Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 22
An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for
Reconciliation
Michael Kropveld
Executive Director, Info-Cult
Abstract
This article provides a critical and constructive response to the ―cult wars‖
that have become apparent in the study of cults and new religious
movements. Suggestions for stimulating dialogue and mutual respect are
grounded in the author‘s twenty-three years of experience as executive
director of Info-Cult, which in turn is used here as an example of controversy.
Scholarly research, dialogue, and education are goals that we who are involved in the study
of cults and new religious movements (NRMs) pursue. However, a polarization of ―them
versus us‖ has emerged which has unfortunately created what is now known as the ―cult
wars.‖ The consequent animosity can only work to be self-defeating for our efforts to
achieve those goals that will move us forward. Further, this polarization paints an inaccurate
picture that does not reflect the diversity of views offered by the numerous individuals and
organizations that contribute their vast array of knowledge to the discussion.
In this paper I will first offer some suggestions for enhancing dialogue and mutual respect.
Then I will present some background on Info-Cult. Lastly, I will present some examples,
using Info-Cult, which I serve as Executive Director, as the object of the kinds of
inaccuracies and distortions that tend to magnify rather than decrease suspicion and
stereotyping on both sides of the ―cult wars.‖
Suggestions for Enhancing Dialogue and Respect
1. Avoid simplistic terms that promote the dichotomy of good versus evil.
The use of terminology such as ―Anti-Cult Movement‖ (ACM) and ―Pro-Cult Movement‖
(PCM), ―anti-cultist‖ and ―pro-cultist‖ or ―cult apologist‖ are examples of divisive labels that
are hardly conducive to encouraging dialogue or discernment. Such labels often function, to
use Dr. Robert Lifton‘s terminology, as ―thought-terminating clichés.‖ We tag the label on
somebody who disagrees with us and delude ourselves into thinking that by so doing we
have demonstrated an understanding of an issue. My criticism of these kinds of labels does
not mean that I oppose all use of labels. Labels are categories, and categories are essential
to thought. What is important is how we use the labels.
University of London Sociology Professor Eileen Barker has put forth an interesting and
useful model for classifying those who are interested in cults/NRMs (Barker, 2002).
Barker identifies five ideal types into which Cult Watching Groups can be divided:
1. Cult-Awareness Groups (CAG‘s)
2. Countercult Groups (CCG‘s)
3. Research-Oriented Groups (ROG‘s)
4. Human Rights Groups (HRG‘s)
5. Cult-Defender Groups (CDG‘s).

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 23
Dr. Barker‘s classification invited much spirited discussion at a special AFF (American Family
Foundation) meeting after the 2002 annual conference. Moreover, it was a productive
exchange because her terminology, though disputable, invites, rather than closes off,
thought and discussion.
Even disregarding interesting proposals such as Dr. Barker‘s, we could all, at the very least,
contribute to more discerning dialogue by avoiding simplistic terminology that over
generalizes, such as ―pro-cult‖ and ―anti-cult.‖ We could, for example, be more specific in
our statements, e.g., ―Info-Cult has observed that‖ or ―INFORM‘s position is‖ or ―AFF has
found that.‖
It is also important that we clearly define the terms that we use. In this regard, AFF‘s
definitional essays bring to light the inherent ambiguity and potential for misuse in terms
such as ―cult‖: http://www.cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_aff/aff_termdefambiguity.htm
http://www.cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_aff/aff_termcultp2.htm
2. Do your homework.
Too often, people associated with both ―camps‖ make statements of ―fact‖ that, upon even
a cursory examination, are obviously wrong. It is especially troubling when these errors are
made by scholars, from whom more is expected. Sometimes these errors result from
hurried or sloppy research. Sometimes they result from a reliance on secondary sources. I
have noticed, for example, that much of the sociological literature about the so-called ―anti-
cult movement‖ consists of essays citing other sociological essays that make the same
unsubstantiated claims.
A colleague and I searched various sources and databases for studies on individual ―ACM‖
groups, and were unable to find even one sociological study that was systematically
researched. 1
3. Don’t lump individuals or groups together.
The sociological literature on the ―anti-cult movement‖ repeatedly makes the mistake of
presuming that all organizations and individuals, who express concerns about cults, have
uniform objectives, a common agenda, and close, interlinking relationships. In fact, there
are numerous differences, and most ―ACM‖ groups know very little about other groups and
individuals. Here is a partial list of organizations that Dr. Barker might categorize as ―cult
awareness groups‖ (all are from North America unless otherwise indicated):
Info-Cult/Info-Secte
American Family Foundation
Cult Information Service
1 The search words used were: Secte, anti-secte, Counter-cult, Cult, Anti-Cult, pro-secte, Pro-Cult,
Info-Cult, Info-Secte, Projet Culte, Cult Project, AFF (American Family Foundation), CAN (Cult
Awareness Network), Brainwashing, manipulation mentale, programming, deprogramming.
The following information and databases were searched.
FRANCIS, Repère sur le Web, Biblio branchée, Eureka, WebSPIRS, OVID, Web of Science, Psyinfo,
Sociological Abstracts, JSTOR, Project Muse, Emerald Library, Oxford University Press, Cambridge
University Press, Ingenta, Wiley InterScience, Érudit, World history, ATLAS Full Text, Kluwer,
ScienceDirect, Proquest Psychology Journals.
http://www.bib.umontreal.ca/SS/basesgen.htm