4 ICSA TODAY
In fact, it has been observed that members of groups can
be harmed in different ways, including psychologically,
physically, and financially. Following are examples of each:
Psychological Harm
• Denial of affection
• Attacks on self-esteem
• Limited or restricted access to information
• Limited or restricted access to education
• Child neglect
• Dependant-adult neglect
• Elder neglect
Physical Harm
• Physical abuse
• Food and sleep deprivation
• Refusal to provide access to adequate medical treatment
• Sexual abuse
Financial Harm
• Fraud
• Financial demands by the group that threaten
the individual’s financial well-being
• Nonremunerated work
Whenever there is an imbalance of power, the potential
for abuse in many different relationships, such as the
following, exists:
• Parent–child: child abuse
• Husband–wife: spousal abuse
• Professor–student: psychological abuse, sexual abuse
• Therapist–client: psychological abuse, sexual abuse
• Boss–employee: workplace abuse
• Pastor–parishioner: sexual abuse, financial abuse
• Government–citizens: human-rights abuse
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that people in
religious, therapeutic, New Age, occult, or other types of
groups can be at risk of being harmed.
We need to be prudent, however, because in some cases we
can view harm subjectively and assign a meaning that is
culture-bound. For example, in Russia some groups are seen
as harmful and often described as cults because they are
perceived as a threat to the traditional culture and religion
they view certain groups as a form of Western imperialism.
Recently, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose
publications are considered to be “extremist literature,” was
arrested for possession of the group’s writings. In contrast,
in North America, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only are free to
possess their literature, but also are permitted to hand it
out on city sidewalks or by going door-to-door.
At the outset of my presentation, I noted what an American
evangelical pastor had to say about Mitt Romney. That
example illustrates that some groups are labeled cults
because they deviate theologically from some other
group’s(s’) beliefs.
Intervention
In determining whether or not a group poses a risk and
the nature of the risk, and in making a fair and informed
assessment about an individual or a group, it is important
to ask the following questions:
1. To what extent have we accepted the accusatory
assessments made by certain individuals or groups,
without checking the accuracy of the allegations made?
2. Do we ask for documents or other empirical facts in
order to make an informed and critical evaluation?
3. Do we readily accept allegations against controversial
groups because we believe they are capable of doing
what they are accused of?
4. If there are reports about problems associated with a
group, how prevalent are the problems?
5. Do we assume that those involved in a controversial
group or the group under consideration have
not changed over time?
6. Where and how was the information about the group
obtained? How representative is the information, and,
depending on the source, what other factors should
we be considering?
7. What evidence is there for determining whether the
information is accurate?
8. Did the information come from current members,
former members, families with a loved one involved,
or from professionals/other experts?
9. Has anyone attempted to establish a contact with
the individual or group?
10. Have we informed ourselves about what is happening
in the group: its origins, its doctrine, its leader(s), the
leader’s(s’) role, and the motivations and experiences
of the members?
After we have evaluated a particular group, we must be
open to the possibility that there may be insufficient facts to
support any intervention. This conclusion may lead to a
decision either to monitor the situation or to take a wait-and-
see approach. We also should consider the simple fact that it
may be a case of smoke and no fire.
If an intervention by agencies of the state is warranted, the
following questions can help us in coming to a decision
about a suitable course of action. These questions can also
be helpful for families who are dealing with a loved one
involved in a group.
1. What do we hope to achieve in intervening? Have the
motives and objectives been clearly and precisely
established?
2. What strategies can we take to reach our goal?
3. What are the pros and cons of adopting a particular
approach (with a focus on the cons)?
4. What are the criteria for evaluating whether or not an
intervention is successful? For example, is the approach
making things worse? And if so, how could it be modified?
In fact, it has been observed that members of groups can
be harmed in different ways, including psychologically,
physically, and financially. Following are examples of each:
Psychological Harm
• Denial of affection
• Attacks on self-esteem
• Limited or restricted access to information
• Limited or restricted access to education
• Child neglect
• Dependant-adult neglect
• Elder neglect
Physical Harm
• Physical abuse
• Food and sleep deprivation
• Refusal to provide access to adequate medical treatment
• Sexual abuse
Financial Harm
• Fraud
• Financial demands by the group that threaten
the individual’s financial well-being
• Nonremunerated work
Whenever there is an imbalance of power, the potential
for abuse in many different relationships, such as the
following, exists:
• Parent–child: child abuse
• Husband–wife: spousal abuse
• Professor–student: psychological abuse, sexual abuse
• Therapist–client: psychological abuse, sexual abuse
• Boss–employee: workplace abuse
• Pastor–parishioner: sexual abuse, financial abuse
• Government–citizens: human-rights abuse
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that people in
religious, therapeutic, New Age, occult, or other types of
groups can be at risk of being harmed.
We need to be prudent, however, because in some cases we
can view harm subjectively and assign a meaning that is
culture-bound. For example, in Russia some groups are seen
as harmful and often described as cults because they are
perceived as a threat to the traditional culture and religion
they view certain groups as a form of Western imperialism.
Recently, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose
publications are considered to be “extremist literature,” was
arrested for possession of the group’s writings. In contrast,
in North America, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only are free to
possess their literature, but also are permitted to hand it
out on city sidewalks or by going door-to-door.
At the outset of my presentation, I noted what an American
evangelical pastor had to say about Mitt Romney. That
example illustrates that some groups are labeled cults
because they deviate theologically from some other
group’s(s’) beliefs.
Intervention
In determining whether or not a group poses a risk and
the nature of the risk, and in making a fair and informed
assessment about an individual or a group, it is important
to ask the following questions:
1. To what extent have we accepted the accusatory
assessments made by certain individuals or groups,
without checking the accuracy of the allegations made?
2. Do we ask for documents or other empirical facts in
order to make an informed and critical evaluation?
3. Do we readily accept allegations against controversial
groups because we believe they are capable of doing
what they are accused of?
4. If there are reports about problems associated with a
group, how prevalent are the problems?
5. Do we assume that those involved in a controversial
group or the group under consideration have
not changed over time?
6. Where and how was the information about the group
obtained? How representative is the information, and,
depending on the source, what other factors should
we be considering?
7. What evidence is there for determining whether the
information is accurate?
8. Did the information come from current members,
former members, families with a loved one involved,
or from professionals/other experts?
9. Has anyone attempted to establish a contact with
the individual or group?
10. Have we informed ourselves about what is happening
in the group: its origins, its doctrine, its leader(s), the
leader’s(s’) role, and the motivations and experiences
of the members?
After we have evaluated a particular group, we must be
open to the possibility that there may be insufficient facts to
support any intervention. This conclusion may lead to a
decision either to monitor the situation or to take a wait-and-
see approach. We also should consider the simple fact that it
may be a case of smoke and no fire.
If an intervention by agencies of the state is warranted, the
following questions can help us in coming to a decision
about a suitable course of action. These questions can also
be helpful for families who are dealing with a loved one
involved in a group.
1. What do we hope to achieve in intervening? Have the
motives and objectives been clearly and precisely
established?
2. What strategies can we take to reach our goal?
3. What are the pros and cons of adopting a particular
approach (with a focus on the cons)?
4. What are the criteria for evaluating whether or not an
intervention is successful? For example, is the approach
making things worse? And if so, how could it be modified?
