"When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into service!" John Mackay, Extraodinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852. I tend to believe that beliefs are inextricably a part of emotions and behavior. I haven't found any in-depth analyses of Atkins' beliefs or psychology as it relates to her behavior as a killer/participant/aider/abettor. What would lead her to go and stay at Spahn's Ranch and not leave for good when she had the opportunities? Why would she stay? Her childhood abuse, death of mother, alcoholic parents, and drug usage have all been cited as factors leading or contributing to some of her behavior, i.e., stealing, lying, and murder. How did Atkins come to believe what she believed and then hold onto her convictions? She knew and the others knew right from wrong. What are the other factors that haven't been addressed.......personality traits, gender, IQ, coping strategies, etc.? Did she have some type of mental susceptibility to cult-like groups? Charlie simply did not persuade or influence, thus controlling Family. IMO, he used persuasion or methods of persuasion or coercion but someone allowed themselves to buy into and believe what the 'concept' of the Family was about....... It's hard for me to put a finger on the pulse with this one.....the beliefs that is.....
Joe, There are always going to be those who are more easily influenced by charismatic leaders than by others. You only need look as far as relatively recent examples as Jim Jones and the People's Temple, or David Karesh and the Branch Davidians, or Marshall (?) Applewhite and that group of UFO-believing yahoos who all committed suicide together. Even Warren Jeffs and his followers who think "spritual marriage" with adolescent girls is not only right but ordained by God. Most people, hearing about any of the above, shake their heads and say some version of, "What kind of an idiot would you have to be to fall for this crap?" The answer is, anybody who has something essential missing from their life is susceptible to the siren call of the lunatic fringe. From what I have read about most of the members of the Family, they had something missing in either their lives or themselves that Charlie answered for them. Even those, like Lesie, who seemed to come from wonderful, normal backgrounds, had some kind of major trauma or dysfunction hiding beneath the surface; and, for someone like Tex Watson, it was a combination of personality and, so it seems, the right excessive amount of the right kind of personality-altering drugs. I don't have the answer, but I think that for the members of the Family who came into Charlie's orbit and stayed there, he answered some kind of need in themselves. The only exception I would offer would be Diane Lake, who was virtually given to Charlie by her parents, and in her case it was likely more that she identified with whoever was going to take "care": of her, even if that "care" meant regularly beating the crap out of her. I don't personally believe that the vast majority of hard-core (for want of a better term) Family members were afraid of Charlie; I think they loved him, and when it became expedient for them to say they were afraid of him they did. The ones who left and said they were afraid of Charlie had reason to be -- they only needed to read the newspaper to know what he, and the other members of the Family under his direction, were capable of. I don't know what Susan's deal was ... but she stayed because on some level she wanted to and needed to.
Your post is helpful and gets me thinking...... I tend to view the Family as a cult or cult-like group as well. Atkins may have confused 'needs' versus 'wants'...... needing to be loved by Charlie, having to be part of the Family, I must do what Charlie tells me to do, etc. I was taught (and bought) that needs are basic to survival -- you need air, water, some amount of food, possibly shelter if it's cold or real hot, maybe certain medications or equipment (kidney dialysis or iron lung)..... the rest are wants..... Maybe this is a starting point in understanding the beliefs, based upon behaviors and inferences from testimony of Sadie.....she convinced herself and believed she would 'die' and/or it would be the end of the world if she didn't have Charlie's love and approval......
Joe, I think you're onto something here. I think there was, for want of a better description, a "Charlie-shaped hole" in each of the members of the Family who devoted themselves to Charlie and who stayed as the atmosphere got crazier and crazier, convincing themselves along the way that everything was going to work out the way he said it would -- whether that was Helter-Skelter or not, who knows? It's important to remember that by the time Charlie met up with most of the Family he had spent about half his life in prison, and he was a good fifteen to twenty years older than most of the people he attracted to himself. People like Charlie rarely click with those his own age, because they can see the game he's running. I'd venture that many of the older people -- mostly men -- who attached themselves to the Family came for the drugs and stayed for the underage and barely-legal girls. Most of the Family members were under the age of 22, with some, like Ruth Ann Morehouse and Diane Lake, as young as 14 or 15. I don't know about you, but I wasn't a particularly stellar judge of character at that age, and was a lot more guillible. They were open to whatever crap he was spewing, and, add to that the drugs and the sex and the isolation at Spahn, where the only reference point for reality they had (in the absence of clocks, watches, newspapers, etc.) was Charlie and his rap. Of course most of them started to believe it, because they'd lost/forgotten/were too high to remember anything to compare it to. I think, as you suggest, that Charlie did become the world for Susan and many of the hard-core Family members -- mostly because he made damn sure there wasn't much else in it.
CCD You bring up a lot of really good points. The Family members were there with Manson at the Ranch for some reason....and not by force. You're right, members convinced themselves of the worthiness and value of Charlie's philosophies. I suspect Manson gave a lot of support, love, & attention to his minions (embedded with manipulation and coercion). Plus, they had common beliefs about rejecting mainstream establishment or culture. The isolation from outside influences at Spahn's is noteworthy and important. Manson had few competitors or individuals who could challenge his beliefs sufficiently to derail him. Manson's followers really idealized him for the most part......I would think Family members would be esteemed or feel a sense of value for being a part of this group, "I must be worthwhile as a person .....to receive Charlie's affirmations, teachings, and way of life". I'm not a sociologist but I think people's thinking and beliefs can real rigid, skewed, and radicalized when they are isolated like they were at the ranch. There were plenty of times and opportunities to receive new ideas and teachings (record producers, Krishna Venta's people, etc.) but this group became inflexible, convinced, immersed in the teachings of Charlie.
I'm not a sociologist either, but I've read fairly extensively on cults; a book called Snapping, by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman was particularly good. It was written in the late 70s/early 80s and covers things like Hare Krishna and the Moonies, and what they call "America's epidemic of sudden personality change". I'm not sure if it's still in print but you might be able to pick it up used online; it's a bit dated but worth the read. I agree with you that on some level, the Family was a cult. It had a charismatic leader, its own belief system, and it was by and large isolated from outside intervention. Even the people around them at Spahn -- Ruby Pearl, George Spahn, the hired hands and the members of the Straight Satans -- weren't exactly card-carrying members of mainstream society; they lived on the edges as well. And while you're right in saying that they had opportunities to receive ideas from outside people, I think circumstances played even those events right into Charlie's hand. Terry Melcher broke his word when he didn't make Charlie a rock star, that makes Terry Melcher a member of the establishment and an enemy of the Family. The motives of the "other" (which was, eventually IMO, anybody who didn't belong to the Family, or who tried to leave it when things started going really south) were always suspect and impure, and that somehow made whatever the Family did after that OK. There was no room in their world for anything but Charlie, because Charlie was God and Jesus and Daddy all in one, and keeping Charlie happy -- and thus having the opportunity to bask in his wonderfulness for another blessed moment -- became, I think, the reason for many members of the Family to get up in the morning.
Excellent point about Ruby Pearl, George Spahn, and the bikers......they did seem to live on the edges, with unique lifestyles as well. I hadn't thought about their roles in the scheme of things..... Manson and his minions really seemed to dichotomize their worldview into "us" and "them".......very short list of accepted people in the "us" group. So much for Manson's "all is one and one is all", unity theme. Your post raises questions about those individuals that left the Family, wouldn't join, or wouldn't cooperate. I once thought that about Hinman and his (possible) ultimatum, "Join us, give us all your possessions or die".. He refused to cooperate. Marcus Arneson received one of Hinman's vehicles. He too had left the Family but returned. Was he being set up by Charlie? Did Charlie forgive him for leaving the Family and let bygones by bygones? Beasoleil's capture by LE is suspicious as well....driving the vehicle of the man he killed with a knife found in the wheel well in the trunk. He too claims he was not an official card carrying member of the Family. Family members had some choices and decisions they made on their own, but to eat, have a place to sleep, sex, drugs, weaponry usage and training, and companionship, they hung together religiously. Charlie was not with them physically at all times but his philosophy and music and rationalizations were with them almost always. I think the Al Rose & Dr. David E. Smith article, The Group Marriage Commune: A case study, which was published in 1970 offers compelling evidence of the cult or cult-like mores of the Family: "Charlie had a persuasive mystical philosophy placing great emphasis on the belief that people did not die and that infant consciousness was the ultimate state. However, Charlie's mysticism often became delusional and he on occasion referred to himself as 'God' or 'God and the Devil'. Charlie could probably be diagnosed as an ambulatory schizophrenic." If Charlie was God, then what were his followers? BTW, thanks for the reference, I will check out Snapping.
She spoke very clearly about both idolising and fearing him, and seeking to belong. At some point the locus of control shifted from her brain to him gaining sovereignty in the big picture matters. I don't think it's very rare or unusual - except for what he asked of his minions.
It's good to see back! I hope you've been OK. I've gone through what I can find about Susan's psychological evaluations.....there are a lot of descriptions about her, about her lifestyle, about her traits, about her IQ, about what she did (her crimes), and what she didn't do.... I'm not finding a great deal to offer insight into her mind, her beliefs, her thought processes. Stating that someone is lonely, depressed, & confused, or narcissitic is one thing but there are thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs underlying those traits (IMO). I think you're right....her locus of control changed......she projected this idealization and appeared to admire and love Charlie.... Here's my line of thinking about the psychology of beliefs: Let's just say the alcoholism in her family & sexual abuse were true.......how would these processes impact upon her thoughts, beliefs, views of her self as an adolsecent and young adult? What affects did her mother's death have upon her psyche? Was her behavior (prior to the homicides) antisocial acts plain and simple, were they symptoms of psychopathology, and if symptoms of psychopathology.......to what degree of psychopathology? What was running through Atkins' mind to lead her from one man to another, working for Anton LeVey, etc.? How did Atkins and the others become 'true believers' in Charlie? What would a person tell themselves and convince themselves to remain a 'true believer' , especially in lieu of contradictory data? What was Atkins telling herself, self-counseling, believing, and holding true in her mind that would lead her to go with Bobby Beausoleil, Tex, and Charlie and Tex to engage in robbery and brutal homicides? The more I read, the more I want to know. The more I want to try to find out, the more I'm left with a caricature of a human being.....with a lot left out.... with a lot of legal and professional 'name calling'. Just so noone gets the wrong impression, I want to say that I'm not trying to exonerate, rationalize, or justify criminal behavior or murder. Susan Atkins along with Bobby Beausoleil (his website) have given quite a bit of data about themselves and their lives. It becomes an difficult task picking out the underlying beliefs (through what they say they believed and inference) that is......
I think Susan was looking to fill her "Charlie-shaped hole" -- and continued to do so, even up to the moment of her death. What was her conversion to Christianity but possibly the next step in this life-long process? The problem, IMHO, in trying to figure out people's motiviations is that most of us aren't consciously aware what they are, at least completely. I read somewhere once that if you experience trauma of whatever kind before you are verbal (i.e., as a baby under about 12 - 15 months of age) you are never able to verbalize it, even when you acquire the ability to speak. Also, human beings are masters at repressing and re-ordering their memories, painting them over with other people's impressions and stories to make it possible to live relatively comfortably in one's own head. And people are ultimately self-serving, and will present anything about themselves in the best possible, and most sympathetic, light. "Truth" is a very subjective term, and perception is reality. So it would serve no purpose for Susan, or for any members of the Family, to stand up and say, "I was with Charlie because I believe exactly what he believes and I think it's okay to kill people you don't know in the most brutal ways possible and to kill pregnant women and write things on the wall in blood and cut off body parts and do anything you want." That, boys and girls, would make you a monster, so it's better to say that you were scared of him and hopped up on drugs and he could take away your baby or beat you or kill you or whatever if you didn't do what he said. Not that saying they were afraid of Charlie and in fear of their lives did them one damn bit of good, either.
I agree that it would be hard for almost any of the Family members to say they stayed with Charlie for so long because they loved, admired, and possibly deified him. I'm sure Family members felt acceptance, belonging, had friendships, and were 'love-bombed' by Charlie.....for awhile anyway. Drugs and sex can be powerful reinforcers as well.... It didn't take Manson a great deal of persuasion to have his minions buy into his paranoic thinking, create breaks with their families, and bad-mouth and renounce 'main-stream establishment' (what ever that is). I call the Family a cult and/or cult-like.....althought the term 'cult' has a pejorative bend to it... I don't buy into 'mind control' or 'brainwashing', like the Manchurian Candidate movie. As a matter-of-fact, a lot groups try to love-bomb, persuade, influence, and scare the h____ out of us, with threats, and coercive tactics. These groups aren't considered cults...... I assume many of the Family members were not 'deranged' but I wouldn't be surprised if they had shown signs or symptoms of psychopathology, like depression, bi-polar disorder, PTSD, etc......prior to becoming card carrying members of the Family. I've read that Atkins made a suicide attempt prior to Family days. Atkins could have easily been clinically depressed, especially if the reports of both parents' alcoholism and sexual abuse were true...Krenwinkle was treated for depression (not sure what kind), and Squeaky was self-injurious as a teen -- maybe depressed. With clinical disorders such as depression, there are identifiable beliefs, assumptions, and schemas that influence....if not produce the depressed mood. To move from depressed mood, confusion, and loneliness...... to Family commune, to commit murder ...... it's hard to fathom (for me anyway)...... In the short time they were together the homicide (direct or participant) and/or attempted murder list was long for the Family: Gary Hinman, Bernard Crowe, Sharon Tate, Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Rosemary LaBianca, Leno LaBianca, Shorty Shea, James Willet, Lauren Willet, Zero..........then later Gerald Ford........
If interested I found some older posts on the topic.....with some info. given by author Simon Wells. Forum -- General articles on all the Tate-LaBianca Murders -- Why Did Three ordinary girls kill strangers & Forum -- Charles Manson -- Cults of CA -- 1969 Guardian Article I would supply link, however, having difficulties getting in and out forums tonight...
Here are the links for the above post # 14...not sure what happened early yesterday morn.... http://truthontatelabianca.com/topic/2780-why-did-three-ordinary-girls-kill-total-strangers/ http://truthontatelabianca.com/topic/4039-charles-manson-and-the-cults-of-california-1969-guardian-article/
The beliefs and thoughts running through the mind of Susan Atkins during the murders, particular those at the Hinman residence and Tate home remain somewhat of a mystery. I find it hard to believe that she 'believed she was killing herself', 'setting souls free', or 'had no-thoughts'.... Philosopher Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the term, 'psychical imago', to describe what most of do in our minds, construct over time, a system of beliefs, and convictions, and hence an image or idealized image of what we believe reality to be...... What were some of the contents of Atkins' mind that she projected onto the victims? Did she view them as less-than-human, only pigs, that could be corraled and slaughtered.....? Even pigs weren't/aren't killed in the fashion that Hinman was and Cielo Dr. drive victims were..... What else could she have viewed as reality at the time she entered their homes and the attacks started? Psychologically, how could Atkins come to terms with her actions, live with herself, and function, even in prison? What psychological 'blocks' or defense mechanism allowed her to live with her actions? She knew right from wrong, knew that killing was wrong, yet did nothing to prevent and extricate herself from the situations. Atkins knew what she thought and believed prior to and during the murders....... I'm convinced of this. So who did she tell? Did Bugliosi get the most insightful details about what Sadie thought about during the murders? Does that explain his behavior toward her and the others? What about Virginia Graham or Ronnie Howard? Did Cabarello or Debra Frasier (sp.?), the psychologists, psychiatrists get close to the truth about the processes and contents of her mind?
She has implied they were essentially hate crimes under the influence of CM and drug psychosis. I think people beyond the family group were seen as less than... not deserving the same respect. Can't reference it but I recall a psych report or ? interview with a prison guard in which Susan was revealed as severely depressed and worthless feeling, not even caring about the death penalty on her, as she felt it was deserved in the early days and even thought so after it was commuted to life... until a Priest or guard worked hard on getting her to feel she was a human with something to offer or some value.
I wondered if she was clinically depressed.....even before the hook-up with the Family. If the alcoholism (parents) & sexual abuse were true, &/or genetic predispositions, the 'seeds' of depression were long ago sown in her life... IMO, sexual promiscuity, high-risk behaviors, and drug & alcohol usage are ways to 'distract' away from the harsh self-downing and feelings of hopelessness that go hand-in-hand with depression.....plus she didn't gravitate towards, 'bad boys' randomly.....there were reasons for this as well.....
She was treated for depression after one of the Whites dumped her and her main outside contact ie her Dad died almost simultaneously. I think it made her vulnerable to the "charms" of Lai$$ure, for a short moment anyway.
In terms of Maslow's hierarchy or needs I view Atkins as being stuck in the Love/Belonging area -- so many of her decisions appeared to be predicated upon finding love, belonging, or seeking an unconditional love. With that in mind -- let me speculate here about her 1969 Grand Jury testimony. Although replete with lies of omission (it's what Atkins didn't say that tended to obfuscate the truth) I think she made efforts to be truthful as she believed the truth to be at the time. She had few visitors in the jail, her nuclear family was estranged from her at this time, she was estranged from the Family, especially since -- since she told what had happened (Hinman, Cielo Dr. Waverly, creepy crawls, cult-like environment, etc.) --- I think Caballero and Bugliosi/Stovitz et al -- became her perceived allies -- she accepted, gave, and exchanged attention between this group (Defense & Prosecutors). In addition, she confided in jail birds such as Graham and Howard.......she had noone, was alone & isolated --- Bugliosi played this to extract info. to prosecute.....others see what he did as betrayal....once he had Kasabian where he wanted her and her testimony..... The Grand Jury test. became her security and means, in a convulted way, to find belonging-- she ratted out the 'bad guys' and incriminated herself......she didn't do because she thought Manson betrayed her completely, she also testified because it met her 'needs' as well......she could have cared less about what happened to herself....remember she stated that she felf, 'dead' at the time... If Atkins had a different defense attorney, I think she would have told more, in sordid detail about what went down. She took the advice of Atty. Caballero and testified after processing with him.....she spoke affectionately about Caballero, he got her ice cream and money for her jail account.... Although he had no qualms about turning the table on Atkins during the trials, Bugliosi seemed to have some compassion for her (afterwards)......not objecting to a compassionate release (I realize his opinion didn't matter at this point -- 2009), etc.... Atkins in her last testimony (Myth of Helter Skelter) refers to the former prosecutor respectfully as Mr. Bugliosi and making a peculiar statement.....that he was not (my paraphrase) a liar.....
