Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 39
supposedly infallible, and uncorrectable leaders. Organizations and individuals can move
back and forth along this continuum. Harmful practices may reach such a level that the
group experiences a qualitative rather than quantitative transformation, emerging as a fully
fledged cult. In one sense this approach makes analysis more difficult, because it becomes
more conditional and less “black and white.” Groups are not necessarily either cults or not
cults. They can be both, at different times and under different circumstances. The key is to
identify which techniques of social influence are being used, and the extent to which the
people involved recognize the dangers inherent to a great many forms of organization.
This article opened with a brief review of the DWP in California, and then moved on to
consider the CWI in Britain. It is clear that the vices of cultism were much more pronounced
in the former case. Activity levels were greater, the arbitrary power of the leaders more
entrenched, a cult of confession much more widely practiced, and the overall harm inflicted
on members all the greater. Nevertheless, as has been shown here, many standard
practices and beliefs of the CWI (and the Trotskyist movement in general) suggest that it
does occupy a place on the spectrum of cultic organizations, albeit perhaps not always at
the most severe end.
Left-wing activists, in common with all those interested in movements that set themselves
ambitious goals of social, moral, or commercial regeneration, need to temper enthusiasm
for change with a stronger awareness of the techniques of social influence and a greater
skepticism toward totalistic philosophies of social change. Without such an approach,
individuals face lifelong disillusion with any form of political action. Cults prey on our
aversion to uncertainty. Yet, in reality, they only illuminate the darkness with burnt-out
candles. The disillusionment they cause itself becomes an enormous waste of democratic
energy. In learning from organizations such as the CWI, it will be possible to avoid such a
fate and strengthen people‟s willingness to engage in political action that genuinely liberates
their thinking and thereby contributes to social, economic, and political growth and change
in our society.
References
American Family Foundation. (1986). Cultism: A conference for scholars and policy makers.
Cultic Studies Journal, 3(1), 119-120.
Aronson, E. (1997). The theory of cognitive dissonance. In McGarty, C., &Haslam, S.
(Eds.), The message of social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, C. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. Roloff, &G. Miller, (Eds.),
Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research. London: Sage.
Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F., &Dawson, E. (1994). Human communication (3rd Ed). London:
Sage.
Callaghan, J. (1987). The far Left in British politics. London: Blackwell.
Callaghan, J. (1984). British Trotskyism: Theory and practice. London: Blackwell.
Cannon, J. (1969). Socialism on trial. New York: Merit.
Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd Ed). New York: Harper Collins.
Cliff, T. (1975). Lenin: Building the party. London: Pluto.
Crick, M. (1986). The march of Militant, London: Faber and Faber.
Deutscher, I. (1954). The prophet armed, Trotsky 1979-1921. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deutscher, I. (1963). The prophet outcast, Trotsky 1929-1940. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.
Hargie, C., &Tourish, D. (1997). Relational communication. In Hargie, O. (Ed.) The
handbook of communication skills (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
Hassan, S. (1988). Combating cult mind control. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Jackins, H. (1990). Logical thinking about a future society. Seattle: Rational Island.
supposedly infallible, and uncorrectable leaders. Organizations and individuals can move
back and forth along this continuum. Harmful practices may reach such a level that the
group experiences a qualitative rather than quantitative transformation, emerging as a fully
fledged cult. In one sense this approach makes analysis more difficult, because it becomes
more conditional and less “black and white.” Groups are not necessarily either cults or not
cults. They can be both, at different times and under different circumstances. The key is to
identify which techniques of social influence are being used, and the extent to which the
people involved recognize the dangers inherent to a great many forms of organization.
This article opened with a brief review of the DWP in California, and then moved on to
consider the CWI in Britain. It is clear that the vices of cultism were much more pronounced
in the former case. Activity levels were greater, the arbitrary power of the leaders more
entrenched, a cult of confession much more widely practiced, and the overall harm inflicted
on members all the greater. Nevertheless, as has been shown here, many standard
practices and beliefs of the CWI (and the Trotskyist movement in general) suggest that it
does occupy a place on the spectrum of cultic organizations, albeit perhaps not always at
the most severe end.
Left-wing activists, in common with all those interested in movements that set themselves
ambitious goals of social, moral, or commercial regeneration, need to temper enthusiasm
for change with a stronger awareness of the techniques of social influence and a greater
skepticism toward totalistic philosophies of social change. Without such an approach,
individuals face lifelong disillusion with any form of political action. Cults prey on our
aversion to uncertainty. Yet, in reality, they only illuminate the darkness with burnt-out
candles. The disillusionment they cause itself becomes an enormous waste of democratic
energy. In learning from organizations such as the CWI, it will be possible to avoid such a
fate and strengthen people‟s willingness to engage in political action that genuinely liberates
their thinking and thereby contributes to social, economic, and political growth and change
in our society.
References
American Family Foundation. (1986). Cultism: A conference for scholars and policy makers.
Cultic Studies Journal, 3(1), 119-120.
Aronson, E. (1997). The theory of cognitive dissonance. In McGarty, C., &Haslam, S.
(Eds.), The message of social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, C. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. Roloff, &G. Miller, (Eds.),
Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research. London: Sage.
Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F., &Dawson, E. (1994). Human communication (3rd Ed). London:
Sage.
Callaghan, J. (1987). The far Left in British politics. London: Blackwell.
Callaghan, J. (1984). British Trotskyism: Theory and practice. London: Blackwell.
Cannon, J. (1969). Socialism on trial. New York: Merit.
Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd Ed). New York: Harper Collins.
Cliff, T. (1975). Lenin: Building the party. London: Pluto.
Crick, M. (1986). The march of Militant, London: Faber and Faber.
Deutscher, I. (1954). The prophet armed, Trotsky 1979-1921. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deutscher, I. (1963). The prophet outcast, Trotsky 1929-1940. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.
Hargie, C., &Tourish, D. (1997). Relational communication. In Hargie, O. (Ed.) The
handbook of communication skills (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
Hassan, S. (1988). Combating cult mind control. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Jackins, H. (1990). Logical thinking about a future society. Seattle: Rational Island.
