International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 1
The Influence Continuum—the Good, the Dubious, and the Harmful—
Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice in the 21st Century
Roderick Dubrow-Marshall, Ph.D.
University of Central Lancashire
This article is the transcript of the Inaugural
Professorial Lecture delivered by the author at
the University of Glamorgan on 9th December
2008.
Abstract
Influence amongst human beings is ubiquitous:
It is literally everywhere—in the words we use,
the things we see, even the air we breathe. Some
of this influence is profoundly beneficial—the
influence of education, of parents, or of loved
ones. Other forms of influence can be ethically
and morally questionable. At the other end of
this “continuum” are types of influence that are
terribly harmful: The dead of the Japanese,
Madrid, and London transport systems are vivid
casualties of undue influence at its extreme.
Empirical evidence will be presented in this
paper for the mindset that is established in
extremist groups, with implications for how
more benign forms of influence can be better
protected, monitored, and promoted.
This lecture attempts to set out the continuum of
influences from the good, to the dubious, and to
the clearly harmful. In doing this, the blurring of
such distinctions will become obvious, and an
appeal for reason in our analyses and responses
is called for. While I have dedicated much of my
academic work over the past decade to helping
those who have suffered at the hands of abusive
groups or individuals, I simultaneously cling to
and champion the enlightenment ethic of
scientific reason over superficial prejudice. To
quote the late president of the International
Cultic Studies Association (formerly the
American Family Foundation), Herb Rosedale,
Esq., “Judgements should rest on careful
analyses of structure and behaviour within a
specific context, rather than superficial
classification.”
The task in this lecture then is to present this
range of influences and to present research that
has elucidated some of what happens when
influence is decidedly harmful. My work
therefore has tended to focus on what are
commonly referred to as sects or cults—terms
that I should admit at the outset are not value
neutral. In fact, I am committed to a tradition
within social psychology, that of social
constructionism and discursive psychology, that
is clear that all words mean something, embody
something, and do something. In this case, the
words are the embodiment of another term, that
of undue influence (cf. Billig, 1986 Edwards &
Potter, 1992). Some may label a group as a cult
or sect because it has arguably done something
injurious to some people, and because people
have seen loved ones harmed, or have even lost
family members altogether, as a consequence of
the group’s actions or inactions. And they want
to do something in response to that. I want to do
something about that, too! So while I generally
eschew superficially useful terms, I also
recognise the importance of using a shorthand
term to get us started on the road of
communication—a short and simple word for
what is a complex category of groups and
behaviours. So I will use the word cult with all
those caveats.
I am often asked—and you can ask me later—
What is a cult? or Is this group or that group a
cult? I tend away from such superficial labels of
groups or individuals, which can do more harm
than good to all involved. Sociologists in this
field may define a cult or sect as a group on the
fringe of society, ideologically driven and
occupying a polarized belief position this group
may be a new religion or new expression of
some other kind of ideology, such as politics. A
cult also typically may be hierarchically
organised, with a powerful leader figure or
“guru” who is often the perfect embodiment of
The Influence Continuum—the Good, the Dubious, and the Harmful—
Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice in the 21st Century
Roderick Dubrow-Marshall, Ph.D.
University of Central Lancashire
This article is the transcript of the Inaugural
Professorial Lecture delivered by the author at
the University of Glamorgan on 9th December
2008.
Abstract
Influence amongst human beings is ubiquitous:
It is literally everywhere—in the words we use,
the things we see, even the air we breathe. Some
of this influence is profoundly beneficial—the
influence of education, of parents, or of loved
ones. Other forms of influence can be ethically
and morally questionable. At the other end of
this “continuum” are types of influence that are
terribly harmful: The dead of the Japanese,
Madrid, and London transport systems are vivid
casualties of undue influence at its extreme.
Empirical evidence will be presented in this
paper for the mindset that is established in
extremist groups, with implications for how
more benign forms of influence can be better
protected, monitored, and promoted.
This lecture attempts to set out the continuum of
influences from the good, to the dubious, and to
the clearly harmful. In doing this, the blurring of
such distinctions will become obvious, and an
appeal for reason in our analyses and responses
is called for. While I have dedicated much of my
academic work over the past decade to helping
those who have suffered at the hands of abusive
groups or individuals, I simultaneously cling to
and champion the enlightenment ethic of
scientific reason over superficial prejudice. To
quote the late president of the International
Cultic Studies Association (formerly the
American Family Foundation), Herb Rosedale,
Esq., “Judgements should rest on careful
analyses of structure and behaviour within a
specific context, rather than superficial
classification.”
The task in this lecture then is to present this
range of influences and to present research that
has elucidated some of what happens when
influence is decidedly harmful. My work
therefore has tended to focus on what are
commonly referred to as sects or cults—terms
that I should admit at the outset are not value
neutral. In fact, I am committed to a tradition
within social psychology, that of social
constructionism and discursive psychology, that
is clear that all words mean something, embody
something, and do something. In this case, the
words are the embodiment of another term, that
of undue influence (cf. Billig, 1986 Edwards &
Potter, 1992). Some may label a group as a cult
or sect because it has arguably done something
injurious to some people, and because people
have seen loved ones harmed, or have even lost
family members altogether, as a consequence of
the group’s actions or inactions. And they want
to do something in response to that. I want to do
something about that, too! So while I generally
eschew superficially useful terms, I also
recognise the importance of using a shorthand
term to get us started on the road of
communication—a short and simple word for
what is a complex category of groups and
behaviours. So I will use the word cult with all
those caveats.
I am often asked—and you can ask me later—
What is a cult? or Is this group or that group a
cult? I tend away from such superficial labels of
groups or individuals, which can do more harm
than good to all involved. Sociologists in this
field may define a cult or sect as a group on the
fringe of society, ideologically driven and
occupying a polarized belief position this group
may be a new religion or new expression of
some other kind of ideology, such as politics. A
cult also typically may be hierarchically
organised, with a powerful leader figure or
“guru” who is often the perfect embodiment of
