Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 38
self-promoter can con the media into thinking they‟re [sic] someone else and
build a reputation on it … But this is a tragedy based on people‟s lives, and
everyone I‟ve talked to is still carrying around this burden.” (Baldacchi, Sept.
16, 1990, p. 5)
In the example of the Orthogenic School, the individuals labeled as “autistic” conformed to
the paradigm of being so narcissistically deprived that, like the followers of the Guru
Maharaj Ji, they are
...persons who have suffered such trauma (as adolescents and adults) that they
are forever attempting to achieve a union with the idealized object ...Their
narcissistic equilibrium is safeguarded only through the interest, the responses,
and the approval of present-day (i.e., currently active) replicas of the
traumatically lost selfobject. (Kriegman &Solomon, 1985, p. 139)
This study by Kriegman and Solomon on followers of the Guru Maharaj Ji confirms the work
of others (Halperin, 1990 Markowitz, 1983) highlighting the extent to which cult affiliation
may be part of a reparative process. The relationship between the cult leader and the cult
member parallels the development of an intense dependency relationship between the
leader/director of the residential treatment center and the residents and/or staff. The extent
to which charismatic leadership lends itself to being utilized as part of a reparative process
should not blind us to the possibility that this same creative resource may also lend itself to
a species of malignant degeneration and regression. This malignant process, which has the
capacity to transform a treatment center such as the Orthogenic School into a cult-like
setting, is accelerated when the director begins to accept uncritically the overvaluation of
him or her by either staff or residents (Halperin, 1983b).K
The Director of the Residential Treatment Center:
Organizational Considerations
The director of the residential treatment center exercises a multiplicity of roles. On one
level, he or she mediates between the conflicting hierarchies that comprise a residence.
And, in the role of preeminent definer of boundaries, the director creates a climate that
encourages the exploration of both positive and negative transferential and
countertransferential distortion (Kernberg, 1973). In this context, a significant aspect of
limit-setting is to restrict the duration of a resident‟s stay at the center. Residents should be
encouraged to leave the residence and to live independently after discharge. Termination is
a complex decision (Halperin, 1986). Unfortunately, relatively few residents reach a point
where further treatment after discharge is unnecessary. The development of a “floating”
therapeutic community of former residents dropping in to socialize with current residents
and staff preserves a diluted therapeutic relationship with the center and is characteristic.
However, when the center begins to postpone discharge, presenting to residents the implicit
message that discharge and termination are fearful, destructive experiences, the conditions
described by Temerlin and Temerlin (1982) are approximated:
Patients also dreaded the consequences of termination without approval of the
therapist because of fantasies --which the therapist often provided --of
personal or professional destruction should they leave the group, which bears a
remarkable resemblance to some of the techniques of thought reform and
brainwashing … Cult membership converted psychotherapy from an ego-building
process of individuation into an infantilizing and destructive religion, which these
people could no more leave than most people can leave the religion of their
youth. (p. 139)
In a residential treatment setting, both staff and residents often face monumental demands
for change and growth. At the time of termination, the staff‟s need for magic to achieve
self-promoter can con the media into thinking they‟re [sic] someone else and
build a reputation on it … But this is a tragedy based on people‟s lives, and
everyone I‟ve talked to is still carrying around this burden.” (Baldacchi, Sept.
16, 1990, p. 5)
In the example of the Orthogenic School, the individuals labeled as “autistic” conformed to
the paradigm of being so narcissistically deprived that, like the followers of the Guru
Maharaj Ji, they are
...persons who have suffered such trauma (as adolescents and adults) that they
are forever attempting to achieve a union with the idealized object ...Their
narcissistic equilibrium is safeguarded only through the interest, the responses,
and the approval of present-day (i.e., currently active) replicas of the
traumatically lost selfobject. (Kriegman &Solomon, 1985, p. 139)
This study by Kriegman and Solomon on followers of the Guru Maharaj Ji confirms the work
of others (Halperin, 1990 Markowitz, 1983) highlighting the extent to which cult affiliation
may be part of a reparative process. The relationship between the cult leader and the cult
member parallels the development of an intense dependency relationship between the
leader/director of the residential treatment center and the residents and/or staff. The extent
to which charismatic leadership lends itself to being utilized as part of a reparative process
should not blind us to the possibility that this same creative resource may also lend itself to
a species of malignant degeneration and regression. This malignant process, which has the
capacity to transform a treatment center such as the Orthogenic School into a cult-like
setting, is accelerated when the director begins to accept uncritically the overvaluation of
him or her by either staff or residents (Halperin, 1983b).K
The Director of the Residential Treatment Center:
Organizational Considerations
The director of the residential treatment center exercises a multiplicity of roles. On one
level, he or she mediates between the conflicting hierarchies that comprise a residence.
And, in the role of preeminent definer of boundaries, the director creates a climate that
encourages the exploration of both positive and negative transferential and
countertransferential distortion (Kernberg, 1973). In this context, a significant aspect of
limit-setting is to restrict the duration of a resident‟s stay at the center. Residents should be
encouraged to leave the residence and to live independently after discharge. Termination is
a complex decision (Halperin, 1986). Unfortunately, relatively few residents reach a point
where further treatment after discharge is unnecessary. The development of a “floating”
therapeutic community of former residents dropping in to socialize with current residents
and staff preserves a diluted therapeutic relationship with the center and is characteristic.
However, when the center begins to postpone discharge, presenting to residents the implicit
message that discharge and termination are fearful, destructive experiences, the conditions
described by Temerlin and Temerlin (1982) are approximated:
Patients also dreaded the consequences of termination without approval of the
therapist because of fantasies --which the therapist often provided --of
personal or professional destruction should they leave the group, which bears a
remarkable resemblance to some of the techniques of thought reform and
brainwashing … Cult membership converted psychotherapy from an ego-building
process of individuation into an infantilizing and destructive religion, which these
people could no more leave than most people can leave the religion of their
youth. (p. 139)
In a residential treatment setting, both staff and residents often face monumental demands
for change and growth. At the time of termination, the staff‟s need for magic to achieve
