Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 9
problem and consequently to convey information and support to those who contact them.
The use of the term ―cult,‖ while subject to continuing controversy and attack, is key in
facilitating pathways from those who believe they themselves, or family members or
friends, have been or are currently adversely affected by a high-demand group, to those
who have established information and support organisations. That is why I believe ―cult‖
remains a vital term to include in the name of watch groups, and why it is efficacious to
embrace a broad, popular definition of the term.
I am well aware of the arguments between and about various categories of cult-watch
groups. Some take the view that others are not appropriately qualified to give advice. Some
look with suspicion upon counter-cult groups, seeing their activities as a form of
proselytising. Faith-based watch groups might feel that secular anti-cultists are too critical
of all religion. Some academic sociologists chant the mantra that some cult-watch groups
are worse than the groups they criticise.xiii Academically based watch-groups might be
criticised on the basis that in their attempts to be balanced they are too hesitant to be
critical of cults, in their research they need to ingratiate themselves with cult oligarchs, or
that they are insufficiently multidisciplined. While some criticisms may be unfair or
unfounded, they all deserve to be examined.
My own view from a public-policy perspective is that, bearing in mind the potential pitfalls,
watch-groups are canaries in the mineshaft and provide an invaluable primary resource for
academics and public officials. Hence we should let ―a hundred flowers blossom, a hundred
fields of thought contend,‖ while under the auspices of the ICSA we seek to provide sensible
guidance for the conduct of watch groups, for the conduct of research facilitated by watch
groups, and for the multidisciplinary collation of information useful to public policy makers.
The real and potential resource is there the question remains whether ICSA and associates
are up to this three-pronged challenge.
An observation I would like to make here involves my own position as patron of one
Australian group, Cult Information and Family Support, Inc. (CIFS), which substantially
consists of run-of-the-mill Anglicans and other Christians who meet in a church hall.
Although I personally start to fidget if high-demand groups are criticised on the basis of
theology, and I am often vocal in my criticisms of this approach, CIFS members tolerate this
sceptic in their midst. It seems to me that while strict secularists might wish to criticise all
religion, we have no hope for the future unless secularists and religionists are able to work
together to formulate acceptable rules of conduct for cults, sects, religions, watch groups,
and nonreligious groups alike. CIFS has been listed as an anti-cult group rather than a
counter-cult group, but it is truly a bit of both—with an emphasis on examining issues of
harmful practice.
It is also possible that in two ways, at least, counter-cult groups play a role that cannot be
replicated in secular or academic watch groups. First, it might well be that a person who
comes out of a harmful high-demand group might find solace and support from among
members of established religions, particularly if the leaver was formally a member of an
established group and is familiar with the culture of that group. Second, from my own
observation, it seems that family and friends of a person in a harmful high-demand group
are more comfortable and more willing to discuss problems with a group of people who
belong to established churches of the same broad faith as their own. Hence, Christian
parents might feel more comfortable accessing the services of a Christian-based counter-
cult group and Jewish parents might feel more comfortable accessing a Jewish-based
counter-cult group. These are questions our academic colleagues in various disciplines
might be able to throw some light upon—and they may have already done so.
This raises an interesting point. After the London bombings, a prominent member of the
Australian Islamic community, Waleed Aly, had this to say on ABC Radio National:
problem and consequently to convey information and support to those who contact them.
The use of the term ―cult,‖ while subject to continuing controversy and attack, is key in
facilitating pathways from those who believe they themselves, or family members or
friends, have been or are currently adversely affected by a high-demand group, to those
who have established information and support organisations. That is why I believe ―cult‖
remains a vital term to include in the name of watch groups, and why it is efficacious to
embrace a broad, popular definition of the term.
I am well aware of the arguments between and about various categories of cult-watch
groups. Some take the view that others are not appropriately qualified to give advice. Some
look with suspicion upon counter-cult groups, seeing their activities as a form of
proselytising. Faith-based watch groups might feel that secular anti-cultists are too critical
of all religion. Some academic sociologists chant the mantra that some cult-watch groups
are worse than the groups they criticise.xiii Academically based watch-groups might be
criticised on the basis that in their attempts to be balanced they are too hesitant to be
critical of cults, in their research they need to ingratiate themselves with cult oligarchs, or
that they are insufficiently multidisciplined. While some criticisms may be unfair or
unfounded, they all deserve to be examined.
My own view from a public-policy perspective is that, bearing in mind the potential pitfalls,
watch-groups are canaries in the mineshaft and provide an invaluable primary resource for
academics and public officials. Hence we should let ―a hundred flowers blossom, a hundred
fields of thought contend,‖ while under the auspices of the ICSA we seek to provide sensible
guidance for the conduct of watch groups, for the conduct of research facilitated by watch
groups, and for the multidisciplinary collation of information useful to public policy makers.
The real and potential resource is there the question remains whether ICSA and associates
are up to this three-pronged challenge.
An observation I would like to make here involves my own position as patron of one
Australian group, Cult Information and Family Support, Inc. (CIFS), which substantially
consists of run-of-the-mill Anglicans and other Christians who meet in a church hall.
Although I personally start to fidget if high-demand groups are criticised on the basis of
theology, and I am often vocal in my criticisms of this approach, CIFS members tolerate this
sceptic in their midst. It seems to me that while strict secularists might wish to criticise all
religion, we have no hope for the future unless secularists and religionists are able to work
together to formulate acceptable rules of conduct for cults, sects, religions, watch groups,
and nonreligious groups alike. CIFS has been listed as an anti-cult group rather than a
counter-cult group, but it is truly a bit of both—with an emphasis on examining issues of
harmful practice.
It is also possible that in two ways, at least, counter-cult groups play a role that cannot be
replicated in secular or academic watch groups. First, it might well be that a person who
comes out of a harmful high-demand group might find solace and support from among
members of established religions, particularly if the leaver was formally a member of an
established group and is familiar with the culture of that group. Second, from my own
observation, it seems that family and friends of a person in a harmful high-demand group
are more comfortable and more willing to discuss problems with a group of people who
belong to established churches of the same broad faith as their own. Hence, Christian
parents might feel more comfortable accessing the services of a Christian-based counter-
cult group and Jewish parents might feel more comfortable accessing a Jewish-based
counter-cult group. These are questions our academic colleagues in various disciplines
might be able to throw some light upon—and they may have already done so.
This raises an interesting point. After the London bombings, a prominent member of the
Australian Islamic community, Waleed Aly, had this to say on ABC Radio National:
