ICSA TODAY 14
What Is the Connection Between Abuse and Cultic
or Authoritarian Dynamics?
I think that we can profitably explore that question by first
considering the distinction between treating people as objects
or subjects. When we treat individuals as subjects, we respect
them. We recognize that they have goals, desires, needs, beliefs,
faults, and virtues that may differ from our own. However,
instead of trying to change them to be like us, we project
an attitude of good will. We wish them well, even when we
disapprove of their actions, goals, or beliefs.
This is the essence of agape love, which should be distinguished
from other forms of love: familial, friendship, erotic. Traditionally,
agape, the highest form of love, reveals itself in actions, not
sentiments (Rev. Robert Pardon, personal communication, May
6, 2016).
Such love doesn’t require a mush
of nonthinking agreeableness.
We can strongly disapprove
of another’s actions, goals, or
beliefs. However, we can also
respect that person’s freedom
and not try to limit or impede
that freedom, even when the
person makes what we deem
to be bad choices. In a sense
then, love avoids enmeshed
relationships. Love keeps a
respectful distance, a distance that honors the freedom of
human beings who, like us, want to be the authors of their own
lives.
This doesn’t mean that love is standoffish. We can lovingly
(i.e., respectfully) question, advise, or even admonish another.
But we do this in a way that respects the person’s agency and
freedom. We treat her as a subject.
When we treat another person as an object, we do not keep
a loving distance. We implicitly, if not explicitly, assert that we
should be the author of the person’s life. We sometimes see this
dynamic in stark relief in cultic groups that not only manipulate
but also grossly exploit their members.
In other groups, the leader’s intentions may be less exploitative,
or even benevolent. The method a person chooses to express
those intentions, however, may be disrespectful and produce
unintended consequences. A leader (or a parent concerned
about a loved one’s cult involvement) may, for example,
browbeat, intimidate, or make tendentious arguments to move
the person toward actions, beliefs, or goals that are deemed
to be in the manipulated person’s best interest. In such cases,
one treats the person as an object to be manipulated, not as a
subject, a free agent, whose choices—even wrong choices—
one respects. One may falsely invoke love as a rationale for
meddling in another’s life.
To avoid such well-intentioned disrespect, one needs to
understand the subject-object distinction in relationships.
But one also needs to know how to communicate respectfully
and effectively. One of the genuine accomplishments of the
counseling profession has been the development of detailed
communications training programs, which many helpers in the
cultic studies field recommend to families with loved ones in
cults.
What Factors Determine Whether or Not a Person
Treats Others As Subjects or Objects?
Sometimes a person’s psychological makeup may influence how
respectfully he treats others. Some people are psychopaths,
who lack empathy and may be wired to treat others as objects.
Others may suffer from varying degrees of narcissism that
compel them to see the world from an egocentric vantage
point. These people may not even realize that they are treating
others as objects because for them the outside world is merely
an extension of self. Their intentions
may be benign in origin, but
destructive in outcome.
Sometimes an inherent imbalance
in power within a relationship may
tempt those who have greater
power to manipulate those with
less power. Obviously, those who
are predisposed to treat others
as objects (i.e., psychopaths and
narcissists) will probably succumb
more readily to this situational
temptation than those with
more empathic psychological makeups. But given the right
combination of circumstances, many, if not most, people
will succumb. A body of social psychological research (e.g.,
Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment) demonstrates that
certain situations can cause good people to do bad things.
The prototypical power relationship is parent-child. Though
most parents are nurturing, some are not, so child abuse is
a major social concern. The parent-child template is similar
to what we see in other power relationships, which also may
produce situational temptations for the holders of power. Thus,
there is a body of research documenting sometimes alarming
levels of abuse in relationships between teacher-student,
therapist-client, pastor-church goer, and guru-devotee.1
Such power imbalances may create what one observer has
called “situationally induced narcissism” (Rev. Stephen Parsons,
personal communication). Over time, power may intoxicate and
cause the power holder to fall into an egocentric narcissism
from which the individual no longer sees other people as
subjects to be respected. Power creates the opportunity for
exploitation intoxication dissolves the good will that undergirds
respect, strengthens self-restraint, and opposes manipulation
and exploitation.
Power imbalances involving religious professionals (priests,
rabbis, ministers, gurus, imams, etc.) may pose special risks
because most cultures esteem their religious professionals and
do not place as many restrictions on them as other professions
do (e.g., mental health professionals are answerable to licensing
boards). Moreover, the transcendental belief systems of religious
Power creates the opportunity
for exploitation intoxication
dissolves the good will that
undergirds respect, strengthens
self-restraint, and opposes
manipulation and exploitation.
What Is the Connection Between Abuse and Cultic
or Authoritarian Dynamics?
I think that we can profitably explore that question by first
considering the distinction between treating people as objects
or subjects. When we treat individuals as subjects, we respect
them. We recognize that they have goals, desires, needs, beliefs,
faults, and virtues that may differ from our own. However,
instead of trying to change them to be like us, we project
an attitude of good will. We wish them well, even when we
disapprove of their actions, goals, or beliefs.
This is the essence of agape love, which should be distinguished
from other forms of love: familial, friendship, erotic. Traditionally,
agape, the highest form of love, reveals itself in actions, not
sentiments (Rev. Robert Pardon, personal communication, May
6, 2016).
Such love doesn’t require a mush
of nonthinking agreeableness.
We can strongly disapprove
of another’s actions, goals, or
beliefs. However, we can also
respect that person’s freedom
and not try to limit or impede
that freedom, even when the
person makes what we deem
to be bad choices. In a sense
then, love avoids enmeshed
relationships. Love keeps a
respectful distance, a distance that honors the freedom of
human beings who, like us, want to be the authors of their own
lives.
This doesn’t mean that love is standoffish. We can lovingly
(i.e., respectfully) question, advise, or even admonish another.
But we do this in a way that respects the person’s agency and
freedom. We treat her as a subject.
When we treat another person as an object, we do not keep
a loving distance. We implicitly, if not explicitly, assert that we
should be the author of the person’s life. We sometimes see this
dynamic in stark relief in cultic groups that not only manipulate
but also grossly exploit their members.
In other groups, the leader’s intentions may be less exploitative,
or even benevolent. The method a person chooses to express
those intentions, however, may be disrespectful and produce
unintended consequences. A leader (or a parent concerned
about a loved one’s cult involvement) may, for example,
browbeat, intimidate, or make tendentious arguments to move
the person toward actions, beliefs, or goals that are deemed
to be in the manipulated person’s best interest. In such cases,
one treats the person as an object to be manipulated, not as a
subject, a free agent, whose choices—even wrong choices—
one respects. One may falsely invoke love as a rationale for
meddling in another’s life.
To avoid such well-intentioned disrespect, one needs to
understand the subject-object distinction in relationships.
But one also needs to know how to communicate respectfully
and effectively. One of the genuine accomplishments of the
counseling profession has been the development of detailed
communications training programs, which many helpers in the
cultic studies field recommend to families with loved ones in
cults.
What Factors Determine Whether or Not a Person
Treats Others As Subjects or Objects?
Sometimes a person’s psychological makeup may influence how
respectfully he treats others. Some people are psychopaths,
who lack empathy and may be wired to treat others as objects.
Others may suffer from varying degrees of narcissism that
compel them to see the world from an egocentric vantage
point. These people may not even realize that they are treating
others as objects because for them the outside world is merely
an extension of self. Their intentions
may be benign in origin, but
destructive in outcome.
Sometimes an inherent imbalance
in power within a relationship may
tempt those who have greater
power to manipulate those with
less power. Obviously, those who
are predisposed to treat others
as objects (i.e., psychopaths and
narcissists) will probably succumb
more readily to this situational
temptation than those with
more empathic psychological makeups. But given the right
combination of circumstances, many, if not most, people
will succumb. A body of social psychological research (e.g.,
Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment) demonstrates that
certain situations can cause good people to do bad things.
The prototypical power relationship is parent-child. Though
most parents are nurturing, some are not, so child abuse is
a major social concern. The parent-child template is similar
to what we see in other power relationships, which also may
produce situational temptations for the holders of power. Thus,
there is a body of research documenting sometimes alarming
levels of abuse in relationships between teacher-student,
therapist-client, pastor-church goer, and guru-devotee.1
Such power imbalances may create what one observer has
called “situationally induced narcissism” (Rev. Stephen Parsons,
personal communication). Over time, power may intoxicate and
cause the power holder to fall into an egocentric narcissism
from which the individual no longer sees other people as
subjects to be respected. Power creates the opportunity for
exploitation intoxication dissolves the good will that undergirds
respect, strengthens self-restraint, and opposes manipulation
and exploitation.
Power imbalances involving religious professionals (priests,
rabbis, ministers, gurus, imams, etc.) may pose special risks
because most cultures esteem their religious professionals and
do not place as many restrictions on them as other professions
do (e.g., mental health professionals are answerable to licensing
boards). Moreover, the transcendental belief systems of religious
Power creates the opportunity
for exploitation intoxication
dissolves the good will that
undergirds respect, strengthens
self-restraint, and opposes
manipulation and exploitation.
