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?

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 5
 What is the nature and magnitude of harm that current and former members may
experience?
 How prevalent is high manipulation within cults?
 How prevalent is harm within particular groups and across groups?
 How prevalent are groups at high risk of harm?
 How many individuals have been involved in such groups?
 How many involved persons have been harmed?
 How effective are psychological and other attempts at remedy?
Some individuals on both sides of the controversy tend to ignore the empirical foundation of
the cult issue and affirm nonfalsifiable assumptions.
Some, for example, seem to presume that all groups labeled cults must be all bad and
incapable of change. Messages on the Internet, for example have asserted that this
conference‘s program, ―Can Cultic Groups Change: The Case of ISKCON,‖ is a sign of
naiveté on AFF‘s part, or even a sign that ―AFF has been taken over by cults.‖ The
underlying assumption of these criticisms seems to be that a group such as ISKCON is
incapable of positive change therefore, AFF must be wrong-headed or complicitous.
Some observers on the other side of the controversy seem to presume that all groups
labeled cults are persecuted and benign. They sometimes call negative reports of ex-
members ―atrocity tales‖ (Bromley, Shupe, &Ventimiglia, 1979), a term that appears a
priori to dismiss all criticism of cultic groups as fabrications or face-saving sour grapes.
In between these extremes of ―see no evil‖ and ―see nothing but evil‖ is a broad range of
opinions. If these opinions are ever to rise to the level of knowledge, disputing parties must
engage in sincere and substantive dialogue that recognizes the need to phrase the issues as
questions that are amenable to scientific research. Then such research must be conducted,
as a coordinated program of studies, not a hodgepodge of unrelated studies pursued by
isolated researchers.
The workshop on Sunday, ―Toward a Common Research Agenda,‖ will attempt to contribute
to the process of dialogue. Fortunately, some useful research has been or is being
conducted. Some of this research will be discussed Saturday morning.
Those in the helping professions, however, realize that one cannot wait for research when
people need help. One must do the best one can with the knowledge and understanding at
one‘s disposal. A number of sessions in this conference offer advice based on the
presenters‘ current understanding of the issues, e.g., the sessions on support groups and
psychological needs, and the workshops for families, ex-members, and those interested in
education about the cult issue.
Ethical Concerns
The first reaction of many cult critics is, ―that‘s wrong.‖ Often, the specific behavior or
practice being criticized results in psychological or other forms of harm to people.
Sometimes, however, the effects are not necessarily harmful yet, the criticism, ―that‘s
wrong,‖ remains. Lying about one‘s group affiliation while trying to recruit people on a
college campus, for example, may not ―harm‖ the persons approached, but those persons
may feel offended that somebody would lie to them in the name of religion, social
betterment, or self-improvement they feel ―it‘s wrong.‖
Although thought reform is usually associated with the psychological dimension of the cult
phenomenon, the cult critics who discuss thought reform often implicitly place it in an