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.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 41
Leaders of these small groups were often naturally persuasive and perhaps charismatic in
their own right many used a decided “soft sell” at the meetings for prospective new
members. We explained that our community was “not for everyone.” Appeals to narcissism
were barely veiled, as we displayed an attitude of inaccessibility. Prospective members
needed to pass certain “tests” to be deemed “right” or “fated” to join. The best prospects
were attractive and attentive, often well-dressed, apparently established in the world.
Toward these best prospects a fine-trained attention was directed glances of recognition,
approval, and knowingness would be exchanged, along with an attitude of studied
indifference (akin to the clerks at Gucci‟s or Cartier) about whether or not they decided to
join.
Of course, we see now that we wanted them to join very much because it brought strength
to the group, reinforcing our sense that we were involved in something special. Also, the
leader was very pleased when there were new people. He was generous with his time and
attention to those who easily attracted new members. The new members themselves
received special attention--invitations to dinner with the leader, or to meet with smaller
groups to have discussions or go to museums or concerts --especially if they were wealthy,
powerful, bright, or attractive. For a new person entering this kind of group, the attention
can be heady and intoxicating. At the same time, the appearance of the normalcy of the
group must be underlined. This contrasts with the usual media-sensationalized reports that
are typically associated with cult recruitment: here there was no love-bombing, no promises
of open marriages nor invitations to take drugs or go away for the weekend. Such obvious
enticements would give away the underlying dynamics of intimidation that remain most
hidden during the courtship phase.
This courtship adulation does not end once the member becomes committed to the group
instead, it is intermittently reinforced. The leader carved out relations of specialness that
over time ensured his control over those who were of use to him. He poured out emotional
energy to those he favored --mainly young men to whom he took a fancy and women who
could do the work of running the organization. He was capable of creating an atmosphere of
instant intimacy: holding your hand, whispering in your ear, flattering you with the role of
trusted confidant. He was fond of giving a “marriage” gift --marriage to him, that is --and
admonishing that it be kept secret. (This way it took a while to discover how many of us he
had “married.”) He shone his formidable presence in your direction, bought you expensive
presents --a diamond bracelet, a leather coat, an antique cameo, airline tickets to travel
with him. He would choose the gift to suit the individual.
The Dynamics of Covert Coercive Control
Herman (1992) writes in detail of the ways in which coercive control is established in
situations of apparently voluntary captivity. Through systematic, repetitive infliction of
psychological trauma, individual identity is dismantled and the leader‟s worldview is
introduced. The main strategies are surprisingly simple and attest to the fragility of the
person unprepared for such manipulations (this includes most of us). Methods include (1)
the induction of fear, (2) the destruction of autonomy, and (3) the breaking of the
personality, or total surrender. We have relied on these categorizations to organize our
thoughts about our group.
Once the captive has been enticed through the courtship to commit to the relationship or
group (often indicated by some kind of payment), the hard-core dynamics of control are set
in motion. Bear in mind that often the perpetrator and his apprentices don‟t even realize
that the goal is control. If anything, there may be a kind of preconscious awareness that
some kind of manipulation is taking place. Our experience goes against the usual insistence
that such leaders are psychopaths well aware of their lies. In our group, we believe that
self-deception, not cunning, predominated. The hidden drive for control in order to