Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 26
unauthorized military exercises, deception in collecting financial contributions, and violence
against dissidents within the groups as well as against outside critics. This negative picture
was strengthened by reports of cult members committing suicide apparently as a result of
their involvement in this or that group and of reports of psychological problems and
difficulties in the readjustment of ex-members to society, for which there was no adequate
therapeutic response. Attempts to bring group members back to society and family by
kidnaping, as well as ex-members‟ suing cults for deception and psychological damage, also
brought the subject to the forefront of public debate.
Many noted the unusual combination of factors characterizing the phenomenon, a
combination which made categorization difficult within known social and cultural categories.
Among the new groups were those with a radical outlook acting like religious or political
avant garde groups interested in inheriting the world. Yet unlike previous radical groups,
they took pains to hide and camouflage not only their activities and events, but also their
aims and ideology. They claimed that they wanted the very good which society wanted for
itself and asked to be accepted as innovators in certain areas of religion, therapy, science,
etc. The totalism (significant influence on each and every detail of man‟s life) which
characterized involvement in such groups, and the combination of “holy therapy” with
intensity of economic commercial activity, added many more question marks.
Defenders of the new groups -see for example Wallis (0.5), Barker (0.8), Bromley and
Shupe (0.4), Robbins and Anthony (0.9) -claim that if there is any innovation it is only for
the good. People with severe psychological problems find shelter in such frameworks, which
provide a better solution than hospitalization. The groups sometimes also help to wean drug
addicts off their addiction. Those with no psychological problems even though they change
their orientation and way of life, do not suffer substantial change in their mental balance.
Changes in identity and personality which do not impair overall functioning are not the
concern of democratic society. The same holds true for the amount of resources, time,
money, etc. which a person is willing to devote to the group. They are happy and
functioning, say the defenders, and that is what is important. Furthermore, claim the
defenders, the flourishing of the groups proves that joining is an attractive proposition, the
price of which (if any) would appear to be reasonable.
In our modern pluralistic world, with no center and with a fluid hierarchy of values and
norms, one cannot talk about a balance sheet of profit and loss of those who join the groups
or of the society at large. One cannot talk about the reasonableness of the price that both
the individual and the society should pay. Reasonableness in this case is a completely
subjective matter. Democratic society, claim the defenders, should not stand in the way of
an individual‟s salvation, no matter what form it takes. To the extent that these groups or
their members break the law they should be dealt with according to the existing laws and
procedures. Not only should society refrain from legislating special laws which limit the
activities of these groups, but it is unacceptable that official bodies should interfere in any
way (information, education, etc.) with the development of any cultural innovation.
Critics of the new groups --Delgado (0.69), Clark (0.52), Appel (0.10), Singer (0.41) --
counter as follows. These groups loftily proclaim the mainstream values of society and
demand that their own expansion and very existence be guaranteed by virtue of the right of
freedom of choice and belief. Furthermore, they claim to offer those who join their ranks
more freedom, realization of self, etc. In fact, say the critics, the new groups in no way
create the conditions compatible with such a world view. The structure, ideology, and
instruction techniques of the groups often lead to a substantial narrowing of freedom of
choice and to what seems to be an increasing enslavement to the group and its leaders.
The individual who becomes involved adopts, usually without being aware, new norms of
behavior and a new world view which are not compatible with the core values of the society.
unauthorized military exercises, deception in collecting financial contributions, and violence
against dissidents within the groups as well as against outside critics. This negative picture
was strengthened by reports of cult members committing suicide apparently as a result of
their involvement in this or that group and of reports of psychological problems and
difficulties in the readjustment of ex-members to society, for which there was no adequate
therapeutic response. Attempts to bring group members back to society and family by
kidnaping, as well as ex-members‟ suing cults for deception and psychological damage, also
brought the subject to the forefront of public debate.
Many noted the unusual combination of factors characterizing the phenomenon, a
combination which made categorization difficult within known social and cultural categories.
Among the new groups were those with a radical outlook acting like religious or political
avant garde groups interested in inheriting the world. Yet unlike previous radical groups,
they took pains to hide and camouflage not only their activities and events, but also their
aims and ideology. They claimed that they wanted the very good which society wanted for
itself and asked to be accepted as innovators in certain areas of religion, therapy, science,
etc. The totalism (significant influence on each and every detail of man‟s life) which
characterized involvement in such groups, and the combination of “holy therapy” with
intensity of economic commercial activity, added many more question marks.
Defenders of the new groups -see for example Wallis (0.5), Barker (0.8), Bromley and
Shupe (0.4), Robbins and Anthony (0.9) -claim that if there is any innovation it is only for
the good. People with severe psychological problems find shelter in such frameworks, which
provide a better solution than hospitalization. The groups sometimes also help to wean drug
addicts off their addiction. Those with no psychological problems even though they change
their orientation and way of life, do not suffer substantial change in their mental balance.
Changes in identity and personality which do not impair overall functioning are not the
concern of democratic society. The same holds true for the amount of resources, time,
money, etc. which a person is willing to devote to the group. They are happy and
functioning, say the defenders, and that is what is important. Furthermore, claim the
defenders, the flourishing of the groups proves that joining is an attractive proposition, the
price of which (if any) would appear to be reasonable.
In our modern pluralistic world, with no center and with a fluid hierarchy of values and
norms, one cannot talk about a balance sheet of profit and loss of those who join the groups
or of the society at large. One cannot talk about the reasonableness of the price that both
the individual and the society should pay. Reasonableness in this case is a completely
subjective matter. Democratic society, claim the defenders, should not stand in the way of
an individual‟s salvation, no matter what form it takes. To the extent that these groups or
their members break the law they should be dealt with according to the existing laws and
procedures. Not only should society refrain from legislating special laws which limit the
activities of these groups, but it is unacceptable that official bodies should interfere in any
way (information, education, etc.) with the development of any cultural innovation.
Critics of the new groups --Delgado (0.69), Clark (0.52), Appel (0.10), Singer (0.41) --
counter as follows. These groups loftily proclaim the mainstream values of society and
demand that their own expansion and very existence be guaranteed by virtue of the right of
freedom of choice and belief. Furthermore, they claim to offer those who join their ranks
more freedom, realization of self, etc. In fact, say the critics, the new groups in no way
create the conditions compatible with such a world view. The structure, ideology, and
instruction techniques of the groups often lead to a substantial narrowing of freedom of
choice and to what seems to be an increasing enslavement to the group and its leaders.
The individual who becomes involved adopts, usually without being aware, new norms of
behavior and a new world view which are not compatible with the core values of the society.
