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
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
