Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 31
early article in which the term “cult” was used), which they felt had acquired a pejorative
connotation, and began to use the more neutral “new religious movement” (NRM).
Cult critics rejected “new religious movement” because it seemed to give undeserved
respectability to noxious groups and because even during the early days it was apparent
that not all controversial groups were religious. Galanter‟s (1982) “charismatic group,”
although neutral and applicable to nonreligious groups, is vague (was Red Auerbach‟s
Boston Celtics a “charismatic group”?) and, like NRM, often perceived as euphemistic.
Many professionals felt uncomfortable with “cult” because not all “cults” employed the high
pressure tactics that fueled the controversy (e.g., the Meher Baba group described by
Robbins, 1969). Shapiro (1977) coined the term “destructive cult” in order to distinguish
that subset of groups that was harmful from that subset which was not. Shapiro‟s
distinction, however, was not consistently employed by workers in the field. The adjective
“destructive” was often omitted, and “cult” and “destructive cult” in practice became
interchangeable.
Many cult critics, especially those associated with the American Family Foundation,
attempted to downplay the categorization of the “group” and stress the “processes” that
harmed people. In a booklet for the layman (Langone, 1982), for example, the author
purposely did not discuss specific groups in order to encourage readers to avoid
“cataloguing” groups into “bad” and “acceptable” and to look instead at how the social
influence processes in a particular group affected a particular individual.
This booklet also introduced the term “unethical social influence,” which, it was hoped,
might replace “cult,” “brainwashing,” “coercive persuasion,” etc. Around the same time,
Margaret Singer (Singer, 1982) proposed “systematic manipulation of psychological and
social influence” (SMPSI). Although fellow professionals saw the advantages of such terms,
they did not strike a chord among the parents and ex-cultists we and our colleagues were
trying to help. Thus, many of us found ourselves employing a variety of terms to
describe the same phenomenon, adjusting the terminology to suit the group to which we
were trying to communicate.
By 1988 it became clear that despite their shortcomings we were stuck with “cult,” “mind
control,” and their brethren. Too large a body of popular and professional literature had
been produced, and these terms were implanted in the public mind. In 1988 the 1982
booklet, which had been entitled “Destructive Cultism: Questions and Answers,” was
revised. The new booklet, acknowledging popular usage, was called “Cults: Questions and
Answers” (Langone, 1988).
During the past few years, however, the terminology we have so grudgingly come to
accept has been challenged by a new development. As cult educational organizations have
matured and endured, more and more people have become aware of their services. In
recent years substantial numbers of people who left cultic groups without a family-inspired
intervention have turned to such organizations for help. Some of these people have simply
left the group for whatever reason. These have come to be called “walk-aways.” Others,
who have been ejected from the group, have come to be called “cast-aways.” Based on
the reports of those who do contact cult educational organizations, it appears that many,
and probably most, walk-aways and cast-aways not only do not relate to terms such as
“cult,” but indeed find them offensive.
Several factors appear to account for this phenomenon. First, ex-cultists, like the public at
large, tend to subscribe to the popular misconception that “cults” are deviant, “weird”
groups for “weird” people. (The recent spate of media reports on Satanism has
reinforced this misconception.) Because their group, their friends in the group, and
they themselves are not “weird,” their group is not a cult. Second, even when ex-members

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 32
become aware of the ideas of those who see unethical manipulation as central to cult
conversion, they do not automatically see their group in this light. For example, a former
cult member, who now provides psychological services to ex-cult members, told the senior
author that he had been out of his group for two years before he realized it was a cult, even
though he had read material such as Lifton (1961). Reevaluating years of deception is not
easy. Third, not all cults are highly manipulative or destructive. Some groups are only mildly
so and will not comfortably wear the label “cult.” And lastly, the typical cult victim has been
indoctrinated to believe that the group is always right and he or she, when dissenting, is
always wrong. Many, therefore, stumble out of their groups feeling guilty and inadequate.
They try to figure out what is wrong with themselves and frequently do not even consider
the possibility that their problems may in large part have been caused by the group, rather
than caused by their inability to live up to the group‟s standards.
The tendency of walk-aways and cast-aways to turn a deaf ear to the terminology
traditionally used by cult educational organizations poses a problem for those engaged in
outreach to this population, a sizeable minority and possibly majority of whom have
psychological problems (Galanter, 1983). These people will not avail themselves of help if
helpers do not use terms that catch the ex-members‟ attention. In order to shed light on
this problem a brief questionnaire was designed to measure ex-cultists‟ opinions about
various terms.
Method
A one-page questionnaire was mailed to 204 former cultists who had previously completed a
19-page questionnaire currently being analyzed. The questionnaire inquired into how
subjects left the groups with which they were affiliated, the names of the groups, and
whether or not in retrospect the subject would consider the group a cult. The questionnaire
then listed 20 terms which the subject was asked to rate and rank. Specifically, the
questionnaire said, “Keeping in mind the full range of groups people leave, please rate how
well walk-aways who are unfamiliar with „counter-cult‟ literature would relate to the
following terms. Use the following rating scale ...1 =will relate very well to the term, 2
=will relate to the term, 3 =uncertain/not sure, 4 =will not relate to the term, and 5
=will not relate to the term at all.” Subjects were further asked: “Again keeping in mind
the full range of groups, please rank the above terms. Give that term which you believe
walk-aways will most readily relate to a ranking of „1‟ and mark „1‟ to the right of the term.
Mark „2‟ to the right of your second choice, and so on until you have ranked them from 1 to
20.”
Subjects were not asked their own ratings or rankings for it was believed that their ratings
and rankings would reflect education they had obtained since leaving their groups. Subjects
were also asked to suggest other terms that they believed walk-aways might respond to.
Results were tabulated and subjected to a principal components analysis.
Results
One-hundred-eight subjects had submitted questionnaires when the results were tabulated
(several more arrived after tabulation). Of these subjects, 71 were walk-aways, 10 had
been involuntarily deprogrammed, 10 had been exit counseled, and 17 had left through
“other” means --usually they were ejected.
Nearly all subjects (N =100 93%) considered their group in retrospect to be a cult. The
groups from which subjects came are listed in Table 1 (3 subjects did not list group names).
Average ratings and ranking of the listed terms for all subjects are presented in Table
2.