Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 25
3. Do we assume that those involved in the ―ACM‖ or ―PCM‖ are the same today as they
were in the past?
Cult critics should ask these questions when evaluating cultic groups.
It is apparent that individuals and organizations with opposing positions would be able to,
and do, make the argument that their research and work has been unfairly stereotyped or
has been the victim of poor or non-existent research.
5. Create more opportunities to dialogue.
We need to create more opportunities to dialogue, such as occurs at the AFF conferences,
which bring people of different perspectives and disciplines together for the exchange of
ideas, the examination of views, and the breaking down of stereotypes. Over the past few
years there have been several productive small gatherings of individuals from the ―two
camps‖. We need more of these. We also need more cross-fertilization of ideas by having
members of the two camps speak at each others‘ conferences. Again, some of this has
occurred, but more dialogue is needed.
Seeing the Same Thing with Different Eyes
It is ironic that much of what I advocate in this paper has also been urged by ISKCON
(International Society for Krishna Consciousness). Nobody likes to be stigmatized unfairly,
whether they be academicians accused of being cult apologists, cult critics accused of being
religious bigots, or cults/NRMs accused of being crass exploiters of their members. Of
course, there undoubtedly are cult apologists, religious bigots, and crass exploiters among
our numbers. Nevertheless, we ought not to hurl generalized accusations at those with
whom we may disagree without due diligence. Hence, I find myself endorsing the following
words of advice excerpted from Subhananda dasa (1979, p. 16):
When researching or writing, please try to be sensitive to the possibility of personal
bias.
Please get our side, too. (It‘s only fair.)
Please be sure to speak, also, with experts (academic scholars, psychologists,
sociologists, and so forth) who may not have taken an ―anticult‖ stance. They can
provide an articulate, responsible counterbalance to negative views.
Please try to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than letting them slip into
what may be stereotyped patterns.
Please avoid ―lumping.‖
Info-Cult as a Case Study
Info-Cult, an organization of which I am the founder and Executive Director, has been
subjected to many of the distorting errors about which I write. An examination of these
distortions can illuminate this discussion. First, however, I need to give some background
on Info-Cult.
History of Info-Cult
Info-Cult, a resource centre on cultic thinking, was founded in 1980 in Montreal, Canada
following my personal experience with the Unification Church (UC) in 1977 and specifically
that involving my close friend, Benjie Carroll. After the story about Benjie‘s kidnapping and
deprogramming from the UC was featured in a series of six newspaper articles written by
Josh Freed in the Montreal Star (Freed, 1977 December, 1978 January), his close associates
and I received numerous requests for further information. In response, several friends
organized a part-time volunteer public information service.
3. Do we assume that those involved in the ―ACM‖ or ―PCM‖ are the same today as they
were in the past?
Cult critics should ask these questions when evaluating cultic groups.
It is apparent that individuals and organizations with opposing positions would be able to,
and do, make the argument that their research and work has been unfairly stereotyped or
has been the victim of poor or non-existent research.
5. Create more opportunities to dialogue.
We need to create more opportunities to dialogue, such as occurs at the AFF conferences,
which bring people of different perspectives and disciplines together for the exchange of
ideas, the examination of views, and the breaking down of stereotypes. Over the past few
years there have been several productive small gatherings of individuals from the ―two
camps‖. We need more of these. We also need more cross-fertilization of ideas by having
members of the two camps speak at each others‘ conferences. Again, some of this has
occurred, but more dialogue is needed.
Seeing the Same Thing with Different Eyes
It is ironic that much of what I advocate in this paper has also been urged by ISKCON
(International Society for Krishna Consciousness). Nobody likes to be stigmatized unfairly,
whether they be academicians accused of being cult apologists, cult critics accused of being
religious bigots, or cults/NRMs accused of being crass exploiters of their members. Of
course, there undoubtedly are cult apologists, religious bigots, and crass exploiters among
our numbers. Nevertheless, we ought not to hurl generalized accusations at those with
whom we may disagree without due diligence. Hence, I find myself endorsing the following
words of advice excerpted from Subhananda dasa (1979, p. 16):
When researching or writing, please try to be sensitive to the possibility of personal
bias.
Please get our side, too. (It‘s only fair.)
Please be sure to speak, also, with experts (academic scholars, psychologists,
sociologists, and so forth) who may not have taken an ―anticult‖ stance. They can
provide an articulate, responsible counterbalance to negative views.
Please try to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than letting them slip into
what may be stereotyped patterns.
Please avoid ―lumping.‖
Info-Cult as a Case Study
Info-Cult, an organization of which I am the founder and Executive Director, has been
subjected to many of the distorting errors about which I write. An examination of these
distortions can illuminate this discussion. First, however, I need to give some background
on Info-Cult.
History of Info-Cult
Info-Cult, a resource centre on cultic thinking, was founded in 1980 in Montreal, Canada
following my personal experience with the Unification Church (UC) in 1977 and specifically
that involving my close friend, Benjie Carroll. After the story about Benjie‘s kidnapping and
deprogramming from the UC was featured in a series of six newspaper articles written by
Josh Freed in the Montreal Star (Freed, 1977 December, 1978 January), his close associates
and I received numerous requests for further information. In response, several friends
organized a part-time volunteer public information service.
