Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 176
These continuing dialogues have been generally regarded as helpful in addressing concerns
about the role of religion and the obligations of the state to provide support for the public
health, welfare, and well being of its citizenry as well as respecting diverse values and
practices, including religious practices and the tolerance of divergent beliefs. These are not
meetings in which the American ―ACM‖ lectures representatives of another culture on how
they should conform to our values. The meetings recognize differences as well as
commonalties, and discussions cover matters of such universal concern as the rights of
women, children, and families and the responsibilities of public health and other
professionals. Respect for human rights has always been a matter of utmost concern in our
discussions.
It is in this context that I take umbrage at Robbins‘ carping about specific incidents of
alleged abuse that I did not mention in my paper, which dealt with general principles for
evaluating specific cases, not specific cases per se. Had he had the information or made the
necessary inquiries to place the paper in the context of our continuing dialogue,
communications, and need for exchange between diverse cultures as we enter upon the
21st Century, I am sure his views would have been modified. Although Robbins could argue
with some justification that my paper should have anticipated objections such as he made,
his lack of understanding of the paper‘s context and his failure to seek additional
information from me or my colleagues reflect the stereotype-reinforcing consequences of
the lack of dialogue between so-called ―pro‖ and ―anti‖ cultists (although much progress has
been made in this area during recent years). Fortunately, he at least took the time to make
his views known and thereby created an opportunity to clarify the issue. In the past, even
this exchange would probably not have happened, and uninformed and inaccurate negative
stereotypes would have been reaffirmed.
Cults and Culture
With the preceding background, it should be evident that there is a substantial area of
commonality in Robbins‘ and Rosedale‘s approaches when these approaches are applied to
comments about the Chinese government and Falun Gong. Robbins‘ fixation on ideology,
however, infects his analysis of Rosedale‘s paper and his approach to the issues with which
it deals.
Cults and indeed all religions, majority or minority, new or old, cannot be viewed outside
the context of the cultures in which they function or without regard to the historic
perspective or the political realities of the time addressed. Cults are not solely religious in
their nature, the essence of the ties that bind the follower and leader being, in some
instances, political or psychological or based on other relationships exploiting dependency.7
While there are commonalties in organization and structure and method of control, each cult
must be analyzed separately, and within the cult there is no identity of the level of
member‘s commitment, the abandonment of his or her individuality, or the degree of
unquestioning fealty.
There are likewise contrasting ―macro‖ and micro‖ approaches in which one addresses the
role of the group and its relationships to other individuals and groups in society as well as
the areas of permissible latitude and behavioral autonomy in a pluralistic environment,
contrasted with conformity demanded in a totalistic environment where there is no
separation of church and state and continuing proof of an ideological totalistic commitment
is demanded by the controlling powers.8
Rosedale‘s paper addressed the need for historical analysis in drawing parallels with respect
to cults in an American culture stressing our tradition of the limitation of state power with
consequent recognition of residual individual freedoms as opposed to states with a history of
These continuing dialogues have been generally regarded as helpful in addressing concerns
about the role of religion and the obligations of the state to provide support for the public
health, welfare, and well being of its citizenry as well as respecting diverse values and
practices, including religious practices and the tolerance of divergent beliefs. These are not
meetings in which the American ―ACM‖ lectures representatives of another culture on how
they should conform to our values. The meetings recognize differences as well as
commonalties, and discussions cover matters of such universal concern as the rights of
women, children, and families and the responsibilities of public health and other
professionals. Respect for human rights has always been a matter of utmost concern in our
discussions.
It is in this context that I take umbrage at Robbins‘ carping about specific incidents of
alleged abuse that I did not mention in my paper, which dealt with general principles for
evaluating specific cases, not specific cases per se. Had he had the information or made the
necessary inquiries to place the paper in the context of our continuing dialogue,
communications, and need for exchange between diverse cultures as we enter upon the
21st Century, I am sure his views would have been modified. Although Robbins could argue
with some justification that my paper should have anticipated objections such as he made,
his lack of understanding of the paper‘s context and his failure to seek additional
information from me or my colleagues reflect the stereotype-reinforcing consequences of
the lack of dialogue between so-called ―pro‖ and ―anti‖ cultists (although much progress has
been made in this area during recent years). Fortunately, he at least took the time to make
his views known and thereby created an opportunity to clarify the issue. In the past, even
this exchange would probably not have happened, and uninformed and inaccurate negative
stereotypes would have been reaffirmed.
Cults and Culture
With the preceding background, it should be evident that there is a substantial area of
commonality in Robbins‘ and Rosedale‘s approaches when these approaches are applied to
comments about the Chinese government and Falun Gong. Robbins‘ fixation on ideology,
however, infects his analysis of Rosedale‘s paper and his approach to the issues with which
it deals.
Cults and indeed all religions, majority or minority, new or old, cannot be viewed outside
the context of the cultures in which they function or without regard to the historic
perspective or the political realities of the time addressed. Cults are not solely religious in
their nature, the essence of the ties that bind the follower and leader being, in some
instances, political or psychological or based on other relationships exploiting dependency.7
While there are commonalties in organization and structure and method of control, each cult
must be analyzed separately, and within the cult there is no identity of the level of
member‘s commitment, the abandonment of his or her individuality, or the degree of
unquestioning fealty.
There are likewise contrasting ―macro‖ and micro‖ approaches in which one addresses the
role of the group and its relationships to other individuals and groups in society as well as
the areas of permissible latitude and behavioral autonomy in a pluralistic environment,
contrasted with conformity demanded in a totalistic environment where there is no
separation of church and state and continuing proof of an ideological totalistic commitment
is demanded by the controlling powers.8
Rosedale‘s paper addressed the need for historical analysis in drawing parallels with respect
to cults in an American culture stressing our tradition of the limitation of state power with
consequent recognition of residual individual freedoms as opposed to states with a history of
