by Helena Lofgren

Image – Personality.co

The concepts of the golden child and the evil/scapegoated child can make us think of
narcissistic parents assigning these roles in a family. However, these roles can also be
assigned to adults in a cultic context, and understanding the implications of these roles
can benefit cult recovery. In my clinical work, I meet people who have left a cultic
environment, alone or together. They may be siblings who broke up with a narcissistic
parent, they may be family who left a group as a unit, or they may be friends who
withdrew from a cultic group together. Despite all the goodwill and love a survivor may
receive, healing can be difficult as there are many wounds and triggers in the
relationships between the former members. They might have different experiences in the
same context for many reasons. In the recovery process, it can be helpful to try to
understand the different roles and the dynamics among the cult leader, the golden child
and the evil/scapegoated child.
In this article I look at each one of these roles—the cult leader, the golden child, and the
evil/scapegoated child, and how they can interact. I give an example of these roles from
recent Swedish history and note some of the benefits understanding these roles can have
for helping people recover from their cultic experience.

A Note on My Therapeutic Method

In my own practice, I work with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). There are various
forms of CBT, but they share a basis in research and in theory, for example in
developmental psychology, learning psychology, cognitive psychology, and social
psychology. As research develops, so does CBT. Today it also includes research in, for
example, mindfulness and self-compassion. In CBT the therapist is active: Together with
the client, we formulate goals, treatment plans, and an agenda for each meeting. CBT is
a structured way of working with psychological problems, but there is also flexibility for
the wishes and needs of the client. There are a wide variety of techniques like exposure,
visualization, role-play, and mindfulness practices. The therapist and the client
collaborate to find ways for the client to use therapy in their everyday life in the form of
homework.
A common misconception is that CBT is superficial, or just about the here and now. For
some problems, such as arachnophobia (fear of spiders), you may not need to explore
much background. But for other problems, like trauma and chronic trauma, exploring the
client’s background is central.
Psychoeducation is also a vital part of CBT. This means educating the client about the
different ways to understand their problems and how to treat them. For example, a client with panic attacks is educated about how stress manifests in the body and the role
catastrophic thoughts play in the development of an attack, as well as how to break the
harmful cycle. There are no manuals for using CBT to treat clients coming out of cults,
but in the same spirit as with other problems, it’s important for the cult client to
understand what has happened to them psychologically, as an individual and as a
member of a cultic group. Other benefits of psychoeducation are that it reduces magical
thinking and increases the possibility of approaching issues more objectively, as the
therapist can refer to research.

The Cult Leader

The cult leader as a traumatizing narcissist

In his 2014 article on the relational system of the traumatizing narcissist, Daniel Shaw
describes two differing types of pathological narcissists who had, up to that point, been
recognized by psychoanalytic writers. This person may be a parent, a sibling, a teacher, a
cult leader, and so on. Of the two types, one is the deflated narcissist, who is thin
skinned and shame-prone with fragile self-esteem, easily wounded or insulted. The other
is the overinflated, grandiose, thick-skinned narcissist, who is manipulative, aggressive,
exploiting, and controlling. These narcissists can be charismatic, seductive, and intensely
attentive. Shaw describes the psychoanalytic view that the two types are
complementary.
Behind the deflated narcissist’s self-doubt and over-idealization is
hidden grandiosity—he enjoys grandiosity by proxy, or longs to do so;
and behind the overinflated narcissist’s entitled grandiosity is deep
insecurity and the urgent need to ward off destabilization, and often
psychosis, by manipulating and controlling others who will idealize him
(Shaw, 2014).
To these classic categories, Shaw adds the concept of the traumatizing narcissist that
goes beyond defining a character or neurological pathology. He explains that the
pathology is about subjugation of others: followers, spouses, siblings, children:
By subjugating the other, the narcissist inflates and verifies his
delusional grandiosity and omnipotence. To elevate oneself by
subjugating another is the essence of what I mean by traumatizing
narcissism. The chief means of subjugation is objectification—using the
other as one’s object to possess, suppressing the subjectivity of the
other, exploiting the other (Shaw, 2014).

The core here is that the narcissists care primarily about their own needs and feelings. If
someone else is expressing their needs, the narcissist will make the other person look
selfish and hurtful. Shaw explains that the narcissistic parent is being both envious of
and resentful toward the child’s right to be dependent and demanding. The parent will
make the child feel shame for their own needs and wishes and will learn to see themself
as the parent does, as greedy, selfish, or weak (Shaw, 2014).

The cult leader as a person with disorganized attachment
In her 2021 book, Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian
Systems, Alexandra Stein describes the cult leader in a similar way but uses attachment
theory to understand cult leaders and how they form groups. Attachment is an
evolutionary mechanism developed for survival. Being attached to a caregiver is a means
of protection and just as vital as seeking after food. The caregiver becomes a safe haven
where the child finds protection and can be emotionally comforted. If the parent is good
enough, the child will be securely attached and thereby develop a sense of being loved
and valuable and will be trusting of others. If the parent is not good enough, the child
will develop an insecure attachment and struggle to feel valuable and trusting of others.
The worst scenario is if the caregiver is the one who is making the child feel scared or
threatened. You can’t safely escape both from and to the same person. It becomes an impossible situation where the child will be confused and may dissociate. If this becomes
a pattern in the relationship, that child will develop a disorganized attachment.
Stein connects attachment theory with trauma research, explaining that disorganized
attachment is a chronic trauma which will prevent the brain from adequately regulating
emotions, responding to threats, and integrating thoughts and emotions. Since the
dissociation is not global, a person with disorganized attachment can be highly
functioning in other areas of their lives. According to Stein, this theory explains both the
cult leader, who has experienced disorganized attachment in their own life, and the cult
leader’s impact on followers. Regardless of what attachment pattern you grow up with,
when you are recruited into a cultic group as an adult your attachment to the group will
become disorganized (Stein, 2021).
Stein shows how the cult leader starts a cult by recruiting one person (person zero) by
alternating love and threats, manipulating the member, and isolating them from their
safe havens until the member’s attachment is disorganized. The leader’s totalitarian
ideology is not the end but a means to prevent the followers from reflecting adequately
on their situation, because if they did, they might consider leaving the group. Stein
further explains that there are two types of disorganized attachment: the dominant,
aggressive type (the leader), and the passive, obedient type (the follower). What drives
cult leaders is to make sure followers are attached to the leader (in a disorganized way),
in order that the leader may avoid abandonment. The cult leaders do this in the best way
they know, from their own experiences.

The cult leader assigning roles as a mean of control

These two models of understanding a cult leader have in common the chronic trauma
experienced by the cult leader. Their own developmental trauma has resulted in well
hidden low self-esteem and fear of being abandoned. Their behaviors look very much the
same with lack of empathy, guilt, or regret; having a shallow charm; being egocentric,
manipulative, lying, and grandiose. With this background, it’s easier to understand why
they put so much effort into controlling their followers. There are many ways to assert
control in a manipulative way. Assigning different roles is only one aspect of the control
system.

The Golden Child and the Evil/Scapegoated Child

Research on narcissistic parents indicates that there are generally two types: the
disinterested and the controlling. The disinterested parent loses interest in the child if the
child does not provide the parent with continuous confirmation and flattery. On the other
hand, if the child is successful, they will become a trophy. The controlling parent is
obsessed with the child, monitors them, and finds it very difficult to respect their
boundaries and autonomy. Both these types have low tolerance for failure. The child the
parent prefers is regarded as a “golden child,” is seen as having all the virtues of the
parent and is expected to give the parent prestige (Perrotta, 2020).
Other researchers describe how narcissistic families with several children will designate
one of them a golden child who is to be perfect in everything. The child “becomes a
property and an extension of his parent who projects on him all the grandeur and
perfection, as his images” (Costin, 2020).
The opposite role is the scapegoat. That child is denigrated and humiliated, “permanently
triangulated, i.e. compared, placed in the shadow of the golden child to accentuate his
self-doubt and discourage him from any attempt to threaten this pathological model”
(Costin, 2020).
If the golden child rebels against the expectations of the parent, their status can change
to scapegoat. In the most dysfunctional families “the parent can incite the golden child to
mistreat the scapegoat child” (Perrotta, 2020).
In a cultic context these roles can be assigned to children and/or adults. The “golden
child” becomes a role model for the other followers, and the “evil child” or scapegoat is a person you can blame for everything that goes wrong. The leader can focus on this
scapegoat to avoid recognizing their own shortcomings. These roles can quickly change
and can shift between family or cult members at the whim of leadership.
In CBT we often talk about behaviors in terms of what function they fulfill for the person
and how they affect other people and relationships. This approach can be used to explore
the functions of different roles in a cult and help the client make these links and
connections. When I do this with my clients, I give examples of the different functions
and outcomes when the leader is assigning the roles of the golden child and the evil child
in a cultic group.

The golden child

Assigning someone the role of the golden child has several benefits for the leader. This
person presents proof to the other members that it’s possible to come close to the goal
of being a successful member and that the leadership and the ideology are working.
On the other hand, there are also considerable risks with having an adult golden child.
The golden child can get too popular and, in the end, replace the leader. The cult leader
may try to minimize the risk of replacement and abandonment by damaging the potential
attachment between the golden child and other members. This is a common technique of
cult leaders, separating parents from children or spouse from spouse so the relationship
with another person does not jeopardize the relationship with the cult leader.
I experienced this firsthand in my own cult experience, which was in the Unification
Church. A local leader in New York tried to make us more loyal to him than to the leader
Moon himself. When this was revealed, the local leader was kicked out. We were told he
had been attacked by Satan and therefore we should not have any contact with him. We
were sent to a camp in upstate New York to learn to see him as the devil and reinforce
our attachment to Moon. Once the golden child became a risk to the leader, he was
turned into an evil child.

Another way of minimizing the risk a golden child presents to the leader is to give the
golden child a role which other followers not only are impressed by, but also fear. For
example, the golden child may be held up as an example of good behavior and assigned
the role of teaching others how to be good members. The golden child is often also
turned into an informer, reporting to the leader on other members’ behaviors. In the
manipulative language of the Moonies, the leader Sun Myung Moon and his wife were
called “the True Parents,” and the followers then automatically became their “children”.
The informer system was presented as helping “brothers and sisters” to follow the right
path, and if they did not, telling “mom or dad” about it by giving the information upwards
to the closest leader.
Since the goals always are unrealistic, the golden child will always ultimately fail, or at
least not reach the leader’s goals. This may lead the leader to put pressure on the golden
child to do whatever it takes to achieve results. By now the golden child is often
desperate and may use the same behaviors as the leader to punish harshly those who
fail or do not obey. In many cases the punishment is a direct instruction. The golden
child becomes a punisher, an offender. A golden child knows that if they decline to be an
informer or a punisher, the leader will be furious and severely punish what is seen as
betrayal. Falling from grace is worse than never having grace. The stakes are higher. The
golden child is in a trap. There is no way out. They will be severely punished, possibly
become the evil child, or be ostracized or kicked out of the group with nowhere to go
since they have probably by now burned all their bridges to the world outside.

The evil child

It is also beneficial for the leader to make followers obedient by setting an example of
what happens when they do not obey. This can be done by creating a scapegoat or an
“evil child”. The leadership chooses someone to blame for what are really their own
mistakes or shortcomings or as a distraction from uncomfortable situations. The leader
can take this one more step, by choosing as a scapegoat someone who is loyal and hardworking and does not see the attack coming. This instills fear in everyone–anyone
can at any moment with no obvious reason be degraded or even kicked out. In an evil
twist, the golden child can be pressured to punish whoever the leader doesn’t like, and
the rest will most likely follow, heaping criticism on the designated scapegoat.

How roles change behaviour and self-image

Being assigned a role may also change one’s self-image. In social psychology we learn
that we define ourselves by our behaviors. If you can change someone else’s behavior,
you can also change their self-image. Someone assigned the role of golden child or a role
model, being praised and rewarded, may come to view themselves as superior to other
members, as special and chosen (by the leader), the one with good results. Harsh
behavior towards others and reporting on their misdeeds are defined as being a good and
loyal member which strengthens one’s self-image. You learn to think and act like the
leader, regarding your own feelings, needs, and boundaries as expressions of
selfishness/ego/demons that you need to try to get rid of.
A person assigned the role of evil child or scapegoat may come to believe they are a bad
person. I have met people who have been punished psychologically, physically, and
socially (criticized or ostracized) by the whim of the leader, and they become desperate
to get accepted again. They behave as if they did something terrible to earn humiliation
and punishment, which in turn strengthens their self-image as an evil person.
To understand this dynamic, it is helpful to apply Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence
(Cialdini, 2021). One of these is the principle of reciprocation. First you give a person
something, like a favor, or an unsolicited gift—as when a charity sends a free tote bag or
calendar. Later you ask for something in return. The charity wants a donation. It will be
difficult to turn that request down, since we usually are raised with the understanding
that we need to repay what another person has provided. If not, we will feel guilt. This
becomes manipulative when something is presented as a favor or a gift, but in fact it is a
way to make you feel obligated to say yes to the request as a way of repaying the
original gift.

Another principle of influence is that we first induce someone to make a small
commitment; then we make a request for a larger commitment. Because humans desire
to seem consequent to ourselves and to others, the victim may be more willing to agree
to the larger request to be consistent with their prior commitment. The trick is to make
the victim change their behaviors in many small steps because small steps are easier to
accept. Once you take the first step, a sense of commitment is created which drives us to
accept the next request. And the next one. Every step strengthens our commitment, and
along with the new behaviors we change our self-image.
An example of this is, when I met the Moonies, my first step was to go to an open house,
and later sign up for a seven-day camp. When I also signed up for the 21-day camp, my
handsome new teacher saw me writing a letter to a friend, looked at me very seriously,
and said: “Now that you committed to take this seriously, taking time and energy to
write letters is not serious.”
In a cultic framework, first you are given attention, love, and a sense of community and
acceptance. Later, as you transition from recruit to follower, the leader will ask more and
more of you. As you achieve higher standing, you may be used as an example for
others—that is, you become a golden child, and may be given the job of punishing
followers. You will rationalize your cruel actions as beneficial because they support the
leader and reinforce their ideology. Your loyalty to the leader is strengthened, and your
bond with others is weakened. All this will impact your self-image. You are ‘helping’
others to do the ‘right’ thing, go to heaven, and avoid hell or being a self-centered
person.

Understanding These Roles Can Facilitate Empathy, Forgiveness,
and Restored Relationships

In the process of leaving a cultic group and trying to recover, those designated as the
good and the evil child may face various difficulties. The roles affect their relationships
with other former members, and their relationships with people outside of the group. For
example, a person who was always the scapegoat can have the impression that the
golden child did not suffer, and may also regard the golden child as evil, thinking that
they themselves would never treat someone else in such a cruel way. On the other hand,
the person who was the golden child and was forced to punish others can drown in guilt
without seeing that they were also a victim.
My experience as a therapist is that discussing these roles and understanding their
dynamics can be helpful in recovery from a cultic group experience. When former
members can see that they were all pawns in a cruel game, they may develop
understanding and empathy with each other’s difficulties. The situation is not black and
white. Understanding these different roles, those of the cult leader, golden child, and
scapegoat, can be a basis for working with shame, guilt, and fear; can facilitate
forgiveness; and, in the end, may even facilitate restoration of relationships. Of course,
in extreme cases, a relationship may be neither appropriate nor possible. Clients need to
build or reclaim their identity and learn to respect their own feelings and boundaries.
Forgiveness might not be possible, but at least their story can be more comprehensible.

About the Author: Helena Löfgren is a licensed psychotherapist (CBT) and has a
Bachelor of Psychology. She is also a former member of the Unification Church in New
York. lofgrensanalys.se