Sense of Self

Now this is a big one - and my ideas are still very embryonic. What do we mean by 'self' - than alone is a huge discussion point. Leaving that aside for the moment - how do children raised in cultic groups gain a sense of self. Do they depend on their group for that stable sense of self. I am reading a research paper by Coates (2013) - he is looking at people who convert into cultic groups and then leave. There is very little research on those who are  born into these groups and leave later. Coates writes:
"Participants [whom he categorised as social selves] describe high dependancy on others precipitated by childhood environments that were controlling or authoritarian. They describe membership as motivated by a a dependency on 'others' for the construction of a stable sense of self. Other participants who are labeled protected selves, describe histories of struggling with social anxiety and difficulties in forming social connexions and depict childhood environments that were neglectful or even abusive. These participants describe membership as motivated by a desire to 'get fixed' and resolve pre-involvement vulnerabilities pertaining to difficulties forming social relationships and emotionally connecting to others"

Remember his participants were not born into the cultic group but chose to join it later in adulthood. But I wondered if brethren children depend on the cultic environment to their stable sense of self and this makes leaving difficult - because they would lose that. Symbolic interactionists (don't worry about that label!) argue that for us to be fully functioning, the self needs both a sense of personal uniqueness as well as a sense of belonging and social connectedness. The degree to which the self is anchored in either the 'self' or 'others may vary between individuals. There needs to be a balance but maybe in cultic groups that balance is heavily biased towards a sense of self being anchored in others thus becoming dependent on them.

In order to leave the groups, doubts and disillusionment seem important. But they are not enough because leaving means leaving so much - the community of friends, the loss of connectedness that may be giving the person that sense of self. So how do people negotiate that leaving process - given the levels of dissonance they may be experiencing staying is not an option but leaving is also for some not an option. By staying they can avoid an identity crisis. Leaving might be avoided until an alternative solution is found in which the person can anchor their self.

I need to think about all this but your input would be wonderful! When did you start to doubt, start to feel something is not right. What processes did you go through to resolve  these doubts  did they work for a while and then more doubts came along. How did you manage all of this. Did you rationalise it - deny it, avoid it all, reinterpret what was happening and then perhaps all of that failed too and you felt  you and to leave. Did you manage the leaving process by finding some connection to non group people, and become connected to them.

Cost Benefit Analysis

I have decided to resurrect this blog - I stopped using it partly because I had become aware that the brethren were watching it. But that's ok - I am happy for them to read it now. But anyone commenting do please note that this blog is public.

I think I have said elsewhere that I am doing a lot of reading at the moment. As I read thoughts come into my head and I long for a discussion but who to talk to. I try on Facebook but those threads are hard to find later as they scroll down the page. Also they are often highjacked which is fine - that is what FB is for.

So I am going to try raising questions here and then alerting people on FB to them.

Costs and benefits. Research seems to show a consensus that religion and good mental health go together. That of course is a loaded question - what is religion and what is good mental health. Both are multidimensional concepts. I am currently reading a paper that asks the question does membership of a cult or high demand group mean that we cannot weigh up the costs and benefits of belonging. They talk about findings that suggest Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses ignore the costs or (mis) perceive the benefits. By ignoring the costs or by misperceiving the benefits they choose to stay - they no longer can weigh the costs and benefits of belonging up. The authors of the paper then talked to both Moonies and JWs and found that actually they did know what the costs were e.g. the Moonie said that if Rev Moon is right then great I am on the floor of the greatest event in history but if he is wrong - so what, i was probably going to spend the rest of my life on the factory floor anyway. This to me is a kind of insurance policy and one that I once used. If God exists then i am on the right road, if he doesn't then what have I lost.

What the Moonies and the JWs did say though was that the benefits offset the costs - warmth, family feeling, busy often exciting life. They were fully aware of the costs but the big benefit of eternal life or whatever was so large that these were offset. In other words, the writer concludes, there was no evidence that the members were ignorant of the costs, or under compulsion and were not  bearing them because they were brainwashed

So what is your experience - when you were a member, were you aware of the costs of the high time commitment, the financial commitment, the rules, the loss of family etc and if so did you offset them with the benefits and what were those benefits?