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 harmwithin 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.
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 harmwithin 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.
