Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 32
Domestic Violence as a Cultic System
David Ward
Logan Counseling Centre
Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
The phenomenon of domestic violence has been regularly explored in the
therapeutic literature in recent years. The therapeutic community‘s
knowledge of destructive cults has also increased. However, little has been
written comparing the knowledge bases from these two domains. This paper
seeks to offer a brief investigation into some of the parallels experienced by
victims of cults and victims of domestic violence. Theoretical concepts from
both areas will be outlined first, followed by some specific parallels. Finally,
some implications for therapy will be discussed.
Despite the vast and ever-increasing volumes published on domestic violence debate
continues. Initially, pathology was located in the individual and presumably resulted from
traumatic experiences in the formative years. As time passed, and particularly when
systems theory gained widespread acceptance, dysfunction was explored, analyzed, and
addressed in the wider psychosocial and socio-political arenas. This appears to have
continued with increasing fervor, to the extent that pathology now is decreasingly seen in
individual experience, and increasingly attributed to language, conversation and cultural
discourse (Gibney, 1996). This paper seeks not to disregard the gains made by previous
models, but to supplement our knowledge base by investigating principles of abusive power
in one context, domestic violence, to help understand another, cultic abuse. I shall begin by
outlining a brief review of cult dynamics.
Cult Dynamics
There are many definitions of ―cults,‖ including the following, which is appropriate to the
purposes of this paper:
A group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or dedication to
some person, idea or thing and employing unethical manipulative or coercive
techniques or persuasion and control to advance the goals of the group‘s
leaders to the actual or possible detriment of the members, their families, or
the community. (Tobias &Lalich, 1994, p.12)
Various frameworks have been put forward to explain the ―unethical manipulative or
coercive techniques‖ of cultic systems. Below I summarize a model advanced by Singer
(1995)
Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how she or he is being changed a step at
a time.
Like the proverbial frog in the kettle, prospective recruits for a cult are unaware of the
dynamics involved in their recruitment. Whether it is a religious group that employs ―bible
studies,‖ or a ―self esteem‖ course offered by an organization, the goal is to entice
individuals to commit to more and more group activities, while keeping them unaware of
increasing entrenchment.
Control the person‟s social and/or physical environment especially the person‟s time.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 33
Contact with the group via phone calls and ―unexpected meetings‖ continues to influence
prospective members, until such a time that the recruits spend large amounts of time with
the group. The more time individuals spend in cult-related activities, the more distant they
become from their pre-cult selves.
Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.
Recruits eventually spend most of their time and energy in the group, and become very
dependent on it. The group becomes the norm for what is considered true, just, or
desirable. Internalization of group behavior and language further reduces the ability for
reality testing and makes it very difficult to leave.
Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit
behavior that reflects the person‟s former social identity.
Through a system of reinforcement, individuals are further distanced from their pasts. What
is remembered of the past is radically reinterpreted. Life outside the group becomes
inconceivable.
Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning
the group‟s ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors.
―Happiness‖ in a toxic group is through performance: comply and you will be rewarded
disobey, and you will suffer penalties. Should there be any discrepancies between what is
promised and what is achieved, the individual is at fault the group/organization/leader are
above reproach.
Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback
and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order.
Cults typically demonstrate a pyramid-shaped structure. All devotees are accountable to the
leadership the leadership is accountable to no one.
The above dynamics describe an environment that is both abusive and difficult to leave. The
internal dissonance produced by the cult is itself alleviated by the cult, and this cycle of
dependency can last for many years given the right environment. Those who have never
experienced the thought-reforming environment of a cult often find it difficult to understand
how an individual can ―choose‖ to join and stay in such a group. This perspective holds that
it is perfectly permissible to believe that an individual seeks out, joins, and remains in a
destructive group by their own volition.
This outsider‘s perspective is not unlike the responses given to victims of domestic violence
where the questions are asked, ―Why does she stay? Why doesn‘t she just leave?‖
Domestic Violence
Over the years researchers have investigated various facets of a violent relationship,
including the following:
Pathogenic Familial History
Those individuals who themselves have experienced a violent childhood may acquire the
belief that violence is a legitimate way to solve problems, and to expect the same in their
adult relationships (Hilberman &Munson, 1978).
Socio-Economic
More often than not, to leave a violent relationship is also to enter a much more constrained
financial situation. Fewer resources mean fewer options (Gelles, 1976).