Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 76
The writer never really defines coercion but alludes to it as if there is only physical coercion.
At the same time, he writes confusingly about Robert Lifton‟s seminal studies of thought
reform. He refers (p.64) to Lifton‟s work as being about “brainwashing...in prison camps”
citing Lifton‟s 1961 book which assiduously uses the term thought reform and was not about
prisoner of war “prison camps” but about Chinese and western civilians‟ thought-reformed
both inside prisons and in non-prison settings. Elsewhere after describing the system of
social controls in the Oneida community, many of which he has cited as used presently in
the charismatic groups, he writes: “These techniques stand in sharp contrast to the crude,
coercive ones described by Lifton and others in their studies of brainwashing by the Chinese
Communists” (p.40). Since Lifton wrote eloquently about social and psychological
pressures, it is difficult to know what “crude” methods Galanter has in mind. His writings
suggest he does not understand the power and effectiveness of social and psychological
coercion. This leaves him with the limited notion that only physical brutality and physical
force coercion exist. He eventually finds himself in a logical morass when he writes (p.64)
about the sects he has studied explaining that: “In voluntary conversions contact must be
maintained in a subtle (or deceptive) way, without forcing the individual to comply with the
group‟s views.” How voluntary is a conversion induced through deception? And how non-
coercive in our society is deception? Is not deception a way of forcing compliance?
Another amazing statement is: “Members of charismatic groups are remarkably compliant
in filling out long questionnaires, so long as it is sanctioned by their leadership. I have
found, however, that more independent sorts in less zealous groups can give an investigator
no end of trouble” (p.32). A reader can conclude that Galanter finds dealing with the
subservient, the controlled, the totally obedient members of totalistic groups preferable to
dealing with free and independent subjects.
Galanter‟s clearest and most useful chapter, is that in which he draws upon his training as a
psychiatrist. Here he gets closest to explaining the transactional interplay between
psychological and social influence processes operating in a group and individual responses
to group process. For most of the book he has left his fields of expertise --psychiatry, drug
and alcohol abuse --and attempted to look at the “group” features without actually
providing transactional links between group activities and individual reactions. However, in
this chapter he has made an attempt to relate altered consciousness, group process, and
individual reactions. He reports observing altered states of consciousness in members of
the Divine Light Mission, TM, Deutsch‟s Baba group, the Unification Church and “est.” He
writes of Erhard Seminars Training that: “Certain alterations of consciousness and
subjective state within this large group context are apparently used to promote this
conversion-like experience. Workshop members are subjected to a variety of unsettling
circumstances for long hours at a stretch that act to peel away those layers of psychological
stability that normally bolster their usual state of consciousness”(p.80-81).
Galanter claims that joining a charismatic group reduces emotional distress. Yet when
writing about Transcendental Meditation he notes: “One senior editor at a New York
publishing house had mild hallucinations if she exceeded the prescribed forty minutes per
day” of TM meditation (p.70). Elsewhere he devotes attention to a number of persons who
had major psychological problems while in charismatic groups and makes no effort to
reconcile his theory that joining produces a “relief effect.” At points he states that leaving a
charismatic group, especially if at the urging of family, is the cause of any distress he
detects. He is hard put to deal with the known distress reported by and seen in members of
charismatic groups whether he saw the persons or dealt with responses from them on
questionnaires.
For example, in a follow-up study of 66 who left the Unification Church, he writes (p.174)
“36% reported that they had experienced „serious emotional problems‟ after leaving...24%
had „sought out professional help‟ for these problems and two had been hospitalized.” A
The writer never really defines coercion but alludes to it as if there is only physical coercion.
At the same time, he writes confusingly about Robert Lifton‟s seminal studies of thought
reform. He refers (p.64) to Lifton‟s work as being about “brainwashing...in prison camps”
citing Lifton‟s 1961 book which assiduously uses the term thought reform and was not about
prisoner of war “prison camps” but about Chinese and western civilians‟ thought-reformed
both inside prisons and in non-prison settings. Elsewhere after describing the system of
social controls in the Oneida community, many of which he has cited as used presently in
the charismatic groups, he writes: “These techniques stand in sharp contrast to the crude,
coercive ones described by Lifton and others in their studies of brainwashing by the Chinese
Communists” (p.40). Since Lifton wrote eloquently about social and psychological
pressures, it is difficult to know what “crude” methods Galanter has in mind. His writings
suggest he does not understand the power and effectiveness of social and psychological
coercion. This leaves him with the limited notion that only physical brutality and physical
force coercion exist. He eventually finds himself in a logical morass when he writes (p.64)
about the sects he has studied explaining that: “In voluntary conversions contact must be
maintained in a subtle (or deceptive) way, without forcing the individual to comply with the
group‟s views.” How voluntary is a conversion induced through deception? And how non-
coercive in our society is deception? Is not deception a way of forcing compliance?
Another amazing statement is: “Members of charismatic groups are remarkably compliant
in filling out long questionnaires, so long as it is sanctioned by their leadership. I have
found, however, that more independent sorts in less zealous groups can give an investigator
no end of trouble” (p.32). A reader can conclude that Galanter finds dealing with the
subservient, the controlled, the totally obedient members of totalistic groups preferable to
dealing with free and independent subjects.
Galanter‟s clearest and most useful chapter, is that in which he draws upon his training as a
psychiatrist. Here he gets closest to explaining the transactional interplay between
psychological and social influence processes operating in a group and individual responses
to group process. For most of the book he has left his fields of expertise --psychiatry, drug
and alcohol abuse --and attempted to look at the “group” features without actually
providing transactional links between group activities and individual reactions. However, in
this chapter he has made an attempt to relate altered consciousness, group process, and
individual reactions. He reports observing altered states of consciousness in members of
the Divine Light Mission, TM, Deutsch‟s Baba group, the Unification Church and “est.” He
writes of Erhard Seminars Training that: “Certain alterations of consciousness and
subjective state within this large group context are apparently used to promote this
conversion-like experience. Workshop members are subjected to a variety of unsettling
circumstances for long hours at a stretch that act to peel away those layers of psychological
stability that normally bolster their usual state of consciousness”(p.80-81).
Galanter claims that joining a charismatic group reduces emotional distress. Yet when
writing about Transcendental Meditation he notes: “One senior editor at a New York
publishing house had mild hallucinations if she exceeded the prescribed forty minutes per
day” of TM meditation (p.70). Elsewhere he devotes attention to a number of persons who
had major psychological problems while in charismatic groups and makes no effort to
reconcile his theory that joining produces a “relief effect.” At points he states that leaving a
charismatic group, especially if at the urging of family, is the cause of any distress he
detects. He is hard put to deal with the known distress reported by and seen in members of
charismatic groups whether he saw the persons or dealt with responses from them on
questionnaires.
For example, in a follow-up study of 66 who left the Unification Church, he writes (p.174)
“36% reported that they had experienced „serious emotional problems‟ after leaving...24%
had „sought out professional help‟ for these problems and two had been hospitalized.” A
