Mind The Graph
Dear Reader,
Why do certain countries develop faster than others? Natural resources, good weather, and access to ports are a small part of the equation: the presence or absence of robust political institutions providing and upholding the rule of law. There are many countries where these institutions could not be implemented. There are many theories that have been advanced for it. Robert Putnam argues for "social capital", which can be understood as a proxy for empathic society. The willingness to do good for strangers irrespective of outcomes, according to Putnam is closely tracked with a marginal increase in GDP per person. However, why are some countries able to do it better than others?
Robert Putnam's study has focused on Italy and goes back to the 1300s, and uses the fascinating backdrop of Italian history to make a cogent point about modern economics. Robert Putnam has been able to show that areas ruled by feudal monarchies in the early to late 1300s have low levels of social trust and are relatively poor today when compared with Italian cities that could form a city-state and bandy together for commerce, and self-defence these are now economic powerhouses of Italy. Interesting theory but how does it scale up to the rest of the world? Let us see the presence of liberal political institutions in the world so how do we make sense of this theory?
To look closely into these arguments, we will have to look at the work of Johnathan Schulz and others who look at the psychological features of individualism, pro-social behaviour, and independence and attribute it to the Catholic church. As a thesis this is very interesting for the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) people are often contrasted with the rest of the world owing to very well-documented patterns of thought and behaviour. The authors argue that around 500 AD the Catholics started weakening the kinship structure by banning polygamy, marriages between cousins, and relatives of widows, and widowers. Ensuring that people had to move out and meet people from various social groups and the ties of kinship were weakened.
The paper argues that a direct psychological result of this was a reduction in "conformity and in-group loyalty" which made them more trusting. They extend the argument by matching the spread of the Catholic church and mapping it on top of modern indicators. Where the Catholic faith was leading between 500 - 1500 AD the indicators for trustworthiness, impartiality, and individuality are markedly in the top percentile. The other forms of Christianity which did not specifically police kinship associations did not score high on the indicators mentioned above.
The psychological attributes of WEIRD might be due to the facts mentioned here, but it is very hard to measure across the spectrum due to the differing nature of kinship, and tightly regulated matrimonial rules in Asia, and Africa. How do we measure the impact of colonialism in shaping the trust trajectories of people, territories, and countries which continue to be affected by that enterprise? There is a kernel of an interesting idea, and definitely, the Catholic church might have nudged some parts of the world to a version of democracy, but it also took away the agency of many others. There is much that needs to be researched here, the paper is a good start but it needs the Non-WEIRD section to step up.
When people think of cults, they usually remember the horror stories they have seen on the television or read about in the newspapers. The word ‘cult’ generally holds negative connotations due to the notoriety some of them have gained and their portrayal in popular culture. Amy Morin, the Editor-in-Chief of Verywell Mind, defines a cult as an “organised group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies”. Researchers tend to disagree on what constitutes a cult but most agree that these groups attract a certain kind of followers. While some members are forced to join cults and some may be born in them, most join out of their own free will. Initially, cult members seemed like crazy and irrational people to the outside world. After more research was conducted, it became apparent that there was more to it.
There are many different factors that are involved in the decision-making of these individuals. People who find themselves suffering from some types of crises are more prone to joining a cult. For example, one may be facing financial turmoil, going through a divorce, may have experienced the loss of a loved one or may even be dealing with substance abuse problems. These different reasons could play a role in the choices of a person. Younger people may also be attracted by a cult if they experience conflict in their household as there is a correlation between bad family dynamics and cult involvement.
Teenagers who have a fractured relationships with their parents or lacked a supportive environment growing up are more susceptible to joining these groups. Childhood trauma of any sort may also be a significant circumstance that affects cult participation. Studies have shown that unresolved insecurities such as attachment issues may also affect a person’s need for acceptance. This in turn leads to people being drawn in by these groups as they feel alienated or marginalised by society and cults usually promise acceptance. Optimism Bias refers to the psychological phenomenon where humans are wired to ‘look on the bright side’. This applies to cult members who expect a better future from joining these groups but all that glitters is not gold. Since cults usually have strict rules and norms that over time affect the behaviour of its members.
According to the Cult Education Institute, most cults usually have certain characteristics. These include total authoritarianism without accountability, zero tolerance for criticism or questions, lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, unreasonable fears regarding the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions, and abuse of members. These characteristics lead to members becoming dependant and giving their full allegiance to these groups. They become so attached to these groups and the beliefs of their leader, that they become willing to do just about anything.
That brings us to Charles Manson, the infamous criminal, who founded a desert cult known as the “The Family”. He manipulated his followers into carrying out a series of brutal murders on his behalf. This included the killing of eminent Hollywood personality, Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time. These horrific murders sent a shockwave through the United States and the public perception towards these organisations grew fearful. Another terrifying example is Jim Jones. In 1978, Jones, who founded his own cult called ‘The Peoples Temple’, commanded his followers to commit mass suicide. He labelled it a ‘revolutionary suicide’. The death toll was confirmed at 913, which included 304 children. He convinced his followers to drink punch poisoned with cyanide. These events took place in Guyana after Jones had shifted his cult there from the United States. Jones was paranoid that the United States would send in the military to kill him and his followers.
This was after he had ordered the assassination of a US congressman who had come to visit his cult to make sure that people were not being held against their will. The congressman promised to take any of the cultists back to the US if they wanted to go. This both angered and scared Jones who then had the congressman assassinated prior to his leaving. Fearing retaliation from the US government, the mass suicide took place, which has come to be known as ‘The Jonestown Massacre’. Some members opposed Jones’ plan, especially the killing of children but Jones still managed to persuade the majority of his congregation to commit suicide. This is evidence of the ultimate control and influence that cult leaders can impose on their followers. Only a few people managed to escape and they have described the irreparable damage caused by the events of that day on their psyche. Ex-members generally struggle to re-adjust to life in traditional societies due to becoming accustomed to an alternate way of life. Former cultists also speak of the trouble and fear they experience when they decide to leave such groups. Often times, they are scared of repercussions they may face after leaving the cult. Other times, they are fearful of disappointing their leader as they have given so much devotion over time.
Even though there has been a lot of generalisations made about people who join cults, the same cannot be said for the leaders of these movements. For example, Manson was a product of his negative environment. He lacked a proper family structure and his own mother even traded him to a waitress in exchange for a pitcher of beer. By his own admission, his mother and his other family members had very little interest in looking after him. He was passed around to various family members during his youth and none of them were a positive influence on him. His grandmother was extremist in her religious views and one of his uncles committed suicide while Manson was in his care. This turned Manson towards a life of crime and he began stealing by the age of nine. He was jailed twice and consumed drugs heavily. On the other hand, Jim Jones, came from a very traditional background. He attended church during his childhood, went to university, and was known for helping the poor. The backgrounds of the two cult leaders are wildly different but what is similar are the qualities they possessed. They were both looked at as messianic figures and admired for their charisma. They also had the ability to manipulate and control large groups of people. Manson picked up these qualities in jail while Jones gained them from working in the church Ministry. Hence, it can be seen that the motivations of cult leaders may be the same but that does not mean that they can be generalised in the same way their followers can.
Since people have access to more information in the modern world, it would seem that they would be able to differentiate between upstanding citizens and deceitful individuals but the rise of the internet and social media has meant that cult leaders have more ways to spread their message.
Thank you for reading The Behavioural Review
