Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 18
is being somewhat mean-spirited in the teasing even if he is smiling. The person being
teased may be unaccustomed to this kind of veiled hostility, having had little prior
experience with it. She may sense that “something isn‟t funny” and feel melancholy and
confused. Similarly, when someone says “Let‟s have lunch” to an acquaintance, the
acquaintance may feel uneasy and disappointed when the initiator is not able to commit to a
date.
In both of these cases, the recipient is “incompetent” to discern the particular
communication within its social context. In the first example, the teaser is expressing
hostility in the guise of being playful, and the person being teased is not skilled in
understanding all the nuances of teasing communication. In the second example, the
speaker is expressing a friendly phrase, somewhat common among business associates and
professional colleagues, and is not offering a specific invitation but the eager-to-meet
friend is not familiar with this “business person‟s” parting phrase and so feels let down. If
the receptive person in either of these examples were able to discern what was being subtly
communicated, she would not feel anxious, confused, melancholy, and uneasy. Instead, in
the first example, the teased person might feel angry or annoyed that the teaser was being
hostile, but she would not feel the uneasiness we label neurotic or problematic. In the
second example, the acquaintance might simply say, “Sure, I‟ll call you to make a date” --
without any intention of doing so, and be spared the discomfort of interpersonal confusion.
All of us have varying degrees of semiotic incompetence in different areas depending on our
family histories, education, and exposure to different social contexts. The following example
will highlight this phenomenon in a more intimate (and consequential) context.
“Pam”2 came to see me 10 years ago regarding problems in her marriage. Her first
husband died young, and Pam raised two sons alone while developing her own
demanding business. She was not eager to remarry unless she met someone who could
ease her burden, and most of the men she dated were less successful than she was.
Finally she met “Dan,” an elegantly dressed businessman who wined and dined her.
Dan was the first man to come along who said repeatedly that he wanted to “take care
of her.” Unlike other men, he was relentless in his pursuit of Pam, entreating her to
marry him. She finally agreed to marry him and to finance his new business venture
which “would make them so rich she would never have to work again.”
When she came to see me, Pam was having panic attacks and did not understand why.
She was feeling distant from her husband and guilty about her uneasiness and
withdrawal. Within weeks of beginning therapy, she discovered that the new business
was never started, her husband was broke, and he was still legally married to his first
wife.
Did Pam marry this man because unconsciously she wanted to destroy all the security she
had attained? Was she a weak and vulnerable person? Were her panic attacks a result of
internal conflicts regarding marriage and her sexuality? I believe, quite simply, that Pam
was unfamiliar with the nuances of the behavior of charm boys and psychopaths. Although
she was strong and successful, she was raised by honest, hardworking parents who were
straightforward in all their business dealings. Pam‟s parents‟ words matched their deeds. My
client was, as Levenson would put it, semiotically incompetent to tease out the subtle cues -
-for example, Dan‟s not making eye contact when she asked him certain questions, his
secrecy around his first marriage --that would have helped Pam understand just what was
going on with Dan.
The story of Pam and Dan is illustrative of the type of semiotic incompetence typical of
people who get involved with cultic groups. They have difficulty reading the cues indicating
that they are being deceived and manipulated. This lack of skill in discerning lying and
manipulation is prevalent in our culture. We teach our children to be trustworthy, trusting,
is being somewhat mean-spirited in the teasing even if he is smiling. The person being
teased may be unaccustomed to this kind of veiled hostility, having had little prior
experience with it. She may sense that “something isn‟t funny” and feel melancholy and
confused. Similarly, when someone says “Let‟s have lunch” to an acquaintance, the
acquaintance may feel uneasy and disappointed when the initiator is not able to commit to a
date.
In both of these cases, the recipient is “incompetent” to discern the particular
communication within its social context. In the first example, the teaser is expressing
hostility in the guise of being playful, and the person being teased is not skilled in
understanding all the nuances of teasing communication. In the second example, the
speaker is expressing a friendly phrase, somewhat common among business associates and
professional colleagues, and is not offering a specific invitation but the eager-to-meet
friend is not familiar with this “business person‟s” parting phrase and so feels let down. If
the receptive person in either of these examples were able to discern what was being subtly
communicated, she would not feel anxious, confused, melancholy, and uneasy. Instead, in
the first example, the teased person might feel angry or annoyed that the teaser was being
hostile, but she would not feel the uneasiness we label neurotic or problematic. In the
second example, the acquaintance might simply say, “Sure, I‟ll call you to make a date” --
without any intention of doing so, and be spared the discomfort of interpersonal confusion.
All of us have varying degrees of semiotic incompetence in different areas depending on our
family histories, education, and exposure to different social contexts. The following example
will highlight this phenomenon in a more intimate (and consequential) context.
“Pam”2 came to see me 10 years ago regarding problems in her marriage. Her first
husband died young, and Pam raised two sons alone while developing her own
demanding business. She was not eager to remarry unless she met someone who could
ease her burden, and most of the men she dated were less successful than she was.
Finally she met “Dan,” an elegantly dressed businessman who wined and dined her.
Dan was the first man to come along who said repeatedly that he wanted to “take care
of her.” Unlike other men, he was relentless in his pursuit of Pam, entreating her to
marry him. She finally agreed to marry him and to finance his new business venture
which “would make them so rich she would never have to work again.”
When she came to see me, Pam was having panic attacks and did not understand why.
She was feeling distant from her husband and guilty about her uneasiness and
withdrawal. Within weeks of beginning therapy, she discovered that the new business
was never started, her husband was broke, and he was still legally married to his first
wife.
Did Pam marry this man because unconsciously she wanted to destroy all the security she
had attained? Was she a weak and vulnerable person? Were her panic attacks a result of
internal conflicts regarding marriage and her sexuality? I believe, quite simply, that Pam
was unfamiliar with the nuances of the behavior of charm boys and psychopaths. Although
she was strong and successful, she was raised by honest, hardworking parents who were
straightforward in all their business dealings. Pam‟s parents‟ words matched their deeds. My
client was, as Levenson would put it, semiotically incompetent to tease out the subtle cues -
-for example, Dan‟s not making eye contact when she asked him certain questions, his
secrecy around his first marriage --that would have helped Pam understand just what was
going on with Dan.
The story of Pam and Dan is illustrative of the type of semiotic incompetence typical of
people who get involved with cultic groups. They have difficulty reading the cues indicating
that they are being deceived and manipulated. This lack of skill in discerning lying and
manipulation is prevalent in our culture. We teach our children to be trustworthy, trusting,
