Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 77
reader cannot tell if the 36% includes the others or if one is to add 36%, 24%, and 3% for
a total of 63% with “serious emotional problems after leaving.” At various points in the
book he attempts to explain that distress reported by ex-members was caused by their
“leaving” and does not consider the role of their experiences while in the group as possibly
related to their states after leaving.
This book falls short of what is expected from a person who was the editor of the American
Psychiatric Association‟s official report on cults and new religious movements. It reveals the
writer has had only brief clinical experience with members of only a limited number of
groups, and most of that from paper and pencil questionnaires or talks with management
personnel in the groups, and a few persons seen in consultation. There is little or no
indication that he has had long-term therapeutic or other contact with former members of
even the groups he studied via questionnaires. This combined with his reference list, which
has already been described as narrow and nonrepresentative, of the available literature
leaves a reader wary about expressing enthusiasm about this book or recommending it
broadly.
The book does have some interesting sections about the roles of altered states of
consciousness in priming and altering attitudes. The book contents suggest the author has
not had enough hands-on-experience with a large variety of sects and cults, nor experience
with truly studying and analyzing the effects of various group practices on members‟
psychological and psychiatric status. He has left his role of a clinical psychiatrist and
ventured into efforts at social surveys and group data gathering.
On the whole the author is protective of “the sects” he has studied. He is aware that cults-
sects-charismatic groups have the potential for harm to individuals and, depending on their
behavior, can present problems to the general society.
The epilogue and the appendix include caveats encouraged by the editors or reviewers. In
those eight pages Galanter briefly comments on the down-side of the groups he calls
charismatic: “Aggression sometimes flows from the zeal of charismatic religious sects and
domestic political movements gone awry this combination has fueled the growth of
international terrorism” (p.191). He then refers to “religious cults,” naming Charles
Manson, Jim Jones, Lindberg Sanders and “political charismatic groups,” naming only the
Weathermen and the Order in his comments on terrorism. Since he has not cited any of the
vast literature on violence by cults, and only one reference on terrorists, this epilogue and
added warning about violence from cultic groups is rather pale and “tacked on.”
He wavers between purporting an awareness that not all is well in the “sects” and being an
apologist for them. An example of the latter occurs when he attempts to “explain away” the
conformity of 5150 members of one of the mass Unification Church weddings: “When the
day of the ceremony arrived, members who were to be married dressed in identical outfits,
as if to flaunt their conformity before those who insisted that the church made automatons
of its members. The 2,075 brides all wore Simplicity Pattern #8392 with the neckline raised
two inches to preserve their modesty the grooms wore dark blue suits and maroon ties”
(p.153). A reader had to ask, if Galanter likes the conformity of the members when they fill
out questionnaires for him, how can he here attribute to them that utter conformity is a sign
of humorous flair on their part --2075 women and 2075 men all agreeing spontaneously!
Were they earlier just kidding when they filled out his questionnaires?
Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1989, Volume 6,
Number 1, pages 107-116. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the
bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
reader cannot tell if the 36% includes the others or if one is to add 36%, 24%, and 3% for
a total of 63% with “serious emotional problems after leaving.” At various points in the
book he attempts to explain that distress reported by ex-members was caused by their
“leaving” and does not consider the role of their experiences while in the group as possibly
related to their states after leaving.
This book falls short of what is expected from a person who was the editor of the American
Psychiatric Association‟s official report on cults and new religious movements. It reveals the
writer has had only brief clinical experience with members of only a limited number of
groups, and most of that from paper and pencil questionnaires or talks with management
personnel in the groups, and a few persons seen in consultation. There is little or no
indication that he has had long-term therapeutic or other contact with former members of
even the groups he studied via questionnaires. This combined with his reference list, which
has already been described as narrow and nonrepresentative, of the available literature
leaves a reader wary about expressing enthusiasm about this book or recommending it
broadly.
The book does have some interesting sections about the roles of altered states of
consciousness in priming and altering attitudes. The book contents suggest the author has
not had enough hands-on-experience with a large variety of sects and cults, nor experience
with truly studying and analyzing the effects of various group practices on members‟
psychological and psychiatric status. He has left his role of a clinical psychiatrist and
ventured into efforts at social surveys and group data gathering.
On the whole the author is protective of “the sects” he has studied. He is aware that cults-
sects-charismatic groups have the potential for harm to individuals and, depending on their
behavior, can present problems to the general society.
The epilogue and the appendix include caveats encouraged by the editors or reviewers. In
those eight pages Galanter briefly comments on the down-side of the groups he calls
charismatic: “Aggression sometimes flows from the zeal of charismatic religious sects and
domestic political movements gone awry this combination has fueled the growth of
international terrorism” (p.191). He then refers to “religious cults,” naming Charles
Manson, Jim Jones, Lindberg Sanders and “political charismatic groups,” naming only the
Weathermen and the Order in his comments on terrorism. Since he has not cited any of the
vast literature on violence by cults, and only one reference on terrorists, this epilogue and
added warning about violence from cultic groups is rather pale and “tacked on.”
He wavers between purporting an awareness that not all is well in the “sects” and being an
apologist for them. An example of the latter occurs when he attempts to “explain away” the
conformity of 5150 members of one of the mass Unification Church weddings: “When the
day of the ceremony arrived, members who were to be married dressed in identical outfits,
as if to flaunt their conformity before those who insisted that the church made automatons
of its members. The 2,075 brides all wore Simplicity Pattern #8392 with the neckline raised
two inches to preserve their modesty the grooms wore dark blue suits and maroon ties”
(p.153). A reader had to ask, if Galanter likes the conformity of the members when they fill
out questionnaires for him, how can he here attribute to them that utter conformity is a sign
of humorous flair on their part --2075 women and 2075 men all agreeing spontaneously!
Were they earlier just kidding when they filled out his questionnaires?
Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1989, Volume 6,
Number 1, pages 107-116. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the
bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
