Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 65
decision-makers are quite capable of formulating strategies appropriate to a climate of
uncertainty, when necessary. They may, for example, focus only on the most extreme
violations of a particular standard or set up mechanisms for further studying the subject
under investigation, or deal with cases on an individual basis. When, however,
academicians, professionals, or activists mislead decision-makers into thinking that there is
more scientific certainty than actually exists, or so annoy them that the decision-makers
discount valid scientific evidence, incorrect and controversial decisions are more likely to
result.
Consider All Information Sources
This recommendation is a corollary of the first. If the state of scientific knowledge is
uncertain, then decision-makers, scholars, and professionals should be open to all sources
of information, not just to scientifically collected data. Testimony of and reports from all
concerned parties should be consideredformer members, current members, families, as
well as journalists, helping professionals, academicians, and others. We should, of course,
remain vigilant about the limitations of the various sources of information, but, given the
lack of conclusive scientific evidence, we should not a priori discount information sources.
It is also unfortunate that many members of each camp are ignorant about what members
of the other camp have written. Dialogue would be enhanced, in my view, if a committee
composed of members from both camps developed a study guide with recommended
readings designed to reduce ignorance of the other side‘s literature.
Acknowledge that Groups May Sometimes Harm Individuals
Common sense seems to dictate that the denial of this proposition flies in the face of even
everyday experience, let alone observations of groups such as Aum Shinrikyo. However, the
climate in this field has become so polarized and politicized that some people appear to be
reluctant to acknowledge this obvious fact, presumably for fear that their opponents will
spin this acknowledgement into something much more extreme than was intended. Sadly,
their reluctance has some foundation in reality. I believe, however, that for the religion
coalition the benefits to be gained by publicly acknowledging this proposition outweigh the
downside. If members of both coalitions agree that groups can harm people, then they must
directly confront what they disagree about, namely, the nature and level of this harm. Such
an acknowledgment highlights the fundamental empirical nature of the dispute, the
scientific uncertainty attached to proffered opinions, and the need for continued study.
Acknowledge that Groups Vary Enormously
As the religion coalition needs to publicly acknowledge that groups can harm individuals, the
individual rights coalition needs to acknowledge that groups vary enormously. Again,
common sense would seem to dictate that this acknowledgment should be easy to make.
Yet some seem to act as though the label attached to groups is the reality rather than the
groups themselves, or as though acknowledging a ―good‖ unorthodox group would
somehow undermine testimony about ―bad‖ groups, or as though acknowledging some
―good‖ in a ―bad‖ group would negate valid criticisms of what is ―bad.‖ As with the
proposition that groups may harm individuals, however, acknowledging the truth of group
variation will in the end prove more productive than twisting the truth. If both coalitions can
publicly agree that some groups harm people and that the population of new groups varies
a great deal, then they must confront together the necessity to develop criteria (preferably
scientific in nature) for assessing these diverse groups and their diverse effects on
individuals. Rather than engaging in a spin contest, as though they were contestants on
CNN‘s Crossfire, the parties might find themselves cooperating to expand scientific
understanding.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 66
Acknowledge that Proposed Remedies Should Recognize Scientific Uncertainty
If the preceding propositions were acknowledged, then it would be difficult for either
coalition to argue for extreme action in either direction. I suspect that most members of
both coalitions would support, or at least not object to, making counseling available to
families and former group members, helping families communicate their concerns to current
members in non-coercive settings, enforcing laws that new groups might break, and
conducting scientific research. They would probably disagree about the need for and specific
nature of governmental actions and public and youth education endeavors. This
disagreement would reflect their different judgment calls about the level and nature of harm
associated with new groups.
Yet even in these areas I believe it is possible to identify actions that neither coalition would
strongly object to. The Swedish Government Commission report (1998), for example, was
moderate in that it acknowledged the need to help people and to study the subject, but
cautioned against forceful government action. This report displeased some in the human
rights coalition because it didn‘t go far enough and probably displeased some members of
the religion coalition simply because it said that there was a cult problem that warranted
public action.
I also believe that it is possible and desirable to develop educational programs that teach
young people how to recognize and respond to manipulative psychological and social
influences in life (with cult situations being only one of many classes of influence). After all,
the scientific research base of social psychology is much larger than that of cultic studies, so
there would be correspondingly much less uncertainty about what can and should be
taught.
Conclusion
I believe that harm perpetrated by new groups is a fact beyond dispute. However, I
acknowledge that scholars and helping professionals can respectfully disagree about:
1. The nature of this harm.
2. The level of harmwithin and across groups.
3. The precise causes of the harm.
4. The most useful theoretical models for researching and explaining the harm.
5. What should be done about the harm.
6. The unintended negative consequences of actions designed to reduce harm.
These issues must be examined as objectively as possible. Politically inspired slanting of
data and arguments must be exposed whenever it occurs. The rules of science and reason,
not the rules of the public relations industry, should guide us.
Those people around the world who criticize unethical cultic practices are not going to give
up and go to sleep. They will continue to condemn what they perceive to be social injustices
and human rights violations committed by cults. Similarly, those people around the world
who believe that religious freedom is threatened will not give up and go to sleep. They will
continue to condemn what they perceive to be risky proposals for correcting a problem that
in their view is greatly exaggerated. If the many moderates within these two groups do not
get together as suggested here, then the ―confident‖ extremes of each coalition will
dominate the debate and guarantee that policy decisions will be uninformed and one-sided.
References
Allen, C. (1999, December/January). Scholars of cults accuse each other of bad faith.
Lingua Franca, 26-35.