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

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 109
important than recognizing the reality of individual victimization and the emotional and
physical price victimized members are requested to pay in order to maintain an image of the
group‘s high moral standards.
This may also hold true for many groups that adhere to a philosophy of separation.
However, since a philosophy of separation shares with philosophies of purity and survival
the common trait of categorizing members as better than other citizens, this moralistic
stance may make some philosophy of separation groups consider unlawful behavior as
morally justified according to group norms. For instance, some philosophy of separation
groups will advocate severe forms of physical punishment towards children, believing their
ethical principles are of superior worth than society‘s laws against child abuse.
Finally, it must be stated that in it‘s purest form, the groups that share a philosophy of
survival appear by far to represent the most likely and severest risk of dangerto members
and non-members, children, women, and men. Fortunately, relatively few groups seem to
fully correspond to such a pure form. Jim Jones‘ People's Temple appears to have been
under the influence of such a philosophy, especially during the last years of the movement.
In ending, I wish to emphasize that what I have just proposed represents a theoretical
model. It is most likely that in reality few groups will correspond to the pure forms
described. In all probability different levels and kinds of mixes of these philosophies will be
found, and further nuances will need to be developed as research continues. Also, one must
remember that even it were shown that this model is correct in identifying risks of abuse or
excess, groups could adhere to one or another of these philosophies without ever
succumbing to dangerous behavior. Consequently, any attempt at applying this model to
reality must be made with circumspection. Eventually, the application of this model in the
form of complete case studies will permit researchers to test its validity as a working model
to evaluate the type and severity of risks that some groups may represent. However,
applying with premature confidence this or any other model could do harm. Whatever the
application, it must be remembered that only a neutral and unbiased use of such a model
can be ethically justified.
References
Troelsch, E. (1931). The social teaching of the Christian Church, vol.1. New York: MacMillan.
Weber. S. (1927). General economic history. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Webster‘s (1989). Encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. New Jersey:
Gramercy books, Random House.
Yinger, J.M. (1946). Religion in the struggle of power. Durham: Duke University Press.
**********
Dianne Casoni, Ph.D., Professor, School of Criminology, University of Montreal, is a
Candidate of the Canadian Institute of Psychoanalysis. A psychologist and expert witness,
she is the author of over 40 articles and book chapters on psychology and the law, sexual
abuse of children, treatment of victims, wife assault, and the psychodynamic understanding
of cults. (casonid@crim.umontreal.ca)
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 2000, Volume 17,
pages 143-167. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound
volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.