“…If Wallis and Bromley agree with each other concerning the state of the individual, they judge differently the sociocultural environment that determines its constitutive field. According to Wallis (1984), notwithstanding that the social order is predictable and the individual transformation is limited to oneself and does not extend to the social space, the social environment does possess many highly desirable characteristics, which the tools of religion may lead individuals to gain through their personal, spiritual, existential journey. Bromley, on the other hand, sees the relationship between individuals in adaptive movements and their sociocultural environments as characterized by tension as -The objective of these movements is to psychologically free the participants temporarily from all relational networks and enhance voluntarism, autonomy, and rational control so that all subsequent relationship are freely chosen (Bromley, 1997, p. 127).‖ Thus, Bromley continues, -Deconstruction of the legitimacy of dominant institutions is effected through a narrative that fundamentally challenges conventional understandings of private troubles (pp.…”