Cultis a term often applied tonew religious movementsand othersocial groupswhich have unusual, and often extreme,religious,spiritual,orphilosophicalbeliefs andrituals.Extreme devotion to a particular person, object, orgoalis another characteristic often ascribed to cults. The term has different, and sometimes divergent orpejorative,definitions both inpopular cultureand academia and has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements became an object ofsociologicalstudy within the context of thestudy of religious behavior.Since the 1940s, theChristian countercult movementhas opposed somesectsand new religious movements, labeling them cults because of theirunorthodox beliefs.Since the 1970s, the secularanti-cult movementhas opposed certain groups, which they call cults, accusing them of practicingbrainwashing.

Groups labelled cults are found around the world and range in size from small localized groups to some international organizations with up to millions of members.

Definition and usage

edit

In the English-speaking world, the termcultoften carriesderogatoryconnotations.[1]The word "cult" is derived from the Latin termcultus,which means worship.[2]An older sense of the word cult, which is not pejorative, indicatesa set of religious devotional practicesthat is conventional within its culture, is related to a particular figure, and is frequently associated with a particular place, or generally the collective participation in rites of religion.[3][2]References to theimperial cult of ancient Rome,for example, use the word in this sense. A derived sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century, and usage is not always strictly religious.[a][2]The term is variously applied to abusive or coercive groups of many categories, including gangs, organized crime, and terrorist organizations.[4]

Sociological classifications of religious movementsmay identify a cult as a social group withsocially deviantornovelbeliefs and practices,[5]although this is often unclear.[6][7]Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults, saying that they arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[8]Cults have been compared to miniaturetotalitarianpolitical systems.[9]Such groups are typically perceived as being led by acharismaticleader who tightly controls its members.[10]It is in some contexts apejorativeterm, also used fornew religious movementsand othersocial groupswhich are defined by their unusualreligious,spiritual,orphilosophicalbeliefs andrituals,[11]or theircommon interestin a particular person, object, orgoal.This sense of the term is weakly defined – having divergent definitions both inpopular cultureand academia – and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[12][13]

According to Susannah Crockford, "[t]he word ‘cult’ is a shapeshifter, semantically morphing with the intentions of whoever uses it. As an analytical term, it resists rigorous definition." She argued that the least subjective definition of cult referred to a religion or religion-like group "self-consciously building a new form of society", but that the rest of society rejected as unacceptable.[14]The term cult has been criticized as lacking "scholarly rigour"; Benjamin E. Zeller stated "[l]abelling any group with which one disagrees and considers deviant as a cult may be a common occurrence, but it is not scholarship".[15]However, it has also been viewed as empowering for ex-members of groups that have experienced trauma.[15]Religious scholarCatherine Wessingerargued the term was dehumanizing of the people within the group, as well as their children; following theWaco siege,it was argued by some scholars that the defining of the Branch Davidians as a cult by the media, government and former members is a significant factor as to what lead to the deaths.[16]The term was noted to carry "considerable cultural legitimacy".[17]

In the 1970s, with the rise ofsecularanti-cult movements,scholars (though not the general public) began to abandon the use of the termcult,regarding it as pejorative. By the end of the 1970s, the term cult was largely replaced in academia with the term "new religion" or "new religious movement".[18][19]Other proposed alternative terms that have seen use were "emergent religion", "alternative religious movement", or "marginal religious movement", though new religious movement is the most popular term.[16]The anti-cult movement mostly regards the term "new religious movement" as a euphemism for cult that hides their harmful nature.[18]

Scholarly studies

edit
Howard P. Becker's church–sect typology, based onErnst Troeltsch's original theory and providing the basis for the modern concepts of cults,sects,andnew religious movements

Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements perceived as cults became an object ofsociologicalstudy within the context of thestudy of religious behavior.[20]The term saw its origins in the work of sociologistMax Weber(1864–1920). Weber is an important theorist in the academic study of cults, which often draws on his theorizations ofcharismatic authority,and of thedistinction he drewbetweenchurchesandsects.[21][2]This concept of church-sect division was further elaborated upon by German theologianErnst Troeltsch,who added a "mystical" categorization to define more personal religious experiences.[2]American sociologistHoward P. Beckerfurther bisected Troeltsch's first two categories:churchwas split intoecclesiaanddenomination;andsectintosectandcult.[22][2]Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion", Becker'scultrefers to small religious groups that lack in organization and emphasize the private nature of personal beliefs.[23]

Max Weber(1864–1920), an important theorist in the study of cults

Later sociological formulations built on such characteristics, placing an additional emphasis on cults asdeviantreligious groups, "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture."[24]This is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with religious sects.[25]According to this sociological terminology,sectsare products of religiousschismand therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, whereascultsarise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[26]

ScholarsWilliam Sims BainbridgeandRodney Starkhave argued for a further distinction between three kinds of cults: cult movements, client cults, and audience cults, all of which share a "compensator" or rewards for the things invested into the group. In their typology, a "cult movement" is an actual complete organization, differing from a "sect" in that it is not a splinter of a bigger religion, while "audience cults" are loosely organized, and propagated through media, and "client cults" offer services (i.e. psychic readings or meditation sessions). One type can turn into another, for example theChurch of Scientologychanging from audience to client cult.[18]Sociologists who follow their definition tend to continue using the word "cult", unlike most other academics; however Bainbridge later stated he regretted having used the word at all.[18]Stark and Bainbridge, in discussing the process by which individuals join new religious groups, have even questioned the utility of the concept ofconversion,suggesting thataffiliationis a more useful concept.[27]

In the early 1960s, sociologistJohn Loflandstudied the activities ofUnification Churchmembers in California in trying to promote their beliefs and win new members. Lofland noted that most of their efforts were ineffective and that most of the people who joined did so because of personal relationships with other members, often family relationships.[28][29]Lofland published his findings in 1964 as adoctoral thesisentitled "The World Savers: A Field Study of Cult Processes", and in 1966 in book form by asDoomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization and Maintenance of Faith.It is considered to be one of the most important and widely cited studies of the process of religious conversion.[30][31]

J. Gordon Meltonstated that, in 1970, "one could count the number of active researchers on new religions on one's hands." However,James R. Lewiswrites that the "meteoric growth" in this field of study can be attributed to the cult controversy of the early 1970s. Because of "a wave of nontraditional religiosity" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, academics perceived new religious movements as different phenomena from previous religious innovations.[19]

Types

edit

Destructive cults

edit

Destructive cultis a term frequently used by theanti-cult movement.[18]Members of the anti-cult movement typically define a destructive cult as a group that is unethical, deceptive, and one that uses "strong influence" or mind control techniques to affect critical thinking skills.[32]This term is sometimes presented in contrast to a "benign cult", which implies that not all "cults" would be harmful, though others apply it to all cults.[18]PsychologistMichael Langone,executive director of the anti-cult groupInternational Cultic Studies Association,defines a destructive cult as "a highly manipulative group which exploits and sometimes physically and/or psychologically damages members and recruits."[33]

InCults and the Family,the authors cite Shapiro, who defines adestructive cultismas asociopathicsyndrome,whose distinctive qualities include: "behavioral andpersonality changes,loss ofpersonal identity,cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders. "[34]Writing aboutBruderhof communitiesin the bookMisunderstanding Cults,Julius H. Rubin said that American religious innovation created an unending diversity of sects. These "new religious movements…gathered new converts and issued challenges to the wider society. Not infrequently, public controversy, contested narratives and litigation result."[12]In his workCults in ContextauthorLorne L. Dawsonwrites that although theUnification Church"has not been shown to be violent or volatile," it has been described as a destructive cult by "anticult crusaders."[35]In 2002, the German government was held by theFederal Constitutional Courtto havedefamedtheOsho movementby referring to it, among other things, as a "destructive cult" with no factual basis.[36]

Some researchers have criticized the termdestructive cult,writing that it is used to describe groups which are not necessarily harmful in nature to themselves or others. In his bookUnderstanding New Religious Movements,John A. Salibawrites that the term is overgeneralized. Saliba sees thePeoples Templeas the "paradigm of a destructive cult", where those that use the term are implying that other groups will also commitmass suicide.[37]

Doomsday cults

edit

Doomsday cultis an expression which is used to describe groups that believe inapocalypticismandmillenarianism,and it can also be used to refer both to groups that predictdisaster,and groups that attempt to bring it about.[38][18]In the 1950s, Americansocial psychologistLeon Festingerand his colleagues observed members of a smallUFO religioncalled the Seekers for several months, and recorded their conversations both prior to and after a failed prophecy from their charismatic leader.[39][40][41]Their work was later published in the bookWhen Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.[39]

In the late 1980s, doomsday cults were a major topic of news reports, with some reporters and commentators considering them a serious threat to society.[42]A 1997 psychological study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter found that people turned to a cataclysmicworld viewafter they had repeatedly failed to find meaning in mainstream movements.[43]

Political cults

edit

A political cult is a cult with a primary interest inpolitical actionandideology.Groups that some have described as "political cults", mostly advocatingfar-leftorfar-rightagendas, have received some attention from journalists and scholars. In their 2000 bookOn the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left,Dennis Tourish andTim Wohlforthdiscuss about a dozen organizations in the United States and Great Britain that they characterize as cults.[44]

Anti-cult movements

edit

Christian countercult movement

edit

In the 1940s, the long-held opposition by some establishedChristian denominationsto non-Christian religions andhereticalor counterfeit Christian sects crystallized into a more organized Christian countercult movement in the United States.[citation needed]For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christianorthodoxy,were considered cults.[45]The countercult movement is mostly evangelical protestants.[46]The Christian countercult movement asserts that Christian groups whose teachings deviate from the belief that the bible is inerrant,[47]but also focuses on non-Christian religions like Hinduism.[46]Christian countercult activist writers also emphasize the need for Christians toevangelizeto followers of cults.[48]

Secular anti-cult movement

edit
An anti-Aum Shinrikyoprotest in Japan, 2009

Starting in the late 1960s, a different strand of anti-cult groups arose, with the formation of thesecularanti-cult movement (ACM).[49]This was in response to the rise of new religions in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly the events atJonestownand the deaths of nearly 1000 people.[50]The organizations that formed the secular anti-cult movement (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of "cult"convertswho did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their ownfree will.A fewpsychologistsandsociologistsworking in this field suggested thatbrainwashingtechniques were used to maintain the loyalty of cult members.[51][49]

The belief that cults brainwashed their members became a unifying theme among cult critics and in the more extreme corners of the anti-cult movement techniques like the sometimes forceful "deprogramming"of cult members was practised.[52]In themass media,and among average citizens, "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things likekidnapping,brainwashing,psychological abuse,sexual abuse,and othercriminal activity,andmass suicide.While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturallydeviant,however peaceful or law abiding it may be.[53][54][55][13]

While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part sceptical of their ability to explain conversion toNRMs.[56]In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind control. While scholars may believe that various less dramaticcoercivepsychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of arational choice.[57][58]

Governmental policies and actions

edit

The application of the labelscultorsectto religious movements in government documents signifies the popular and negative use of the termcultin English and a functionally similar use of words translated as 'sect' in several European languages.[59]Sociologists critical to this negative politicized use of the wordcultargue that it may adversely impact the religious freedoms of group members.[60]At the height of the counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s, some governments published lists of cults.[b]Groups labelled "cults" are found around the world and range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions.[61]

While these documents utilize similar terminology, they do not necessarily include the same groups nor is their assessment of these groups based on agreed criteria.[59]Other governments and world bodies also report on new religious movements but do not use these terms to describe the groups.[59]Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements.[c]While the official response to new religious groups has been mixed across the globe, some governments aligned more with the critics of these groups to the extent of distinguishing between "legitimate" religion and "dangerous", "unwanted" cults inpublic policy.[51][62]

China

edit
Falun Gongbooks being symbolically destroyed by theChinese government

For centuries, governments in China have categorized certain religions asxiéjiào(Tà giáo), translated as "evil cults" or "heterodox teachings".[63]Inimperial China,the classification of a religion asxiejiaodid not necessarily mean that a religion's teachings were believed to be false or inauthentic; rather, the label was applied to religious groups that were not authorized by the state, or it was applied to religious groups that were believed to challenge the legitimacy of the state.[63][64]Groups brandedxiejiaoface suppression and punishment by authorities.[65][66]

Russia

edit

In 2008 theRussian Interior Ministryprepared a list of "extremist groups". At the top of the list were Islamic groups outside of "traditional Islam", which is supervised by the Russian government. Next listed were "Pagan cults".[67]In 2009 theRussian Ministry of Justicecreated a council which it named the "Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis." The new council listed 80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society, and it also mentioned that there were thousands of smaller ones. The large sects which were listed included:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,theJehovah's Witnesses,and other sects which were loosely referred to as "neo-Pentecostals".[68]

United States

edit

In the 1970s, the scientific status of the "brainwashing theory"became a central topic inU.S. courtcases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forcefuldeprogrammingof cult members[19][60]Meanwhile, sociologists who were critical of these theories assisted advocates ofreligious freedomin defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court.[51][62]In the United States the religious activities of cults are protected under theFirst Amendment of the United States Constitution,which prohibits governmentalestablishment of religionand protectsfreedom of religion,freedom of speech,freedom of the press,andfreedom of assembly;however, no members of religious groups or cults are granted any specialimmunityfromcriminal prosecution.[69]

In 1990, thecourt caseofUnited States v. Fishman(1990) ended the usage of brainwashing theories by expert witnesses such asMargaret SingerandRichard Ofshe.In the case's ruling, the court cited theFrye standard,which states that thescientific theorywhich is utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields. The court deemedbrainwashingto be inadmissible in expert testimonies, using supporting documents which were published by theAPA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control,literature from previous court cases in which brainwashing theories were used, and expert testimonies which were delivered by scholars such asDick Anthony.[70]

Western Europe

edit

The governments of France and Belgium have taken policy positions which accept "brainwashing" theories uncritically, while the governments of other European nations, such as those of Sweden and Italy, are cautious with regard to brainwashing and as a result, they have responded more neutrally with regard to new religions.[71]Scholars have suggested that the outrage which followed the mass murder/suicides perpetuated by theSolar Temple,have significantly contributed to European anti-cult positions.[72][73]In the 1980s, clergymen and officials of the French government expressed concern that someordersand other groups within theRoman Catholic Churchwould be adversely affected by anti-cult laws which were then being considered.[74]

See also

edit

References

edit

Explanatory notes

edit
  1. ^Compare theOxford English Dictionarynote for usage in 1875: "cult:...b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.… 1875Brit. Mail 30Jan. 13/1 Buffaloism is, it would seem, a cult, a creed, a secret community, the members of which are bound together by strange and weird vows, and listen in hidden conclave to mysterious lore. ""cult".Oxford English Dictionary(Online ed.).Oxford University Press.(Subscription orparticipating institution membershiprequired.)
  2. ^Or "sects" in German or French-speaking countries, the German termsektenand the French termsecteshaving assumed the same derogatory meaning as English "cult".
  3. ^

Citations

edit
  1. ^Dubrow-Marshall 2024,p. 103.
  2. ^abcdefChryssides & Zeller 2014,p. 321.
  3. ^"cult".Oxford English Dictionary(Online ed.).Oxford University Press.(Subscription orparticipating institution membershiprequired.)– "2.a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremonies or rituals which are directed towards a specified figure or object."
  4. ^Dubrow-Marshall 2024,p. 96.
  5. ^Stark & Bainbridge 1996,p. 124.
  6. ^Stark & Bainbridge 1980,p. 1377.
  7. ^Olson 2006.
  8. ^Stark & Bainbridge 1987.
  9. ^Stein 2016.
  10. ^Bell, Kenton (2013)."cult".Open Education Sociology Dictionary.Retrieved17 March2023.
  11. ^"cult".Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Merriam-Webster.
  12. ^abRubin 2001,p. 473.
  13. ^abRichardson 1993,pp. 348–356.
  14. ^Crockford 2024,p. 172.
  15. ^abThomas & Graham-Hyde 2024a,p. 4.
  16. ^abOlson 2006,p. 97.
  17. ^Bromley & Melton 2002,p. 231.
  18. ^abcdefgChryssides & Zeller 2014,p. 322.
  19. ^abcLewis 2004.
  20. ^Fahlbusch & Bromiley 1999,p. 897.
  21. ^Weber 1985.
  22. ^Swatos 1998a,pp. 90–93.
  23. ^Campbell 1998,pp. 122–123.
  24. ^Richardson 1993,p. 349.
  25. ^Stark & Bainbridge 1987,p. 25.
  26. ^Stark & Bainbridge 1987,p. 124.
  27. ^Bader & Demaris 1996.
  28. ^Richardson 1998.
  29. ^Barker 1998.
  30. ^Ashcraft 2006,p. 180.
  31. ^Chryssides 1999,p. 1.
  32. ^Shupe & Darnell 2006,p. 214.
  33. ^Turner, Bloch & Shor 1995,p. 1146.
  34. ^Kaslow & Sussman 1982,p. 34.
  35. ^Dawson 1998,p. 349.
  36. ^Seiwert 2003.
  37. ^Saliba 2003,p. 144.
  38. ^Jenkins 2000,pp. 216, 222.
  39. ^abStangor 2004,pp. 42–43.
  40. ^Newman 2006,p. 86.
  41. ^Petty & Cacioppo 1996,p. 139.
  42. ^Jenkins 2000,pp. 215–216.
  43. ^Pargament 1997,pp. 150–153, 340.
  44. ^Tourish & Wohlforth 2000.
  45. ^Cowan 2003,p. 20.
  46. ^abChryssides 2024,p. 41.
  47. ^Cowan 2003,p. 31.
  48. ^Cowan 2003,p. 25.
  49. ^abChryssides 2024,p. 46.
  50. ^Chryssides 2024,p. 47.
  51. ^abcRichardson & Introvigne 2001.
  52. ^Shupe & Bromley 1998a,p. 27.
  53. ^Wright 1997.
  54. ^van Driel & Richardson 1988.
  55. ^Hill, Hickman & McLendon 2001.
  56. ^Barker 1986.
  57. ^Ayella 1990.
  58. ^Cowan 2003,p. ix.
  59. ^abcRichardson & Introvigne 2001,pp. 143–168.
  60. ^abDavis 1996.
  61. ^Barker 1999.
  62. ^abEdelman & Richardson 2003.
  63. ^abPenny 2012.
  64. ^Zhu 2010,p. 487.
  65. ^Heggie 2020,p. 257.
  66. ^Zhu 2010.
  67. ^Soldatov & Borogan 2010,pp. 65–66.
  68. ^Marshall 2013.
  69. ^Ogloff & Pfeifer 1992.
  70. ^Introvigne 2014,pp. 313–316.
  71. ^Richardson & Introvigne 2001,pp. 144–146.
  72. ^Richardson & Introvigne 2001,p. 144.
  73. ^Robbins 2002,p. 174.
  74. ^Richardson 2004,p. 48.
Books
Articles
edit
  • The dictionary definition ofcultat Wiktionary
  • Quotations related toCultat Wikiquote