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.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 97
Membership
One of the major tasks of members is to ensure group cohesion by maintaining the constant
separation between us and them. Often, this will lead members to see themselves as
soldiers who share a common and constant taskkeeping all signs of them at bay. Bonding
among members is hence achieved through a shared determination to keep us well
differentiated from them. Although members bear the common responsibility for maintaining
cohesion through orthodoxy, much can separate them one from another. Since a complex,
and mostly unofficial, power structure often exists in such groups, many members feel
jealousy and envy toward the elite as well as toward those who appear especially close to
the leaders. Because social status within a philosophy of separation group is gained by
proximity to the leaders, being close to them or to their entourage is greatly valued. Such
proximity is often sought by adhering in the strictest fashion to all written and unwritten
rules.
All members continuously judge who is acting in an orthodox fashion (us) and who isn‘t
(them), and even though final judgement is passed by the elite, every member feels
vulnerable to peer judgment. Hence, all members are expected to maintain group cohesion
by continuously screening out us conduct from them conduct in themselves, their children,
their families, their neighbors, and their friends. This continuous vigilance, however,
engenders a great deal of jealousy, envy, and feelings of injustice for a group that
paradoxically places such importance on being united. Consequently, conflicts between
individuals are judged harshly. But since members are expected to be constantly
preoccupied with making sure that no one appears to be acting like them, the way is paved
for much hidden conflict and feelings of guilt.
Children
Children are often prized in philosophy of separation groups as important conservators of
tradition. In groups that do not recruit new members, children are seen as the main means
of transmitting the faith. Procreation is hence highly valued, so women‘s role, destiny, and
prestige are most often limited to their child bearing and rearing capacities. But since
orthodoxy is also highly valued, being a child in such a group can be quite demanding.
Childlike behavior and immaturity, especially if it makes one akin to them, is unacceptable.
Children who deviate, even slightly in some groups, are not only shamed publicly by being
compared to them, but may also suffer harsh physical punishment. Strong social pressure is
thus put on children to behave in strictly prescribed ways. Shame is often used as a
disciplinary tool, and scolding a child for not being a proper representative of the group, one
of us, is quite common. Unfortunately, the social pressure toward conformity may cause
some children to be physically abused, according to the standards of most children‘s aid
agencies, although, according to the group's norms, such discipline is justified.
In addition, since children are seen as the group‘s future, they are expected to become very
knowledgeable about doctrine. This may lead in some communities to a highly charged
curriculum in cult specific knowledge at the expense of education in other subjects. In some
communities, grown children may then have little choice but to stay in the community, for
they lack the skills and basic knowledge necessary to function outside the group. Even if
some of these children may be scholarly in their knowledge of the group‘s belief system,
rules, rituals, and tradition, they may be functionally illiterate.
Rituals
Rituals are used to evaluate members‘ faith and orthodoxy in philosophy of separation
groups. As the group‘s cohesion is sought by demarcating rigorously those who are with us
from those who act as them, rituals play an important role because they offer a good
vantage point from which to judge conformity. Thus, rituals become a means of social