Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 73
behavioral norms, and 4) impute charismatic (or sometimes divine) power to the group or
its leadership” (p.5). He further writes, “Among these groups are cults and zealous religious
sects some highly cohesive self-improvement groups and certain political action
movements, among them some terrorist groups.” Soon Galanter views cults, Alcoholics
Anonymous and the Ayatollah Khomeini under the rubric of charismatic groups.
He is aware that the Ayatollah sent to the Iran-Iraq war front “youth twelve to seventeen
years,...unarmed...often bound together by ropes in groups of 20 to prevent the faint of
heart from deserting”(p.194). Few persons familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous and its non-
coercive, non-violent, independence-promoting methods would attempt to explain its
conduct in the same category with the Ayatollahs and many modern cults.
Galanter‟s two major reasoning problems are: he equates groups with extremely diverse
conduct as similar by the very fact that he labels them charismatic --a single attribute is
allowed to override their vast differences. He then offers a retrograde explanation of
affiliation with a sect (read cult) after membership has occurred, neglecting to take into
account the active recruiting tactics of the groups. These two tactics --calling diverse
groups charismatic but ignoring their vast differences in conduct, and beginning his
explanations about membership only after a person has become involved with a group --
keep him in logical binds throughout the volume.
One common attribution (charismatic) among myriads of characteristics on which groups
such as cults, the Ayatollah, and Alcoholics Anonymous differ, is not logically the most
important characteristic in understanding their conduct. For example, elephants, lions, and
sheep all breathe oxygen. However, elephants are herbivores with no natural predators
lions are carnivores with no natural predators, and sheep are herbivores who get preyed on
a lot. It is their differences that are paramount in explaining their conduct. Their
differences tell more about the conduct of these animals than the fact that all these
organisms metabolize oxygen. Once Galanter has committed himself to the idea that cults,
terrorists, and Alcoholics Anonymous are charismatic groups (never defining charismatic)
and then adopts the premise that he is going to reason about membership only after
affiliation with a group has occurred, he has many problems.
Galanter attempts to equate and analyze these diverse groups by applying concepts from
systems theory, ethology, sociobiology, social psychology, and studies of altered states of
consciousness. Yet in the end, he fails to meet his own goal of conveying “a psychological
understanding of the charismatic group.” In spite of forays into many theories of human
behavior, and his awareness that group pressures, influence, and many psychological issues
exist, he does not convey that he grasps how social influence and social and psychological
coercion work upon any one human psyche. A reader expects a psychiatrist to offer an
explanation of the inner mental states that result from the transactions between the mind of
the new member and the conduct of the charismatic group. However, Galanter avoids
dealing early on in the book with group recruitment practices, even though later he writes of
subterfuge and deception in recruiting practices.
The author does not achieve any synthesis among his many notions about sect-cult-
charismatic group memberships because he uses parts of many models to partially explain
bits and pieces of members‟ behavior. A reader is never offered a unified conceptual
framework. Galanter‟s assumptions are: 1) Distressed people experience relief on joining
charismatic groups. 2) This “relief effect” keeps the member in the group and the group
rewards conformity and acceptance, thus reinforcing the person‟s desire to remain. 3)
Leaving the group produces distress. He then jumps from this perspective, to a “different
scientific perspective--a systems approach...In looking at a system, we do not first ask what
motivates an individual member to act. Instead we say, How are the group needs met by
the overall behavior observed in its membership?” It is jumps in reasoning like this which
behavioral norms, and 4) impute charismatic (or sometimes divine) power to the group or
its leadership” (p.5). He further writes, “Among these groups are cults and zealous religious
sects some highly cohesive self-improvement groups and certain political action
movements, among them some terrorist groups.” Soon Galanter views cults, Alcoholics
Anonymous and the Ayatollah Khomeini under the rubric of charismatic groups.
He is aware that the Ayatollah sent to the Iran-Iraq war front “youth twelve to seventeen
years,...unarmed...often bound together by ropes in groups of 20 to prevent the faint of
heart from deserting”(p.194). Few persons familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous and its non-
coercive, non-violent, independence-promoting methods would attempt to explain its
conduct in the same category with the Ayatollahs and many modern cults.
Galanter‟s two major reasoning problems are: he equates groups with extremely diverse
conduct as similar by the very fact that he labels them charismatic --a single attribute is
allowed to override their vast differences. He then offers a retrograde explanation of
affiliation with a sect (read cult) after membership has occurred, neglecting to take into
account the active recruiting tactics of the groups. These two tactics --calling diverse
groups charismatic but ignoring their vast differences in conduct, and beginning his
explanations about membership only after a person has become involved with a group --
keep him in logical binds throughout the volume.
One common attribution (charismatic) among myriads of characteristics on which groups
such as cults, the Ayatollah, and Alcoholics Anonymous differ, is not logically the most
important characteristic in understanding their conduct. For example, elephants, lions, and
sheep all breathe oxygen. However, elephants are herbivores with no natural predators
lions are carnivores with no natural predators, and sheep are herbivores who get preyed on
a lot. It is their differences that are paramount in explaining their conduct. Their
differences tell more about the conduct of these animals than the fact that all these
organisms metabolize oxygen. Once Galanter has committed himself to the idea that cults,
terrorists, and Alcoholics Anonymous are charismatic groups (never defining charismatic)
and then adopts the premise that he is going to reason about membership only after
affiliation with a group has occurred, he has many problems.
Galanter attempts to equate and analyze these diverse groups by applying concepts from
systems theory, ethology, sociobiology, social psychology, and studies of altered states of
consciousness. Yet in the end, he fails to meet his own goal of conveying “a psychological
understanding of the charismatic group.” In spite of forays into many theories of human
behavior, and his awareness that group pressures, influence, and many psychological issues
exist, he does not convey that he grasps how social influence and social and psychological
coercion work upon any one human psyche. A reader expects a psychiatrist to offer an
explanation of the inner mental states that result from the transactions between the mind of
the new member and the conduct of the charismatic group. However, Galanter avoids
dealing early on in the book with group recruitment practices, even though later he writes of
subterfuge and deception in recruiting practices.
The author does not achieve any synthesis among his many notions about sect-cult-
charismatic group memberships because he uses parts of many models to partially explain
bits and pieces of members‟ behavior. A reader is never offered a unified conceptual
framework. Galanter‟s assumptions are: 1) Distressed people experience relief on joining
charismatic groups. 2) This “relief effect” keeps the member in the group and the group
rewards conformity and acceptance, thus reinforcing the person‟s desire to remain. 3)
Leaving the group produces distress. He then jumps from this perspective, to a “different
scientific perspective--a systems approach...In looking at a system, we do not first ask what
motivates an individual member to act. Instead we say, How are the group needs met by
the overall behavior observed in its membership?” It is jumps in reasoning like this which
