What do you think?
Rate this book
Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion
From the mass weddings of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church to the mass suicides at Jonestown, charismatic cults and their devotees have become facts of American life. Once exotic offshoots of the Sixties counterculture exciting suspicion, scorn, terror, and counter-terror, cults have
grown so common and entered so many areas of public life that only spectacular disasters like the immolation of the Philadelphia cult MOVE seem to remind us how extraordinary their burgeoning really is.
Based on fifteen years of direct encounters with cults and their detractors, as well as extensive research, Marc Galanter's fascinating study explores not only how cult members feel and think at all stages of their involvement, but also how larger social and psychological forces reinforce
individual commitment within the cults.
Galanter presents a wealth of compelling stories, from first-person accounts of conversions and daily life under the rule of charismatic leaders to disillusionments and voluntary and forced departures, as well as intriguing overviews of many of the most influential cults, including the most
comprehensive psychological analysis ever published of the evolution of the "Moonies." He also provides a provocative and controversial account of the similarities between cults and "zealous" self-help movements such as Alcoholics Anonymous.
Moving beyond the exposés and confessions that have characterized so much of the literature on this subject, Galanter offers the most extensive and accessible psychological analysis of cults available.
grown so common and entered so many areas of public life that only spectacular disasters like the immolation of the Philadelphia cult MOVE seem to remind us how extraordinary their burgeoning really is.
Based on fifteen years of direct encounters with cults and their detractors, as well as extensive research, Marc Galanter's fascinating study explores not only how cult members feel and think at all stages of their involvement, but also how larger social and psychological forces reinforce
individual commitment within the cults.
Galanter presents a wealth of compelling stories, from first-person accounts of conversions and daily life under the rule of charismatic leaders to disillusionments and voluntary and forced departures, as well as intriguing overviews of many of the most influential cults, including the most
comprehensive psychological analysis ever published of the evolution of the "Moonies." He also provides a provocative and controversial account of the similarities between cults and "zealous" self-help movements such as Alcoholics Anonymous.
Moving beyond the exposés and confessions that have characterized so much of the literature on this subject, Galanter offers the most extensive and accessible psychological analysis of cults available.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
16 people are currently reading
347 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 4, 2012
This was an interesting and informative book. It wasn't quite the comprehensive discussion of the different cults over the years I had been hoping for, though. Most of the first part of the book deals with how cults work and the definition of the charismatic group, with examples from various cults, including quite a bit of information about the Unification Church. This is why it was surprising when this was followed up by a huge section of book devoted to the Unification Church he had already written so much about. He then goes into interesting accounts of The People's Temple, MOVE, the Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, Timothy McVeigh, and the Heaven's Gate cult, all of which were interesting and disturbing to read about. The last part of the book discusses new age/ alternative medicine and how these relate to charismatic groups and this was relatively dull (at least to me) and ends on a chapter about the charismatic group known as AA, which I thought was interesting to read, since I always suspected AA was a cult. It's just a less intense one without a paranoid leader serving up kool-aid. I would have been interested to know more about the Rajneeshees and some of the other, smaller cults, but I guess I could just find another book. All in all, though, this was a well done book by someone who knows what they're talking about.
December 14, 2014
This is a very well-researched book that explores the biological, psychological, and social reasons that people join cults. In addition to examining groups that are commonly thought of as cults (such as the Moonies), the author also looks at groups that have cult-like behaviors, such as Alcoholics Anonymous.
If you are just beginning to research cults, then this book is a good introduction to the subject. It's very thorough. The author has a lot of experience with these groups and obviously knows what he's talking about. I appreciate that he approached the subject objectively. He doesn't assume that all cults are evil and that all people should conform to the beliefs of mainstream society. I also like how the book discusses the conflicts between cults and society in an objective way. Many books only look at a cult's behavior and ignore the society in which it exists.
If you aren't new to cult research, then there's nothing stunning about this book. The writing style is fairly dry. If you've done enough research, you've probably already come to many of the same conclusions as the author. However, I still thought the book was pretty fascinating. It's worth reading.
If you are just beginning to research cults, then this book is a good introduction to the subject. It's very thorough. The author has a lot of experience with these groups and obviously knows what he's talking about. I appreciate that he approached the subject objectively. He doesn't assume that all cults are evil and that all people should conform to the beliefs of mainstream society. I also like how the book discusses the conflicts between cults and society in an objective way. Many books only look at a cult's behavior and ignore the society in which it exists.
If you aren't new to cult research, then there's nothing stunning about this book. The writing style is fairly dry. If you've done enough research, you've probably already come to many of the same conclusions as the author. However, I still thought the book was pretty fascinating. It's worth reading.
August 3, 2009
For many years well-known psychiatrist Marc Galanter studied charismatic cults to discover the common ingredients that made them succeed or fail. He had first-hand experience with the Divine Light Mission (boy-guru Maharaj Ji) and with the Unification Church (Reverend Moon from Korea), attending sessions and meeting recruits and members (and later, defectors), who not only submitted to interviews but filled out lengthy questionnaires. The recruits and members of these groups were mostly young (early twenties), white, middle-class, and relatively well educated. The picture that emerged was this: a typical new recruit was undergoing personal crisis (broke up with boy/girlfriend or quit school or addicted to drugs or experiencing some form of mental problem), was therefore psychologically distressed, didn’t quite know who to turn to or what to do next—and this distress was quickly relieved (“relief effect”) by the unconditional acceptance (“love bath”) of the group, by the anxiety-relieving certainty of their shared belief, and by the ecstasy experienced while following the group’s practices (e.g., meditation). So Galanter’s model of charismatic cults includes three common forces:
*Group Cohesiveness—“For the young adults in our study, the decline in feelings of psychological distress was directly proportional to the degree of cohesiveness they felt toward the group.” “She used the strength of the group as an auxiliary ego to help regain her emotional stability.” “All members, whether seriously distressed or not, reported an improved emotional state after joining.”
*Shared Beliefs—“In a charismatic group, shared beliefs are best established by a close-knit communication system.” In a study to determine the influence of social context on response to drugs, the experimenters injected two groups with adrenalin and exposed the first to a hostile environment and the second to a happy environment. As expected, the subjects perceived the drug’s effect based on social context—the first group experienced the drug as anger-inducing, the second as bliss-inducing. Homosexuals inducted into a Pentecostal cult, which attacked homosexuality as sinful, not only converted to heterosexuality but after the conversion experienced less internal distress than did members of the general homosexual population. The Moonies, doctrinally committed to sexual abstinence and non-use of drugs, were not overly distressed by these restrictions, as evidenced by the very high rate at which the cult retained members. These examples illustrate the fact that shared beliefs can have a very powerful effect on both perception of reality and behavior.
*Altered Consciousness—“Experiences of altered consciousness [in the rebellious 1960s:], however, did leave a vacuum of commitment among the young that primed many of them to accept the new religions of the 1970s, particularly insofar as they offered meditative states as a substitute for drug experience.” “A large majority reported that during the conversion period to some degree they ‘saw something special that no one else could see’ (90%) and ‘heard something special that no one else could hear’ (83%).” A Pentecostal summed up his experience of participating in snake-handling, poison-drinking sessions: “I feel like I’m walking in another world.”
Galanter also approaches the charismatic group from biological and “social system” angles. Drawing on biological, ethological and anthropological research, he tries to explain why individuals, presumably driven by the need to survive (and thereby propagate their genes), sacrifice themselves for a group—from the standpoint of evolution theory, this seems to make no sense. But in fact, says he, it DOES make sense—for in the real world groups are more likely to survive than lone individuals, and the group, originally (with primitive man) a family affair, constitutes a gene pool, and by sacrificing himself for the group (for example, a warrior defending the clan or tribe) the individual actually makes it more likely that his genes (as carried in the gene pool) will survive. “A trait observed in a given individual may serve to improve the reproduction advantage of other individuals who themselves may carry genes for that same trait.”
As for social systems theory, Galanter defines the four functions of any system—all of which must be performed effectively for the charismatic group to survive in the long term. The functions? Transformation, monitoring, feedback and boundary control.
*Transformation—at any given time, any system must be engaged in various operations (transforming inputs into outputs), some of which are primary. In a charismatic group, especially early on, the primary operations are usually recruiting and fund-raising. Later on, if the group peaks out and stops growing, the primary operation often switches to monitoring (of existing members).
*Monitoring—to make sure its members compliantly assist in the group’s operations, the leadership must make sure that they know at all times what the game is: this works best over the long haul if an administrative hierarchy is established, with traditions, rituals and rules, and also with local team leaders who can adjust to immediate circumstances, give instructions daily and keep an eye on compliance.
*Feedback—the group must have some means of taking feedback from its members, to ensure that they are remaining compliant, and also from the outside world, to pick up danger signs—signs of antagonism that might threaten the group.
*Boundary Control—the group must control the boundaries separating it from the outside world—if the boundaries are too permeable, the group’s belief system could erode through excessive contact/conflict with other belief systems; on the other hand, if the boundaries are too impermeable, this might inhibit feedback and lead to a highly distorted and even delusional view of the outside world, sometimes with tragic consequences (does the word Jonestown ring a bell? David Koresh?).
Galanter concludes by examining two extremist cults that ended badly (the MOVE cult in Philadelphia, and suicidal Jonestown), a more moderate and successful cult (Unification Church—the “Moonies”), and a successful charismatic self-help group (Alcoholics Anonymous).
To me there were no revelations in this book—nothing really surprising. And in one respect I found it deficient: Galanter is so wrapped up in group process that he almost completely neglects the importance of the charismatic leader. (Freud would be horrified.) True, you need a troubled follower begging to be led, but you also need someone to do the leading—and that someone often ends with megalomanical power over every aspect of the follower’s life—and death. Would Nazi Germany have been Nazi Germany—or anything remotely like it?—without Hitler? Unlikely. And what would China have been like without Mao? And what if Trotsky and not Stalin had succeeded Lenin?
The strength of Galanter’s book is that it attacks from several angles, is quite thorough, and is based on empirical data rather than mere hand-waving. Cults also serves as a strong reminder of the incredible alacrity with which otherwise-intelligent people will trade the anxiety of personal freedom for the “certainty” of belief-bondage, and the equally incredible tenacity with which such beliefs are held—even when giggly silly or demonically delusional.
*Group Cohesiveness—“For the young adults in our study, the decline in feelings of psychological distress was directly proportional to the degree of cohesiveness they felt toward the group.” “She used the strength of the group as an auxiliary ego to help regain her emotional stability.” “All members, whether seriously distressed or not, reported an improved emotional state after joining.”
*Shared Beliefs—“In a charismatic group, shared beliefs are best established by a close-knit communication system.” In a study to determine the influence of social context on response to drugs, the experimenters injected two groups with adrenalin and exposed the first to a hostile environment and the second to a happy environment. As expected, the subjects perceived the drug’s effect based on social context—the first group experienced the drug as anger-inducing, the second as bliss-inducing. Homosexuals inducted into a Pentecostal cult, which attacked homosexuality as sinful, not only converted to heterosexuality but after the conversion experienced less internal distress than did members of the general homosexual population. The Moonies, doctrinally committed to sexual abstinence and non-use of drugs, were not overly distressed by these restrictions, as evidenced by the very high rate at which the cult retained members. These examples illustrate the fact that shared beliefs can have a very powerful effect on both perception of reality and behavior.
*Altered Consciousness—“Experiences of altered consciousness [in the rebellious 1960s:], however, did leave a vacuum of commitment among the young that primed many of them to accept the new religions of the 1970s, particularly insofar as they offered meditative states as a substitute for drug experience.” “A large majority reported that during the conversion period to some degree they ‘saw something special that no one else could see’ (90%) and ‘heard something special that no one else could hear’ (83%).” A Pentecostal summed up his experience of participating in snake-handling, poison-drinking sessions: “I feel like I’m walking in another world.”
Galanter also approaches the charismatic group from biological and “social system” angles. Drawing on biological, ethological and anthropological research, he tries to explain why individuals, presumably driven by the need to survive (and thereby propagate their genes), sacrifice themselves for a group—from the standpoint of evolution theory, this seems to make no sense. But in fact, says he, it DOES make sense—for in the real world groups are more likely to survive than lone individuals, and the group, originally (with primitive man) a family affair, constitutes a gene pool, and by sacrificing himself for the group (for example, a warrior defending the clan or tribe) the individual actually makes it more likely that his genes (as carried in the gene pool) will survive. “A trait observed in a given individual may serve to improve the reproduction advantage of other individuals who themselves may carry genes for that same trait.”
As for social systems theory, Galanter defines the four functions of any system—all of which must be performed effectively for the charismatic group to survive in the long term. The functions? Transformation, monitoring, feedback and boundary control.
*Transformation—at any given time, any system must be engaged in various operations (transforming inputs into outputs), some of which are primary. In a charismatic group, especially early on, the primary operations are usually recruiting and fund-raising. Later on, if the group peaks out and stops growing, the primary operation often switches to monitoring (of existing members).
*Monitoring—to make sure its members compliantly assist in the group’s operations, the leadership must make sure that they know at all times what the game is: this works best over the long haul if an administrative hierarchy is established, with traditions, rituals and rules, and also with local team leaders who can adjust to immediate circumstances, give instructions daily and keep an eye on compliance.
*Feedback—the group must have some means of taking feedback from its members, to ensure that they are remaining compliant, and also from the outside world, to pick up danger signs—signs of antagonism that might threaten the group.
*Boundary Control—the group must control the boundaries separating it from the outside world—if the boundaries are too permeable, the group’s belief system could erode through excessive contact/conflict with other belief systems; on the other hand, if the boundaries are too impermeable, this might inhibit feedback and lead to a highly distorted and even delusional view of the outside world, sometimes with tragic consequences (does the word Jonestown ring a bell? David Koresh?).
Galanter concludes by examining two extremist cults that ended badly (the MOVE cult in Philadelphia, and suicidal Jonestown), a more moderate and successful cult (Unification Church—the “Moonies”), and a successful charismatic self-help group (Alcoholics Anonymous).
To me there were no revelations in this book—nothing really surprising. And in one respect I found it deficient: Galanter is so wrapped up in group process that he almost completely neglects the importance of the charismatic leader. (Freud would be horrified.) True, you need a troubled follower begging to be led, but you also need someone to do the leading—and that someone often ends with megalomanical power over every aspect of the follower’s life—and death. Would Nazi Germany have been Nazi Germany—or anything remotely like it?—without Hitler? Unlikely. And what would China have been like without Mao? And what if Trotsky and not Stalin had succeeded Lenin?
The strength of Galanter’s book is that it attacks from several angles, is quite thorough, and is based on empirical data rather than mere hand-waving. Cults also serves as a strong reminder of the incredible alacrity with which otherwise-intelligent people will trade the anxiety of personal freedom for the “certainty” of belief-bondage, and the equally incredible tenacity with which such beliefs are held—even when giggly silly or demonically delusional.
September 22, 2022
A proper, thorough and in-depth (academic) study of CULTS along with an analysis of 'how' they operate. The reason or rather curiousty owing to which I chose and started reading this book, have been properly addressed by the holistic analysis done by the author. Based on his years of academic study/teaching and experience in professional health care he had closely studied the psychological factors involved in the establishment, running and finally culmination of cults or similar groups.
Considering the subject it deals with, this is obviously not an easy book to read, requires attention and focus. Although, quite engrossing (for people interested in such topics) it is definitely not a book which you can flip thorough.
5 stars no doubt for the sheer effort and holistic approach. I read it from cover to cover including the appendices.
Considering the subject it deals with, this is obviously not an easy book to read, requires attention and focus. Although, quite engrossing (for people interested in such topics) it is definitely not a book which you can flip thorough.
5 stars no doubt for the sheer effort and holistic approach. I read it from cover to cover including the appendices.
September 15, 2023
I lack the energy to do this book justice so will keep it simple and just say that I am very impressed by Galanter's research and conclusions. Though the book was published in 1989 before the following existed, we can project from his epilogue and see that right-wing militias such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys are deadly cults of the sort discussed there and that Donald Trump fits the criteria of a cult leader. True, left-wing pundits call him that, but it is now clear that Trump deserves to be called that.
October 3, 2021
This book's approach (sociological/psychological) is slightly different from that of other cult overviews I've read in preparation for the course I'm teaching, and as such is quite useful. However, the emphasis on biological/psychological factors isn't so pertinent to the angle I'm planning on taking, so this ended up being more of a skim for me.
July 12, 2018
Good book on religious cults. The observations and reflections were helpful in understanding the what and why of religious cults.
May 6, 2023
A bit more scientific and repetitive than I was looking for, but still detailed and interesting enough to be worth the effort.
September 10, 2009
A very educational, objective and scientific look at cult phenomena. Galanter takes a broad psychological approach to topics such as the effect of conversion on the mental well-being of cult joiners, the strain this causes between the cult member and his or her family, the conflict between the cult and society at large (sometimes violent and sudden). When possible, his statements are backed up by survey data or excerpts from interviews. This really is more a textbook than a pop take on the subject.
The author studiously avoids value judgements, but provides sufficient detail that we don't come away with a rosy picture of cult movements. Many of the case studies he examines ended in suicide or violent confrontation with the authorities- and when they didn't, there's still the deleterious effect on an individual's self-determination and familial relationships to consider. Rather than a weakness, however, this level-headedness allows a clear picture of the psychological and sociological factors in play at the boundary between a cult and the larger society.
Importantly, Galanter suggests that vulnerability to cults is purely a matter of one's (biologically determined) susceptibility to group influence. Most of the cults profiled were predominately populated by middle-class, college-educated whites. Presumably a college education would be incompatable with the incoherent philosophies expounded by a cult (some involving UFO-angel-reincarnation, e.g.); this emphasizes the point that cult membership is not a matter of identifying and agreeing with the cult's message, but more of the feeling of inclusivity and cohesiveness provided by the cult, not to mention unconditional acceptance and love, etc. Thus it seems that social dynamics determine one's worldview and beliefs, rather than critical thinking and reason.
This raises larger questions about society as a whole: how many of our collective beliefs are held together with similarly-dubious reasoning wrapped around the core of social inclusiveness? To what extent do other institutions borrow aspects of the cult when spreading their message or retaining members? Notably, Galanter identifies many aspects of the charismatic group at work in such groups as Alcoholics Anonymous.
The tension between the categories "cult" and "society" is most apparent when discussing "deprogramming": the practice of forcibly abducting and brainwashing a cult member back into society. The tactics used by deprogrammers are undeniably the same, and often more extreme or violent, than those used by the cults they intervene in. The cult member may rightly feel that their captors are inflicting far worse than their cult ever did. However, we speak of "brainwashing" when a cult inducts a member and of "deprogramming" when society (re-)inducts a member: the difference is purely in name only, and only so because society claims more members than the cult and thus takes a privileged view of itself.
The author studiously avoids value judgements, but provides sufficient detail that we don't come away with a rosy picture of cult movements. Many of the case studies he examines ended in suicide or violent confrontation with the authorities- and when they didn't, there's still the deleterious effect on an individual's self-determination and familial relationships to consider. Rather than a weakness, however, this level-headedness allows a clear picture of the psychological and sociological factors in play at the boundary between a cult and the larger society.
Importantly, Galanter suggests that vulnerability to cults is purely a matter of one's (biologically determined) susceptibility to group influence. Most of the cults profiled were predominately populated by middle-class, college-educated whites. Presumably a college education would be incompatable with the incoherent philosophies expounded by a cult (some involving UFO-angel-reincarnation, e.g.); this emphasizes the point that cult membership is not a matter of identifying and agreeing with the cult's message, but more of the feeling of inclusivity and cohesiveness provided by the cult, not to mention unconditional acceptance and love, etc. Thus it seems that social dynamics determine one's worldview and beliefs, rather than critical thinking and reason.
This raises larger questions about society as a whole: how many of our collective beliefs are held together with similarly-dubious reasoning wrapped around the core of social inclusiveness? To what extent do other institutions borrow aspects of the cult when spreading their message or retaining members? Notably, Galanter identifies many aspects of the charismatic group at work in such groups as Alcoholics Anonymous.
The tension between the categories "cult" and "society" is most apparent when discussing "deprogramming": the practice of forcibly abducting and brainwashing a cult member back into society. The tactics used by deprogrammers are undeniably the same, and often more extreme or violent, than those used by the cults they intervene in. The cult member may rightly feel that their captors are inflicting far worse than their cult ever did. However, we speak of "brainwashing" when a cult inducts a member and of "deprogramming" when society (re-)inducts a member: the difference is purely in name only, and only so because society claims more members than the cult and thus takes a privileged view of itself.
October 28, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews