Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 39
The word cult immediately erects a barrier for those outside the group as well because no
one ever thinks they would join a cult. Information describing such a bizarre organization
then does not apply to or interest us as average citizens. Thus, the knowledge level in the
general public about this captivating form of influence is appallingly low. This lack of
knowledge about closed-group influences makes people even easier prey. Just as a young
girl needs to learn how to spot the Don Juan who is out to seduce her, betray her, and add
her to his list of conquests, so everyone needs to learn how to spot the would-be god who
would capture your soul for his own purposes. The concept of a cult often stops further
inquiry in that we tend to think we know what it refers to --that is, something that has
nothing to do with us.
Legitimate groups do exist where individual autonomy, independent thought, and creative
action are sacrificed for a time. These limitations are instituted to effect some goal the
participant freely chooses. As a matter of course in our society, don‟t schools, the military,
and traditional religious organizations expect the suspension of autonomy? This temporary
sacrifice may actually improve the lives of the members and the community. The desired
traits develop, and individuals move on to tap their own creative sources of action, thought,
and feeling. The existence of such legitimate groups presents a problem for those who
would look for direction from a high-demand group, especially one with a self-appointed
leader. For the most striking quality of a destructive, enslaving group is its seeming
authenticity as a provider of wisdom, love, understanding, organized action, whatever you
are looking for.
Without the cover of the authentic, the nature and purposes of the control being exercised--
to fulfill the leader‟s need to bind others to him --could no longer remain hidden. The
temporary use of control for the good of those involved, as those of us who are parents
know, requires effort and self-sacrifice. We are relieved when our guidance is no longer
necessary, when the child, at last, has the judgment to govern his or her own behavior. But
when control is exercised out of a need to dominate, there is no easy escape, no
graduation, from the relationship.
Recognizing Prisons Without Walls
In the now-classic Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman (1992) discusses the gradually
traumatizing effects of conditions of long-term captivity. Captivity in closed groups is not
physical, but is psychological. Herman found striking similarities between the dynamics of
high-demand religious groups, battering couple relationships, and child abuse. In each
situation, participation looks voluntary --that is, the victims look as though they choose to
stay with their oppressors --but is actually maintained through the dynamics of covert
control. Initially enthralled by the charm, intelligence, or perceptiveness of the perpetrator,
captives gradually become prisoners bound by the invisible chains of dominance and
submission. Such relationships or groups are prisons without walls. The leader captivates
members through a combination of enticement and intimidation, but primarily, at least in
the beginning, through a process akin to courtship.
In closed groups where covert control is exercised, strange, trancelike dynamics operate
that prevent those participating from seeing the most obvious things. For instance,
members are immune to damning information about the leader or the group, believing
themselves to be in a state of “grace” or of deep love and understanding, an understanding
that transcends everyday reality. Members don‟t realize to what extent their perceptions
have been engineered or if they do, they think it is for their own good. One can no longer
see what appears obvious to other people. Now that we are no longer so completely in the
grip of the mesmerizing group environment, we find it remarkable that techniques and
practices that we felt were uniquely our own --thought-stopping exercises, information
control, and so on --are found consistently in many closed, authoritarian groups.
Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 40
As Herman suggests, we have found surprising similarities between the dynamics of violent
couple relationships and destructive group involvement. Many abusive couple relationships
endure because of unacknowledged intimidation or coercive methods of control. Battered
women notoriously stay with their husbands for the same reasons that fundamentalists
don‟t leave the flock, clients stay with philandering therapists, and disciples continue to
follow deceptive and drunken gurus. In the most blatant cases of domestic violence, the
man resorts to physically battering the woman to maintain his control. Such obvious abuse
we recognize easily as harmful. Those far more insidious and numerous destructive couple
relationships --where the psychological torment has yet to become physical --resemble
most closely the culture of sophisticated groups like the one we experienced. On the
surface, neither the relationship nor the group shows signs of the sensational methods we
normally associate with coercive control.
According to Herman, once an individual has been enticed into a coercive relationship,
exercising control over every aspect of the captive‟s life becomes a top priority for the
leader. From the very beginning, the ultimate goal is to create a willing victim. The enslaver
wants someone who adores, respects, and is grateful to him, someone who will not only
follow his will, but also will eventually come to see the world as he sees it.1 The leader is
internalized as an alter ego, which ensures that his control continues even without his
presence. Herman cites Orwell‟s portrayal of the totalitarian mind (not so far removed from
the more common autocratic one) as descriptive of this all-encompassing goal of control:
We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us so long as he resists us we
never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.
We burn all evil and illusion out of him we bring him over to our side, not in
appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. (1992, p. 76)
This sounds a bit like a Christian missionary to us, and it describes fairly well our work with
new members of our group. We believed and taught that all must genuinely verify for
themselves the ideas on which the group is based. We used persuasion, appeal to personal
strengths, camaraderie, shared interests, and new knowledge or practices to entice new
members. A sophisticated group or leader rarely, if ever, uses blatant coercion, deprivation,
or outright threats, especially not in the vulnerable beginning stages.
The Courtship Entices
We cannot emphasize enough how subtle the courtship process may be. Sensational stories
reported by the media --of drugging or starving new recruits subjecting them to hours of
chanting, spinning, or meditating to produce heightened states taking people off to isolated
enclaves for weeks of love-bombing or stripping them of their clothes in ritual --make it
easy for the more sophisticated perpetrator to continue to fool himself and his captives into
believing in the legitimacy of his less sensational methods of enticing his “courtship
captives.”
Such a courtship begins when you attract the attention of the perpetrator or his
representatives. How does this occur? Our group initially uses an impersonal method to
attract new people. Primarily, prospective members find flyers or bookmarks that have been
specifically placed in areas where people interested in philosophy and religion are likely to
be found. These flyers contain local phone numbers of “centers” --groups of members sent
out to cities throughout the United States and around the world. Or a potential recruit may
see a newspaper advertisement for an open meeting. This impersonal approach reinforces
the reigning idea that people are brought to the group by their fate or “higher forces,” that
the members have little or no influence over who comes or who stays in the group.
Interested people attend a small meeting (rarely, larger meetings may be held) led by more
experienced members, but not too experienced: those at the enthusiastic, honeymoon
phase of the involvement, before doubts begin to set in.
Previous Page Next Page