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
Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 50
version of the meditation technique In ways that in our opinion may impair their members
ability to think‖ (p. 176 cf. both notions echoed again and again in the literature: AFF
Carr, 1981 Clark, 1979a, 1979b Enroth, 1977, 1979 Galper in Aversa, 1976 Pruyser,
1977 Schwartz &Zemel, 1980 Singer, 1979 Spero, 1977, 1980, 1982).
(Note 3). Goleman (1977) who analyzed The varieties of the meditative experience,
concluded that all types ―share a basic unity in their methods and goals,‖ which I
understand to mean an anti-thought bias, a bias which he also attributes to the historical
Christian hesychasm type of meditation as well (p. 57). Nonetheless, despite his insinuation
that all forms of ―Christian‖ meditation are (also) of this ―mind-emptying‖ nature, the
Biblical concept of meditation would directly contradict this idea, since Biblically meditation
is thought (of a concept, object, or Person) -a form of contemplative reflection (cf. Psalm
1:2 46 10 Isaiah 26.3 David Ray‘s The art of Christian meditation, 1977).
(Note 4). By far the largest number of ex-cultists the author has counseled in the Texas
area have come out of an ―ultra-charismatic‖ group which definitely utilized both tongues
and deliverance rituals to induce a dissociative state and promote compliance in its
followers. These ―demons,‖ in the author‘s opinion, had no genuine basis in reality apart
from the group‘s calling attention to them, i.e., making them up in order to manipulate their
members.
(Note 5). This difference between the Goldbergs (1982) seeing a frequent anti-cult crusade
in ex-cultists during stage two and Spero (1982) seeing this anti-cult crusade protest or an
anomic vacuum probably reflects either the difference in treatment or pretreatment
utilization of traditional deprogramming. Spero used 3 to 4 times a week, long-term,
individual psychotherapy, the Goldbergs voluntary, once a month supportive group therapy
with the usual influence of a peer group particularly outraged at cults. The Goldbergs‘ clients
all had previous deprogramming, while none of Spero‘s clients had (as his treatment took its
place). Consequently, the Goldberg‘s clients probably heard anti-cult, mind control theories
much more frequently, sooner, and via the negative emotional media of peers than did
Spero‘s clients. Spero made a point not to challenge the cultic beliefs (pp. 335, 340) and his
approach resulted in fewer anti-cult crusades (cf. Beckford, 1978, ―people who have
withdrawn from the Unification Church without being deprogrammed in any obvious way do
not usually adopt a fervently hostile attitude towards it,‖ p. 113).
(Note 6). Beahrs (1982) differentiated splitting from repression by referring to splitting as
having ―vertical‖ amnesic barriers which separate two contemporaneous phenomena, while
the repressive ―horizontal‖ barriers keep from the conscious mind historical
data/experiences (pp. 53-68).
(Note 7). For a more detailed analysis of the differentiation between shame and guilt, see
Ash (1983) Levin (1967) Lewis (1974) Lynd (1958) and Piers and Singer (1953/1971).
References
Allison, J. (1977). Recent empirical studies of religious conversion experiences. Pastoral
Psychology, L7(8), 21-27 29-34.
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Quick reference to the diagnostic criteria from
diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition. Washington, D.C.
Anthony, D., Robbins, T., McCarthy, (1980). Legitimizing repression. Society, March/April,
pp. 39-42.
Appel, W. (1983). Cults in America: Programmed for paradise. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Previous Page Next Page