments
Atypical Dissociative Disorder
Those suffering from cult-induced dissociation, i.e., those still mental members (or captives)
of extremist cults, should, with few exceptions, receive a DSM-III diagnosis of atypical
dissociative disorder (300.15). This would include those individuals who have physically left
those totalitarian group but still retain the same mind set that they had while in the group,
e.g., rigid defense of its doctrines, beliefs, and practices and/or continuation of its practices
(such as extensive chanting).
Multiple personality. In a myriad of ways the cultist dissociative disorder resembles the
multiple, or split, personality (DSM-III #300.14). While such a comparison and differential
syndromes will differ in that the borderline will vacillate between idealization of
authority/devaluation of self and devaluation of authority/idealization of self, the cultist will
tend to get stuck on the idealization of authority/devaluation of self, and the narcissist will
demonstrate the converse (cf. Grotstein, 1981, pp. 182-183 Masterson, 1981, p. 30). More
will be said about the handling of this transferential idealization of the therapist as an
authority figure in a subsequent article.
The literature Is silent on what occurs to the ex-cultists‘ view of authority when the
reemergence of the pre-cult personality during stage two brings an increase in self-
confidence (i.e., ego strength). A reduction in the idealization of, and passive receptivity to,
such figures may obviously be assumed. But an immediate resumption of a realistic view of
authority should not be so easily taken for granted. Complicating this path toward reality
testing and perception are the factors of stage two anger and the reemergence of pre-cult
personality tendencies.
Anger felt toward the cult leaders, the parents, and even toward deprogrammers may be
transferred onto the therapist during stage two. The author has found in his own ex-cultist
rehabilitation counseling experience that this transference is particularly intense if the client
came out of a dysfunctional family system (cf. Zerin, 1982) or encountered an unethical)
manipulative deprogrammer.
Negative transference coming from pre-cult dysfunctions family systems may be related to
the reemergence of pre-cult individual psychopathology and/or the reemergence of anger
regarding family conflicts or problems. Anger which the cult helped to channel and control
(cf. Salzman, 1966 pp. 17-19 Pruyer, 1977, pp. 345-347 or see the role of guilt in cult
conversion as ―anger turned inward,‖ Ash, 1983, pp 68-69) is no longer being displaced so
effectively, and the therapist is a much safer replacement for channeling than the family.
Furthermore, Clark (1977) reported that 58% of cultists suffered from previous emotional or
personality disorders, Galanter et al. (1979) reported that 39% had previous serious
psychopathology, and most recently Sullivar (1984) reported 44% having prior emotional
troubles or crises (pp. 96, 97). Furthermore, Doress and Porter (1978), Levine (1980), and
West and Singer (1980) have all suggested that leaving the cult does precipitate the return
of any such pre-cult conflicts and problems.
Family problems. The ex-cultist has to deal with previous familial conflicts he avoided
through cult conversion and a new set of problems related more specifically to his cult
conversion. Schwartz and Kaslow (1979), for example, have suggested that parents receive
their returning children with a mixture of joy and anger, or confusion regarding the sense of
rejection precipitated by their offspring‘s preference for the cult family. These parents also
tend to revert toward overprotectiveness the ―caretaker urge‖ (AFF, p. 77) to reassure
themselves that their offspring will not return to the cult. Singer (1984, p. 80) labeled the
resulting feeling of constantly being watched by family and friends the ―fishbowl effect.‖
Concluding Diagnostic Comments
Atypical Dissociative Disorder
Those suffering from cult-induced dissociation, i.e., those still mental members (or captives)
of extremist cults, should, with few exceptions, receive a DSM-III diagnosis of atypical
dissociative disorder (300.15). This would include those individuals who have physically left
those totalitarian group but still retain the same mind set that they had while in the group,
e.g., rigid defense of its doctrines, beliefs, and practices and/or continuation of its practices
(such as extensive chanting).
Multiple personality. In a myriad of ways the cultist dissociative disorder resembles the
multiple, or split, personality (DSM-III #300.14). While such a comparison and differential
