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
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
