2 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012
But before we get to the stage of cherry picking
ideas about the regulation of cults that might be
successfully transplanted, in whole or in part, to
all or part of China, it is important to understand
some of the conceptual and practical difficulties
in dealing with this issue. As part of the difficult
process of issue identification, and in this case
the prima facie need to locate the parameters of
the subject itself, it is appropriate to look briefly
at what we mean by cult, and why a proper
working definition of the term for public policy
purposes most often involves an understanding
that there is a religious element involved. In
addition, countries operate under very different
philosophical or conceptual frameworks when
they are dealing with religious or quasireligious
groups, and so it is important to understand how
different regulatory regimes might flow from a
particular understanding or worldview.
With reference to some practical considerations,
cults might come under regulatory regimes for
religious groups (as part of the Third Sector, but
possibly as a distinct category requiring specific
regulation). It is also possible that some cultic
groups might be categorized as political parties,
or even as terrorist groups, and others might be
properly categorized as commercial, for-profit
operations. This is why I have called for a
broadly based oversight mechanism in
Australia.3
It is also important to note that scholars are hotly
divided on what regulatory regimes are
appropriate, with some finding the very idea of
religious regulation anathema to their concept of
religious freedom. They hold this view despite
their often having both a very liberal
understanding of the types of groups that
constitute religions and a laissez-faire view of
the range of activities that groups should be
allowed to engage in.
Cults and Religion
Cult is a word that is used widely and loosely, to
such an extent that Ian Frekelton argues that
…the description “cult” for at least three
3 Stephen Mutch, “Cults and Public Policy: Protecting the Victims
of Cultic Abuse in Australia,” in Cults in Australia: Facing the
Realities (Cult Information &Family Support (CIFS) Conference:
Old Parliament House &Parliament House, Canberra. Hosted by
Senators Sue Boyce and Nick Xenophon. 2nd November, 2011).
decades has generally been employed
judgementally, signifying little more
than that the group concerned is said to
be dominated by an influential figure
and is dangerous or ideologically
distasteful.4
However, while there are literally hundreds of
definitions of the word cult, I will outline a few
here because I believe we can pinpoint certain
characteristics that give us a good idea of what
we are talking about and the policy problems we
face.
Hence the International Cultic Studies
Association (ICSA), which includes among its
membership a multidisciplinary network of
scholars, notes:
Although there is no agreed-upon
definition of cult, one proposed by
Rutgers sociologist Benjamin Zablocki
seems to highlight key elements of high-
influence group situations: “An
ideological organization held together
by charismatic relationships and
demanding total commitment.”
Charisma refers to a spiritual power or
personal qualify that gives an individual
considerable influence or authority over
large numbers of people. Hence, a cult
is characterized by an ideology, strong
demands issuing from that ideology, and
powerful processes of social-
psychological influence to induce group
members to meet those demands. This
high-demand, leader-centered social
climate places such groups at risk of
exploiting and injuring members,
although they may remain benign, if
leadership doesn’t abuse its power.
The social-psychological manipulation
and control associated with some cultic
groups may sometimes be found in other
organizations and movements, including
those in the mainstream. However,
unlike new groups focused on a living
leader who answers to nobody,
mainstream movements may be
4 Ian Freckelton, “‘Cults,’ Calamities and Psychological
Consequences,” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol. 5, No. 1
(1998), pp. 3–4.
But before we get to the stage of cherry picking
ideas about the regulation of cults that might be
successfully transplanted, in whole or in part, to
all or part of China, it is important to understand
some of the conceptual and practical difficulties
in dealing with this issue. As part of the difficult
process of issue identification, and in this case
the prima facie need to locate the parameters of
the subject itself, it is appropriate to look briefly
at what we mean by cult, and why a proper
working definition of the term for public policy
purposes most often involves an understanding
that there is a religious element involved. In
addition, countries operate under very different
philosophical or conceptual frameworks when
they are dealing with religious or quasireligious
groups, and so it is important to understand how
different regulatory regimes might flow from a
particular understanding or worldview.
With reference to some practical considerations,
cults might come under regulatory regimes for
religious groups (as part of the Third Sector, but
possibly as a distinct category requiring specific
regulation). It is also possible that some cultic
groups might be categorized as political parties,
or even as terrorist groups, and others might be
properly categorized as commercial, for-profit
operations. This is why I have called for a
broadly based oversight mechanism in
Australia.3
It is also important to note that scholars are hotly
divided on what regulatory regimes are
appropriate, with some finding the very idea of
religious regulation anathema to their concept of
religious freedom. They hold this view despite
their often having both a very liberal
understanding of the types of groups that
constitute religions and a laissez-faire view of
the range of activities that groups should be
allowed to engage in.
Cults and Religion
Cult is a word that is used widely and loosely, to
such an extent that Ian Frekelton argues that
…the description “cult” for at least three
3 Stephen Mutch, “Cults and Public Policy: Protecting the Victims
of Cultic Abuse in Australia,” in Cults in Australia: Facing the
Realities (Cult Information &Family Support (CIFS) Conference:
Old Parliament House &Parliament House, Canberra. Hosted by
Senators Sue Boyce and Nick Xenophon. 2nd November, 2011).
decades has generally been employed
judgementally, signifying little more
than that the group concerned is said to
be dominated by an influential figure
and is dangerous or ideologically
distasteful.4
However, while there are literally hundreds of
definitions of the word cult, I will outline a few
here because I believe we can pinpoint certain
characteristics that give us a good idea of what
we are talking about and the policy problems we
face.
Hence the International Cultic Studies
Association (ICSA), which includes among its
membership a multidisciplinary network of
scholars, notes:
Although there is no agreed-upon
definition of cult, one proposed by
Rutgers sociologist Benjamin Zablocki
seems to highlight key elements of high-
influence group situations: “An
ideological organization held together
by charismatic relationships and
demanding total commitment.”
Charisma refers to a spiritual power or
personal qualify that gives an individual
considerable influence or authority over
large numbers of people. Hence, a cult
is characterized by an ideology, strong
demands issuing from that ideology, and
powerful processes of social-
psychological influence to induce group
members to meet those demands. This
high-demand, leader-centered social
climate places such groups at risk of
exploiting and injuring members,
although they may remain benign, if
leadership doesn’t abuse its power.
The social-psychological manipulation
and control associated with some cultic
groups may sometimes be found in other
organizations and movements, including
those in the mainstream. However,
unlike new groups focused on a living
leader who answers to nobody,
mainstream movements may be
4 Ian Freckelton, “‘Cults,’ Calamities and Psychological
Consequences,” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol. 5, No. 1
(1998), pp. 3–4.
