What is a cult? Explore and explain the social psychological aspects of cults.
A cult is a rare but intriguing social phenomenon that the average individual will never experience first hand. Especially within this past decade that surrounded the new millennium their prominence gained substantial attention. The study of cults is a rich subject area and has various applications within sociological and psychological fields. Cults represent a complex combination of socio-psychological features that culminates into a highly controversial and ambiguous notion.
Within the common vernacular a cult is known as an undesirable group of people characterised by outlandish religious beliefs, involved in depraved activities and are led by a charismatic but dangerous leader (Olson, 2006). This public understanding of cults is the result of a number of notorious cases in history that have involved mass suicide, murder, sexual abuse and violence. Although these examples are useful in their own respect they are not an accurate representation of cults as a whole. The extreme behaviour exhibited by groups such as Heavens Gate, Davidson and Solar Temple (Bohm, 2001), have elevated any group labelled as a cult into something inherently evil. These ideas are not useful in any empirical body of work as they mystify the existence of a social arrangement, albeit a sometimes dangerous one, that would normally be easily scrutinised within any other setting (Walsh, 2001). A much more useful and academically-agreed upon meaning of a cult is a group of people in “a religion regarded by the majority culture as spurious or unorthodox” (Richmond, 2004).
The word ‘cult’ itself proves to be severely problematic for cult academics. Olson (2006) believes that the word is so laden with negative presumptions that a new term should be used instead. Olsen (2006) completed a considerably trivial study on the extent to which labelling a group a cult can be detrimental to its perception. He, as well as a number of other experts, has instead been championing the use of the term New Religious Movements (NRMs) to describe cults. This swap is done in an effort to promote objectivity and a perception of professionalism within the study of cults. Furthermore the change in terms also moves away from the seeming oxymoron of a ‘harmless cult’, because if the public perception of cults is as dangerous or harmful, then the study of non-dangerous groups as cults is difficult to reconcile (Olson, 2006).
Despite these logistical problems it is clear that there is a strong need for distinction between different types of cults.
Richmond (2004) refers cults into “destructive” cults or other “benign” cults. The latter harmless type of cult makes up the majority of all cults, this might be attributed to the fact that most cults are indeed deemed to be quite undisruptive or the fact that its requisites are more broadly defined. They are considered to be “a system that gives great devotion to a work, an object, or a person”, so could, in theory, constitute anything from Christianity to Alcoholics Anonymous and even Amex, a brand of pyramid selling scheme (Richmond, 2004). Within this broad definition it is estimated that twenty million Americans are currently involved with cults (Richmond, 2004). This is despite such wide ranging cult activities that are not normally studied as within the realms of that of a cult.
The ‘destructive’ cult elicits stronger public and academic interest as it more abnormal and extreme than its previous counterpart. This cult subsidiary is not described by Richardson (2006) as necessarily being dangerous in a violent or illegal way. It could also just represent those groups which maintain strong control of its members and may only result in negligible abnormal beliefs. But in its most illustrious form could also consist of the aforementioned violent and sexual harm. MacHovec (1992) simply phrases the characteristics of a destructive cult as having “a charismatic leader, an exclusivist group separated from or opposing mainstream or traditional values, isolation of cult members from family, friends, school or career, and deviant behavioral norms and life style”. These features are very commonly attributed to cults across the academic field. Bohm (2001) adds to this by also including “apocalyptic beliefs, assembling arms, defense structures” towards more specifically dangerous cult groups.
The association between cult membership and psychological harm is not as strong as the public, governments and the media perceives (Kirkpatrick, 1988). It has been acknowledged that current and ex-members of cults experience with mental problems is short term and is only dependant upon the amount of time spent away from the group and the availability of support (Walsh & Bor, 1996).
A term used synonymously with cults is brainwashing. It is a pop culture term that is used to describe why someone would be in a cult. It is not used as a technical term in any literature but is often used to challenge popularly held misconceptions about cults. Brainwashing greatly simplifies (Walsh, 2001) the motives of cult members and attributes it to a cognitive event that occurs without any agency by an individual. This belief is categorically incorrect and undervalues the role each individual holds within a cult. Walsh (2001) argues that brainwashing “is not magical; it is an extension of processes well known within social psychology and the psychology used in advertising”, which emphasises a potential to deconstruct brainwashing, and cults for that matter, into individuals aspects that have psychological undercurrents, as well as more general applications to society.
The predisposition and recruitment of individuals to join cults has foundations within psychology. It has been found that are is no correlation between social class and susceptibility to cult membership (Hunter, 1998). Traditionally it has been presumed that lower-income individuals from dysfunctional family units are the most vulnerable. But research suggests that it is not social status but age, emotional stability (Hunter, 1998) and peer groups (Walsh, 2001), that determine the extent of success in cult recruitment. Hunter (1998) highlights adolescents as a predominant group targeted by cult recruiters due to proportionally higher “psychological stress, rootlessness, feelings of emptiness and of being disenfranchised, and identity diffusion and confusion” at this developmental life stage. In a study by Walsh & Bor (1996) it was found that personality traits are also an important signifier for cult vulnerability. They found that ex-cult members of ‘The Family’ “exhibited elevated scores on neuroticism, sociotrophy and autonomy” that persisted long after involvement in the group ceased.
Once an individual has been introduced into a cult, a new set of psychological processes are often utilised within the cult mechanism. Retention of cult members could probably be considered more important than the initial recruitment. This process could be generally defined as socialisation. Studies done on the retention of members focus mainly on belief change, in-grouping and social control. Long & Hadden (1978) identify two different modes of socialisation into cults. The first, controversially named brainwashing, depicts an aggressive change imposed on individuals after entrance into a group. It highlights coercion and control over members as an effective may to adapt to a group. The second type is called drifting and is favoured mainly by sociologists. It interprets religious group initiation as a gradual and seamless process made “through the influence of social relationships”. The author argues that cult socialisation is a practical meshing of the two, despite evidence supporting that they are contradictory modes.
This paper has offered some social psychological aspects of cults contained within a vast academic field. It is difficult to portray the immense ways in which modern psychology can account for the mythologised interpretations of cult activity. Introduction into the study of cults reveals that cults are just different versions of commonplace social interactions that are considered normal and desirable. And that perhaps cults serve as a Petri dish for the examination and deconstruction of the greater society.
References
Bohm, J. & Alison, L. (2001). An exploratory study in methods of distinguishing destructive cults. Psychology, Crime & Law. 7, 2, p.133.
Hunter, E. (1998). Adolescent attraction to cults. Adolescence. 33, 131.
Kirkpatrick, L. A.. (1988). The Conway-Siegelman Data on Religious Cults: Kilbourne's Analysis Reassessed (Again). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 27. 1, p.117.
Long, T. E. & Hadden, J. K.. (1983). Religious Conversion and the Concept of Socialization: Integrating the Brainwashing and Drift Models. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1, 22, p.1.
MacHovec, F. (1992). Cults: Forensic and Therapeutic Aspects. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 10, 1, p31.
Olson, P. J. (2006). The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 45, 1, p.97.
Richmond, L. J. (2004). When Spirituality Goes Awry: Students in Cults. Professional School Counseling. 7, 5.
Walsh, Y. (2001). Deconstructing 'brainwashing' within cults as an aid to counselling psychologists. Counselling Psychology Quarterly. 14, 2.
Walsh, Y. & Bor, R. (1996). Psychological consequences of involvement in a new religious movement or cult. Counselling Psychology Quarterly. 9, 1.
A cult is a rare but intriguing social phenomenon that the average individual will never experience first hand. Especially within this past decade that surrounded the new millennium their prominence gained substantial attention. The study of cults is a rich subject area and has various applications within sociological and psychological fields. Cults represent a complex combination of socio-psychological features that culminates into a highly controversial and ambiguous notion.
Within the common vernacular a cult is known as an undesirable group of people characterised by outlandish religious beliefs, involved in depraved activities and are led by a charismatic but dangerous leader (Olson, 2006). This public understanding of cults is the result of a number of notorious cases in history that have involved mass suicide, murder, sexual abuse and violence. Although these examples are useful in their own respect they are not an accurate representation of cults as a whole. The extreme behaviour exhibited by groups such as Heavens Gate, Davidson and Solar Temple (Bohm, 2001), have elevated any group labelled as a cult into something inherently evil. These ideas are not useful in any empirical body of work as they mystify the existence of a social arrangement, albeit a sometimes dangerous one, that would normally be easily scrutinised within any other setting (Walsh, 2001). A much more useful and academically-agreed upon meaning of a cult is a group of people in “a religion regarded by the majority culture as spurious or unorthodox” (Richmond, 2004).
The word ‘cult’ itself proves to be severely problematic for cult academics. Olson (2006) believes that the word is so laden with negative presumptions that a new term should be used instead. Olsen (2006) completed a considerably trivial study on the extent to which labelling a group a cult can be detrimental to its perception. He, as well as a number of other experts, has instead been championing the use of the term New Religious Movements (NRMs) to describe cults. This swap is done in an effort to promote objectivity and a perception of professionalism within the study of cults. Furthermore the change in terms also moves away from the seeming oxymoron of a ‘harmless cult’, because if the public perception of cults is as dangerous or harmful, then the study of non-dangerous groups as cults is difficult to reconcile (Olson, 2006).
Despite these logistical problems it is clear that there is a strong need for distinction between different types of cults.
Richmond (2004) refers cults into “destructive” cults or other “benign” cults. The latter harmless type of cult makes up the majority of all cults, this might be attributed to the fact that most cults are indeed deemed to be quite undisruptive or the fact that its requisites are more broadly defined. They are considered to be “a system that gives great devotion to a work, an object, or a person”, so could, in theory, constitute anything from Christianity to Alcoholics Anonymous and even Amex, a brand of pyramid selling scheme (Richmond, 2004). Within this broad definition it is estimated that twenty million Americans are currently involved with cults (Richmond, 2004). This is despite such wide ranging cult activities that are not normally studied as within the realms of that of a cult.
The ‘destructive’ cult elicits stronger public and academic interest as it more abnormal and extreme than its previous counterpart. This cult subsidiary is not described by Richardson (2006) as necessarily being dangerous in a violent or illegal way. It could also just represent those groups which maintain strong control of its members and may only result in negligible abnormal beliefs. But in its most illustrious form could also consist of the aforementioned violent and sexual harm. MacHovec (1992) simply phrases the characteristics of a destructive cult as having “a charismatic leader, an exclusivist group separated from or opposing mainstream or traditional values, isolation of cult members from family, friends, school or career, and deviant behavioral norms and life style”. These features are very commonly attributed to cults across the academic field. Bohm (2001) adds to this by also including “apocalyptic beliefs, assembling arms, defense structures” towards more specifically dangerous cult groups.
The association between cult membership and psychological harm is not as strong as the public, governments and the media perceives (Kirkpatrick, 1988). It has been acknowledged that current and ex-members of cults experience with mental problems is short term and is only dependant upon the amount of time spent away from the group and the availability of support (Walsh & Bor, 1996).
A term used synonymously with cults is brainwashing. It is a pop culture term that is used to describe why someone would be in a cult. It is not used as a technical term in any literature but is often used to challenge popularly held misconceptions about cults. Brainwashing greatly simplifies (Walsh, 2001) the motives of cult members and attributes it to a cognitive event that occurs without any agency by an individual. This belief is categorically incorrect and undervalues the role each individual holds within a cult. Walsh (2001) argues that brainwashing “is not magical; it is an extension of processes well known within social psychology and the psychology used in advertising”, which emphasises a potential to deconstruct brainwashing, and cults for that matter, into individuals aspects that have psychological undercurrents, as well as more general applications to society.
The predisposition and recruitment of individuals to join cults has foundations within psychology. It has been found that are is no correlation between social class and susceptibility to cult membership (Hunter, 1998). Traditionally it has been presumed that lower-income individuals from dysfunctional family units are the most vulnerable. But research suggests that it is not social status but age, emotional stability (Hunter, 1998) and peer groups (Walsh, 2001), that determine the extent of success in cult recruitment. Hunter (1998) highlights adolescents as a predominant group targeted by cult recruiters due to proportionally higher “psychological stress, rootlessness, feelings of emptiness and of being disenfranchised, and identity diffusion and confusion” at this developmental life stage. In a study by Walsh & Bor (1996) it was found that personality traits are also an important signifier for cult vulnerability. They found that ex-cult members of ‘The Family’ “exhibited elevated scores on neuroticism, sociotrophy and autonomy” that persisted long after involvement in the group ceased.
Once an individual has been introduced into a cult, a new set of psychological processes are often utilised within the cult mechanism. Retention of cult members could probably be considered more important than the initial recruitment. This process could be generally defined as socialisation. Studies done on the retention of members focus mainly on belief change, in-grouping and social control. Long & Hadden (1978) identify two different modes of socialisation into cults. The first, controversially named brainwashing, depicts an aggressive change imposed on individuals after entrance into a group. It highlights coercion and control over members as an effective may to adapt to a group. The second type is called drifting and is favoured mainly by sociologists. It interprets religious group initiation as a gradual and seamless process made “through the influence of social relationships”. The author argues that cult socialisation is a practical meshing of the two, despite evidence supporting that they are contradictory modes.
This paper has offered some social psychological aspects of cults contained within a vast academic field. It is difficult to portray the immense ways in which modern psychology can account for the mythologised interpretations of cult activity. Introduction into the study of cults reveals that cults are just different versions of commonplace social interactions that are considered normal and desirable. And that perhaps cults serve as a Petri dish for the examination and deconstruction of the greater society.
References
Bohm, J. & Alison, L. (2001). An exploratory study in methods of distinguishing destructive cults. Psychology, Crime & Law. 7, 2, p.133.
Hunter, E. (1998). Adolescent attraction to cults. Adolescence. 33, 131.
Kirkpatrick, L. A.. (1988). The Conway-Siegelman Data on Religious Cults: Kilbourne's Analysis Reassessed (Again). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 27. 1, p.117.
Long, T. E. & Hadden, J. K.. (1983). Religious Conversion and the Concept of Socialization: Integrating the Brainwashing and Drift Models. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1, 22, p.1.
MacHovec, F. (1992). Cults: Forensic and Therapeutic Aspects. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 10, 1, p31.
Olson, P. J. (2006). The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 45, 1, p.97.
Richmond, L. J. (2004). When Spirituality Goes Awry: Students in Cults. Professional School Counseling. 7, 5.
Walsh, Y. (2001). Deconstructing 'brainwashing' within cults as an aid to counselling psychologists. Counselling Psychology Quarterly. 14, 2.
Walsh, Y. & Bor, R. (1996). Psychological consequences of involvement in a new religious movement or cult. Counselling Psychology Quarterly. 9, 1.
1 comment:
1.Overall, this was an enjoyable read, with an insightful discussion of cults and socio-psychological theory, well supported by research.
2.Abstract?
Optional but can enhance readability without adding to the word count.
3.Theory
Excellent discussion of cults in relation to socio-psychological theory. Importantly, a critical approach was taken which looked at cults objectively rather than emotively or sensationally.
4.Research
A useful set of relevant research studies are effectively used to support the theoretical discussion.
5.Written Expression
This was a highly readable, well written essay.
Left align body text.
This essay would benefit from professional proofreading to help improve several instances of awkward wording or incorrect grammar, e.g., in this sentence, the comma probably should be a full-stop. “The latter harmless type of cult makes up the majority of all cults, this might be attributed to the fact that most”.
Use of subheadings could have improved readability.
6.Conclusion
Balanced, insightful, and effectively brings closure to the essay.
7.Referencing & Citations
~9 appropriate references were cited.
Citations:
Walsh & Bor (1996) -> Walsh and Bor (1996)
References:
Do not include journal issue numbers.
Titles of articles should be in sentence-case.
Direct quotes:
should include page numbers.
8.Online Engagement
Minimal-low evidence of engagement.
Two additional blog postings.
No self-assessment was provided.
No links were provided to comments on other people's blogs or the discussion list.
Post a Comment