|
Cultic Groups and Children: What Does the Literature Tell Us?
Outline for a Talk Given by
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
I.
Introduction
·
Why cultic groups and children? Why not Presbyterians and
children?
·
Characteristics of cults place children at risk (constellation,
not individual characteristics – not all new or unorthodox groups are cults)
·
Absolutist ideology. Black-white. We-they.
·
Closed, often physically isolated groups
·
Dissent not tolerated
·
Power centralized in leader
·
Use of extreme discipline
·
Rearing of children by others in group
·
Parents placed in position of middle management re child rearing
·
Lack of adequate medical, dental, nutritional care
·
Important to keep in mind that many situations besides membership
in cultic groups can put children at risk
·
Parental alcoholism
·
Poverty
·
Social violence
·
Also important to keep in mind that not all cultic groups have all
of the negative characteristics associated with the stereotype. Not all
children are harmed.
·
Moreover, some children are more resilient than others
(“invulnerables”)
·
I express these caveats because reports of abuse can sometimes be
horrific and we often have automatic emotional reactions that can cloud our
objectivity. Likely to hear such stories today. Important to analyze each case
individually and not overgeneralize from the dramatic cases.
·
Nevertheless, if we don’t understand how kids in cults are put at
risk of abuse and neglect, we can’t help them effectively or prevent others from
being harmed. Therefore, the topic of this conference warrants study and
careful thought.
·
Useful to reflect upon Dr. Bruce Perry’s research to understand
why it is important to understand causes and effects of child abuse. Early
childhood trauma can affect the physical development of the brain and cause
longstanding psychological problems. Research on heart rate (a potentially
promising tool for study of kids in cultic groups). Branch Davidian children.
II.
What does the literature tell us
A.
Journalistic, clinical, legal literature
·
A great deal of anecdotal evidence demonstrating types of harm
(Langone & Eisenberg; Singer & Lalich; Pediatrics)
·
Medical neglect (Skolnick)
·
Psychological abuse – Singer on Jonestown
·
Physical abuse – Helfer quote
·
Sexual abuse
·
Death (exorcisms; beatings)
·
What this literature doesn’t tell us
·
Whether or not such reports are concentrated in a small number of
cultic groups or are common among a range of cultic groups
·
The prevalence of such harm in cultic groups
·
Whether or not the prevalence is greater than the baseline for the
general population (reasoning suggests that it is; but we don’t have good data)–
some statistics (Finkelhor, American Psychologist March 1994) – much divergence
and variation in quality of data
·
Physical abuse: 23.5/1000
·
Neglect: 20.2/1000
·
Sexual abuse: 6.3/1000
·
Homicide: 0.035/1000 (35/1,000,000)
·
Physical punishment: 498.6/1000 (not same as physical abuse)
Interesting to consider
relatively small percentage of physical abuse compared to physical punishment
(1:25). Parents exercise restraint. The power dynamics of cultic groups and
frustrations parents may feel in these groups may very well lead to a decrease
in restraint. Seems reasonable and suggested by clinical evidence, but not
demonstrated through formal scientific studies.
B.
The Scientific Literature
·
Gaines et al. (p 330)
·
Lilliston
·
52 children between ages of 6 and 12 in 3 Family Homes
·
Participant observation field research
·
Intelligence test; achievement test; a child behavior checklist;
semi-structured interview
·
Results: p 19; p 20; p 21;
·
Similar study on CUT
·
What do we make of these findings, especially given the negative
picture given by other research (e.g., Gasde)?
·
Although there is reason to question Lilliston’s findings, they
deserve respect. These are the kinds of studies that need to be done. But
there are problems with his particular studies.
·
Judge’s quote: p 222
·
Balch’s paper on how not to discover malfeasance; Zablocki
blacklisting paper; Beit-Hallahmi
·
Ex-member reports of misleading researchers (refractory sample
issue)
·
The disparity between positive and negative reports is not
necessarily irreconcilable – consider these findings from research
·
Elitism & dissent not tolerated highest ranking characteristics
·
MacDonald’s notion of bicameral normative system
·
It appears that about 10% of group members are ejected – leader
does what he/she has to in order to maintain control and keep an equilibrium
that favors him/her.
·
Suggests that quiet conformists can continue to receive carrot of
elitism. Singer & Lalich say: “submit, surrender, and obey is the theme and
yardstick of successful adaptation in the cult.” From our social vantage point,
the cost of this adaptation is an affront to human dignity, but it cannot be
denied that some people adapt, even though they may have to stifle themselves to
do so. Those who don’t stifle themselves get attacked. Perhaps these are the
persons who are most likely to leave and to seek help. The same could be true
with kids. Helfer’s findings, for example, found that boys were more likely to
be abused, perhaps because they were more likely to resist.
III.
Research needs
·
Better theory
·
Case studies (Dole) – illuminate dynamics
·
Surveys (child care workers; former group members; current group
members) – compare to population baselines
·
Psychological and educational testing of children in groups and
children who have left groups – examine the distribution of responses
·
Psychologically sensitive participant observation
·
Longitudinal studies of children taken into or born into a cultic
group
|
