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.
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.
