Comments on: Is Cult a Useless Label?

By: hebrides

hebrides — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:33:48 +0000

Actually, I agree with you about governments. The question is, how do they function? Many governments DO function as cults; and I don’t say that social acceptance necessarily leads to something NOT behaving in a cult-like fashion, but that it is one of *several* factors which can tend to lead an organization to NOT function in that negative way. It ain’t an absolute. And though I probably didn’t state it outright, implicit in my argument here is the fact that a widely accepted institution CAN function as a cult, in the pejorative sense that we’re discussing. And in many cases people may cite, such institutions have and do. The overall criteria to me appears to be whether the group/organization is coercive and totalizing in its activity and basic assumptions. If so, the other “symptoms” cited in the anti-cult literature of what a cult “is” will tend to hold. But I don’t believe that something “is” a cult, but that groups do “function” as such for periods of time depending on a slew of factors.
In sum, Dan Smith may BEHAVE like an asshole during a certain period of his life, under certain circumstances and towards certain people but that doesn’t mean he “IS” an asshole. The degree and period of time during which he FUNCTIONS as one may give us a way to measure how we perceive, talk about and interact with him or choose to avoid him altogether, but this does not speak to an unvarying and essential defining *characteristic* of Dan Smith.
And in terms of IBM and Nike, sure they CAN physically attack me, blackmail me or slander me, the question is, DO they? If not, do they do it to other people? In what situations, with what criteria and so on.
There is no is! We judge a function of a process in flux.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:10:52 +0000

nor will Nike or IBM as organizations encourage those who still work for them to physically attack me, blackmail me or slander my character.

Why won’t they? Don’t corporations do this all the time with lawsuits? What about governments - they are both socially accepted (one of the criteria you offer against something being a cult) and are allowed to be coercive and totalitarian.

By: hebrides

hebrides — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:05:53 +0000

I believe there is an important distinction (or ten) between what are called cults and other organizations and I don’t think the Nike or IBM examples really hold water. I can wear Nikes or not; buy PCs or not; I can work at either place and decide to quit and, here’s the key, neither will exercise intense psychological coercion and intimidation tactics upon me to keep me from going; nor will Nike or IBM as organizations encourage those who still work for them to physically attack me, blackmail me or slander my character. Sure, if they did do this kind of stuff, then I’d say “yes, Nike and IBM” behave like cults or in a cult-like fashion. I guess what trips us up is the “is.” I think it would help clear up the debate if we referred to groups (religious, political or otherwise) based upon how they function–do they function in a coercive and totalistic way? to what extent and how often and in what circumstances? and to whom? I would argue that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in Europe functioned as a cult (Inquisitions, witch hunts, instigation of wars, the will to eliminate all other competition, all being practiced regularly, upon a wide range of people in most places as a matter of policy.), but that the Catholic Church of today in, say, New York City does not function as a cult, in general (certain groups within the church, however–Opus Dei, say, may function that way).
And the local baptist church in a small, very insular community where it holds great influence and exhibits these behaviors should also be said to be functioning as a “cult.” If the behavior changed, then the description would no longer apply. The thing is, in many new religious and political movements, there is a tendency to function as a cult because it may seem necessary in order to ensure its survival and particularly if, like say the Mormons of the 1840’s there is perceived (rightly in that example) to be a hell of a lot of animosity against it from the populace at large. Once the group becomes secure and public animosity against it lessens , the incentive for functioning as a cult diminishes and so it may cease to behave as such. (Scientology has not yet ceased functioning in this way, but it may at some point as the existence of the freezoners might indicate.)
But I would say also functioning upon the belief that the fate of the universe depends on everyone becoming part of one group is a strong meme that can lead any organization, regardless of size, stability and social standing to behave like a cult. Groups that don’t posess this meme tend not to be succeptible on the whole (think the Jews–though the Lubbavitchers seem to function as a cult toward other Jews at times–or various tribal groups like the Hmong from China) because they just want to “live and let live.”
Thoughts?

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:08:29 +0000

“You have to respect what other people believe in! Religious tolerance is an important part of our culture!
But what if what the other people believe is crazy?
What if said people are in a cult, and in their cult Yogi Berra is their god, and itâ€™s incredibly disrespectful to walk by their house of worship with a baseball hat on.
Well, those people are silly. Why, theyâ€™re in a cult.
Well, Iâ€™ve got news for all you Catholics; youâ€™re in a cult too.
Itâ€™s just a cult with millions of people in it.
When you see the pope in his big goofy hat on, doesnâ€™t that look remarkably similar to what some crazy cult leader would wear?
Thatâ€™s because he IS a crazy cult leader.
Of course Iâ€™m not in a cult!!!! Catholicism is a religion! Itâ€™s real!!
Thatâ€™s what people in cults think, too. You think people in cults know theyâ€™re in a cult?
Believe me, you canâ€™t get people to chop their balls off and drink the kool aid unless they think youâ€™re selling the real shit. And if that cult is successful, and it goes on for a long time, and after itâ€™s passed down from generation to generation, it becomes an accepted religion.” - Joe Rogan

By: human?

human? — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:51:48 +0000

what about culture?

ive been using the word occulture recently… seems to describe what we are dealing with..

By: alistair

alistair — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:23:36 +0000

the term cult allows older religions to denigrate emerging religions. the term is used then in a derogatory fashion. that usage has slipped into the vernacular. cult is the root word of cultivate; to grow. my baptist friend says they are all cults, the baptist church excluded. when he is in baptist mode he is indistinguishable from an idiot in his assessment of life in general.
any resematicising of the word throws out the history of the battle between the old and the new idiologies and i don`t think that`s a good thing.

By: alistair

alistair — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:55:23 +0000

the pope is actually the king of his own country. how many carry dual citizenship and don`t know it?

By: Haeresis

Haeresis — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 10:34:07 +0000

Basically, it’s what we run into any time we encounter a group sharing an identity. Any new group, no matter how ‘benign,’ is going to be treated with suspicion. older, ‘established’ groups are not any less strange or potentially dangerous, yet newer groups are far more likely to be critically examined, and you’ll see more biased language. The Catholic Church espouses strange beliefs, has secret rituals, is supported through huge amounts of cash donations from members. They often offer exorcisms in lieu of mental health care, their p;riests undergo all sorts of ritualized preparation for priesthood. They see visions. Their Chief priest lives in a gigantic compound with his own radio station, and he’s infallible, even when telling starving Africans that condoms are a sin. YET, nobody ever speaks of Mel Gibson’s “handlers” (I know, I know), we don’t have the press make disparaging comments about Robert Novak giving money in church collections so the Pope can live in splendor. It’s really about ‘known’ vs. ‘unknown.’

By: Fell

Fell — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:32:50 +0000

Yeah I am not sure how I feel about this topic. On one hand, the descriptions above didn’t take into account any considerations of the well-being of the individuals involved in apparents cults. By their account, the 11 guides Tim lists above can be seen in both Apple and Nike, let alone other brands. It’s what they’re particularly well known for.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:20:36 +0000

I don’t see how this Bonewitz scale is fundamentally any different from the list I used below. The points may be worded differently, but the arguments above still stand, I think.

By: alistair

alistair — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:43:21 +0000

both lists remind me of working for ibm, a large law firm or to a certain extent, working for the police or the military.

By: twistedchick

twistedchick — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:37:15 +0000

You should check out http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html — it’s a framework for analyzing whether a group is a cult or not, based on a lot of different factors. It has been around for a long time, and it works.