cult thinking and behavior(ot)

[Guest guest]

Wrong Way Home

 

This is off topic but addresses one of my strongest ongoing concerns it

may be interesting to some.

 

 

Arthur Deikman is a clinical professor of psychiatry at UCSF and

author of the well-regarded book The Observing Self: Mysticism and

Psychotherapy. In Wrong Way Home, Deikman takes a careful,

scholarly look at cult thinking and behavior and finds that it

pervades many institutions in modern society. Cult behavior is

found in the military, in government advisory boards, in

corporations, in political campaigns, and in the professions of law

and medicine, as well as in religious denominations of all shapes

and sizes. Unlike many popular authors (often Christian apologists)

who use the term " cult " to describe a carefully delineated subset of

new religious movements, Deikman uses the term as an adjective

describing distinct types of behavior or thinking found in many

groups and institutions. He emphasizes that any group can develop

cult behavior.

 

Following Deikman, four factors characterize cult thinking and

behavior within groups: (1) compliance with the group; (2)

dependence on a leader; (3) devaluing outsiders; and (4) avoiding

dissent. Case studies show that almost any normal person can, as a

member of a group, develop increasingly cultish thinking and

behavior with almost no awareness of the change. Deikman traces

susceptibility to cult behavior to two kinds of wishes, the desire

for a meaningful life and the need for a feeling of security and

belonging. Playing on the second wish, the yearning for security

and protection, allows group leaders to bind members to the group

and direct their thinking and activity toward group goals of almost

any description. Even highly ethical individuals may find

themselves suppressing personal qualms or concerns in the face of

clear and seemingly urgent group directives, even those of dubious

moral quality. How does this happen?

 

Compliance With the Group. Behaving as do those around us is

natural behavior and often enhances our chances of survival and

prosperity (p. 52). We first encounter the need to comply as

children in a family, and our " compliance training " carries over to

other groups we become part of later in life: " Most social groups

share characteristics of family groups with members who occupy

dominant (parent) and subordinate (child) roles " (p. 50). Groups

disfavor nonconformity: " A major way a group exerts power it through

threat of censure and expulsion, classifying the deviant as bad " (p.

59).

 

Deikman observes that compliance with a group increases with one's

psychological and economic dependence on it. He notes how large

corporations foster such dependence by frequently transferring

managers. Other social and cultural ties become weak and fleeting;

the corporation becomes the primary source of self-esteem and social

interaction for many managers. Even family needs are generally

subordinated to those of the corporation and the manager's career

within it. " Commitment to the corporation is also measured by a

manager's willingness to take work home at night and on weekends and

to be absent from his family on frequent business trips " (p. 63).

 

Dependence on a Leader. All groups have leaders. Cult behavior

thrives in groups with authoritarian, hierarchical leadership

structures. " Authoritarians emphasize obedience, loyalty, and the

suppression of criticism. . . . Authoritarian leaders, especially,

draw power from the dependency fantasy, from the individual's wish

for an idealized parent " (p. 71). In a sense, we hold all our

leaders up to the idealized memory of our first authority figure,

Dad. " The structure of cults is basically authoritarian; obedience

and hierarchical power tend to take precedence over truth and

conscience when they conflict, which they often do " (p. 73).

 

Politics and religion provide good examples of dependence on a

leader. " As in any authoritarian system, the basic perspective of

most religious groups is one of superior/inferior relationships; as

obedience is the prime virtue in all authoritarian systems, so

obedience to God's commandments is a prime virtue in theistic

religions. This is espoused most rigidly by fundamentalists, those

who believe in the literal, inerrant truth of the Bible, the Koran,

or some other religious text. Rev. Jerry Falwell puts the matter

most unequivocally: 'We must be obedient to the Word of God.

Obedient. Whatsoever He sayeth unto you, do it! That's all there

is to it! Find out what God is saying to you and obey Him. Obey

the Lord. Obedience!' " (p. 85-86).

 

Deikman also discusses the political career of the popular Ronald

Reagan, who frequently mis characterized world events and got facts

wrong. No matter -- people loved him. He was confident and

optimistic. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, in many ways a capable

president, did not project confidence and security and was therefore

not embraced by the country at large. People want leaders to act

like the confident father figures they are supposed to be. This

suggests that the leader-follower dynamic draws strength from the

urge to dependence of followers as much as from any leader's

individual will to power.

 

Devaluing the Outsider. " The security of a cult is bound up with

the idea of being special, better than those outside the group.

Indeed, outsiders are likely to be seen as threatening since they do

not share the cult's belief in the leader and in the special

entitlement of its members. This threat is met by devaluing the non-

believers " (p. 101). This behavior is surprisingly common in

society at large. Tellingly, the use of demeaning, profane labels

is almost a prerequisite to social violence directed at outsiders or

those on the margins of society (p. 102). Conversely, recognizing

the " other " as fully human almost invariably has the opposite effect

of making violence or aggression emotionally more difficult.

 

" Devaluation relies heavily on projection . . . . Projection occurs

when we attribute to others those aspects of ourselves that we wish

to deny. By identifying the bad impulse or trait as being outside

ourselves, we can feel more secure " (p. 103). Deikman notes the

prevalence of self-righteousness in cults, often masked by " false

humility and public confessions of unworthiness " (p. 105).

Religions are especially prone to employ devaluation, despite good

intentions to the contrary. " Fundamentalist religions, in

particular, tend to devalue the outsider to preserve the certainty

of their scriptures and the leader's connection with God " (p. 108).

 

Deikman uses psychiatry itself as an illustration, showing how the

radically different therapeutic orientation toward outpatients and

inpatients is rooted in the treating therapist's unwillingness to

identify with psychotic inpatients as much as by any underlying

medical conditions. The automatic use of anti-psychotic drugs, with

the dosage increased if disturbing behavior persists, is

inconsistent with evidence showing a significant degree of

successful non-drug treatment of some inpatient subjects. Deikman

also discusses how mainstream media news coverage betrays the same

unconscious use of devaluation: American military strength is

portrayed as purely defensive, whereas the military armaments of

potential adversaries show aggressive intentions.

 

Avoiding Dissent. " Although we all need dissent as a corrective,

cults tend to punish it, to inhibit and stifle disagreement and

criticism, to restrict access to information that would challenge

group beliefs " (p. 123). Detailed apologetic or justificatory

arguments are replaced by dogma, then " dogma itself may be

simplified into slogans, . . . further hampering critical thought "

(ibid.). Furthermore, hierarchical institutions can develop a sort

of autonomous process whereby subordinates suppress deviant points

of view before they ever reach upper management or senior leaders

(p. 144). Think of it as the one-big-happy-family institutional

model, maintained by burying any evidence or examples to the

contrary.

 

Especially in America, dissent and the right to voice contrary

opinions are valued, at least in principle. It is thus ironic that

avoidance of dissent is practiced in American society at large more

than is generally recognized, certainly within the government and

corporations but even by the lauded free press. " Media bias in

favor of the status quo is often not obvious because of the

appearance of debate in the various mass media presentations,

especially network television. However, debate turns out to be

within the rather narrow limits acceptable to authority " (p. 132).

For example, left-wing, " radical " speakers almost always represent

safely foreign countries or movements.

 

Religion tolerates dissent no more willingly than government or

business. " All too frequently, administrators of religions consider

themselves to be God's representatives and define any choice of

doctrine or interpretation but theirs as false or evil. To the

extent that religious leaders claim divine authority, dissent is

discouraged and suppressed among their followers " (p. 141). The

Inquisition comes to mind, of course, as does the frequency with

which new denominations or sects form around religious dissenters

after they are expelled from established denominations.

 

Exit From the Cult. No doubt the reader takes the phrase " exit from

the cult " to mean exiting specific groups deemed to be cults -- that

is certainly what I was expecting to encounter in the last chapter

carrying that title. While life may be too short to spend any more

of it in a cult than is absolutely necessary, that isn't the

argument Deikman makes. He isn't talking about getting out of

specific groups. He is referring to reforming society to eliminate

(as far as is possible) cult thinking and behavior, starting with

the reader and, by extension, you. He's thinking of social reform,

not temporal salvation. He is talking about exiting the Cult

Universal, not the cult next door. He offers a short checklist to

facilitate self-examination and to help exorcise the invisible cult

that lurks in each of us (p. 154):

 

Do I speak of opponents or outsiders as if they were all the same,

with reference to only negative traits and unflattering motives?

Do I lack interest and information concerning the actual statements

and actions of opponents or outsiders?

Do I fail to consider the possible validity of an adversary's point

of view?

Do I fail to critically examine my own position?

Do I disapprove or reject a member of my own group who departs from

the group position, regarding the dissident as an annoyance or a

problem?

Do I feel self-righteous?