A post-cult trauma or post-cult syndrome is a term first used by Margaret Thaler Singer to describe the intense emotional problems that some members of cults and new religious movements experience upon disaffection and disaffiliation. (Singer 1979)
Several scholars in the field, including those critical of the anti-cult movement, acknowledge that abandoning a new religious movement (NRM) can be traumatic for former cult members. Some scholars and sociologists in the field of new religious movements assert that traumas are more likely caused by deprogramming, not by voluntary leavetaking.
__TOC__
Paul Martin, the director of a recovery center victims of cultic abuse wrote in the book Recovery from Cults
Margaret Singer, one of the most notable proponents of the brainwashing theories, noted that ex-cult members that she treated had severe emotional problems as described in her article Coming out the cults. 21 22 75% of the ex-cult members were, however, deprogrammed and some scholars like David G. Bromley suggest that the emotional problems of the ex-cultists that she treated were not due to their involvement in cults but that they had a post-traumatic stress disorder due to the deprogramming sessions that they underwent. On the other hand, in a survey done on former cult members by Conway and Siegelmann, those deprogrammed (voluntarily and involuntarily) reported a third less, and in many cases only half as many post-cult effects like depression, disorientation or sleep problems than those who were not deprogrammed. Also those deprogrammed reported markedly shorter recovery times than the walk-aways. 23
According to Hadden and Bromley, proponents of the brainwashing model such as Singer and others, lack empirical evidence to support their theory of brainwashing. They also affirm that there is lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and that their accounts of what happens to ex-members is contradicted by substantial empirical evidence such as, the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs do leave, most short of two years, and the overwhelming proportion of people leave of their own volition. They refer to a survey conducted by Stuart A. Wright in 1987, about people who voluntarily left new religions, showing that the majority of all defectors or ex-members (67%) look back on their experience as something that made them wiser for the experience, rather than feeling angry, duped or showing other ill effects.14
According to F. Derks and Jan van der Lans, a Dutch professor in the psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, there is no uniform post-cult trauma, but psychological and social problems upon resignation are not rare and their character and intensity are greatly dependent on the personal history, on the traits of the person, and on the reasons for and way of resignation. 6
Gordon Melton, quoting studies by Lewis Carter and David G. Bromley, argues that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement. As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also claim that a lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.6,7,8 In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine Melton, asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credibility to the horror stories forwarded by "hostile" former cult members, which he says is "like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce".
Marc Galanter, in a study of 237 members of the Unification Church, found that they had had a significantly higher degree of neurotic distress before conversion when compared to a control group, disproving that symptoms of psychopathology have been caused by cult involvement, 30% of these had sought professional help for emotional problems before conversion. Galanter further notes that the process of joining, being a member, and leaving a new religious group is best described not as a matter of personal pathology but of social adaptation. For example, experiences that in a secular setting might be considered pathological are, within some religious setting may be considered normal. While psychological categories were created to discuss dysfunctional behavior by an individual, the behavior of group members must be seen in light of group norms, meaning that what may be considered disturbed behavior in a secular setting may be perfectly functional and normal within a group context. Galanter's analysis had the effect of reducing the significance of the abnormal behavior reported among ex-members. He also suggested an alternative means of understanding otherwise inexplicable behavior in members and ex-members without considering them as suffering from psychopathology13.
According to Barker (1989), the biggest worry about possible harm concerns the relatively few dedicated followers of a new religious movement (NRM). Barker also mentions that some former members may not take new initatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. This generally does not concern the many superficial, or short-lived, or peripheral supporters of a NRM. She also wrote that ex-members who feel betrayed may have a problem trusting people. Membership in a cult usually does not last forever: 90% or more of cult members ultimately leave their group 2,4
The psychiatrists David Hofffman and Paul Hamburg of the Harvard Medical School wrote in their article Psychotherapy of Cult members about psychiatric treatment of former members that the re-entry of former members into ordinary life is a difficult experience and compare the situation of former members to those of former hostages, prisoners, exiles, soldiers, or those emerging from divorce or death of a spouse. 19
According to the writer David V. Barret, who is critical of the anti-cult movement and is related with the government subsidized institute INFORM, founded by Eileen Barker, based in London, in many cases the problems do not happen while in a cult, but when leaving a cult which can be difficult for some members and may include a lot of trauma. Reasons for this trauma may include conditioning by the religious movement, avoidance of uncertainties about life and its meaning, having had powerful religious experiences, love for the founder of the religion, emotional investment, fear of losing salvation, bonding with other members, anticipation of the realization that time, money and efforts donated to the group were a waste, and the new freedom with its corresponding responsibilities, especially for people who lived in a community. Those reasons may prevent a member from leaving even if the member realizes that some things in the NRM are wrong.
Dr. Len Oakes, a psychologist who was himself a member of a spriritual community (quoted by the anti-cult activist Rick Ross as well as by Prof. Lawrence Foster of the School of History, Technology, and Society at the Georgia Institute of Technology in a paper presented at a CESNUR conference), writes in his book Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities in which he proposes his thesis about cult leader's distinctiveness: his psychopathology that he bases on narcissistic personality, characterized by grandiosity, manipulativeness, a need for control of others and inner congruence, near-paranormal empathy, confidence, memory, autonomy, detachment, and islands of social and personal insight." he writes that ''is great trauma associated with leaving, even for the successful follower. He has invested his deepest hopes in the leader, and leaving is like another leaving of home. [...There is a tremendous culture shock of reentry to the outside world, and many leavers enter therapy. Not even wealth and renewed contact with one’s family of origin can insulate against this. And most of all, that sense of purpose--the sense of being engaged in something vital and important--is gone. A new direction will appear, but it takes much longer than is comfortable.'"18
According to the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg who specialized in new religious movements and Hinduism, in some religious groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, members have all their social contacts within the group, which makes disaffection and disaffiliation very traumatic. 5
A study by Cheryl R. Taslimi in 1991 about former members of the Shiloh Community, a fundamentalist Jesus community, indicated that the former members experienced no ill effects of past membership, had integrated well on return to the larger community, and did not differ from the general population on a symptom checklist to assess psychological pathologies.15
The magazine India Today wrote about the former followers of the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba who became disaffected after reports about sexual abuse by the guru that losing faith is a devastating experience that transports them from promised moksha to a private hell and that the disillusionment that has three stages: denial, grief followed by an all pervading outrage.
Authors Joel Kramer and Diana Alstadt wrote that disillusionment in a guru may lead to a generalized form of cynicism.
Dr Lonnie D. Kliever, a professor of Religious Studies at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas writes in his article about The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements, written upon request for Scientology that the clear majority of those who leave of their own free will speak positively of certain aspects of their past experience. While readily acknowledging the ways a given religious movement failed to meet their personal expectations and spiritual needs, many voluntary defectors have found ways of salvaging some redeeming values from their previous religious associations and activities. But there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. * They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion."20
In an article published in 1986, L. DuPertuis asserts that many of the people that left the Divine Light Mission "... drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment."16
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the
"Post-cult trauma".
Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world