Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 12
a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.476
Lifton later reiterated his position regarding the definition of a cult. He said, “I am aware of the controversy surrounding the use of the word cult because of its pejorative connotation, as opposed to the more neutral new religion. I use both terms in this book, but as in past work I confine the use of cult to groups that display three characteristics: totalistic or thought-reform-like practices, a shift from worship of spiritual principles to worship of the guru or leader, and a combination of spiritual quest from below and exploitation, usually economic or sexual, from above.”477
Psychologist Margaret Singer builds and expands on Lifton in her book Cults in Our Midst.478 In her definition of a destructive cult, she includes elements based on behavior and structure. Singer says that when we evaluate a group, three primary areas should be our focus:
The origin of the group and role of the leader
The power structure or relationship between the leader[s] and the followers
The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform
Singer’s approach is essentially to scrutinize the reciprocal relationships between cult leaders and their followers. It is through such scrutiny that she explains why people may stay in a destructive cult, even when it doesn’t seem to be in their own best interest.
The most salient single feature of most destructive cults is that an absolute, authoritarian leader essentially defines and controls them. A single leader is most often the sole authority, but at times an elite “ruling coterie” (a small group of leaders) function in that pivotal position of power. The group can therefore be seen as primarily personality driven and functionally defined by its living leader or leaders.
As cited in the previous descriptions of cult leaders, they can be highly charismatic and implicitly expect complete compliance and obedience from their followers. For example, Shoko Asahara ordered Aum devotees to attack the Tokyo subway system, and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh demanded that his followers poison townspeople near his ashram to affect local elections in Oregon.
The followers of these leaders complied without resistance to their leader’s wishes despite the fact that these were unlawful, criminal acts. Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology at Rutgers University, explains, “Charisma is not to be understood simply in terms of the characteristics of the leader, as it has come to be in popular usage, but requires an understanding of the relationship between leader and followers. In other words, charisma is a relational variable. Charisma is defined operationally as a network of relationships in which authority is justified.”479
Singer explains the hierarchy of destructive cults this way: “In most cases, there is one person, typically the founder at the top…Decision making centers in him or her.” Illustrating this type of group structure, Singer said, “Imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom.”480 In this sense the decision-making process is sequestered at the top, and the general membership at the bottom may not even know the details.
A destructive cult is typically totalitarian, and regardless of its stated purpose or belief system, “the overriding philosophy…is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds,” Singer wrote.481
Many destructive cult leaders seem to be deeply narcissistic personalities, as historically characterized by the condition known as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).482 Mental health professionals use this tool to diagnose disorders. But it must be noted that these diagnostic criteria only provide basic guidelines and reflect a consensus rather than a definitive diagnosis, which would require specialized clinical training. The DSM in the past has identified the following pattern of behavior and collection of symptoms to denote NPD:
There is generally a pervasive pattern of behavior that reflects grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. We can also see NPD through an accumulation of five or more of the following exhibited symptoms:
The person has a grandiose sense of self-importance (for example, he or she exaggerates achievements and talents, and expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
The person is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
The person believes he or she is “special” and unique and should associate with, or be understood only by, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
The person requires excessive admiration.
The person has a sense of entitlement (in other words unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
The person is interpersonally exploitative (in other words he or she takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
The person lacks empathy; he or she is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
The person is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her.
The person shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.
Destructive cult leaders are frequently consumed with messianic visions and grandiose ideas about changing the world to suit their own purposes. Some have claimed to be an exclusive vehicle for enlightenment chosen by some higher power, a supposed “psychic” connected to historical figures, or even aliens from outer space. Waco Davidian leader David Koresh made such claims and said he was the “Lamb of God.” Marshall Applewhite, leader of the cult known as Heaven’s Gate, saw himself as the crucial link humanity required to reach a higher level of development.
Sociologist Stephen Kent has applied this description to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. Kent wrote, “Hubbard displayed traits of a particular form of the condition, malignant narcissism, in his reactions to perceived opponents, and…his personal reactions provided the impetus for Scientology’s organizational policies of retaliation and vengeance. In essence, the corporate climate within Scientology largely is a reflection of Hubbard’s narcissism and malignant narcissistic rage.”483
Destructive-cult leaders often seem to be deeply delusional and even mentally ill. Many mental health professionals who have studied destructive cults have labeled some cult leaders “psychopaths.” Psychiatrist Louis J. West, who was a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles medical school during the Waco Davidian standoff, saw David Koresh as a psychopath. He said, “The psychopath is often charming, bright, very persuasive. He quickly wins people’s trust and is uncannily adept at manipulating and conning people.”484 After watching Marshall Applewhite’s final statements on videotape, West said the cult leader was “delusional, sexually repressed, and suffering from a rare case of clinical paranoia.”485
In his seminal book Without Conscience,486 psychologist Robert Hare laid the groundwork for a better understanding of psychopaths. Hare studied prison inmates and developed a “psychopathy checklist” (PCL). The Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook referred to Hare’s revised checklist (PCL-R) as the “gold standard” for measuring psychopathy. The PCL-R profile includes some personal characteristics that in part parallel or overlap a narcissistic personality.
Hare offers the following personality traits and lifestyle, which may reflect a psychopath.487 He cautions that a qualified and credentialed clinician must administer his diagnostic tool to be properly definitive and valid.
Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive Narcissism”
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative quality
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (emotion short lived and egocentric)
Callousness, lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Factor 2: Case History—“Socially Deviant Lifestyle”
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
What Lifton calls “thought reform” and what Singer refers to as a “coordinated program of persuasion” are what sociologist Richard Ofshe describes as “coercive persuasion.”488 Ofshe identifies “four key factors, which distinguish coercive persuasion from other socialization schemes.”489
The reliance on intense, interpersonal, and psychological attack to destabilize an individual’s sense of self to promote compliance
The use of an organized peer group
Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
The manipulation of the totality of the person’s social environment to stabilize behavior once modified
This process Ofshe, Singer, and Lifton describe is an intentional transformation of individuals through manipulation and control, which are used to gain undue influence. Coercive persuasion or thought reform leads to the breakdown of critical and independent thinking. It also causes those affected to become increasingly dependent on the group and its leadership to make value judgments for them, provide analysis, and in some situations determine the parameters of reality.
The net result of this process is that those affected often make choices that aren’t in their own best interest but are typically and consistently in the best interests of the group and its leaders. For example, ingesting cyanide wasn’t in the best interest of families at Jonestown, but it was what Jim Jones wanted. Committing suicide wasn’t in the best interest for members of Heaven’s Gate, but according to Marshall Applewhite, the time had come for them to shed their human “containers” or “vehicles” and attain what he told them would be the “evolutionary level above human.”
But religious cults aren’t the only groups who use brainwashing techniques. Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki noted in his study of cultic, coercive persuasion, “I do not mean to imply that there is anything about religion per se that is especially conducive to brainwashing or that brainwashing is not also to be found in political, psychotherapeutic, military or other totalist c collectives.”490
We should note that harm or exploitation by destructive cults, as Lifton described in his third criteria, varies by degree from group to group. That is, some destructive cults are more destructive than others. For example, only a small fraction of destructive cult leaders have ordered mass suicides or violence. Most seem largely focused on the financial exploitation of their followers through the surrender of their assets or free labor or both.
Otherwise destructive cults harm members psychologically through what can be seen as the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Damage is also done to family relationships through estrangement and sometimes divorce, which the group may mandate. Educational or career opportunities may also be ignored for years due to group influence and preoccupation with its activities. Years may go by before an affected individual eventually leaves the group and resumes such interests. This delay may result in fewer opportunities and diminished prospects for the future.
Psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West presented the following definition of a destructive cult at a conference, which the American Family Foundation (AFF), now known as the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), held at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The AFF/ICSA Cultic Studies Journal later published his definition. West was the director of the Neuropsychiatry Institute at UCLA and studied destructive cults for decades.
West stated, “A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.”491
We can see West’s definition as largely extending in more detail the three central criteria or themes found in destructive cults, as delineated so deftly by Lifton.
ICSA later condensed and somewhat refined its definition in an official handbook. The cultic studies organization stated, “A cult is characterized by an ideology, strong demands issuing from that ideology and powerful processes of social-psychological influence to induce group members to meet those demands. This high-demand, leader centered social climate places such groups at risk of exploiting and injuring members, although they may remain benign, if leadership doesn’t abuse its power.”492
Sociologist Janja Lalich and psychologist Michael Langone also provided a checklist of “social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments,” which is intended to be used as “an analytical tool.”493
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
This checklist, which Lalich and Langone offered, can also readily be linked to the three basic categ
ories of criteria Lifton listed. That is, those points that directly deal with the nature of the leader and quality of leadership would fall under Lifton’s first criteria pertaining to a “charismatic leader.” The “mind altering practices” mentioned and various forms of manipulation cited would fit into Lifton’s cited process of “coercive persuasion or thought reform.” And the negative consequences or results of membership can be categorized under Lifton’s third criteria, specifically denoting “exploitation of group members.”
The Israeli Ministry of Welfare and Social Services seemed to largely follow Lifton’s criteria in its report about cults in Israel. The ministry report sought to make distinctions in its determination of what constituted “harmful cults.” The government agency stated, “Harmful cults are groups that are united around a person or idea, by the exercise of control of thought processes and patterns of behavior, for the purpose of creating an identity that is distinct from society and by the use of false representations. For the most part these groups encourage mental subservience to the leader of the cult and his objectives, exploit their members with a view to promoting the objectives of the cult, and cause mental, physical, economic and social damage (in one or more of these fields), to members of the groups, their families and the surrounding community.”494
Ronald Enroth is a professor of sociology at Westmount College in Santa Barbara and the chair of its Department of Sociology. Westmount is an evangelical, Christian institution. His definition of a destructive cult specifically takes into consideration the fact that many groups called “cults,” particularly those in the United States, claim to be “Bible-based” and therefore religious in nature. For example, both Ugandan cult leader Joseph Kibwetere of the so-called Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments and Paul Schaefer, founder and leader of Colonia Dignidad in Chile, claimed that their respective groups were Christian and based on biblical authority.