Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 27
ashamed. Two felt an immediate need to help their children, although they were unsure at
first about how to do that. In general, it might be said that the parents were baffled by
their children‘s new affiliation. This was particularly true for cases that began in the early
1970‘s, when there was little public awareness of cults in this country.
In the 1979 pilot study (Kaslow &Schwartz, 1983), and the 1982 study being reported
here, the respondents (15 in 1979 58 in 1982) were all biological parents of the ex-cult
members. All of the families were intact except for three led by widows and one by a
divorcee. The parents, like their sons and daughters, were well-educated, with most having
attended or graduated from college, and many having advanced or professional degrees.
Very few parents reported any involvement with drugs. Those who used alcohol might be
termed social drinkers, and less than 20% had ever had psychotherapy. In short, they
appeared to be typical of the middle and upper-middle class population except for their
lower rate of divorce (although the lower divorce rate does not automatically indicate an
absence of familial tensions). These data contrast to the 11% divorce rate in Sullivan‘s
sample he reported parental separation or divorce as ―helping to explain involvement‖ of a
child in a cult (Sullivan, 1984, pp. 96-97). On the other hand, Levine asserted that ―reviews
of all the statistics that have been gathered about radical departures. [joining cults]
indicate that the divorce rate in the joiners‘ families is considerably below the national rate‖
(Levine, 1984, p. 29).
Parental Reactions
In those instances where the youth had disappeared or left home as part of the new
commitment, the parents, when they finally saw the youth again, were shocked by
transformations in appearance and personality, ―and grief-stricken at being deserted and
replaced by the new cult family‖ (Kaslow &Schwartz, 1983). Indeed, about one-eighth of
respondent parents first became aware of their child‘s affiliation because of changes in
personality. (Almost 40% of the parents, however, had been initially informed by the cult
member that he or she had decided to be part of The Way International, the Unification
Church, or similar group.) Yet, even when the youth continued to live at home, parents
were dismayed by changes in diet belief systems, growing intolerance of others, and
reduced effectiveness in academic work or job performance.
Sociologists Bromley and Shupe (1980) attribute such negative parental reactions to three
factors: a) the threat that cult membership poses to the family‘s goal of preparing sons and
daughters for participation in the economic order b) the challenge of cult membership to
the authority structure of the family and c) in some cults, the leader‘s appropriation of
parental roles. Quoting the New Testament, Thomas Robbins even appears to justify this
separation of a child from his or her family on the grounds that such things happen in the
formation of messianic movements, a tradition which cults presumably follow (Robbins,
1985, pp. 361-363). There seems to be no recognition by these sociologists --or most other
sociologists who have written on the subject --that there is an affectionate relationship
developed within the family from infancy onward, and that it is the repudiation of this
relationship that so pains and angers the parents. Indeed, Anthony and Robbins state that
some parents are guilty of an ―hysterical overreaction‖ to cult membership (198 1, p. 272).
It is true that part of the task of parenting is to prepare children for independent adulthood,
and that this includes vocational training. But Bromley and Shupe perceive this aspect of
parenting in materialistic terms and primarily as an economic investment. Few parents
surveyed would agree with that perception, however. Nor does the affection and
responsibility that parents have, even for their adult children, stem, as many sociologists
would have it, primarily from the supposed authoritarian structure of the family. Rather,
parents perceived the usurpation of the family of origin by the cult leaders as adding insult
to the injury of separation.
ashamed. Two felt an immediate need to help their children, although they were unsure at
first about how to do that. In general, it might be said that the parents were baffled by
their children‘s new affiliation. This was particularly true for cases that began in the early
1970‘s, when there was little public awareness of cults in this country.
In the 1979 pilot study (Kaslow &Schwartz, 1983), and the 1982 study being reported
here, the respondents (15 in 1979 58 in 1982) were all biological parents of the ex-cult
members. All of the families were intact except for three led by widows and one by a
divorcee. The parents, like their sons and daughters, were well-educated, with most having
attended or graduated from college, and many having advanced or professional degrees.
Very few parents reported any involvement with drugs. Those who used alcohol might be
termed social drinkers, and less than 20% had ever had psychotherapy. In short, they
appeared to be typical of the middle and upper-middle class population except for their
lower rate of divorce (although the lower divorce rate does not automatically indicate an
absence of familial tensions). These data contrast to the 11% divorce rate in Sullivan‘s
sample he reported parental separation or divorce as ―helping to explain involvement‖ of a
child in a cult (Sullivan, 1984, pp. 96-97). On the other hand, Levine asserted that ―reviews
of all the statistics that have been gathered about radical departures. [joining cults]
indicate that the divorce rate in the joiners‘ families is considerably below the national rate‖
(Levine, 1984, p. 29).
Parental Reactions
In those instances where the youth had disappeared or left home as part of the new
commitment, the parents, when they finally saw the youth again, were shocked by
transformations in appearance and personality, ―and grief-stricken at being deserted and
replaced by the new cult family‖ (Kaslow &Schwartz, 1983). Indeed, about one-eighth of
respondent parents first became aware of their child‘s affiliation because of changes in
personality. (Almost 40% of the parents, however, had been initially informed by the cult
member that he or she had decided to be part of The Way International, the Unification
Church, or similar group.) Yet, even when the youth continued to live at home, parents
were dismayed by changes in diet belief systems, growing intolerance of others, and
reduced effectiveness in academic work or job performance.
Sociologists Bromley and Shupe (1980) attribute such negative parental reactions to three
factors: a) the threat that cult membership poses to the family‘s goal of preparing sons and
daughters for participation in the economic order b) the challenge of cult membership to
the authority structure of the family and c) in some cults, the leader‘s appropriation of
parental roles. Quoting the New Testament, Thomas Robbins even appears to justify this
separation of a child from his or her family on the grounds that such things happen in the
formation of messianic movements, a tradition which cults presumably follow (Robbins,
1985, pp. 361-363). There seems to be no recognition by these sociologists --or most other
sociologists who have written on the subject --that there is an affectionate relationship
developed within the family from infancy onward, and that it is the repudiation of this
relationship that so pains and angers the parents. Indeed, Anthony and Robbins state that
some parents are guilty of an ―hysterical overreaction‖ to cult membership (198 1, p. 272).
It is true that part of the task of parenting is to prepare children for independent adulthood,
and that this includes vocational training. But Bromley and Shupe perceive this aspect of
parenting in materialistic terms and primarily as an economic investment. Few parents
surveyed would agree with that perception, however. Nor does the affection and
responsibility that parents have, even for their adult children, stem, as many sociologists
would have it, primarily from the supposed authoritarian structure of the family. Rather,
parents perceived the usurpation of the family of origin by the cult leaders as adding insult
to the injury of separation.
