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.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 56
An influential book (Bromley &Shupe, 1981) referred to ―the cult hoax‖ (p. 3) and said that
―the basic issue is still that of religious freedom‖ (p. xii).
The other party in the dispute included lay activists and professionals concerned about
people caught up in cultic groups, their worried and sometimes frantic families, and those
who might join destructive groups in the future. From the beginning, there was
considerable disagreement among these activists and professionals concerning
deprogramming, conservatorship bills, and proffered explanations on why people joined and
left cultic groups. There was, however, a consensus that cultic groups were harming many
people and something should be done to limit this harm. Moreover, there was a consensus
that whatever ―cult‖ referred to, the term embraced nonreligious as well as religious groups,
although a large majority were religious.
A few sociologists reported on their unsystematic observations of cult critics and began to
label these persons the ―anti-cult movement,‖ or ―ACM‖ (Bromley &Shupe, 1981). Cult
critics, most of whom derided the notion that they were ―anti‖ cult (they were concerned
about ―the deed not the creed‖Rudin &Rudin, 1980), returned the insult and branded
these scholars ―pro-cultists‖ or ―cult apologists.‖ (I have preferred to use the terms ―critics‖
and ―sympathizers‖ to refer to these two vaguely defined ―camps.‖)
At the time (the late 1970s), I found this situation puzzling and disturbing. Having been
exposed to various new religious movements while growing up in the 1960s and having
read much of the pertinent sociological and religious studies literature of the 1970s, I
realized that critical portrayals of cults were indeed sometimes sensationalized and often
undiscerning. Being in the so-called ACM camp, on the other hand, made me realize that
the sympathizers‘ portrayal of the ACM was at least as inaccurate and sensationalized as
some critics‘ depictions of cults. (In my view, even recent academic publications on the
―ACM‖ reflect the authors‘ preconceptions about the ―ACM‖ more than they reflect empirical
reality  Shupe &Bromley, 1994). Moreover, my being a mental health professional who
worked with former group members and families affected by a cult involvement made me
acutely aware of the reality of harm. Although groups differed considerably and individuals
differed markedly in their idiosyncratic responses to similar group situations, some groups
clearly harmed some individuals. To me, the incontrovertible reality of harm justified some
criticism of cultic groups. The challenge was to make that criticism fair and balanced. This
same challenge confronts us today.
The Early Days of AFF
My AFF colleagues and I tried at the time to express this goal through the name we chose
for our work, ―the Center on Destructive Cultism,‖ which was founded in 1980. We used the
term ―cultism‖ instead of ―cult‖ for we knew that our concern was certain processes of
control and exploitation associated with groups called ―cults,‖ not the groups per se.
Moreover, our putting the adjective ―destructive‖ in front of ―cult‖ demonstrated that we
realized that not all ―cults‖ were harmful. Our concern was with unethical and harmful
practices of some groups, not belief systems or the social deviance of the group. Dr. John
Clark at the time called the cult phenomenon an ―impermissible experiment‖ on the
changing of human personality.
Unfortunately, we soon discovered that our dual objectives of research and education (of
the public, professionals, families, and former group members) sometimes came into
conflict. Our education mission demanded simple, succinct, and emotionally moving
explanations in order to relate to activists and get our message into the media, through
which people came to know of our existence. But our research, clinical work, and scholarly
study demonstrated that reality is not so simple as TV and newspapers would like it to be.
An early monograph (Clark, Langone, Schecter, &Daly, 1981) contended that conversion to
cultic groups could most fruitfully be understood as an interaction of variables in the group