10 ICSA TODAY
WHAT IS A CULT?
By Russell H. Bradshaw
There are many definitions of cult, but for our purpose one
cited by ICSA is useful: “an ideological organization held
together by charismatic relations and demanding total
commitment.”1 This definition is compatible with some
definitions of new religious movements (NRMs), but cult can
also refer to nonreligious organizations. As defined here, cults
(on the high-demand/high-control end of the social influence
spectrum—see below) are at risk of abusing members, but do
not necessarily do so.
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.2
HOWEVER, the research focus today of ICSA is NOT on cults per
se, but rather on the degree of intensity of the psychosocial
influence within groups. After many years of international
research on cultic groups, ICSA finds there are often too many
variables to produce accurate lists of so-called dangerous cults.
In addition, history has documented that sometimes “one
man’s religion is another man’s cult”—occasionally with tragic
consequences.3 Nevertheless, it is possible to discern when
the normal processes of social influence become extreme
or harmful in a group this shift can lead to observable
psychological trauma in some individuals.4 The cause of this
harm is often the above-normal level of demand and social
control in the group this intense process is sometimes called
the cultic dynamic.
The Cultic Dynamic
It is well known that groups use social-influence processes
to create and maintain norms of belief and behavior.5
This strategy is necessary to maintain a group identity, to
distinguish an in-group from others (outsiders). In fact, it is a
fundamental requirement for all groups and cultures.
However, it has been found that groups tend to align
themselves along a social-influence continuum that runs
from low control/low demand at one end to high demand/
high control at the other. Those groups at the high end
of the spectrum run a greater risk of being cultic in their
social-influence processes. This higher risk is particularly
true if there are deceptive advertising, misinformation, and
censoring of information in these groups if there are inner
circles that have secret and different beliefs and behaviors
from the publicly affirmed norms if there is an extremely
narcissistic leader without a functioning system of checks
and balances if outside oversight is not in place if the group
has a lack of transparency in economic matters and so on. It
should be noted, however, that even perceived “strangeness”
or “dangerous beliefs” do not automatically create a cultic
dynamic—even though these elements may increase the
possibility of such a dynamic eventually coming into play. No
matter how much we may dislike or disapprove of a particular
group’s beliefs, this does not make the group a cult.
Are All Members of Cultic Groups Damaged by Those
Groups?
Even in cultic groups that score at the high end of the control/
demand continuum, however, not all members are abused
or equally affected.6 Members who are totally invested in
a particular group or movement are more likely to suffer
severe negative psychological consequences than more
peripheral members. Also, developmental psychologists
such as Erik Erikson and Mary Ainsworth7 describe how
individual differences in personality (i.e., trust-versus-mistrust
or secure-versus-insecure attachment issues) influence
how the core of the individual is more or less vulnerable
later in life. This complex situation may create potential
social-influence vulnerabilities, perhaps “setting one up” for
later cultic group involvement. Differences in ego defense
mechanisms also render some individuals more susceptible
to unethical psychosocial demands and control practices.8
Basic personality issues may also predispose some people to
be more vulnerable than others to charismatic and prophetic
leaders and groups. For example, since many cultic leaders
have narcissistic personality traits, followers often may have
codependency character traits (as described in the ancient
Greek myth of Narcissus and Echo, on which Freud based
his theory).9 Nevertheless, these individual variables do not
determine, in themselves, who becomes involved in cults
that circumstance might be just bad luck: an individual being
in the wrong place at the wrong time. And everyone has
weaknesses, so individual vulnerabilities cannot be the only
cause for cultic involvement. However, once one is in a cultic
group, these personality variables, in combination with the
intense cultic dynamic, do impact the nature and extent of
one’s suffering and trauma when one leaves.10
In Conclusion
In general, some people in the same cultic group will be hurt
more than others, some may not be affected at all, and some
may actually benefit. Groups change over time and from one
branch or subgroup to another leaders’ personalities change,
as do the personalities of various members.11 Even persons
with secure and intelligent personalities may encounter
problems at times, especially during times of transition
and crisis—and they may become vulnerable to unethical
psychosocial influence and control.
As a result of all these interwoven variables, it is very difficult
to say that a particular group, in all branches, at all times,
affects all members in a particular way. Nevertheless, trained
social workers and therapists know a dangerous cultic group
environment when they encounter it—and so treat former
members in various degrees of suffering.12 These helping
professionals know it is the intense psychosocial dynamic
of these high-demand/high-control cultic groups and their
charismatic (and often narcissistic) leaders that are at the core
of their clients’ sense of abuse and trauma. n
WHAT IS A CULT?
By Russell H. Bradshaw
There are many definitions of cult, but for our purpose one
cited by ICSA is useful: “an ideological organization held
together by charismatic relations and demanding total
commitment.”1 This definition is compatible with some
definitions of new religious movements (NRMs), but cult can
also refer to nonreligious organizations. As defined here, cults
(on the high-demand/high-control end of the social influence
spectrum—see below) are at risk of abusing members, but do
not necessarily do so.
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.2
HOWEVER, the research focus today of ICSA is NOT on cults per
se, but rather on the degree of intensity of the psychosocial
influence within groups. After many years of international
research on cultic groups, ICSA finds there are often too many
variables to produce accurate lists of so-called dangerous cults.
In addition, history has documented that sometimes “one
man’s religion is another man’s cult”—occasionally with tragic
consequences.3 Nevertheless, it is possible to discern when
the normal processes of social influence become extreme
or harmful in a group this shift can lead to observable
psychological trauma in some individuals.4 The cause of this
harm is often the above-normal level of demand and social
control in the group this intense process is sometimes called
the cultic dynamic.
The Cultic Dynamic
It is well known that groups use social-influence processes
to create and maintain norms of belief and behavior.5
This strategy is necessary to maintain a group identity, to
distinguish an in-group from others (outsiders). In fact, it is a
fundamental requirement for all groups and cultures.
However, it has been found that groups tend to align
themselves along a social-influence continuum that runs
from low control/low demand at one end to high demand/
high control at the other. Those groups at the high end
of the spectrum run a greater risk of being cultic in their
social-influence processes. This higher risk is particularly
true if there are deceptive advertising, misinformation, and
censoring of information in these groups if there are inner
circles that have secret and different beliefs and behaviors
from the publicly affirmed norms if there is an extremely
narcissistic leader without a functioning system of checks
and balances if outside oversight is not in place if the group
has a lack of transparency in economic matters and so on. It
should be noted, however, that even perceived “strangeness”
or “dangerous beliefs” do not automatically create a cultic
dynamic—even though these elements may increase the
possibility of such a dynamic eventually coming into play. No
matter how much we may dislike or disapprove of a particular
group’s beliefs, this does not make the group a cult.
Are All Members of Cultic Groups Damaged by Those
Groups?
Even in cultic groups that score at the high end of the control/
demand continuum, however, not all members are abused
or equally affected.6 Members who are totally invested in
a particular group or movement are more likely to suffer
severe negative psychological consequences than more
peripheral members. Also, developmental psychologists
such as Erik Erikson and Mary Ainsworth7 describe how
individual differences in personality (i.e., trust-versus-mistrust
or secure-versus-insecure attachment issues) influence
how the core of the individual is more or less vulnerable
later in life. This complex situation may create potential
social-influence vulnerabilities, perhaps “setting one up” for
later cultic group involvement. Differences in ego defense
mechanisms also render some individuals more susceptible
to unethical psychosocial demands and control practices.8
Basic personality issues may also predispose some people to
be more vulnerable than others to charismatic and prophetic
leaders and groups. For example, since many cultic leaders
have narcissistic personality traits, followers often may have
codependency character traits (as described in the ancient
Greek myth of Narcissus and Echo, on which Freud based
his theory).9 Nevertheless, these individual variables do not
determine, in themselves, who becomes involved in cults
that circumstance might be just bad luck: an individual being
in the wrong place at the wrong time. And everyone has
weaknesses, so individual vulnerabilities cannot be the only
cause for cultic involvement. However, once one is in a cultic
group, these personality variables, in combination with the
intense cultic dynamic, do impact the nature and extent of
one’s suffering and trauma when one leaves.10
In Conclusion
In general, some people in the same cultic group will be hurt
more than others, some may not be affected at all, and some
may actually benefit. Groups change over time and from one
branch or subgroup to another leaders’ personalities change,
as do the personalities of various members.11 Even persons
with secure and intelligent personalities may encounter
problems at times, especially during times of transition
and crisis—and they may become vulnerable to unethical
psychosocial influence and control.
As a result of all these interwoven variables, it is very difficult
to say that a particular group, in all branches, at all times,
affects all members in a particular way. Nevertheless, trained
social workers and therapists know a dangerous cultic group
environment when they encounter it—and so treat former
members in various degrees of suffering.12 These helping
professionals know it is the intense psychosocial dynamic
of these high-demand/high-control cultic groups and their
charismatic (and often narcissistic) leaders that are at the core
of their clients’ sense of abuse and trauma. n
