THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SATANIC CULT INVOLVEMENT: AN ...

372
again" Christians, fervently antagonistic toward Satanism. The fact that the research
sample comprised ex-Satanists has both positive and negative implications. On the
positive side, it provides valuable insight into the distressing and frequently protracted
process of leaving the cult. This information would obviously not have emerged had the
sample comprised currently practising Satanists. A negative implication, however, is that
these individuals' recollections and self-understandings are no doubt skewed by their
current religious convictions. Ideally, further qualitative research samples should include
both committed and recusant Satanists. thereby allowing a useful comparative analysis.
Thirdly, the use of psychoanalytic hermeneutics in the context of a single research
interview raises another methodological issue. Freud, it is well known, understood
psychoanalysis to be first and foremost a research procedure and, secondly, a therapeutic
process. However, the case study method of psychoanalytic research is usually conducted
over an extended period of time in the context of a therapeutic alliance, thereby allowing
the therapist-researcher to develop and test interpretive hypotheses in dialogue with the
patient-subject. A single interview obviously does not permit this detailed uncovering of
evidence in support of a hypothesis. The researcher thus runs the risk of advancing
theoretical hypotheses that are not underpinned by sufficiently detailed evidentiary
material. This author, within the limitations of the single interview, has attempted to
justify abstract theoretical observations with reference to verbatim interview vignettes.
Interpretations might, however, have been more fine-tuned and cogent had more detail
emerged in the context of an ongoing relationship with the research subjects. Regarding
the small subject sample, it is interesting to note the high level of consistency between the
different subjects' satanic (and pre-satanic) experiences. The commonalties far outweigh
the idiosyncratic differences, and thus demonstrate that the relatively small sample of
seven subjects was not an impediment to formulating general observations.
Consequently, it is doubtful whether this study would have been emiched by the inclusion
ofmore subjects.