Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 10
and total obedience to the leader‘s idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible is mandatory.
Although the flavor is different, the result is similar to that of certain Eastern and New Age
groups: suppression of critical thinking, diminishment of freedom, vulnerability to the
criticisms of and consequent opposition toward the wider society, intolerance, and totalistic
conformity
It is no wonder, then, that cultism angers so many Americans. But there is a bright side to
this conflict. In its attack on all that is basic to American culture, cultism presents a
challenge and an opportunity. The challenge for the culture is to maintain its openness while
defending itself against the totalistic impulses of cultic groups. The opportunity is that the
culture, in order to meet this challenge, must define itself more clearly and adjust to
changed conditions. These are the topics of the next section.
What Needs to be Done
As noted earlier, the stability of American culture has depended more on a balancing of
cultural forces than on an aware idealism. People act according to social conditioning, not
according to the principles or ideals upon which the social conditioning is based. This
explains the capacity for inconsistencies, e.g., waving the flag while chanting ―Nigger go
home.‖ America has had its share of bigotry and witch-hunts. This intolerant impulse,
however, has been caged, for the most part by a legal system which codifies tolerance, as
well as other basic values of the culture, e.g., fair play. In a sense, the legal structure is
part of the articulated level of the culture, while the constructive and destructive (e.g.,
bigotry) shared values, inclinations, beliefs, and expectations of the people constitute an
unarticulated (―unconscious,‖ if you will) level of the culture, the iceberg beneath the sea.
The former is called upon to preserve that which is most valuable in the latter, while the
latter is called upon to live up to the principles enunciated by the former. The process is
analogous to the relationship of ideal self and perceived self in the individual personality.
Cults threaten the balance and creative tension arising from the interplay of the culture‘s
articulated and unar6culated levels, of law and tradition. The law is bound to protect the
freedom of cults, even though the dominance of cultic groups would result in an abolition of
the constitutionally based freedom that tolerates their very existence. Yet because cults
violate so many traditional values, the average person‘s immediate gut reaction is to find a
way to stifle the cults. The law, which doesn‘t want to succumb to the intolerant impulses in
the culture, may then find itself allied with forces seeking to transform the very culture
which the law is charged with defending.
This is a dilemma that has no easy solution. If we suppress cults, we may destroy the fabric
of our free society in doing so. On the other hand, we must be careful, as one wag put it,
not to be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
Open cultures such as our own are not static. They do not need revolutions to change an
accumulation of ―pecks‖ at the established order will suffice. For several decades, the
established order of American culture has been pecked by millions of zealots in thousands of
cultic groups. The resulting cultural change has been broader and deeper than most people
realize e.g., more than 50% of American teenagers now believe in astrology (Emerging
Trends, May 1984, p. 5). Our brains may very well be falling out.
If the American cultural identity is not to undergo a radical transformation, the dilemma
described above must be resolved. ‗The law, the articulated level of the culture, must
anchor tolerance in common sense. And tradition, the unarticulated level of the culture,
must be revitalized. I use the word ―revitalize,‖ rather than ―restore,‖ because changes are
called for, but changes showing continuity with and respect for the past on which the
present is built. I call not for revolution but for a common-sense reevaluation of where
American culture is coming from, where it is, and where it ought to be going. I see four
and total obedience to the leader‘s idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible is mandatory.
Although the flavor is different, the result is similar to that of certain Eastern and New Age
groups: suppression of critical thinking, diminishment of freedom, vulnerability to the
criticisms of and consequent opposition toward the wider society, intolerance, and totalistic
conformity
It is no wonder, then, that cultism angers so many Americans. But there is a bright side to
this conflict. In its attack on all that is basic to American culture, cultism presents a
challenge and an opportunity. The challenge for the culture is to maintain its openness while
defending itself against the totalistic impulses of cultic groups. The opportunity is that the
culture, in order to meet this challenge, must define itself more clearly and adjust to
changed conditions. These are the topics of the next section.
What Needs to be Done
As noted earlier, the stability of American culture has depended more on a balancing of
cultural forces than on an aware idealism. People act according to social conditioning, not
according to the principles or ideals upon which the social conditioning is based. This
explains the capacity for inconsistencies, e.g., waving the flag while chanting ―Nigger go
home.‖ America has had its share of bigotry and witch-hunts. This intolerant impulse,
however, has been caged, for the most part by a legal system which codifies tolerance, as
well as other basic values of the culture, e.g., fair play. In a sense, the legal structure is
part of the articulated level of the culture, while the constructive and destructive (e.g.,
bigotry) shared values, inclinations, beliefs, and expectations of the people constitute an
unarticulated (―unconscious,‖ if you will) level of the culture, the iceberg beneath the sea.
The former is called upon to preserve that which is most valuable in the latter, while the
latter is called upon to live up to the principles enunciated by the former. The process is
analogous to the relationship of ideal self and perceived self in the individual personality.
Cults threaten the balance and creative tension arising from the interplay of the culture‘s
articulated and unar6culated levels, of law and tradition. The law is bound to protect the
freedom of cults, even though the dominance of cultic groups would result in an abolition of
the constitutionally based freedom that tolerates their very existence. Yet because cults
violate so many traditional values, the average person‘s immediate gut reaction is to find a
way to stifle the cults. The law, which doesn‘t want to succumb to the intolerant impulses in
the culture, may then find itself allied with forces seeking to transform the very culture
which the law is charged with defending.
This is a dilemma that has no easy solution. If we suppress cults, we may destroy the fabric
of our free society in doing so. On the other hand, we must be careful, as one wag put it,
not to be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
Open cultures such as our own are not static. They do not need revolutions to change an
accumulation of ―pecks‖ at the established order will suffice. For several decades, the
established order of American culture has been pecked by millions of zealots in thousands of
cultic groups. The resulting cultural change has been broader and deeper than most people
realize e.g., more than 50% of American teenagers now believe in astrology (Emerging
Trends, May 1984, p. 5). Our brains may very well be falling out.
If the American cultural identity is not to undergo a radical transformation, the dilemma
described above must be resolved. ‗The law, the articulated level of the culture, must
anchor tolerance in common sense. And tradition, the unarticulated level of the culture,
must be revitalized. I use the word ―revitalize,‖ rather than ―restore,‖ because changes are
called for, but changes showing continuity with and respect for the past on which the
present is built. I call not for revolution but for a common-sense reevaluation of where
American culture is coming from, where it is, and where it ought to be going. I see four
