Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 81
Dr. Robbins also says that I give “the impression that cults are the exclusive repository of
emotional appeals, nonrational processes of spiritual persuasion, and conversionist
influences mediated by the lower and more primitive brain structures.” He goes on to say
that other (noncult) religions do this as well. I certainly never meant to give that
impression. I could not agree more with Dr. Robbins‟s perspective. I would add that most
rites of passage --whether to religious groups, the army, or fraternities --use a similar
approach. Dr. Robbins seems to be inferring a value judgment --somehow, activities which
involve neocortex (the intellect) are better than those that affect the limbic system
(emotions) or R-complex. I never intended to attribute differential value to any of those
systems, merely a difference in strength. The limbic system and R-complex are
phylogenetically older and more powerful than the neocortex. I do not think that makes the
neocortex better. Perhaps this reflects Dr. Robbins‟s belief in the superiority of the intellect,
but it does not mirror my own.
Dr. Robbins has no way of knowing this, but one of my major interests is in the
anthropology of consciousness. Cross-culturally, sedate church services are a rarity. A large
portion of the world‟s spiritual experiences involve “emotional fervor, mysticism, and
experiential ritual.” Personally, if I were more religious and hadn‟t been so conditioned by
my Jewish upbringing, I would vastly prefer attending a “high coercion” religious service.
Dr. Robbins points out that the “Moonist emphasis on learning without questioning doctrinal
tenets” have “long appeared in accounts of parochial schooling.” He implies that I attribute
this approach only to the Moonies. Once again, I agree with Robbins‟s position. I do not
recall contrasting the Moonie approach with other religions. I never intended to hold cults
up as a negative example to contrast with the positive example of other religions. He
accuses me of “implicitly treating cults as modes of psychopathology and as standing apart
from „normal‟ and „healthy‟ institutions.” If he is referring to my comment regarding the
emotional damage that is done during the process of cult conversion, I would also add that I
have observed emotional damage done by the Catholic Church, and from watching too
much television. If he is referring to something else I said, I have no idea what it was.
However, similarities --whether negative or positive-between cults and mainstream groups
do not make the groups equivalent. Dr. Robbins seems to ignore that logical truism.
In short, I believe Dr. Robbins is reading much more into my paper than is there. I think he
and I actually agree on many points. I do not think that the process of cult conversion is all
that different from the process of conversion to any group. While I do admittedly have a
bias against cults, I have a bias against any group that controls an individual‟s thoughts and
behavior to a great extent. This includes many mainstream religions as well as secular
organizations. However, I never intended my paper to be a “position” paper one way or the
other. As I said before, I merely offered a model that might give people a new way of
looking at the processes of conversion and deconversion.
Geri-Ann Galanti, Ph.D.
California State University
Los Angeles, California
These letters are an electronic version originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1994, Volume 11, Number 1,
pages 128-134. 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.
Dr. Robbins also says that I give “the impression that cults are the exclusive repository of
emotional appeals, nonrational processes of spiritual persuasion, and conversionist
influences mediated by the lower and more primitive brain structures.” He goes on to say
that other (noncult) religions do this as well. I certainly never meant to give that
impression. I could not agree more with Dr. Robbins‟s perspective. I would add that most
rites of passage --whether to religious groups, the army, or fraternities --use a similar
approach. Dr. Robbins seems to be inferring a value judgment --somehow, activities which
involve neocortex (the intellect) are better than those that affect the limbic system
(emotions) or R-complex. I never intended to attribute differential value to any of those
systems, merely a difference in strength. The limbic system and R-complex are
phylogenetically older and more powerful than the neocortex. I do not think that makes the
neocortex better. Perhaps this reflects Dr. Robbins‟s belief in the superiority of the intellect,
but it does not mirror my own.
Dr. Robbins has no way of knowing this, but one of my major interests is in the
anthropology of consciousness. Cross-culturally, sedate church services are a rarity. A large
portion of the world‟s spiritual experiences involve “emotional fervor, mysticism, and
experiential ritual.” Personally, if I were more religious and hadn‟t been so conditioned by
my Jewish upbringing, I would vastly prefer attending a “high coercion” religious service.
Dr. Robbins points out that the “Moonist emphasis on learning without questioning doctrinal
tenets” have “long appeared in accounts of parochial schooling.” He implies that I attribute
this approach only to the Moonies. Once again, I agree with Robbins‟s position. I do not
recall contrasting the Moonie approach with other religions. I never intended to hold cults
up as a negative example to contrast with the positive example of other religions. He
accuses me of “implicitly treating cults as modes of psychopathology and as standing apart
from „normal‟ and „healthy‟ institutions.” If he is referring to my comment regarding the
emotional damage that is done during the process of cult conversion, I would also add that I
have observed emotional damage done by the Catholic Church, and from watching too
much television. If he is referring to something else I said, I have no idea what it was.
However, similarities --whether negative or positive-between cults and mainstream groups
do not make the groups equivalent. Dr. Robbins seems to ignore that logical truism.
In short, I believe Dr. Robbins is reading much more into my paper than is there. I think he
and I actually agree on many points. I do not think that the process of cult conversion is all
that different from the process of conversion to any group. While I do admittedly have a
bias against cults, I have a bias against any group that controls an individual‟s thoughts and
behavior to a great extent. This includes many mainstream religions as well as secular
organizations. However, I never intended my paper to be a “position” paper one way or the
other. As I said before, I merely offered a model that might give people a new way of
looking at the processes of conversion and deconversion.
Geri-Ann Galanti, Ph.D.
California State University
Los Angeles, California
These letters are an electronic version originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1994, Volume 11, Number 1,
pages 128-134. 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.
