Introduction
Adult returnees to Orthodox Judaism were studied to assess level of adaptive functioning. All subjects had adopted a lifestyle of the Lubavitch Hasidim. They had all undergone any transition of new religious affiliation. Although all subjects were born Jewish, their previous religious involvement had been minimal. Their backgrounds were uniformly upper and middle class, with families of origin relatively assimilated and of either reform or conservative persuasion. Following the new religious affiliation all of the subjects had undergone changes in name and address in concordance with Hasidic tradition and had moved in with the community of the Lubavitch Hasidim in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.
Lifestyle
The Lubavitch Hasidim are a unique Hasidic group in various ways.
1) They closely follow the charismatic leadership of Lubavitch Rebbe who directs the worldwide movement.
2) The emphasis of the movement is outreach and education of assimilated Jews throughout the world.
3) The Lubavitch Hasidim themselves adhere closely to the strict interpretation of Torah law, but have an open community and open homes to their secular coreligionists. Newcomers into the community are warmly embraced and provided with an intensive supportive social network.
A distinctive feature of this group is that religious returnees are in general encouraged by the Rebbe to return to their former professions rather than living a life dedicated exclusively to Torah study. Instead, a religious lifestyle is encouraged to be integrated with pursuit of previous career aspirations.
This study did not attempt to establish the prevalence of psychopathology among new religious affiliates but rather to contrast two groups of returnees. It should be noted that there are several thousand religious newcomers to the Crown Heights community while only a small group could be identified who clearly met DSM‑III‑R diagnostic criteria for major mental disorders. Although there is only one orthodox community mental health center, it is conceivable that a patient may seek treatment outside of the community. The existence of a healthy control group dispels the myth and misconception widespread in contemporary society and among secular mental health professionals that radical change in religious affiliation is necessarily associated with psychiatric disability. Some of the findings of this study may be related to important differences from other religious groups and may also highlight important individual differences in members of the same group.
Method
Within the returnee group two distinct subgroups were selected. The patient subgroup (N‑15) consisted of persons in treatment at an orthodox community-based mental health clinic. The control group of returnees (N‑14) consisted either of voluntary controls from the community or clients referred from the mental health clinic with minor diagnoses, such as marital problems or adjustment disorders.
Data was obtained by a self-report questionnaire designed by Drs. Trappler and Endicott, as well as clinical judgments made by the clients’ therapists. A wide range of subjective feelings and functioning was studied. This included adolescent turmoil and self-image, emotional control, previous substance and alcohol abuse, qualities of the family of origin, stress on Jewish education and previous treatment received.
Present functioning included quality of marriage, connectedness to family members outside the community, social interaction patterns with friends and neighbors, job or role functioning, standard of living, use of community supports, perception of living environment, severity of symptoms, use of defenses and religious ritual, and ability to internalize religious values.
Some of the items of the self-report questionnaire were taken from other rating instruments, such as the Self-Image Questionnaire developed by Daniel Offer or the Personal Resources Inventory (PRI) developed by Paula J. Clayton, M.D. and Robert M.A. Hirschfeld, M.D. Other items were designed specifically for this study. The second component consisted of a clinical judgment by patient’s therapist (either a licensed Social Worker or Psychologist). This consisted of global judgments on severity of symptoms, community functioning, nature of defenses and maturity or flexibility of use of religious values and rituals.
Results
The two groups did not differ in mean age. However, they did differ in some other demographic characteristics which are noted in Table 1.
Given the small sample size and the number of items on the self-report questionnaire, only those differences which were significant are noted in the tables: In addition, given the differences in number of married and fully employed subjects in the two groups, these findings are not presented in detailed tables.
Tables 2 through 4 list those items which were found to differ at or below the .05 probability level using chi square analyses for the categorical items and t‑tests for the scaled judgments. Since these analyses are viewed as exploratory in view of the small sample sizes and their means of selection, no adjustments were made for multiple tests or significance.
Discussion
Although there were a number of significant differences between the patient and control groups of religious returnees, the discussion will emphasize the most striking findings.
The patient group experienced distress at least going back to adolescence and as a group this distress and lower functioning continued after the religious conversion. Of interest was that the patient group did not automatically endorse all negative statements. For instance, the patient group did not report feeling more inferior growing up than the control group, nor did they report feeling more unattractive or less ambitious. However, 100% described feeling anxious in adolescence and the majority of the patient group reported feeling unhappy and easily hurt. This contrasted strongly with the control group of religious returnees who reported feeling relaxed, happy, and much less vulnerable as adolescents. The frequency of alcohol and substance abuse was of low frequency in both groups and probably lower than the general population at large.
Another finding of significance was that the control group of religious returnees had closely knit families while the patient group did not. Absence of a mother figure was more frequent in the patient group and there was much higher rating of mothers not being available or not caring in the patient group. Only 14% of the patients reported their families of origin as being closely knit, compared with 77% from the control group. The control group of the religious conversion maintained better family integration in that they were mainly married and found their marriages to be happy, fulfilling and comfortable, while the patient group was more frequently unmarried, divorced, or involved in unhappy marriages.
Other studies have found that new religious groups often discourage their members from maintaining close family contact.2 In our control group of religious returnees, 92% continued to maintain close family contact. Not only did the two groups of returnees differ in describing their feelings in adolescence, but they also differed notably in their current functioning. Most of the patient groups were receiving one or more kinds of assistance such as rent subsidy, food stamps and Medicaid. The majority of the patient group had an annual salary of less than $16,000 while the majority of the control group had an annual salary of more than $28,000. Therapists found that the patient group were less involved in community affairs, less adaptive in their vocational functioning, and their community functioning was more need-gratifying than truly independent.
The patient group also showed more difficulty with household responsibilities and ability to nurture and parent. Offspring of the patient group were also more likely to be reported as having problems in learning or behavior. The therapists noted that the patient group was using more neurotic or primitive defenses while the control group showed more mature and flexible defenses. Patient’s tended to adhere to rules in a rote-like way while the controls showed greater internalization and experienced the religion in a more gratifying way.
Our findings indicated that new religious affiliates can be separated into at least two groups. The higher functioning group experienced better nurturance and were freer of psychopathology prior to religious involvement. This group continued to function after the religious transition in a more independent way and used religion in a more flexible and ego-enhancing way. In contrast, the patient group had experienced poorer nurturance, had manifested symptoms of psychopathology previously and later after religious change continued to function in a more dependent way following rules in a more rote fashion with less internalization.
Other studies have emphasized the relief effect of new religious affiliations 3, pre-existing turmoil or crisis 4 and reduction of stress and improved psychological well-being as a result of the new religious affiliation 5,6. While both our patient and control group of religious returnees acknowledged that religion provided a sustaining and supportive role, no difference was noted in the relief effect. In general, previous patterns of adjustment were continued. Those showing psychopathology and family dysfunction prior to religious change perpetuated this pattern, while those who experienced better parental nurturing and felt comfortable and happy in most situations in adolescence achieved a high level of community integration and adaptive functioning after their religious change. An attempt should be made to explain the lack of observed relief effect difference between the two groups. There are certain characteristics of the Orthodox Jewish lifestyle and community which are shared with those of most intense group belief systems and others that differ. In common with other groups is the belief system and commitment to its theology, the sense of belonging and regulation of behavior through religious precepts and rules.7,8 In the Lubavitch group the distinct characteristic leadership by the Lubavitch Rebbe was held in exalted position as is the case in many other groups.
Other qualities in the Lubavitch group distinguish it from other intense group belief systems. Group members are not protected or buffered against the materialism and competition of the outside world. Some members will spend a year or two in Yeshiva; others will become religious on a gradual basis while continuing to work in a professional role. The group boundary of uniting members of the group against the outside community does not exist. Not only is there no sense of persecution or antagonism, but the members are encouraged to interact in a normal way, outsiders are, in fact, invited to experience the community life, and intellectual challenge is invited. Likewise, contact with the extended family is encouraged, for example, new religious affiliates will be encouraged to spend holidays with their families in a less religious environment in order that the members’ transition should be integrated into the life of the significant others. During this process considerable flexibility is shown in abdication of rules and members are counseled against rigidity of beliefs and inflexible attitudes. Not only is dogma not rigidly enforced but the format of education encourages question and debate. This differs sharply from the rigid and obsessional enforcement of dogma and coercion or dominance used by leaders in many other groups.8 Not only are members not isolated or uniquely protected but they are encouraged to be socially and materially competitive with the outside world and to engage in self-questioning as well as debate with peers and with un-involved friends and family.
The critical period of religious transition described by Levine 2 in other groups, does not occur in the Lubavitch community. During this process the novices described by Levine become closed-minded and happy true believers and emerge from a state of alienation. He describes how members become alienated or estranged from parents and are not given the opportunity to integrate. The pseudo-protection offered by the closed community provides an immediate relief effect which later crumbles under challenge.
Our study suggests this lack of cult characteristics fails to shelter the more disturbed enlistees. Perhaps it is the continued stress of competitive materialism and continued challenge of interpersonal relationships that separates the group into well and poorly adjusted. The factors that determine the presence or absence of psychopathology during development is what influenced adjustment prior to the religious change and this is perpetuated.
Although the returnee patient group continued to show significant psychiatric pathology after religious return, the study emphasized that they also had become members of a “therapeutic community.” Examples of the support system from which they benefit include learning groups, various hotlines, mothers’ helpers from the Yeshivas and “Mashpium” (mentors who act as surrogate parents). Although this was not systematically measured, the authors’ impression was that the patients were on lower doses of medication and had much less frequent hospitalizations after religious change. Two patients who had been hospitalized twenty times each in the ten years prior to the religious change were not hospitalized at all in the ten years after joining the community. Employment, even part-time, was provided in neighborhood stores. The author had several patients who received charity, in i.e., an anonymous donor gave money to a storekeeper to be used as a salary conditional on a certain number of hours of weekly employment. Another patient whose children had been removed from the house by the Department of Special Services prior to joining the community was able to regain custody after the children received free day care with door-to-door bus pick-up service. The woman’s day was structured by a friend who ensured that she attended daily classes and a homemaker was arranged by the Jewish Community Council. While the control group had many professionals who contributed to and helped advance the community, the patient group, while remaining patients, also became part of a vibrant community structure.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics on Which the Controls and Patients Differed (p < .05)
|
Controls (N-14) % |
Patients (N-15) %
|
|
| Employed |
69 |
14
|
| Employed Full Time |
46 |
7
|
| Family Income over $16,000 |
85 |
60
|
| Family Income over $28,000 |
57 |
0
|
| Financial Assistance |
0 |
50 |
Table 2. Clinical Characteristics on Which the Controls and Patients Differed (p < .05)
|
Controls (N-14) |
Patients (N-15) |
|
| Diagnosis | ||
| No mental disorder or problems |
31 |
0 |
| Non Psychotic/Non Schizophrenic |
69 |
60 |
| Psychotic/Schizophrenic |
0 |
40 |
| Severity of Symptoms | ||
| None |
35 |
0 |
| Mild |
23 |
6 |
| Moderate |
39 |
67 |
| Severe |
0 |
27 |
| Community Functioning | ||
| Good |
77 |
13 |
| So-So/Fair |
15 |
20 |
| Poor |
8 |
68 |
| Independent Relationships |
77 |
14 |
| Need Gratifying Relationships |
23 |
86 |
| Meets Household Responsibilities | ||
| Well |
92 |
7 |
| So-So/Fair |
8 |
40 |
| Poorly |
0 |
53 |
| Ability to Co Parent | ||
| Able |
92 |
0 |
| So-So/Fair |
8 |
58 |
| Problems |
0 |
42 |
| Ability to Nurture | ||
| Able |
100 |
14 |
| So-So/Fair |
0 |
50 |
| Problems |
0 |
36 |
| Use of Defenses | ||
| Flexible |
69 |
7 |
| Neurotic |
31 |
33 |
| Primitive |
0 |
60 |
| Religious Ritual | ||
| Flexible |
69 |
27 |
| Somewhat Rigid |
15 |
27 |
| Rigid |
15 |
47 |
| Adherence to Religious Rules | ||
| Just Adhering |
0 |
53 |
| Both |
8 |
13 |
| Gratifying |
92 |
33 |
| Follow Rules | ||
| Rote |
15 |
67 |
| Variable |
8 |
13 |
| Internalized |
77 |
20 |
Table 3. Differences between Controls and Patients in Reported Feelings While Child or Adolescent (p < .05)
|
Controls (N-14) % |
Patients (N-15) %
|
|
| Treated badly |
29 |
86
|
| Felt relaxed |
71 |
0
|
| Felt confident |
57 |
7
|
| Felt comfortable with looks |
86 |
33
|
| Worried about health |
50 |
33
|
| Felt ambitious |
79 |
47
|
| Enjoyed life |
64 |
13
|
| Felt anxious |
36 |
100
|
| Feelings easily hurt |
50 |
93
|
| Could keep temper |
93 |
20
|
Table 4. Differences between Controls and Patients in Description of Family of Origin (p < .05)
|
Controls (N-14) % |
Patients (N-15) %
|
|
| Closely knit |
77 |
14
|
| Mother cared |
100 |
60
|
| Father cared |
79 |
40
|
| Mother understood |
71 |
33
|
| Mother shared my success |
100 |
36
|
| Father shared my success |
57 |
7
|
| Mother encouraged independence |
71 |
21
|
| Family was connected to community |
85 |
13
|
| Was sent to Jewish day school/summer camp |
71 |
20
|
| Current close ties with family |
92 |
40
|
| Could count on family now |
79 |
14
|
References
- Offer, D: The Psychological World of the Teen-Ager: A Study of Normal Adolescent Boys. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1969
2. Levine, SV: Life in the Cults from Cults and New Religious Movements. A report of the APA. Galanter M (ed): 6:95-107, 1969
3. Galanter M: The “relief effect”: A Sociobiological model and neurotic distress and large group therapy. Am J Psychiatry 135:588-591, 1978
4. Nicholi AM: A new dimension of the youth culture. Am J Psychiatry 131:396-401, 1974
5. Kilbourne BK, Richardson J.T: Psychotherapy and new religions in a pluralistic society. American J. of Psychology 39:237-251, 1984
6. Wilson ED: Mental health benefits of religious salvation. Diseases Nerv Sys 33:383-386, 1972
7. Frank JD: Sources and functions of belief systems, in Diets PE (Ed): psychotherapy and the Human Predicament. New York, Schocken, 1978, pages 260-269
8. Levine S.V: Belief and belonging in adult behavior. Perspectives in Psychiatry 3:1, 1984
9. Zaretsky I, Leone M: Religious Movements in Contemporary America. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press, 1974
This Study was first published in the “Journal of Psychology” in July, 1995, by Baruch Trappler, M.D.1
and Jean Endicott, Ph.D.2
The work was supported in part by N.I.M.H. Mental Health Clinical Research Center Grant M.H. 30906‑10.
- Dr. Trappler is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians & Surgeons, and Columbia University, New York.
Correspondence: 1302 Avenue N, Broadway, NY 11230.
- Dr. Endicott is Professor of Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; New York State Psychiatric Institute, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY 10032.
Tags: Chabad, cult charismatic leader, Hasidim, lifestyle, Lubavitch, Returnees, Torah