Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 54
Richardson, James T. 1994. ―Update on ‗The Family‘: Organizational Change and
Development in a Controversial New Religious Group.‖ Pp. 27-39 in James R. Lewis
and J. Gordon Melton, Editors. Sex, Slander, and Salvation. Investigating The
Family/Children of God. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication.
Scheflin, Alan W., and Edward M. Opton, Jr. 1978. The Mind Manipulators. London:
Paddington Press.
Shepherd, Gary and Lawrence Lilliston. 1994. ―Field Observations of Young People‘s
Experience and Role in The Family.‖ Pp. 57-70 in James R. Lewis and J. Gordon
Melton, Editors. Sex, Slander, and Salvation. Investigating The Family/Children of
God. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication.
Van Zandt, David. 1991. Living in the Children of God. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Ward, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Alan. 1995. ―W 42 1992 in the High Court of
Justice. Family Division. Principal Registry in the Matter of ST (A Minor) and in the
Matter of the Supreme Court Act 1991.‖ (October 19): 295pp.
World Services, 1993. ―Our Response to Allegations of Mind Control and Brainwashing.‖
(March): 32pp.
**********
Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. He has written, lectured, and consulted widely on cults, sects,
and new religious movements. steve.kent@ualberta.ca
Deana Hall, M.A., is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University
of Alberta, where she also is enrolled in the M.B.A. program in the University‘s School of
Business. Her research interests focus on the sociology of work, including thought reform
and corporate culture in religious and secular organizations. Previously she has published in
Sociology of Religion and a jointly-authored study in the Journal of Social Psychology.
dhall@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 2000, Volume 17,
pages 56-78. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound
volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 55
The Two “Camps” of Cultic Studies:
Time for a Dialogue
Michael D. Langone
American Family Foundation
Abstract
During the 1980s scholars and professionals who studied cults and new
religious movements divided into two ―camps,‖ commonly labeled ―pro-
cultists‖ and ―anti-cultists.‖ The academic polarization that developed during
the 1980s has diminished somewhat in recent years, and dialogue between
some members of the two camps has begun. Bromley (in press) views the
conflicts as a political imbroglio and not amenable to empirical resolution.
Although not discounting a political dimension, this paper argues that the
conflict at heart reflects different judgment calls regarding an empirical
reality that has not as yet been adequately researched with quantitative
scientific methods. The paper concludes by suggesting that escape from the
political imbroglio is possible if members in both camps acknowledge that:
(1) scientific uncertainty and political differences exist, (2) all information
sources should be considered, (3) groups may sometimes harm individuals,
(4) groups vary enormously, and (5) proposed remedies should recognize
the scientific uncertainties of the field.
When I first became involved in studying cultic groups in the late 1970s, I quickly became
aware of this field‘s capacity to polarize reasonable and well-intentioned scholars and
professionals, as well as laypersons. I believe that this polarization has had a puzzling and
unnecessary persistence (see Allen, 1999 Bromley, 1998 Kent &Krebs, 1998 Zablocki,
1997). This paper will try to illuminate the academic disputes fueling the polarization and
offer suggestions on how to bring disputing participants into a rational middle ground.
Sympathizers, who tend to be academics in sociology and religious studies, have published
widely (see Bromley, 1998 for a recent review also see www.cesnur.org), while critics, who
tend with some notable exceptions to be mental health professionals, have not published as
much and have not usually responded to sympathizers‘ critiques of the so-called ―anti-cult
movement‖ (ACM), which typically is presented as including professional and academic
critics. In order to rectify, to some extent, this publication imbalance, other papers
published in this issue of CSJ and AFF‘s first Internet journal issue (cultsandsociety.com)
present critics‘ views on certain controversies that have divided the two camps (e.g., the
notion of brainwashing and the American Psychological Association, the alleged anti-
religious stance of cult critics, the dismissal of reports from former group members).
Background
In the 1970s one party in the dispute consisted of cult spokespersons and certain
academicians. These people criticized deprogramming (often portraying it in the most lurid
and sometimes fanciful light possible), legislative proposals that would essentially have
made it legal for parents to forcibly remove their adult children from controversial groups
(―conservatorship bills‖), and sensationalized or undiscerning portrayals of ―cults‖ and
―brainwashing‖ as depicted in popular sources, such as the movie, The Manchurian
Candidate. Scholars in this group came to prefer the term ―new religious movement‖ to the
term ―cult,‖ scoffed at the notion of ―brainwashing,‖ and promoted the cause of religious
freedom, which they believed was threatened by deprogramming and conservatorship bills.