Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 11
main areas in which this reevaluation has already begun and must continue to occur.
First, social and behavioral scientists, artists, and students of the humanities must do a
better job of articulating the essence of American culture. Psychological questions, in
particular, need to be examined. What are the links between individual development and
cultism? What are the deceptive and indirect psychological techniques through which
influencers persuade and control others? How are they different from techniques used in the
past? How do these techniques work and how can one develop resistance against them?
How does the existence of subtle influence techniques affect the American concept of
freedom? Should, for instance, the nineteenth century theme of ―live free or die‖ be
supplemented by something more sensitive to twentieth-century ―psycho-technologies,‖
e.g., ―be aware or be duped,‖ which is an elaboration of ―eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty?‖ What are the differences between open and closed cultures, not only on the social
level but on the level of the individual psyche as well? If an open culture (one based on a
metaphysical assumption of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) has an inescapable
ambiguity and uncertainty infusing its philosophical foundations, what implications would
this fact have for individual adjustment and social relations? How do people reason? If, as
appears to be the case, common sense is not so ―rational‖ as most believe, what are the
implications of this misconception and what can be done to diminish its negative effects
(e.g., reduce vulnerability to sophistic attacks on cultural values)?
The answers to these questions will influence the second major area calling for examination:
the relationship between our legal system and cultism. If the legal system represents a
major component of the cultures ―ideal self,‖ what can be done to prevent it from becoming
a ―harsh superego,‖ a kind of legal Gnosticism, seeking to control the culan-9 iceberg by
chanting legal scripture at its windy pinnacle? Can the law grapple with the changed
definition of freedom and new types of ―victimhood‖ implied by deceptive and indirect
techniques of persuasion and control? Can the law balance its concern about what is bad in
the culture with its duty to conserve what is good? Can the law, for example, respond to the
valid cultural outrage underlying much of the antagonism toward cults without yielding to
the intolerant aspects of that antagonism or aiming its head from the sometimes gross
abuses cloaked by legal definitions of religion? Can the law spell out more clearly its proper
relationship to religion and religions? Has, for example, the historical emphasis on the
abstract concept ―religion‖ blinded and emasculated the law with respect to the concrete
realities that are religions? Can the law give special consideration to the Judaeo-Christian
tradition (not Jewish or Christian religions) supporting our culture without interfering with
the rights of those lying outside that tradition? If not, is the law making a passive decision
to protect intolerant, culturally alien religions and religion-like groups at the expense of
religions integrated into the culture? Does such passivity tend to conserve or to endanger
our open culture?
Religions, which in their preaching reflect another part of the articulated ―ideal self‖ of the
culture, must also wrestle with such questions in order for a cultural revitalization to take
place. Can members of a religious faith uphold the spirit of ecumenism without succumbing
to a naive, ―see-no-evil‖ pose when confronted with religion-like groups that disdain the
cultural heritage which has enabled ecumenism to survive? Can religions formulate and
teach rational integrations of their belief systems with the American cultural tradition? Can,
for example, the Roman Catholic Church explain and teach --especially to its intelligent,
questioning young people --how a Catholic can honor the authority of the Church while
pledging allegiance to an individualistic cultural tradition that recognizes only a metaphysics
of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The two are not irreconcilable, but many young
people have been seduced by cultic groups because, at least partly, they were thrown off-
balance by tendentious critiques of such philosophical issues. Can religions provide their
young people with the intellectual tools to resist manipulative philosophical/spiritual
main areas in which this reevaluation has already begun and must continue to occur.
First, social and behavioral scientists, artists, and students of the humanities must do a
better job of articulating the essence of American culture. Psychological questions, in
particular, need to be examined. What are the links between individual development and
cultism? What are the deceptive and indirect psychological techniques through which
influencers persuade and control others? How are they different from techniques used in the
past? How do these techniques work and how can one develop resistance against them?
How does the existence of subtle influence techniques affect the American concept of
freedom? Should, for instance, the nineteenth century theme of ―live free or die‖ be
supplemented by something more sensitive to twentieth-century ―psycho-technologies,‖
e.g., ―be aware or be duped,‖ which is an elaboration of ―eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty?‖ What are the differences between open and closed cultures, not only on the social
level but on the level of the individual psyche as well? If an open culture (one based on a
metaphysical assumption of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) has an inescapable
ambiguity and uncertainty infusing its philosophical foundations, what implications would
this fact have for individual adjustment and social relations? How do people reason? If, as
appears to be the case, common sense is not so ―rational‖ as most believe, what are the
implications of this misconception and what can be done to diminish its negative effects
(e.g., reduce vulnerability to sophistic attacks on cultural values)?
The answers to these questions will influence the second major area calling for examination:
the relationship between our legal system and cultism. If the legal system represents a
major component of the cultures ―ideal self,‖ what can be done to prevent it from becoming
a ―harsh superego,‖ a kind of legal Gnosticism, seeking to control the culan-9 iceberg by
chanting legal scripture at its windy pinnacle? Can the law grapple with the changed
definition of freedom and new types of ―victimhood‖ implied by deceptive and indirect
techniques of persuasion and control? Can the law balance its concern about what is bad in
the culture with its duty to conserve what is good? Can the law, for example, respond to the
valid cultural outrage underlying much of the antagonism toward cults without yielding to
the intolerant aspects of that antagonism or aiming its head from the sometimes gross
abuses cloaked by legal definitions of religion? Can the law spell out more clearly its proper
relationship to religion and religions? Has, for example, the historical emphasis on the
abstract concept ―religion‖ blinded and emasculated the law with respect to the concrete
realities that are religions? Can the law give special consideration to the Judaeo-Christian
tradition (not Jewish or Christian religions) supporting our culture without interfering with
the rights of those lying outside that tradition? If not, is the law making a passive decision
to protect intolerant, culturally alien religions and religion-like groups at the expense of
religions integrated into the culture? Does such passivity tend to conserve or to endanger
our open culture?
Religions, which in their preaching reflect another part of the articulated ―ideal self‖ of the
culture, must also wrestle with such questions in order for a cultural revitalization to take
place. Can members of a religious faith uphold the spirit of ecumenism without succumbing
to a naive, ―see-no-evil‖ pose when confronted with religion-like groups that disdain the
cultural heritage which has enabled ecumenism to survive? Can religions formulate and
teach rational integrations of their belief systems with the American cultural tradition? Can,
for example, the Roman Catholic Church explain and teach --especially to its intelligent,
questioning young people --how a Catholic can honor the authority of the Church while
pledging allegiance to an individualistic cultural tradition that recognizes only a metaphysics
of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The two are not irreconcilable, but many young
people have been seduced by cultic groups because, at least partly, they were thrown off-
balance by tendentious critiques of such philosophical issues. Can religions provide their
young people with the intellectual tools to resist manipulative philosophical/spiritual
