Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 23
working class, and each member as an instrument of the party, was the
overriding justification for party functioning and discipline (Siegel et al., 1987, p.
63).
This account also makes it plain that whatever formal controls were supposed to operate, all
power was concentrated at the top, and in particular in the hands of the party‟s General
Secretary. There were intensive sessions of “group criticism,” during which alleged mistakes
would be picked out and the individuals concerned denounced by the other members.
Several effects flowed from this regime. Members experienced enormous pressure to
conform. Dissent led only to group criticism sessions, which everyone was naturally anxious
to avoid. To avert such an eventuality all members eagerly denounced others. In turn, this
display of devotion to the party combined with a radical departure from the norms of decent
everyday conduct reinforced the belief systems of those involved, by creating an intense
private world, cut adrift from how everyone else thought, behaved, and handled difficult
feelings.
Within this world, a peculiar paradox may have been that members came to depend on the
leaders precisely because of the abuse which was meted out to them. Aronson (1997)
reviewed research within the paradigm of cognitive dissonance theory, which suggests that
people prefer to maintain close involvements with those whose evaluations of their abilities
are in line with their own evaluations, even when these are negative. This takes precedence
over being with people who have a positive evaluation of the person, if that is out of line
with what the person believes. In this way, feelings of dissonance (i.e., an unpleasant
awareness of the gap between self-perception and that of others) are avoided. The odd
effect is that when cult leaders damage the self-concept of their recruits, the dissonance-
reducing process just described is activated, leaving the recruit more dependent than ever
on his or her relationship with the cult leader who demeans them.
More subtly, because it was assumed that the group leader had a special insight into social
problems above and beyond that of anyone else, members came to believe that
disagreements with her analysis, even before they had been clearly articulated, were liable
to be wrong. Thus, Lalich (1992) refers to “the intensity of the members‟ faith in the
political model and the fact that unquestioning belief in that model led each member to
accept and contribute to a stern discipline and a harsh fate” (p. 21). Doubt dared not speak
its name. Such unquestioning belief has been a recurrent theme in many accounts of
extreme left-wing politics. For example, Valtin‟s (1988) description of his career as an agent
of the Communist International between the wars makes it clear that unquestioning
obedience, veneration of the Soviet experience, and a feeling of living under siege were vital
factors in the ideological, organizational, and moral domination of foreign Communist
parties by Stalinism.
Conformity within the DWP was also reinforced by the fact that intense activism prevented
members from having a personal life outside their role as party members. This high-speed
political existence ensured that rival social networks atrophied through neglect. The
unrelenting pace induced exhaustion and depression, while making it harder to “think your
way out” --too many commitments had been made, all bridges back to sanity were long
dynamited, and too little time was left over from party activity for reflection. In a paradox
far from unique to political cults, the more deeply ensnared people were in the perfumed
and all-consuming trap of activism, the harder it became to escape. Members tended not to
leave as the result of rational reflection and conscious decision but, more typically, dropped
out in despair, exhaustion, and crisis.
Further reinforcements for conformity were institutionalized into the party‟s modus
operandi. Lalich (1992) reports that a buddy system of a one-to-one helper assigned to new
working class, and each member as an instrument of the party, was the
overriding justification for party functioning and discipline (Siegel et al., 1987, p.
63).
This account also makes it plain that whatever formal controls were supposed to operate, all
power was concentrated at the top, and in particular in the hands of the party‟s General
Secretary. There were intensive sessions of “group criticism,” during which alleged mistakes
would be picked out and the individuals concerned denounced by the other members.
Several effects flowed from this regime. Members experienced enormous pressure to
conform. Dissent led only to group criticism sessions, which everyone was naturally anxious
to avoid. To avert such an eventuality all members eagerly denounced others. In turn, this
display of devotion to the party combined with a radical departure from the norms of decent
everyday conduct reinforced the belief systems of those involved, by creating an intense
private world, cut adrift from how everyone else thought, behaved, and handled difficult
feelings.
Within this world, a peculiar paradox may have been that members came to depend on the
leaders precisely because of the abuse which was meted out to them. Aronson (1997)
reviewed research within the paradigm of cognitive dissonance theory, which suggests that
people prefer to maintain close involvements with those whose evaluations of their abilities
are in line with their own evaluations, even when these are negative. This takes precedence
over being with people who have a positive evaluation of the person, if that is out of line
with what the person believes. In this way, feelings of dissonance (i.e., an unpleasant
awareness of the gap between self-perception and that of others) are avoided. The odd
effect is that when cult leaders damage the self-concept of their recruits, the dissonance-
reducing process just described is activated, leaving the recruit more dependent than ever
on his or her relationship with the cult leader who demeans them.
More subtly, because it was assumed that the group leader had a special insight into social
problems above and beyond that of anyone else, members came to believe that
disagreements with her analysis, even before they had been clearly articulated, were liable
to be wrong. Thus, Lalich (1992) refers to “the intensity of the members‟ faith in the
political model and the fact that unquestioning belief in that model led each member to
accept and contribute to a stern discipline and a harsh fate” (p. 21). Doubt dared not speak
its name. Such unquestioning belief has been a recurrent theme in many accounts of
extreme left-wing politics. For example, Valtin‟s (1988) description of his career as an agent
of the Communist International between the wars makes it clear that unquestioning
obedience, veneration of the Soviet experience, and a feeling of living under siege were vital
factors in the ideological, organizational, and moral domination of foreign Communist
parties by Stalinism.
Conformity within the DWP was also reinforced by the fact that intense activism prevented
members from having a personal life outside their role as party members. This high-speed
political existence ensured that rival social networks atrophied through neglect. The
unrelenting pace induced exhaustion and depression, while making it harder to “think your
way out” --too many commitments had been made, all bridges back to sanity were long
dynamited, and too little time was left over from party activity for reflection. In a paradox
far from unique to political cults, the more deeply ensnared people were in the perfumed
and all-consuming trap of activism, the harder it became to escape. Members tended not to
leave as the result of rational reflection and conscious decision but, more typically, dropped
out in despair, exhaustion, and crisis.
Further reinforcements for conformity were institutionalized into the party‟s modus
operandi. Lalich (1992) reports that a buddy system of a one-to-one helper assigned to new
