Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 4
Definitions proposed at various times by associates of AFF tend to presume the
manifestation of what is potential in Zablocki‘s definition (by definition low control groups
are not cultic). These definitions tend to emphasize elements of authoritarian structure,
deception, and manipulation and the fact that groups may be psychotherapeutic, political,
or commercial, as well as religious.
Because such definitions imply high levels of psychological manipulation, some students of
the field have associated cults with the concept of thought reform (Lifton, 1961 Ofshe &
Singer, 1986 Singer &Ofshe, 1990). Although there are similarities between these
concepts, a cult does not necessarily have to be characterized by thought reform, nor does
a thought reform program necessarily have to be a cult. Nevertheless, the two seem to go
together often enough that many people mistakenly see them as necessarily linked.
Definitions advanced by AFF associates imply that the term ―cult‖ refers to a continuum, in
which a large gray area separates ―cult‖ from ―noncult,‖ or add qualifiers to the term ―cult,‖
such as ―destructive.‖ These definitions suggest that there may be some debate about the
appropriateness of the term as applied to a specific group, especially when available
evidence indicates that the group is in or near the gray area of the continuum. This debate
can become more acute when the group in question is one that varies among its geographic
locations, has different levels of membership with correspondingly different levels of
commitment, has changed over time in the direction of greater or less ―cultishness,‖ or is
skilled at public relations.
Because they tend to focus on certain practices and behaviors, the definitions advanced by
AFF associates are implicitly interactionist. Like all psychologically based models, they
presume that different people will respond differently to the same group environment, much
as twins can respond differently to the same family environment. Cults are not all alike. Nor
are all cult members affected in the same way, even within the same group.
Because of the definitional confusion surrounding the term ―cult,‖ students of the field
should carefully examine the cult phenomenon in detail and avoid making hasty
categorization decisions about specific groups.
Since this paper has a broad focus, I will presume the Zablocki definition of ―cult‖ in what
follows: ―an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and
demanding total commitment.‖
Concerns About Cults and Related Groups Operate on Four Levels
Psychological Concerns
Although cultic groups vary a great deal, a huge body of clinical evidence and a growing
body of empirical research indicate that some groups harm some people sometimes,
and that some groups may be more likely to harm people than other groups. This
proposition is at the heart of the debate about ―cults.‖ A number of the programs at this
conference explore ways in which cultic groups may adversely affect individuals, families,
and society at large.
This proposition is amenable to systematic, empirical research that ought eventually to be
able to resolve current disputes about specific groups or the general population of ―cultic
groups.‖ Among the subjects that have been or could be studied empirically are:
What psychological dynamics characterize groups at high risk of harming members and
families?
How can cultic environments be assessed empirically, in particular with regard to the
dimensions of control and harm?
Definitions proposed at various times by associates of AFF tend to presume the
manifestation of what is potential in Zablocki‘s definition (by definition low control groups
are not cultic). These definitions tend to emphasize elements of authoritarian structure,
deception, and manipulation and the fact that groups may be psychotherapeutic, political,
or commercial, as well as religious.
Because such definitions imply high levels of psychological manipulation, some students of
the field have associated cults with the concept of thought reform (Lifton, 1961 Ofshe &
Singer, 1986 Singer &Ofshe, 1990). Although there are similarities between these
concepts, a cult does not necessarily have to be characterized by thought reform, nor does
a thought reform program necessarily have to be a cult. Nevertheless, the two seem to go
together often enough that many people mistakenly see them as necessarily linked.
Definitions advanced by AFF associates imply that the term ―cult‖ refers to a continuum, in
which a large gray area separates ―cult‖ from ―noncult,‖ or add qualifiers to the term ―cult,‖
such as ―destructive.‖ These definitions suggest that there may be some debate about the
appropriateness of the term as applied to a specific group, especially when available
evidence indicates that the group is in or near the gray area of the continuum. This debate
can become more acute when the group in question is one that varies among its geographic
locations, has different levels of membership with correspondingly different levels of
commitment, has changed over time in the direction of greater or less ―cultishness,‖ or is
skilled at public relations.
Because they tend to focus on certain practices and behaviors, the definitions advanced by
AFF associates are implicitly interactionist. Like all psychologically based models, they
presume that different people will respond differently to the same group environment, much
as twins can respond differently to the same family environment. Cults are not all alike. Nor
are all cult members affected in the same way, even within the same group.
Because of the definitional confusion surrounding the term ―cult,‖ students of the field
should carefully examine the cult phenomenon in detail and avoid making hasty
categorization decisions about specific groups.
Since this paper has a broad focus, I will presume the Zablocki definition of ―cult‖ in what
follows: ―an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and
demanding total commitment.‖
Concerns About Cults and Related Groups Operate on Four Levels
Psychological Concerns
Although cultic groups vary a great deal, a huge body of clinical evidence and a growing
body of empirical research indicate that some groups harm some people sometimes,
and that some groups may be more likely to harm people than other groups. This
proposition is at the heart of the debate about ―cults.‖ A number of the programs at this
conference explore ways in which cultic groups may adversely affect individuals, families,
and society at large.
This proposition is amenable to systematic, empirical research that ought eventually to be
able to resolve current disputes about specific groups or the general population of ―cultic
groups.‖ Among the subjects that have been or could be studied empirically are:
What psychological dynamics characterize groups at high risk of harming members and
families?
How can cultic environments be assessed empirically, in particular with regard to the
dimensions of control and harm?
