Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 48
this can help to explain the Goldbergs‘ (1982) puzzling finding that those who ―have
attained leadership status, and have, in effect, become the controllers‖ usually ―take longer
to disavow the (group) experience‖ after leaving, even though their departure was almost
always on their own (p. 167). (Is this due to the complicated layers of dissociated ego parts
they must work through?) For example, the narcissistic personality/ego state could be
defending against a dissociative state, which may be defending against even deeper pre-cult
personality conflicts, which paradoxically could even revolve around a borderline personality
disorder itself.
The author also believes that Erhard Seminars Training (est) utilizes a dissociative-inducing
process to produce functionally narcissistic personalities in that ―getting it‖ means
realizing your inner divinity and accountability to yourself only (Ash, 1984c). If research
bears this out, then it would not be too great a leap to imagine the more typical passive
dependent cult personality flipping over in Its dissociative/dedifferentiative ego structure
into a narcissistic personality once he attains a leadership position.
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Although the atypical dissociative disorder is the diagnosis of choice for the cultist syndrome
during the reevaluation phase of cult departure, a DSM-111 diagnosis is less clear for those
who have broken the dissociation through deprogramming or other means. Zerin (1982) has
suggested a similarity to post-traumatic stress disorder, which would be of the acute
subtype (308.30) as the post-deprogramming stage of cult recovery rarely extends past six
months.
Indeed, there are many similarities, most of which center around dissociative phenomena,
particularly floating, e.g., ―the sudden acting or. feeling as if the traumatic event were
reoccurring because of an association with an environmental or ideational stimulus‖ (DSM-
111, APA, p. 137). Others of particular similarity are the recurring dreams of the event
(nightmares), guilt about surviving, and memory impairment or trouble concentrating.
Indeed, it appears as if almost all of the post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms may fit
within the clinical picture of the post-mind-control syndrome.
However, an across-the-board comparison should await research on this issue, for
differences do linger in the shadows. For example, not included in the post-traumatic stress
disorder symptoms list, but present in the clinical picture of ex-cultists, are problems such
as indecisiveness, perceptual difficulties, depression, fear, anger, and interpersonal
problems centering around ambivalence. Survivors of concentration camps or battles in
Viet Nam rarely wish to return to the ―safety‖ and simplicity of their traumatic environment.
They knew they were in a stressful situation both during the experience and afterward,
whereas ex-cultists often express a desire to return to their experience, while cultists deny
that it is traumatic or stressful at all.
Consequently, the utilization of DSM-111 #308.30 for ex-cultists in stage one of cult
recovery may be supported, but not without question.
Summary
The clinical picture which has been portrayed here is that of individuals who have been
psychologically impaired by their participation in an extremist cult as defined by Ash,
1984b). Although the entire scope of all (ex-) cultist problems has been reviewed, it must
be remembered that not all individuals will experience all these problems. Nevertheless,
with the exception of the psychopathic or narcissistic personality types (and possibly the
very healthy), the ―poison‖ of the extremist cult conversion process will to some degree
affect all who participate. Furthermore, the more extremist the individual‘s group is in its
cultism (i.e., being a totalitarian closed system utilizing deceptive mind manipulating

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 49
techniques), the greater the likelihood that the specific clinical pathology of a cult-induced
dissociative disorder will result and, subsequently, the greater the number of readjustment
problems the individual will face when he leaves the group. Even those who do not develop
the cult dissociative disorder will, when they leave their group, confront adjustment
problems of a culture-shock nature (psychopathic types excluded).
The etiology of the cult dissociative disorder derives from the extremist cult conversion
process itself, which consists of a mixture of personal vulnerability factors and cult milieu
factors. In essence, the personal pre-cult factors (ongoing distress, disillusionment in a
frustrated seeker, lack of an intrinsic belief/value system, moderately dysfunctional family
system, and dependent personality tendencies, particularly if there is ego impairment in
differentiation) make an individual more susceptible to the cult conversion tactics of
selective behavioral conditioning through peer pressure and the deceptive induction of a
dissociative state (which comes about through isolation and the following practices that
work together to suspend central nervous system functioning, and thereby, independent
critical thinking: information control, overload, or manipulation emotional overstimulation
or manipulation physical debilitation via sleep deprivation, diet manipulation, or fatigue
―not thinking‖ practices such as chanting and religious mystical rituals).
This author has suggested that extremist cult conversion can best be explained by
integrating Clark‘s (1977, 1978, 1979a, 1979b) dissociation theory of conversion with
Spero‘s (1977, 1980, 1982) ego-regression model, which emphasizes dedifferentiation
(or extension) of ego boundaries. Dedifferentiation and isolation work together to decrease
reality testing, which, when linked with suspension of CNS functioning (as induced by
isolation and mind-control tactics), leads to the dissociative state.
Furthermore, a comparison of Masterson‘s object relational view of the borderline
personality disorder (see Figure 5), Beahrs‘ (1982) analysis of the multiple personality (and
the mystical experience), and Spero‘s and Clark‘s views of the cult-induced disorder appears
not only to support the author‘s view of the cult-induced dissociative disorder as a mixture
of dissociation and dedifferentiation/extension, but also provides much insight into
differential diagnosis (see Figure 4).
In comparing dissociation to water, we get a vivid picture of what happens to the cult-
induced disorder during the suggested stages of cult departure and recovery. Due to the
cult‘s reinforcement via dedifferentiation, the cultist‘s dissociation will remain quite stable,
i.e., ―frozen,‖ while in the cult. However, once this extensive reinforcement is broken
through during reevaluation, the dissociative ―ice‖ turns to ―slush‖ as manifested clinically
by ambivalence and floating (see Figure 3) during the post-deprogramming stage of cult
recovery. The reemergence of the pre-cult personality will then see the return of much
affect, most particularly anger, i.e., ―steam,‖ which, after it cools down, will give the ex-
cultist the self-confidence and ego strength necessary to integrate his cult experiences with
his extra-cult life. Only after his ―water‖ temperature, or ego ―thermostat,‖ has been
returned to its pre-cult condition (with him in control) will the ex-cultist be able to sustain a
normal level of functioning in the world outside the cult, provided, of course, that a healthy
pre-cult personality has emerged.
Footnotes
(Note 1). Beckford(1978) provides the most extensive analysis of the methological problems
inherent in studying the cult phenomenon, and his recommendations for research would go
far in producing philosophically unbiased research results (cf. Ash, 1984a).
(Note 2). Conway and Siegelman (1978) have pointed out that the process/phenomena of
―shutting off the mind, of not thinking ...is the underlying appeal of nearly every religious
cult and mass therapy in America today‖ (p. 58), and that linearly every cult employs some