Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 107
When the group base is large enough, political turmoil may bring a small group of respected
members high enough up in the political order to recommend that one of the potential
successors move to a new town or to a distant region with the mission of building a new
community. Such a solution is coherent with a philosophy of indulgence since all are
apparently free to become a guide to fellow members. In this sense, a fraternal-type
community is valued in which conflict, though acknowledged, is seen to be mostly a private
matter meant to stay not only out of public view but also to remain unknown to group
members not directly concerned with the conflict.
Since social harmony is greatly valued, the impact of a philosophy of indulgence is
sometimes quite paradoxical. Thus, in some groups socially deviant behavior, whether
expressed as conjugal violence, incest, or acts of fraud for example, may have a tendency
to be denied, even in the face of blatant evidence. Especially when the prestige of the
alleged perpetrator is high, some groups may have a tendency to minimize the problem in
order to maintain intact the group‘s cohesion and social harmony. In the face of strong
pressure from outside social control agents, the group may hold low level members publicly
responsible for a socially inappropriate action of a more powerful member so as not to
disturb the group‘s social organization and prestige in the outside community.
Discussion
The first part of this article has sketched out in general terms the specific types of
dangerous behavior associated with each of the four group philosophies. I now wish to
briefly summarize the relevant elements as they are applicable to each type of philosophy.
First off, I must specify that this paper associates dangerousness only with physical or
severe psychological harm, such as child maltreatment, severe neglect, sexual or physical
abuse, conjugal violence, self-harm in the form of self-mutilation or suicide, and criminal
acts, such as assault, battery, and homicide. By so defining dangerous behavior in a
restricted sense, I do not at all wish to minimize the personal suffering that can be
associated with more subtle types of abusive behavior. Nonetheless, I feel it is necessary to
focus on extreme forms of abuse in the hope of contributing to the development of a model
that has the capacity of distinguishing not so much between positive and negative cultic
experiences, but more precisely still between cultic experiences that hold a potential of
dangerousness from those that, however disappointing or negative one may feel they have
been, do not put one at risk of permanent harm, whether physical, or psychological.
The main types of danger that can be associated with philosophy of separation groups
concern children who, for varying reasons, are not able to live up to their families‘ and the
group‘s behavioral expectations. In such cases, child abuse can occur. Moreover, the social
isolation of children, the patriarchal nature of the political structure, and social pressure
toward conformity, may cause already victimized children to become at high risk of repeated
maltreatment. Additionally, the social isolation of individual families and lack of contacts
outside the community further puts children at risk of being victims of incest since such
abuse leaves no visible signs. Finally, the patriarchal social organization, social pressure
toward conformity, and the isolation of women within such closed communities can also
constitute an added risk factor for repetitious conjugal violence.
In philosophy of purity groups, children are at an even greater risk of being physically or
sexually abused or scapegoated, for they are seen as incarnating impurity. The risk of abuse
increases when the care of children is left to guardians who hold low social status within the
group. Moreover, because of their social isolation and low value to their own community,
victimized children are unable to escape repeated victimization.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 108
Since the leader of such groups is often the sole depositary of power and because of the
human impossibility of ever attaining the group‘s ideal of purity, adult members may be at
risk of following him into destructive behavior that most probably would take the form of
self-mutilation or group suicide. Because members of philosophy of purity groups, as well as
some types of philosophy of separation groups, feel that they obey a higher moral calling
than others, they may, in certain circumstances believe that their righteousness puts them
above and beyond the reach of the civil and criminal laws of the society in which they live.
Conduct that members would otherwise consider illegal or unlawful is, in the group context,
thus seen as morally legitimate. Such rationalization may put vulnerable members at risk
inside the group and in rare cases may pose a threat to representatives of the outside
community. Furthermore, when the doctrine is interpreted in a strict sense, the group may
shun medical help, putting the lives of adults and children in danger.
In groups based on a philosophy of survival, many different types of dangerous conduct can
occur. If and when children are seen as malicious, they may be disciplined or neglected in a
way that is abusive and harmful. Maltreatment may reach such intensity that many people
might systematically abuse a particular child. Sexual abuse may also be rationalized as a
just treatment for some children. In some groups, leaders may request sexual favors from
any member, whether adult, adolescent, or child. In fact, whenever a leader is endowed
with plenipotentiary power, any breach in his personal ethics may render members
vulnerable to abusive behavior, be it physical, or sexual. In extreme situations, especially
when geographical isolation exists, a totalitarian leader who becomes violent or sadistic may
put individual members‘ lives in danger.
The danger of mass homicide, or coerced group suicide is also a risk in groups sharing a
philosophy of survival. Two elements can contribute to such an outcome: first, the
totalitarian nature of the leader‘s power, and second, the community's perception of
constant threat emanating from the outside world and its representatives. Such
circumstances may cause not only the leader, but also many members, to feel intense
despair and a desire to end one‘s ―earthly‖ life.
In a group that shares a philosophy of indulgence, the strong internal social pressure toward
an appearance of harmony and serenity constitutes the main risk factor for members. Thus,
children and other vulnerable members of the group may become victims of sexual or
physical abuse that family members and community leaders deny or blatantly minimize.
Such silencing of problematic or unlawful conduct is motivated by the wish to preserve the
group‘s or an individual member‘s prestige and reputation in the immediate and larger
communities. The group's elite may thus ignore dramatic situations of conjugal and family
violence. Often the blame for such abusive behavior may even be laid on the victims of
abuse in order to protect the reputation of the alleged perpetrator. In many instances, the
higher ranked the accused perpetrator is within the group the less the victim will be heard
or believed. In cases of fraud or other criminal acts committed outside the group, an
extensive attempt at covering up the criminal acts may occur to protect the general public‘s
view of the group.
Conclusion
In putting forth the hypothesis that a philosophy of indulgence is associated with the lowest
risks for members, I am proposing that such groups appear to be at a point in their
development in which they function as a church, according to Weber (1927), Troelsch
(1931), and Yinger‘s (1946) categorizations of spiritual groups. As such, these groups
resemble any closed community in which saving appearances is highly valued, but differ
from these communities in that philosophy of indulgence groups may put certain vulnerable
members at risk of being blamed for the misdeeds of those whose reputations and prestige
the community seeks to protect. The group value of appearing ―good‖ may be more