Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 81
As for the psychiatrists who are interested in religion, some come by virtue of their own active
religious feelings some are simply curious. The APA has had an ongoing Committee on
Religion and Psychiatry. Several years ago this committee published a report on cults, with
contributions from American Family Foundation professionals.
Since psychiatrists write little on cults, The Divine Archetype is of interest. The author, a
member of the psychiatric faculty at Stanford University, is identified as having “written
extensively” about religious cults and as having been a consultant to the APA’s Committee on
Religion and Psychiatry. My interest was further sparked by Dr. Mark Galanter’s endorsement
of the book. Dr. Galanter is an esteemed addictionologist who deemed cults worthy of careful
study because the drug addicts who join them stop abusing drugs. (Dr. Galanter’s research on
the Moonies, though overly apologetic in my opinion, led him to be viewed as an expert on
cults by the psychiatric establishment, resulting in his editing the APA’s report on cults.)
Dr. Wenegrat came to an interest in cults and religions not through studying drug abuse but
rather from studying sociobiology and evolution. Sociobiologists study social behaviors of
animals, on the assumption that human behaviors have evolved from lower forms of life by
means of evolution over the millennia. This book arranges a marriage of psychoanalytic and
neo-Darwinian theories to explain the origins of mankind’s religions. The author concludes
that just as species-specific animal behaviors have evolved to enhance adaptation of the
species, so has mankind evolved religious beliefs to help members of our species sort out
sexual conflicts, promote cooperation, and encourage altruism.
While the author does praise religious people for opening soup kitchens and hospitals, he
takes a wary view of religion. He affirms that some well-known religions foster psychological
hang-ups, perpetuate social injustice, and demean women. He suggests we come to terms
with the failure of Freud’s prophecy that religion will disappear rather we should hope that
religions will be modified so that they can keep up the good work with “less personal cost to
religious believers.”
The author cites published writings on cults to support his theories, but he does not add
anything new to our understanding of cults per se. While Dr. Wenegrat does not offer
definitions distinguishing cults from religions, he does portray cults as having some of the
same advantages as religion with added disadvantages of exploitation of their followers.
The author misstates the conclusions of one of his citations in order to bolster his contention
that certain yeshivas (Jewish seminaries) are “ultraorthodox cults,” like the Moonies and
Scientology. The actual citation concluded that there are crucial differences distinguishing
cults from yeshivas (citation from “Alienated Jewish Youth and Religious Seminaries: An
Alternative to Cults?” by S. Levine, in D.A. Halperin, M.D., Ed., Psychodynamic Perspectives
on Religion, Sect, and Cult. Boston: John Wright PSG, 1983.). Aside from being a lapse in
scholarship, this perpetuates the stereotype that yeshivas that expose nonorthodox Jews to
orthodox Judaism (resulting in some seminarians embracing orthodoxy to the distress of their
nonorthodox parents) are simply one more cult that is menacing society.
This book has given me insight into why some psychiatrists and other secular gurus refrain
from denouncing cultic abuse. If one takes the position that all religions are “made up” (even
though they do good things) and adds the fact that more and more the values of secular
society are diverging from Judeo-Christian values, then, from a secular perspective,
traditional Christian and Jewish activity becomes increasingly “deviant.” In this environment,
why should a secular person pick on cults?
John Hochman, M.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
UCLA School of Medicine
As for the psychiatrists who are interested in religion, some come by virtue of their own active
religious feelings some are simply curious. The APA has had an ongoing Committee on
Religion and Psychiatry. Several years ago this committee published a report on cults, with
contributions from American Family Foundation professionals.
Since psychiatrists write little on cults, The Divine Archetype is of interest. The author, a
member of the psychiatric faculty at Stanford University, is identified as having “written
extensively” about religious cults and as having been a consultant to the APA’s Committee on
Religion and Psychiatry. My interest was further sparked by Dr. Mark Galanter’s endorsement
of the book. Dr. Galanter is an esteemed addictionologist who deemed cults worthy of careful
study because the drug addicts who join them stop abusing drugs. (Dr. Galanter’s research on
the Moonies, though overly apologetic in my opinion, led him to be viewed as an expert on
cults by the psychiatric establishment, resulting in his editing the APA’s report on cults.)
Dr. Wenegrat came to an interest in cults and religions not through studying drug abuse but
rather from studying sociobiology and evolution. Sociobiologists study social behaviors of
animals, on the assumption that human behaviors have evolved from lower forms of life by
means of evolution over the millennia. This book arranges a marriage of psychoanalytic and
neo-Darwinian theories to explain the origins of mankind’s religions. The author concludes
that just as species-specific animal behaviors have evolved to enhance adaptation of the
species, so has mankind evolved religious beliefs to help members of our species sort out
sexual conflicts, promote cooperation, and encourage altruism.
While the author does praise religious people for opening soup kitchens and hospitals, he
takes a wary view of religion. He affirms that some well-known religions foster psychological
hang-ups, perpetuate social injustice, and demean women. He suggests we come to terms
with the failure of Freud’s prophecy that religion will disappear rather we should hope that
religions will be modified so that they can keep up the good work with “less personal cost to
religious believers.”
The author cites published writings on cults to support his theories, but he does not add
anything new to our understanding of cults per se. While Dr. Wenegrat does not offer
definitions distinguishing cults from religions, he does portray cults as having some of the
same advantages as religion with added disadvantages of exploitation of their followers.
The author misstates the conclusions of one of his citations in order to bolster his contention
that certain yeshivas (Jewish seminaries) are “ultraorthodox cults,” like the Moonies and
Scientology. The actual citation concluded that there are crucial differences distinguishing
cults from yeshivas (citation from “Alienated Jewish Youth and Religious Seminaries: An
Alternative to Cults?” by S. Levine, in D.A. Halperin, M.D., Ed., Psychodynamic Perspectives
on Religion, Sect, and Cult. Boston: John Wright PSG, 1983.). Aside from being a lapse in
scholarship, this perpetuates the stereotype that yeshivas that expose nonorthodox Jews to
orthodox Judaism (resulting in some seminarians embracing orthodoxy to the distress of their
nonorthodox parents) are simply one more cult that is menacing society.
This book has given me insight into why some psychiatrists and other secular gurus refrain
from denouncing cultic abuse. If one takes the position that all religions are “made up” (even
though they do good things) and adds the fact that more and more the values of secular
society are diverging from Judeo-Christian values, then, from a secular perspective,
traditional Christian and Jewish activity becomes increasingly “deviant.” In this environment,
why should a secular person pick on cults?
John Hochman, M.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
UCLA School of Medicine
