15 VOLUME 7 |ISSUE 3 |2016
professionals may enhance the effectiveness of manipulators.
A command attributed to the will of God can be a compelling
imperative in the mind of a religious believer subordinate to a
religious professional.
The degree of abuse that a person with power may inflict on
somebody with less power can vary greatly, depending upon
the psychological makeup of the power holder, the situational
context, and the psychological makeup of the manipulated
person. Those of us who have worked with cult victims have
seen a range of abuse from mild to traumatic. None of the abuse
would have occurred had not person A treated person B as an
object to manipulate, rather than a subject to respect.
How Can a Person With Power Reduce the Risk of
Abusing Others?
Power holders who sincerely want to treat others as subjects
to respect rather than objects to manipulate can reduce the
risk of abuse, can resist temptation, by knowing themselves, by
understanding how rationalization is the tool of self-deception,
and by genuinely listening to those over whom they wield
power.
When we face our defects honestly, we are more likely to retain
disciplined control over our actions than if we push awareness
of these defects to the dim recesses of our consciousness. When
we have but a dim awareness of our defects, we are more likely
to be seduced by rationalizations that our pride concocts to
shield us from facing the usually far-from-perfect reality of our
inner world. We might call this process the phenomenology of
self-deception.
If, for example, a leader of a religious group is obsessed
with his mission, whatever it may be, he may become so
blinded by the supposed importance of his ends that he
remains conveniently unaware of the degree to which he is
manipulating and mistreating people under him so that he
can achieve his vital goals. His religious belief system may
provide a stream of rationalizations that enable him to retain
a sense of righteousness while abusing others: “Look at the
wonderful fruits that our working in the vineyard of the Lord has
produced.” “The Lord has blessed you by calling you to this work.
Do not disappoint him.” “I am your guru. Obey me without
question otherwise, you will remain mired in self.”
When we fool ourselves, we need other people to tell us what
is really going on, for if we knew the reality, we wouldn’t be
fooling ourselves. If we don’t listen to others, at least some
of whom may be right sometimes, we deprive ourselves of a
means toward self-correction. That is why the most abusive cult
leaders do not tolerate any criticism of themselves.
How Can People Outside a Relationship System
Assess the Risk of Abuse?
Though there are many characteristics of cultic systems,
research and clinical experience lead me to focus on the
following questions to determine whether a system may be at
risk of abuse:
• Is dissent tolerated, particularly dissent that may point
out deficiencies?
• Are boundaries open or closed—that is, do members
encounter substantial resistance if they try to leave?
• Is individuality respected, or are members expected
to converge toward a common identity, frequently
presented as a privilege of the elite?
What Can Religious Organizations Do to Reduce
the Risk of Abuse?
To reduce the probability that abuse will occur, religious
organizations should
• Educate those with power over others, with a special
emphasis on the psychological dynamics of self-
deception, rationalization, and interpersonal influence.
• Teach members of the organization how to recognize
abuse and the factors that cause a risk of abuse.
• Establish accountability mechanisms, including ways
in which members can report abuses, so as to deal
with the abuse that WILL occur even in the best of
organizations.
Conclusion
The culture of modern, pluralist democracies says, “Make your
own life by choosing from the options available to you.” The
culture of authoritarian and especially cultic systems says,
“Conform and obey the rules.” The former emphasizes choice,
options, and individuality the latter emphasizes obedience,
rules, and conformity.
One could argue that democratic systems and relationships
are historical aberrations and that the default dynamic for
interpersonal relations is authoritarian. If this is so, and I believe
even a cursory investigation of history reveals it to be so, then
authoritarian-cultic impulses will always threaten to disrupt
a democratic, subject-oriented approach to human relations.
In other words, there is always a risk of abuse resulting from
treating people as objects, rather than subjects. Hence, we
have to constantly call upon our better angels in order to
persevere in treating others as subjects whose freedom should
be respected. n
Note
[1] See, for example, ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/
reprint/89/3/358.pdf ncjrs.gov/childabuse/prevalence.
html kspope.com/sexiss/sex2.php www.christianpost.com/
article/20090911/survey-reveals-prevalence-of-clergy-sexual-
misconduct/index.html
About the Author
Michael D. Langone, PhD, a counseling
psychologist, received a doctorate in Counseling
Psychology from the University of California,
Santa Barbara in 1979. Since 1981 he has been
Executive Director of International Cultic Studies
Association (ICSA). He has written and spoken
widely on cult-related topics and is Editor-in-Chief of ICSA
Today. n
professionals may enhance the effectiveness of manipulators.
A command attributed to the will of God can be a compelling
imperative in the mind of a religious believer subordinate to a
religious professional.
The degree of abuse that a person with power may inflict on
somebody with less power can vary greatly, depending upon
the psychological makeup of the power holder, the situational
context, and the psychological makeup of the manipulated
person. Those of us who have worked with cult victims have
seen a range of abuse from mild to traumatic. None of the abuse
would have occurred had not person A treated person B as an
object to manipulate, rather than a subject to respect.
How Can a Person With Power Reduce the Risk of
Abusing Others?
Power holders who sincerely want to treat others as subjects
to respect rather than objects to manipulate can reduce the
risk of abuse, can resist temptation, by knowing themselves, by
understanding how rationalization is the tool of self-deception,
and by genuinely listening to those over whom they wield
power.
When we face our defects honestly, we are more likely to retain
disciplined control over our actions than if we push awareness
of these defects to the dim recesses of our consciousness. When
we have but a dim awareness of our defects, we are more likely
to be seduced by rationalizations that our pride concocts to
shield us from facing the usually far-from-perfect reality of our
inner world. We might call this process the phenomenology of
self-deception.
If, for example, a leader of a religious group is obsessed
with his mission, whatever it may be, he may become so
blinded by the supposed importance of his ends that he
remains conveniently unaware of the degree to which he is
manipulating and mistreating people under him so that he
can achieve his vital goals. His religious belief system may
provide a stream of rationalizations that enable him to retain
a sense of righteousness while abusing others: “Look at the
wonderful fruits that our working in the vineyard of the Lord has
produced.” “The Lord has blessed you by calling you to this work.
Do not disappoint him.” “I am your guru. Obey me without
question otherwise, you will remain mired in self.”
When we fool ourselves, we need other people to tell us what
is really going on, for if we knew the reality, we wouldn’t be
fooling ourselves. If we don’t listen to others, at least some
of whom may be right sometimes, we deprive ourselves of a
means toward self-correction. That is why the most abusive cult
leaders do not tolerate any criticism of themselves.
How Can People Outside a Relationship System
Assess the Risk of Abuse?
Though there are many characteristics of cultic systems,
research and clinical experience lead me to focus on the
following questions to determine whether a system may be at
risk of abuse:
• Is dissent tolerated, particularly dissent that may point
out deficiencies?
• Are boundaries open or closed—that is, do members
encounter substantial resistance if they try to leave?
• Is individuality respected, or are members expected
to converge toward a common identity, frequently
presented as a privilege of the elite?
What Can Religious Organizations Do to Reduce
the Risk of Abuse?
To reduce the probability that abuse will occur, religious
organizations should
• Educate those with power over others, with a special
emphasis on the psychological dynamics of self-
deception, rationalization, and interpersonal influence.
• Teach members of the organization how to recognize
abuse and the factors that cause a risk of abuse.
• Establish accountability mechanisms, including ways
in which members can report abuses, so as to deal
with the abuse that WILL occur even in the best of
organizations.
Conclusion
The culture of modern, pluralist democracies says, “Make your
own life by choosing from the options available to you.” The
culture of authoritarian and especially cultic systems says,
“Conform and obey the rules.” The former emphasizes choice,
options, and individuality the latter emphasizes obedience,
rules, and conformity.
One could argue that democratic systems and relationships
are historical aberrations and that the default dynamic for
interpersonal relations is authoritarian. If this is so, and I believe
even a cursory investigation of history reveals it to be so, then
authoritarian-cultic impulses will always threaten to disrupt
a democratic, subject-oriented approach to human relations.
In other words, there is always a risk of abuse resulting from
treating people as objects, rather than subjects. Hence, we
have to constantly call upon our better angels in order to
persevere in treating others as subjects whose freedom should
be respected. n
Note
[1] See, for example, ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/
reprint/89/3/358.pdf ncjrs.gov/childabuse/prevalence.
html kspope.com/sexiss/sex2.php www.christianpost.com/
article/20090911/survey-reveals-prevalence-of-clergy-sexual-
misconduct/index.html
About the Author
Michael D. Langone, PhD, a counseling
psychologist, received a doctorate in Counseling
Psychology from the University of California,
Santa Barbara in 1979. Since 1981 he has been
Executive Director of International Cultic Studies
Association (ICSA). He has written and spoken
widely on cult-related topics and is Editor-in-Chief of ICSA
Today. n
