Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 95
The Relation of Group Philosophy to Different Types of Dangerous
Conduct in Cultic Groups
Dianne Casoni
School of Criminology
University of Montreal
Abstract
Though dangerous behavior is not always present in cultic experiences, its
occurrence remains a current social concern. In order to better understand
the circumstances that may lead to the occurrence of dangerous behavior, a
theoretical model is proposed that establishes a link between the types of
philosophy implicitly or explicitly shared by members of different cultic groups
and the types of dangerous behavior that can be experienced in such
communities. Four types of group philosophical functioning are described at
length as they apply to seven basic components of group life: leadership,
membership, children, doctrine, rituals, spatial organization, and social
organization. Following this presentation, a discussion of the specific types of
dangerous behavior potentially present in each type of group is discussed.
For the general public as well as for social scientists, there are enough examples of extreme
behavior in sectarian groups to warrant the study of the risks associated with being a
member of such groups. Whether one thinks of forced group suicide, as in Jonestown and
Uganda, or of child sexual and physical abuse as occurred in some groups affiliated with
Krishna consciousness and in Catholic and Protestant boarding schools during the last
century, such disturbing phenomena beg the attention of scholars.
Although the study of these excesses demands objectivity, a good dose of humility, and, all
too often, some courage, it is nevertheless gratifying to think that research can help protect
society‘s more vulnerable members. Also, unbiased research can contribute significantly to
reducing the risk that marginal spiritual experiences will be the target of inappropriate social
discrimination. In light of this backdrop, the aims of the present paper are twofold: firstly, to
describe four specific types of group philosophical functioning, and secondly, to relate these
philosophies to certain types of dangerous behavior that occur in some cultic groups.
By philosophy, I am referring to an implicit, and often explicit, way of viewing life, of
representing one‘s actions and conduct, and of interpreting the conduct of others.
Philosophy in this sense is akin to definition number 5 of Webster‘s Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary (1989): ―a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs‖ (p.1082). Thus,
the philosophy of a group is seen as having a most important effect on many aspects of
group members‘ daily lives. The internal politics of a group, the manner in which children
are treated, or the way in which the group interacts with the outside world, for instance, are
determined in a large part by shared group philosophy.
In the first part of this article, four types of philosophical functioning are described at length
as they apply to seven elements of paramount importance in everyday life. I choose to
present each philosophy through these seven elements in order to illustrate the ubiquitous
quality of a shared philosophy of life. Indeed, group philosophy is seen as exerting a
determining effect on: types of leadership, types of membership a particular group will
favor, how children will be treated, the role rituals will play in the group, the way the
doctrine will evolve, and the types of spatial and social organization that will develop.
Although the conduct of members who share in any one of these philosophies can very well

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 96
stay within the limits of the law, each philosophy possesses inherent risks of leading to
certain types of excessive behavior. In the second part of this paper, a discussion of the
types of risks associated with each of the four philosophies will thus be presented.
Philosophy of Separation
A philosophy of separation can be best defined by three simple words: Us and them.
Accordingly, a constant demarcation, or division, is sought in order to set members of the
group apart from others. Thus, the term ―separation‖ refers to: ―the act, state or an
instance of separating or the state of being separated (Webster‟s, p.1301).
Groups that adhere to a philosophy of separation usually seek to encourage orthodoxy
whatever the doctrine or belief system. Even if group leaders make doctrinal changes, it is
expected that members will adhere immediately to these changes without questioning their
relevance or showing discomfort. Such obedience to orthodoxy serves to maintain the
group‘s cohesion, so the split between us and them is always clear-cut. Being able to know
what is in and what is out is thus a way of distinguishing outsiders from insiders. Being up-
to-date on subtleties of doctrine, discourse, or ritual can give individual members a feeling
of being closer to their leaders and the opportunity to express stronger faith than their co-
believers. Thus, in a group supported by a philosophy of separation, everything that can be
used to differentiate the us from the them is of great value.
Indeed, the feeling of strength and of righteousness that is felt by being one of us is not
only used to distinguish between members and non-members. Often, the us-and-them
distinction finds a natural extension inside the community as well. An internal segregation
among those members who show signs of greater orthodoxy or closer ties to the political
leadership is common. These distinctions can rigidify into cast-like subgroups, which are
often related to tasks accomplished or functions held, with prestigious tasks making those
who hold them appear to be better members than those occupying low-prestige positions.
Hence, when a philosophy of separation is active, splits occur at every level of functioning.
The constant us/them categorization makes members wary of strict obedience to doctrine,
rituals, and discourse. They come to feel that such strict obedience is essential to be
categorized as us. Thus, the use of many buzz words, details of dress, and manner are likely
to become overvalued by members who hope to ―make the cut‖ so as not to be viewed as
them. By putting so much emphasis on orthodoxy and normative ways, such groups tend to
believe that others cannot understand their lifestyle. Different forms of secrecy may further
separate members from non-members, while helping further to differentiate members
hierarchically. Some very orthodox or traditionalist sub-groups of established churches
illustrate well this type of philosophical functioning.
Leadership
Leadership is most often exercised by a small elite. These prestigious few act as social
control agents assuring that members respect the reigning orthodoxy. Since groups that
adhere to a philosophy of separation so greatly value the distinction between us and them,
members are often grateful that they can look to the elite for guidance. Group cohesion is
thus assured through obedience to leaders seen as being wise enough to determine what is
right and what is wrong or, more precisely, what is expected of us and them. Even if power
can be exercised in an authoritarian manner or in a more subtle form of persuasion,
attention to the smallest deviation is a constant preoccupation of the leaders. Moreover, a
subtle hierarchy among the elite often results in one or two members becoming the bearers
of moral authority over their colleagues.