Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 46
outside world, even if we happened to have jobs there. Since most media was sensational
and concentrated on the glorification of negativity, we believed that avoiding these heavy,
dark influences would further our work on ourselves, again unwittingly isolating ourselves
from forces that might help us regain the powers of independent thought and judgment we
needed to recognize our situation. The grain of truth in these limitations (e.g., the media is
a wasteland) helped us to continue to believe in their legitimacy.
Total Surrender, or Breaking the Personality
Discovering how they were finally “broken” may be the most difficult piece of the puzzle for
former members of closed groups who are attempting to reconstruct their lives. According
to Herman‟s studies, in the final stages of establishing covert control, the perpetrator has
the victims violate the codes of conduct by which they formerly defined themselves. In so
doing, he removes the last vestiges of individual conscience. This dissolves the victims‟
sense of themselves and disrupts their identity, thus offering the perpetrator a malleable
soul. In a spiritual community, undergoing this process may appear as a positive step. We
have the Christian and Buddhist contemplative tradition that supports breaking up the old
identity so that direct contact with the Divine, the Truth, or Being can be established
without the intervening static of ego, vanity, or personality. When the leader takes on the
role of the divine, however, he uses his followers for his own purposes, binding them to
him, and does not work as a helper in releasing them to their higher purposes. This
breaking of the personality, which may be regarded as the seed of individual identity, is the
ultimate betrayal, the spiritual rape. We gave up our own will through exercises and tasks,
which we thought would help us advance spiritually and which left us open and vulnerable.
The fox captures the newborn rabbits in their nest, just as the leader lassoed our newborn
selves for his own purposes. Instead of allowing Divine guidance to enter these tender
openings, he became the final arbiter of right and wrong, believing himself to be the Divine
guide.
To accomplish this personality break and final binding, he had us do things we would never
do. The circumstances of these breaks varied depending on the person. For one, it was
being told to refrain from sex for another, to have sex, perhaps with someone married,
perhaps with someone not too attractive. For yet another, it might be putting on a business
suit and going to an office for another, working at a menial job in one of the group-owned
businesses, giving up all the trappings of materialistic life. One woman would be advised to
have an abortion another to have children. The gay man was prevented from having
relations with men the lesbian woman might be encouraged to marry a man. The bohemian
should become a business person the professional, a ditch digger. Again, all these
inversions of natural tendencies--the subjective discomfort and sense of wrongness about
these changes --could be understood as “work on oneself.” However, how were they
actually used? Instead of liberating an individual, these givings over of our hard-won
identities (many of us were in our twenties in the early days) bound us, and kept us
dependent on the person who directed us to take these actions against ourselves.
Herman suggests that commonly one is encouraged to betray primary relationships, to
sacrifice others, as part of the breaking process. On a more communal scale, rejection of
one‟s former family and friends was the first stage of this process. Later, in the most
conspicuous examples of this form of control, we were expected to inform on our friends if
any should violate an exercise or, especially, a task. He might then have you, the informer,
be the one to tell your friend that she must leave the group. These were cruel calls to make
because of the shared belief about the dire consequences of losing the community (the fate
worse than death).
We became inured to the pain we caused each other as empathic capacity shriveled.
Individual movements of conscience that survived this breaking apart of personal identity
outside world, even if we happened to have jobs there. Since most media was sensational
and concentrated on the glorification of negativity, we believed that avoiding these heavy,
dark influences would further our work on ourselves, again unwittingly isolating ourselves
from forces that might help us regain the powers of independent thought and judgment we
needed to recognize our situation. The grain of truth in these limitations (e.g., the media is
a wasteland) helped us to continue to believe in their legitimacy.
Total Surrender, or Breaking the Personality
Discovering how they were finally “broken” may be the most difficult piece of the puzzle for
former members of closed groups who are attempting to reconstruct their lives. According
to Herman‟s studies, in the final stages of establishing covert control, the perpetrator has
the victims violate the codes of conduct by which they formerly defined themselves. In so
doing, he removes the last vestiges of individual conscience. This dissolves the victims‟
sense of themselves and disrupts their identity, thus offering the perpetrator a malleable
soul. In a spiritual community, undergoing this process may appear as a positive step. We
have the Christian and Buddhist contemplative tradition that supports breaking up the old
identity so that direct contact with the Divine, the Truth, or Being can be established
without the intervening static of ego, vanity, or personality. When the leader takes on the
role of the divine, however, he uses his followers for his own purposes, binding them to
him, and does not work as a helper in releasing them to their higher purposes. This
breaking of the personality, which may be regarded as the seed of individual identity, is the
ultimate betrayal, the spiritual rape. We gave up our own will through exercises and tasks,
which we thought would help us advance spiritually and which left us open and vulnerable.
The fox captures the newborn rabbits in their nest, just as the leader lassoed our newborn
selves for his own purposes. Instead of allowing Divine guidance to enter these tender
openings, he became the final arbiter of right and wrong, believing himself to be the Divine
guide.
To accomplish this personality break and final binding, he had us do things we would never
do. The circumstances of these breaks varied depending on the person. For one, it was
being told to refrain from sex for another, to have sex, perhaps with someone married,
perhaps with someone not too attractive. For yet another, it might be putting on a business
suit and going to an office for another, working at a menial job in one of the group-owned
businesses, giving up all the trappings of materialistic life. One woman would be advised to
have an abortion another to have children. The gay man was prevented from having
relations with men the lesbian woman might be encouraged to marry a man. The bohemian
should become a business person the professional, a ditch digger. Again, all these
inversions of natural tendencies--the subjective discomfort and sense of wrongness about
these changes --could be understood as “work on oneself.” However, how were they
actually used? Instead of liberating an individual, these givings over of our hard-won
identities (many of us were in our twenties in the early days) bound us, and kept us
dependent on the person who directed us to take these actions against ourselves.
Herman suggests that commonly one is encouraged to betray primary relationships, to
sacrifice others, as part of the breaking process. On a more communal scale, rejection of
one‟s former family and friends was the first stage of this process. Later, in the most
conspicuous examples of this form of control, we were expected to inform on our friends if
any should violate an exercise or, especially, a task. He might then have you, the informer,
be the one to tell your friend that she must leave the group. These were cruel calls to make
because of the shared belief about the dire consequences of losing the community (the fate
worse than death).
We became inured to the pain we caused each other as empathic capacity shriveled.
Individual movements of conscience that survived this breaking apart of personal identity
