Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 8
competency were defeated time and one again. And deprogrammings involving abduction
markedly decreased in frequency.
In recent years, the debate has become more sophisticated and the legal thrust against
cults has focused on lawsuits against cults rather than on legislative lobbying. It is now
widely recognized that many persons are able to resist cultic enticements and that most
individuals seduced into cults are relatively normal persons experiencing considerable stress
at the time of their conversion. For the most part they are not seriously disturbed
psychologically. Nevertheless, their conversion is directly linked to the cult‘s use of an array
of manipulative techniques of social influence, as the following definition suggests:
Cult --a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically
manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the
goals of the group‘s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members,
their families, or the community. Manipulative techniques include, but are not
limited to, isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special
methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
pressures, information management suspension of individuality or critical
judgment promotion of total dependency on the group, and the systematic
cultivation of fear. (Adapted from Cultism: A Conference for Scholars and
policymakers, p. 3.)
Cults, then, cause controversy because they violate basic values undergirding American
culture. In interpersonal relationships, they cheat. They disregard the rules of fair play,
using manipulative processes too intensely, too often, and in inappropriate contexts. The
American sense of fair play may tolerate a fast- talking used-car salesman. But, because
more is expected of religious professionals, it bristles at Madison-Avenue-Jesus peddlers,
and rails against institutionalized manipulation designed to pull people off their life courses
in the name of religion or other ideals.
Cults also undermine personal freedom. Sometimes this is blatant, especially in
authoritarian, collectivist groups. In other cases, the undermining of personal freedom is a
subtle process. Although responsible proponents of Eastern monist philosophies exist, many
Eastern and related New Age groups advocate a dangerously solipsistic world view, in which
adherents are indoctrinated to believe that they are God and that their progress up the
spiritual ladder will bring great psychic powers, such as mind-reading, levitation, or the
capacity to make ―voyages‖ on astral planes. In these cases, even if the individual isn‘t
exploited (e.g., by paying thousands of dollars for ―courses‖), he can become so self-
absorbed and detached from others that the notion of freedom becomes superfluous.
Moreover, he can become more susceptible to the manipulations of the persons ―guiding‖
him into this state of ―inner awareness.‖ Although I am not denying one‘s right to follow
such a path, I do maintain that it grates on American sensibilities and can, therefore, make
adaptation more difficult Of course, one doesn‘t have to adapt nor does one have to take
the easy road to adaptation. But one can make more informed decisions, if one is aware of
the consequences of certain actions. And in many groups ―selling‖ solipsistic world- views,
the consequences are not spelled out with exactitude and may, in fact, be deliberately
concealed.
Some students of contemporary cults have noted that New Age and other Eastern-based
groups have much in common with Gnostic cults of the early Christian period (Albrecht,
1981 Halperin, 1983 Weber, 1983). These similarities include not only a striving for
special powers (―You are God in your universe,‖ says Werner Erhard), but also an
undermining of the notion of connectedness and an attack on reason. In the New-Age and
monist groups which arouse concern, connectedness becomes meaningless (If you are God
competency were defeated time and one again. And deprogrammings involving abduction
markedly decreased in frequency.
In recent years, the debate has become more sophisticated and the legal thrust against
cults has focused on lawsuits against cults rather than on legislative lobbying. It is now
widely recognized that many persons are able to resist cultic enticements and that most
individuals seduced into cults are relatively normal persons experiencing considerable stress
at the time of their conversion. For the most part they are not seriously disturbed
psychologically. Nevertheless, their conversion is directly linked to the cult‘s use of an array
of manipulative techniques of social influence, as the following definition suggests:
Cult --a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically
manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the
goals of the group‘s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members,
their families, or the community. Manipulative techniques include, but are not
limited to, isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special
methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
pressures, information management suspension of individuality or critical
judgment promotion of total dependency on the group, and the systematic
cultivation of fear. (Adapted from Cultism: A Conference for Scholars and
policymakers, p. 3.)
Cults, then, cause controversy because they violate basic values undergirding American
culture. In interpersonal relationships, they cheat. They disregard the rules of fair play,
using manipulative processes too intensely, too often, and in inappropriate contexts. The
American sense of fair play may tolerate a fast- talking used-car salesman. But, because
more is expected of religious professionals, it bristles at Madison-Avenue-Jesus peddlers,
and rails against institutionalized manipulation designed to pull people off their life courses
in the name of religion or other ideals.
Cults also undermine personal freedom. Sometimes this is blatant, especially in
authoritarian, collectivist groups. In other cases, the undermining of personal freedom is a
subtle process. Although responsible proponents of Eastern monist philosophies exist, many
Eastern and related New Age groups advocate a dangerously solipsistic world view, in which
adherents are indoctrinated to believe that they are God and that their progress up the
spiritual ladder will bring great psychic powers, such as mind-reading, levitation, or the
capacity to make ―voyages‖ on astral planes. In these cases, even if the individual isn‘t
exploited (e.g., by paying thousands of dollars for ―courses‖), he can become so self-
absorbed and detached from others that the notion of freedom becomes superfluous.
Moreover, he can become more susceptible to the manipulations of the persons ―guiding‖
him into this state of ―inner awareness.‖ Although I am not denying one‘s right to follow
such a path, I do maintain that it grates on American sensibilities and can, therefore, make
adaptation more difficult Of course, one doesn‘t have to adapt nor does one have to take
the easy road to adaptation. But one can make more informed decisions, if one is aware of
the consequences of certain actions. And in many groups ―selling‖ solipsistic world- views,
the consequences are not spelled out with exactitude and may, in fact, be deliberately
concealed.
Some students of contemporary cults have noted that New Age and other Eastern-based
groups have much in common with Gnostic cults of the early Christian period (Albrecht,
1981 Halperin, 1983 Weber, 1983). These similarities include not only a striving for
special powers (―You are God in your universe,‖ says Werner Erhard), but also an
undermining of the notion of connectedness and an attack on reason. In the New-Age and
monist groups which arouse concern, connectedness becomes meaningless (If you are God
