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).
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).
