9 VOLUME 6 |ISSUE 3 |2015
The majority of those persons who attach the cult label
to these phenomena share a disapproval of the group or
organization they label. That is why some people have
dismissed the term cult as a meaningless epithet hurled at a
group one doesn’t like. Although this position may appeal to
one’s cynical side, it ignores the reality that many common
concepts are fuzzy. Lists of diverse phenomena could also be
drawn up for terms such as child abuse, neurotic, right wing,
left wing, learning disabled, sexy, ugly, beautiful, and so on. We
don’t banish these fuzzy terms from our vocabularies because,
contrary to the cynic’s claim, most people most of the time
use these fuzzy terms with enough precision to be meaningful
and understood by others.
Nevertheless, fuzzy terms leave much to be desired. Hence,
scientists often make up new terms (i.e., jargon) to avoid the
imprecision of “natural” language. Even within the scientific
disciplines that propagate jargon, however, disputes may
simmer for years about how to define properly a term in
common use. In the late 1970s, for example, sociologists of
religion abandoned the term cult in favor of new religious
movement yet they still debate the meaning and merits
of new religious movement. Thus, even within scientific
disciplines, terminology is rarely as precise as scientists wish.
We have, then, three choices with regard to fuzzy terms:
a) We can pretend that a particular term (e.g., cult)
is more precise than it actually is, thereby inviting
misapplication of the concept to which the term
refers.
b) We can so narrowly define the term that it
c) We can strive for a practical level of precision while
acknowledging the unavoidable ambiguity in our
terminology.
ICSA has chosen the latter course (see “On Using the Term
Cult”). We acknowledge the term’s ambiguity, but we also
recognize that, for better or for worse, cult is the term that
our inquirers, particularly on Internet searches, are most
predisposed to use. Although we try to focus the meaning
of the term, we must, nonetheless, also try to respond
constructively to the wide spectrum of phenomena that our
inquirers collectively associate with cult, however misguided
their linguistic usage may sometimes be.
Generally speaking (although certainly not always), the
phenomena to which they attach the term cult constitute a
“conceptual family.” The members of this family are distinct,
and it is inappropriate to give all of them the same name (e.g.,
cult). Yet they do have a family resemblance that rests on the
inquirer’s perception that the group exhibits one or more of
these characteristics:
a) It treats people as objects to be manipulated for the
benefit of the leader(s).
b) It believes that and behaves as though the group’s
supposedly noble ends justify means that most
people deem unethical.
c) It harms some persons involved with or affected by
the group.
On one hand, although some individuals may associate any
one of these characteristics with the concept cult, frequently
other terms may be more appropriate descriptors. That
is why we are interested in psychological manipulation,
psychological abuse, spiritual abuse, brainwashing, mind
control, thought reform, abusive churches, extremism,
totalistic groups, authoritarian groups, exit counseling,
recovery, and practical suggestions for families and individuals
as areas for which we provide information. And that is why
central components of our mission are to study psychological
manipulation and abuse, especially as it manifests in cultic
and other groups, to help individuals and families adversely
affected by psychologically manipulative groups, and to
protect society against the harmful implications of group-
related manipulation and abuse.
On the other hand, not everybody who contacts us is troubled.
Some are merely curious. Others are looking for information
on a group that is not harmful. Others seek information on
helping techniques. And still others want to teach young
people how to recognize and resist the lure of spurious
philosophies and manipulative groups. That is why we provide
information on new religious movements, alternative and
mainstream religions, and group dynamics, and offer practical
suggestions for helping professionals, clergy, journalists,
researchers, students, educators, and others interested in
these topics.
Given the wide range of phenomena that we study and the
wide range of individuals and organizations we try to assist,
we emphasize that our having information on or researching
a particular group does NOT imply that it is a cult or even
that it is harmful. We do NOT maintain a list of cults or “bad
groups,” and we have no intention of compiling such a list. We
do, however, provide information on and conceptual tools
for analyzing diverse groups that inquirers may—correctly
or incorrectly—associate within the conceptual family of the
term cult.
As you explore the information on our website, we hope that
you will keep in mind the issues discussed in this essay. We
also hope that in your own endeavors you apply the term cult
judiciously and with an acute awareness of its ambiguity and
limitations.
…some people have dismissed the
term cult as a meaningless epithet
hurled at a group one doesn’t like.
becomes useless in a practical sense.
The majority of those persons who attach the cult label
to these phenomena share a disapproval of the group or
organization they label. That is why some people have
dismissed the term cult as a meaningless epithet hurled at a
group one doesn’t like. Although this position may appeal to
one’s cynical side, it ignores the reality that many common
concepts are fuzzy. Lists of diverse phenomena could also be
drawn up for terms such as child abuse, neurotic, right wing,
left wing, learning disabled, sexy, ugly, beautiful, and so on. We
don’t banish these fuzzy terms from our vocabularies because,
contrary to the cynic’s claim, most people most of the time
use these fuzzy terms with enough precision to be meaningful
and understood by others.
Nevertheless, fuzzy terms leave much to be desired. Hence,
scientists often make up new terms (i.e., jargon) to avoid the
imprecision of “natural” language. Even within the scientific
disciplines that propagate jargon, however, disputes may
simmer for years about how to define properly a term in
common use. In the late 1970s, for example, sociologists of
religion abandoned the term cult in favor of new religious
movement yet they still debate the meaning and merits
of new religious movement. Thus, even within scientific
disciplines, terminology is rarely as precise as scientists wish.
We have, then, three choices with regard to fuzzy terms:
a) We can pretend that a particular term (e.g., cult)
is more precise than it actually is, thereby inviting
misapplication of the concept to which the term
refers.
b) We can so narrowly define the term that it
c) We can strive for a practical level of precision while
acknowledging the unavoidable ambiguity in our
terminology.
ICSA has chosen the latter course (see “On Using the Term
Cult”). We acknowledge the term’s ambiguity, but we also
recognize that, for better or for worse, cult is the term that
our inquirers, particularly on Internet searches, are most
predisposed to use. Although we try to focus the meaning
of the term, we must, nonetheless, also try to respond
constructively to the wide spectrum of phenomena that our
inquirers collectively associate with cult, however misguided
their linguistic usage may sometimes be.
Generally speaking (although certainly not always), the
phenomena to which they attach the term cult constitute a
“conceptual family.” The members of this family are distinct,
and it is inappropriate to give all of them the same name (e.g.,
cult). Yet they do have a family resemblance that rests on the
inquirer’s perception that the group exhibits one or more of
these characteristics:
a) It treats people as objects to be manipulated for the
benefit of the leader(s).
b) It believes that and behaves as though the group’s
supposedly noble ends justify means that most
people deem unethical.
c) It harms some persons involved with or affected by
the group.
On one hand, although some individuals may associate any
one of these characteristics with the concept cult, frequently
other terms may be more appropriate descriptors. That
is why we are interested in psychological manipulation,
psychological abuse, spiritual abuse, brainwashing, mind
control, thought reform, abusive churches, extremism,
totalistic groups, authoritarian groups, exit counseling,
recovery, and practical suggestions for families and individuals
as areas for which we provide information. And that is why
central components of our mission are to study psychological
manipulation and abuse, especially as it manifests in cultic
and other groups, to help individuals and families adversely
affected by psychologically manipulative groups, and to
protect society against the harmful implications of group-
related manipulation and abuse.
On the other hand, not everybody who contacts us is troubled.
Some are merely curious. Others are looking for information
on a group that is not harmful. Others seek information on
helping techniques. And still others want to teach young
people how to recognize and resist the lure of spurious
philosophies and manipulative groups. That is why we provide
information on new religious movements, alternative and
mainstream religions, and group dynamics, and offer practical
suggestions for helping professionals, clergy, journalists,
researchers, students, educators, and others interested in
these topics.
Given the wide range of phenomena that we study and the
wide range of individuals and organizations we try to assist,
we emphasize that our having information on or researching
a particular group does NOT imply that it is a cult or even
that it is harmful. We do NOT maintain a list of cults or “bad
groups,” and we have no intention of compiling such a list. We
do, however, provide information on and conceptual tools
for analyzing diverse groups that inquirers may—correctly
or incorrectly—associate within the conceptual family of the
term cult.
As you explore the information on our website, we hope that
you will keep in mind the issues discussed in this essay. We
also hope that in your own endeavors you apply the term cult
judiciously and with an acute awareness of its ambiguity and
limitations.
…some people have dismissed the
term cult as a meaningless epithet
hurled at a group one doesn’t like.
becomes useless in a practical sense.
