Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 6
reason effectively. In an unfree, authoritarian culture, reason isn‘t important to the
individual, for obedience win usually bring whatever rewards are available. In a free culture
however, the individual has a wider range of options and, therefore must think or sink.
―Reason,‖ however, does not refer to the logic taught in a beginning philosophy course. It
refers, instead, to common sense, or what some cognitive psychologists call ―natural
reasoning,‖ rather than to neat and clean deductive reasoning. It is a derivative of personal
experience
and proceeds by steps that are credible but not rigorous, and arrives at
conclusions that are likely but not certain ...To put it in William James‘s
terms, we are pragmatists by nature what feels right we take to be right.
And most of the time it is right were this not so we would have long ago
disappeared from the earth. Our pragmatism, our natural mode of reasoning,
is not anti-intellectual but is the kind of effective intellectuality that was
forged in the evolutionary furnace (Hunt, 1982, p. 138).
This pragmatic approach to adapting to the world has been the source of much of America‘s
ingenuity and material progress. But as will be noted later, it has a soft underbelly, which
many cults have exploited.
American pragmatism is a natural offshoot of a creative cultural tension that has spurred so
many individuals to notable achievements. On the one hand, there is the force of social
order the Judaeo-Christian tradition with its attendant metaphysical details, moral
imperatives, and idealistic aspirations. On the other hand, there is the force of individual
expression: the Live-free-or-die mentality that only grudgingly assents to a metaphysical
consensus of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These two cultural forces have been
in a state of relative balance for two centuries because, for the most part. Americans have
recognized that their own freedom depends upon a respect for tolerance. Sometimes ―
tolerance issues from an awareness that one might be wrong, or that others do in fact have
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even for the unaware, there is a
sense that tolerance is better than power struggles. To live freely, we must ―live and let
live.‖
The tolerance sustaining this balance of freedom and social order doesn‘t just happen to
work. It works because it is based on unwritten rules, rules of fair play. Just what those
rules are will vary from locale to locale, from social group to social group, from one
historical period to another. But despite their variation and ambiguity, rules for determining
acceptable ways to influence another person do exist. Using physical force to persuade
another person, for example, is against the rules, as are gross deception or threats. Minor
deception, however, is sometimes within the rules: for example, we tend to expect and
tolerate a used car salesman‘s twisting of the truth. In other cases, however, even minor
deceptions can be against the rules: when occurring in intimate relationships, or when
committed by someone in a position of special trust, e.g., a clergyman. The most visible
indications of the rules of fair play (what can also be called the ethics of social influence) are
ethical codes of change agents, e.g., psychologists, and laws governing interpersonal
interactions, e.g., libel laws.
To summarize, American culture has traditionally rested upon six fundamental values: (1)
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (2) individual freedom (3) connectedness (i.e.,
psychological integration) (4) common sense (natural reasoning) (5) tolerance and (6)
fair play.
The cultural balance that these values have sustained is threatened. Certainly, as many
social critics have pointed out, much of the disequilibrium has resulted from a historical
unfolding of flaws in the balance on which the nation was founded, e.g., disillusionment with
Enlightenment myths of ―progress,‖ science‘s attack on the metaphysical foundations of the
reason effectively. In an unfree, authoritarian culture, reason isn‘t important to the
individual, for obedience win usually bring whatever rewards are available. In a free culture
however, the individual has a wider range of options and, therefore must think or sink.
―Reason,‖ however, does not refer to the logic taught in a beginning philosophy course. It
refers, instead, to common sense, or what some cognitive psychologists call ―natural
reasoning,‖ rather than to neat and clean deductive reasoning. It is a derivative of personal
experience
and proceeds by steps that are credible but not rigorous, and arrives at
conclusions that are likely but not certain ...To put it in William James‘s
terms, we are pragmatists by nature what feels right we take to be right.
And most of the time it is right were this not so we would have long ago
disappeared from the earth. Our pragmatism, our natural mode of reasoning,
is not anti-intellectual but is the kind of effective intellectuality that was
forged in the evolutionary furnace (Hunt, 1982, p. 138).
This pragmatic approach to adapting to the world has been the source of much of America‘s
ingenuity and material progress. But as will be noted later, it has a soft underbelly, which
many cults have exploited.
American pragmatism is a natural offshoot of a creative cultural tension that has spurred so
many individuals to notable achievements. On the one hand, there is the force of social
order the Judaeo-Christian tradition with its attendant metaphysical details, moral
imperatives, and idealistic aspirations. On the other hand, there is the force of individual
expression: the Live-free-or-die mentality that only grudgingly assents to a metaphysical
consensus of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These two cultural forces have been
in a state of relative balance for two centuries because, for the most part. Americans have
recognized that their own freedom depends upon a respect for tolerance. Sometimes ―
tolerance issues from an awareness that one might be wrong, or that others do in fact have
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even for the unaware, there is a
sense that tolerance is better than power struggles. To live freely, we must ―live and let
live.‖
The tolerance sustaining this balance of freedom and social order doesn‘t just happen to
work. It works because it is based on unwritten rules, rules of fair play. Just what those
rules are will vary from locale to locale, from social group to social group, from one
historical period to another. But despite their variation and ambiguity, rules for determining
acceptable ways to influence another person do exist. Using physical force to persuade
another person, for example, is against the rules, as are gross deception or threats. Minor
deception, however, is sometimes within the rules: for example, we tend to expect and
tolerate a used car salesman‘s twisting of the truth. In other cases, however, even minor
deceptions can be against the rules: when occurring in intimate relationships, or when
committed by someone in a position of special trust, e.g., a clergyman. The most visible
indications of the rules of fair play (what can also be called the ethics of social influence) are
ethical codes of change agents, e.g., psychologists, and laws governing interpersonal
interactions, e.g., libel laws.
To summarize, American culture has traditionally rested upon six fundamental values: (1)
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (2) individual freedom (3) connectedness (i.e.,
psychological integration) (4) common sense (natural reasoning) (5) tolerance and (6)
fair play.
The cultural balance that these values have sustained is threatened. Certainly, as many
social critics have pointed out, much of the disequilibrium has resulted from a historical
unfolding of flaws in the balance on which the nation was founded, e.g., disillusionment with
Enlightenment myths of ―progress,‖ science‘s attack on the metaphysical foundations of the
