Many people who have been subjected to harsh systems of influence may deny aspects of their experience. Some become angry at or resistant to the idea that they were changed or directed by psychological manipulation, persuasion, or influence tactics. Some may even develop cognitive dissonance about the knowledge that they willingly supported beliefs, relationships, and obedience to a leader that they now find repugnant. It is very threatening to think that you might have been controlled or changed by another person or group of people; nevertheless, it happens every day. Luckily, so does the resistance that can help people escape these systems.
Coping Mechanisms for Surviving Abusive Systems of Influence
It is no easy task to resist abusive systems of influence, because their purpose is to influence (and thus control) your thoughts, your emotions, your behaviors, and your sense of self. It can be hard to marshal your internal resources when they are being used against you. In this regard, systems of influence can be more difficult to resist than the other three aspects of bounded choice. Many of our narrators were able to rebel against narcissistic leaders, all-encompassing belief systems, or harsh systems of control. But cultic systems of influence engulf and invade the lives of members—who are surrounded in every moment of every day by invisible yet forceful persuasion tactics that impose and reinforce internal and external compliance. Coping with and resisting these powerful forces requires ingenuity.
A young man who was a third-generation Jehovah’s Witness appealed directly to God:
There was no way you could socialize with anybody or have real friends. It was impossible. You couldn’t go to a birthday party. You couldn’t. I used to pray to God to make me normal. To be like an average kid. To be able to just do fun stuff. To not have to dress up in a monkey suit three times a week, go to all these meetings, and knock on other people’s doors. But I felt guilty for praying for something like that, too. You know, God didn’t want that. He wanted me out there doing this stuff. Because I know I would feel guilty for saying it afterwards. But I knew also that I didn’t enjoy the nervous tension all the time, the ridicule, and everything else I had to go through.
This appeal didn’t work because this young man’s God was intricately involved with the Witnesses’ systems of influence. A young man who was born and raised in the Bible-based cult found another way. He used his analytical skills to assess people, and then shifted his behavior to meet their needs so that he could maintain some level of internal freedom and autonomy:
Well, I was not emotionally connected to anyone. I never had that. I had strategic connection. The way I operated in the world was to analyze the situation and see what was needed: who was in charge; what were their prejudices, biases, and needs; and how to activate their prejudices and biases to make the situation workable. And also how to meet their needs so that I could possibly get mine met. That was really what I did. From place after place, situation after situation: I would come in, analyze the situation, and figure out how to operate to allow me the freedom to continue to live my life, which was 100 percent in my head, in my books. That’s what I did.
We all find ways to protect or assert our individuality in response to abusive systems of influence; however, these maneuvers require subtlety. Such restraint is necessary because cultic systems of influence interfere with us at the ground level of our emotions, thoughts, and self-concept. Resistance against these abusive social systems takes skill, because cults focus most of their energy on influencing and persuading their members, potential members, outsiders, neighbors, the media, law enforcement, the legal system, and even local governments. Even so, the sixty-five people in Janja’s study successfully resisted and escaped from their groups’ powerful systems of influence. Some of our narrators were teens when they left— with no destination, no money, and not even a change of clothes—yet they were able to create new lives and new selves in the outside world. Cultic systems of influence are indeed very powerful, but they are not all-powerful; they can be resisted.
As you observe the systems of influence in your own life, note whether they are healthy or toxic, and also note how you feel inside them. If you lose your bearings, your boundaries, or your sense of self in response to them, you may be in the presence of toxic systems of influence.
Evaluating the Systems of Influence in Your Own Life
Influence and persuasion are present in all social relationships, so it’s important to explore the systems of influence in your life and identify any current problems or any past situations in which you were influenced negatively. Understanding and identifying these situations is the first step toward overcoming their effects.
The following checklists can help you identify systems of influence that are worthwhile and appropriate—and they will also help you identify systems that are controlling, abusive, or likely to undermine your individuality. As you look through these lists, remember that systems of influence are used by individuals, groups, and the media; they are a part of most forms of communication. Influence and persuasion are regular features of everyday life. They can be healthy or toxic, but they’re nearly always present.
Healthy systems of influence focus on creating group cohesion that is supportive for the group and for the individuals within it. Healthy influence creates a sense of belonging, dedication, friendliness, and teamwork; and it can help people reach goals that they couldn’t achieve on their own. On the other hand, unhealthy systems of influence focus on the group above all other things, including individual rights, dignity, and even safety. These unhealthy systems routinely manipulate their members, pit them against each other, create enemies in and fear of the outside world, and enforce obedience at all costs.
You can use this checklist to gauge the health of the systems of influence in your relationships, in any groups you belong to, in the media, in politics, or in any other place where people attempt to create behavioral change, communal agreements, or group unity. Place a check mark by any of the following statements that are true.
□
There is constant pressure for people to change and conform.
□
The push for change comes from above; the needs or ideas of group members are not important.
□
There are frequent group dedication and commitment ceremonies and activities; oneness is a central goal.
□
The system of influence is built into the powerful sense of community; this deep closeness is both supportive to members and also a way for the group to pry into and control members’ private lives.
□
Loyalty to family or friends is discouraged; all loyalty must be focused on the group and the leader.
□
Gossip, informal communication, and off-topic conversations may be forbidden.
□
Members have no privacy; their actions, behaviors, emotions, and even thoughts are monitored.
□
Members soon internalize the pressure to conform, and will obediently monitor and report their own behavior.
□
Members must report on themselves and also each other—as a result, a culture of confession will arise.
□
Confessions are public; and punishment and humiliation are public as well.
□
The leader’s behavior is off limits; no one can report on the transgressions of the leader, for he or she is exalted and can do no wrong.
□
Special people around the leader or the leadership group are also protected from any criticism; often there are no consequences for their behavior or actions.
□
Members may be given or asked to choose new names or nicknames, and will be encouraged to let go of previous interests, relationships, loyalties, and goals.
□
The group may develop its own special language that outsiders cannot understand.
□
Any successes or hard work performed by individuals will be attrib
uted to the group or leader, while any difficulty or failure will be blamed on individuals.
□
People in the outside world are treated as non-people: unenlightened, deluded, or evil—and they have value only if they can be converted.
□
The group or the leader may reinterpret events to verify the group’s beliefs, fears, or visions of the future; everything will be fitted into their all-inclusive and transcendent belief system.
If you checked yes to one or more of these statements, you may be dealing with a toxic system of influence. However, this does not mean that the person or group that uses the system is dangerous, and it does not mean that you’re involved in a cult. This troubling system of influence would have to be combined with the other three aspects of bounded choice (a transcendent belief system, a charismatic and narcissistic leader, and a toxic system of control) before the group or relationship could be considered cultic. However, if this system of influence disturbs you (even if the other aspects of bounded choice aren’t present), you may be able to suggest changes and explore whether the people inside the system will address the problems of undue influence and persuasion.
You can also share the features of healthy influence and persuasion below to help the person or group understand the specific ways in which their systems of influence have become unhealthy. If they can’t or won’t change, you can use these features below to find a new person or group that employs systems of influence that are respectful, compassionate, and healthy.
Signs of Healthy Systems of Influence
•
The system helps people feel welcome and important to the group as they are.
•
The system encourages healthy community, teamwork, and camaraderie, as well as open discussion and debate about group projects, goals, and decisions.
•
Members are role models for each other, but internal competition is a choice rather than a requirement.
•
Individual hard work and excellence are celebrated, and are attributed to the individual.
•
The group encourages self-awareness and personal responsibility, but does not require public self-exposure.
•
The system supports privacy, self-respect, independence, and kindness.
•
Communication is direct and open, and secret-keeping is discouraged.
•
Members are not required to spy on or report others.
•
Members have the right to challenge the ways that group unity is achieved.
•
Striving for excellence may be a group value, but the demands are not harsh, and people are not penalized for failure.
•
Dedication may be a group value, but the group makes room for casual members.
•
The system incorporates fairness, concern for individuals, and acceptance of outsiders.
•
The group provides a healthy sense of belonging and realistic levels of commitment.
•
The group does not require people to transform themselves or dedicate their lives to the cause.
•
Leaders and special insiders are not above the rules, and they can be challenged if they disrupt or ignore group norms.
•
The system helps members develop a unified group identity that does not erase their own identities.
When a system of influence is healthy, it supports group identity and individual identity equally. When a system is toxic, it demands change, obedience, and a stripping away of individual identity. With the help of the bounded choice model, we can see that toxic systems of influence exploit close community ties to control and change members into obedient followers. Many cult members feel a deep sense of belonging and comradeship, certainly; but that may come at a terrible price—because even small differences or minor mistakes invite shaming, punishment, shunning, and perhaps even excommunication.
The close relationships people build inside cultic groups are always at risk because their relationships belong to the cult and can be severed at any time. Close community ties, teamwork, and deep dedication are wonderful things; but when they’re part of a toxic system of influence, they can turn people into unwitting cogs in the group’s machine. Breaking free from toxic systems of influence can be very difficult because these systems hook into our powerful need to belong. However, people can and do break free every day—and we can all learn how to identify and avoid these unhealthy and harmful systems. We can also learn how to recognize and contribute to healthy and worthwhile systems of influence and persuasion.
Systems of influence are the final aspect of Janja’s four-part bounded choice model. We placed it last because it is truly the glue that binds groups together; yet, it can be very hard to identify if you don’t know about influence techniques and persuasion tactics. Inside toxic groups, systems of influence can be so all-consuming that people might not be able to identify all of the facets until they leave. Plus, the influence may be so powerful that members might not have the time or energy they need to even consider leaving. When you understand influence and persuasion, you can see them in action more clearly; but when you’re surrounded by them, or when you’re born into or raised inside powerful systems of influence, you may not have any other frame of reference.
Systems of influence can be the subtlest of the four aspects of bounded choice; yet they also tend to exert the most powerful hold on members—even more so than the more obvious aspects of the charismatic leader, the transcendent belief system, or the systems of control. The choice to stay in a system like this—and the choice to self-monitor and report on yourself, your friends, and your family— is truly a bounded choice. In a toxic system of influence, you have no other option than to silence your thoughts, your emotions, and your needs—and obey. Thankfully, our narrators had the courage, strength, and hope they needed to listen to themselves, smash their chains, and break free.
In the next chapter, we’ll focus on what it was like for our narrators to escape from their confining groups and land in a world they had been taught to view as evil and unsalvageable. As you may imagine, the rules these children of cults learned in their groups, the transcendent beliefs systems they were taught to embody, the leaders they were taught to worship, and the ways in which they were molded into perfectly obedient followers made their transitions very rocky. Even so, they managed to find their way in the alien world the rest of us know as regular life.
Notes
1.
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things (New York: Quill, 1984).
2.
Ibid., 13.
3.
Ibid., 72.
4.
See Janja Lalich, “Part Two: The Democratic Workers Party,” Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 113–218.
5.
Any good social psychology textbook explains these phenomena chapter by chapter. See, for example, Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal (New York: Worth, 2011); Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, and Samuel R. Sommers, Social Psychology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2015); John D. DeLamater and Daniel J. Myers, Social Psychology, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011); Philip G. Zimbardo and Michael R. Leippe, The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991).
6.
Robert Jay Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China (New York: Norton, 1961).
7.
Ibid., 419. When a group’s belief system is especially apocalyptic, members may be convinced to hasten the arrival of Armageddon by carrying out gruesome attacks against the outside world. That was the case on March 20, 1995, when members of the Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, released lethal sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system during rush hour. On an even larger
scale, we can look to China under Chairman Mao Zedong in his attempt at a renewal of communist life through his coercive and cruel Cultural Revolution. The outcome was disastrous for the Chinese people. And even today, we witness countless examples of the violence inherent in apocalyptic extremism, orchestrated or inspired by single-minded groups (such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, the KKK, etc.) and/or their beliefs.
8.
For a description of these themes, see Ibid., “Chapter 22,” 419–37; or Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships (Berkeley, CA: Hunter House, 2006), 38–9.
9.
Benjamin D. Zablocki, “Hyper-Compliance in Charismatic Groups,” in Mind, Brain and Society: Toward a Neurosociology of Emotion, Eds., David D. Franks and Thomas S. Smith (Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999), 287–310.
10.
Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1964).
11.
See Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts (New York: Mariner Books, 2015).
6
LANDING ON MARS
Finding Their Way in an Alien World
I didn’t know how to talk to people. When I left the FLDS, I moved in with a foster family and I used them as my rock. They taught me how to talk, how to dress, how to be. At school I was very socially awkward. I made friends with the kids who had no friends because that is the only place I knew where to start, and I was very afraid of the kids that were more popular. I remember, just after I left, walking down the halls in junior high school and feeling like someone put a sign on my head that said, “Freak!” Everyone could see where I was from—regular clothes didn’t change anything at all. You could look at me and think that maybe I was normal, but I just felt like I was broadcasting that I was from Colorado City.1
Escaping Utopia Page 16
