VOLUME 3 |NUMBER 2 |2012 3
Whereas the original meaning of cult is positive, more recent
definitions vary from neutral to extremely negative.4
In the past two decades, pejorative connotations to the word
cult have become more common. For many, the term raises
images of people lining up for their fatal drink of Kool-Aid5
or carrying out brutal acts at the behest of an omnipotent
leader.6
Lists of so-called cults7 have been created, leading to the
assumption that all such groups are similar and dangerous.
By extension, because a group has not made it to a list does
not necessarily imply it does not pose a problem.
At times, I have been criticized for “muddying the waters” with
regard to the term cult. Some people have expressed
frustration when I do not respond with a “yes” or “no” when
asked whether or not a certain group is a cult, or whether
it is a cult or a religion, or whether or not the group in
question is dangerous. After all, they are directing their
questions to the executive director of Info-Cult!
Info-Cult’s view is that individuals can have a positive
experience in a so-called “bad” group or a bad experience
in a so-called “good” group. The reality is that groups in our
society exist on a continuum, from groups that value the
integrity and opinions of each of its members, to high-
demand groups that function according to the leader’s wishes
and demands. And a variety of factors may influence the
experience someone might have in a group, or the impact a
group may have on society. Some such factors to consider
include
• the general functioning and evolution of a group
• the relationships among its members
• the psychological needs and personalities of the members
and
• the leader’s influence on the members.
In 2006, I co-authored a book entitled The Cult Phenomenon:
How Groups Function.8 This book examines how Info-Cult has
evolved over the years with regard to its view on how groups
function, the reasons individuals join such groups, and the
nature of the relationship between groups’ leaders and their
members and society.9
I was motivated to write this book, in part, by the thousands
of calls Info-Cult had received since its inception in 1980. The
callers usually were looking for information and used the term
cult to refer to a wide variety of groups, including the following:
• Religious, political, psychological, and commercial groups in
which the leader(s) appear(s) to exert undue influence over
followers, usually to the leader’s(s’) benefit
• Fanatical groups, regardless of whether or not leaders exert a
high level of psychological control
• Terrorist organizations, such as Bin Laden’s group, which
induce some members to commit horrific acts of violence
• Religious groups deemed heretical or socially deviant by the
person attaching the cult label
• Any unorthodox religious group—benign or destructive
• Communes that may be physically isolated and socially
unorthodox
• New Age, psychotherapeutic, “healing” groups that advocate
beliefs in a transcendent order, or actions that may occur
through mechanisms inconsistent with the laws of physics
• Any group embraced by a family member whose parents,
spouses, or other relatives conclude—correctly or
incorrectly—that the group is destructive to the involved
family member
• Organizations that employ high-pressure sales or
recruitment tactics, or both
• Authoritarian social groups in which members exhibit a high
level of conformity and compliance to the expectations and
demands of leaders
• Extremist organizations that advocate violence, racial
separation, bigotry, or overthrow of the government
• Familial relationships in which one member exerts an
unusually high and apparently harmful influence over the
other member(s)—e.g., certain forms of dysfunctional
families or battered women’s syndrome10
If a group is labeled as a cult, we should be asking the
following questions: Who labeled the group, and how has that
label been designated? What criteria have been used and
what research has been undertaken to evaluate the group?
And, equally significant, what information does the label
provide, for example, about the group’s
• beliefs
• rules and norms
• history and evolution
• role of leadership and members
• views on children, women, and the elderly and
• interactions with the community at large.
Regardless of the label that we use to describe a group, the
fact remains that social dynamics of groups, of any kind, are
complex and we should observe and understand each group
individually. At all costs, we should avoid the temptation to
lump groups together.
At the same time, it is wise to keep in mind how we use
terminology related to the issue of cults and new religious
movements—in particular, those terms that promote a
dichotomy of good versus evil and do little to contribute to a
better understanding of this issue, and to support dialogue
among those with differing views.11 Examples of these terms
are anti-cult movement, pro-cult movement, and cult apologist.
these divisive labels function as “thought-terminating clichés,”
to use an expression from Robert Lifton’s seminal book,
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.12
Harm
As much as I encourage a nuanced approach to defining
the term cult and understanding the cult phenomenon in
general, I think we would all agree that there are groups that
do harm. To quote Michael Langone of the International
Cultic Studies Association (ICSA): “Some groups may harm
some people sometimes, and some groups may be more
likely to harm people than other groups.”13 I would add that
contributing factors include a group’s location, the nature
of its leadership, and at what period in its history we are
looking at it.
Whereas the original meaning of cult is positive, more recent
definitions vary from neutral to extremely negative.4
In the past two decades, pejorative connotations to the word
cult have become more common. For many, the term raises
images of people lining up for their fatal drink of Kool-Aid5
or carrying out brutal acts at the behest of an omnipotent
leader.6
Lists of so-called cults7 have been created, leading to the
assumption that all such groups are similar and dangerous.
By extension, because a group has not made it to a list does
not necessarily imply it does not pose a problem.
At times, I have been criticized for “muddying the waters” with
regard to the term cult. Some people have expressed
frustration when I do not respond with a “yes” or “no” when
asked whether or not a certain group is a cult, or whether
it is a cult or a religion, or whether or not the group in
question is dangerous. After all, they are directing their
questions to the executive director of Info-Cult!
Info-Cult’s view is that individuals can have a positive
experience in a so-called “bad” group or a bad experience
in a so-called “good” group. The reality is that groups in our
society exist on a continuum, from groups that value the
integrity and opinions of each of its members, to high-
demand groups that function according to the leader’s wishes
and demands. And a variety of factors may influence the
experience someone might have in a group, or the impact a
group may have on society. Some such factors to consider
include
• the general functioning and evolution of a group
• the relationships among its members
• the psychological needs and personalities of the members
and
• the leader’s influence on the members.
In 2006, I co-authored a book entitled The Cult Phenomenon:
How Groups Function.8 This book examines how Info-Cult has
evolved over the years with regard to its view on how groups
function, the reasons individuals join such groups, and the
nature of the relationship between groups’ leaders and their
members and society.9
I was motivated to write this book, in part, by the thousands
of calls Info-Cult had received since its inception in 1980. The
callers usually were looking for information and used the term
cult to refer to a wide variety of groups, including the following:
• Religious, political, psychological, and commercial groups in
which the leader(s) appear(s) to exert undue influence over
followers, usually to the leader’s(s’) benefit
• Fanatical groups, regardless of whether or not leaders exert a
high level of psychological control
• Terrorist organizations, such as Bin Laden’s group, which
induce some members to commit horrific acts of violence
• Religious groups deemed heretical or socially deviant by the
person attaching the cult label
• Any unorthodox religious group—benign or destructive
• Communes that may be physically isolated and socially
unorthodox
• New Age, psychotherapeutic, “healing” groups that advocate
beliefs in a transcendent order, or actions that may occur
through mechanisms inconsistent with the laws of physics
• Any group embraced by a family member whose parents,
spouses, or other relatives conclude—correctly or
incorrectly—that the group is destructive to the involved
family member
• Organizations that employ high-pressure sales or
recruitment tactics, or both
• Authoritarian social groups in which members exhibit a high
level of conformity and compliance to the expectations and
demands of leaders
• Extremist organizations that advocate violence, racial
separation, bigotry, or overthrow of the government
• Familial relationships in which one member exerts an
unusually high and apparently harmful influence over the
other member(s)—e.g., certain forms of dysfunctional
families or battered women’s syndrome10
If a group is labeled as a cult, we should be asking the
following questions: Who labeled the group, and how has that
label been designated? What criteria have been used and
what research has been undertaken to evaluate the group?
And, equally significant, what information does the label
provide, for example, about the group’s
• beliefs
• rules and norms
• history and evolution
• role of leadership and members
• views on children, women, and the elderly and
• interactions with the community at large.
Regardless of the label that we use to describe a group, the
fact remains that social dynamics of groups, of any kind, are
complex and we should observe and understand each group
individually. At all costs, we should avoid the temptation to
lump groups together.
At the same time, it is wise to keep in mind how we use
terminology related to the issue of cults and new religious
movements—in particular, those terms that promote a
dichotomy of good versus evil and do little to contribute to a
better understanding of this issue, and to support dialogue
among those with differing views.11 Examples of these terms
are anti-cult movement, pro-cult movement, and cult apologist.
these divisive labels function as “thought-terminating clichés,”
to use an expression from Robert Lifton’s seminal book,
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.12
Harm
As much as I encourage a nuanced approach to defining
the term cult and understanding the cult phenomenon in
general, I think we would all agree that there are groups that
do harm. To quote Michael Langone of the International
Cultic Studies Association (ICSA): “Some groups may harm
some people sometimes, and some groups may be more
likely to harm people than other groups.”13 I would add that
contributing factors include a group’s location, the nature
of its leadership, and at what period in its history we are
looking at it.
