Reification of the "cult" idea

by logansrun 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  
  

  Sometimes I must confess bewilderment at people’s talk of “cults”: i.e. comments like “well, the Witnesses display all the characteristics of a cult as noted by [insert anti-cult website here].” Has it occurred to anyone that the idea of a cult is a human invention, indeed a very peculiar modern human construct in comparison with the rest of social history? Now, I’m not saying the modern invention of the “cult as a negative social group label” is necessarily wrong or bad, but just that that is what it is: a human invention. Logically, the fact that a website or some authority figure has put together a list of “cult characteristics” does not by necessity mean that the list they comprise is somehow the entire truth about the matter. I think too often people pull out arguments about “cults” the same way that JWs pull out their Reasoning Books: from “These are the characteristics of the true religion” (human construct) to “These are the characteristics of mind-control cults” (human construct). I believe these are both gross reifications, albeit I am more apt to agree with the latter than the former.

  I personally believe the idea of a “cult as a negative” is an outgrowth of liberal Enlightenment thinking which emphasized rationality and individual freedom. Only after the Enlightenment could “excessive group conformity” be considered a feature of a cult.

  Don’t get me wrong, I believe the idea of a “cult” is somewhat useful. Just bear in mind that it is a far slippier and culturally contingent concept than what appears to be the case when reading certain posts on this forum.

  B.
• 

  proplog2

  Taking a break from the real world LR?

  Good subject. Anti-cult people are often as fanatical as the religions they choose to battle. If you read the AA definition of an alcoholic it includes just about everyone including those "enablers" who happen to be a friend, spouse, of family member of an alcoholic. Movements of all sorts have to keep inventing reasons why they exist.

  The anti-cult people really become obnoxious when they try to use the governement as accomplices.

  I view cults as little laboratories from which interesting and useful social structures emerge. Just another part of evolution. Evolution makes its greatest leaps in little isolated pools.

  To those who say "But what about the damage it does to people?" I say "Tough shit - you're going to die anyways"
• 

  sammielee24

  To those who say "But what about the damage it does to people?" I say "Tough shit - you're going to die anyways"

  I don't know if thats supposed to blase, sarcastic or simply arrogant. I do find it sad however that people can exhibit so little compassion for others. That's like saying 'too bad your leg got cut off 'cos you might have old and crippled anyway'..how crass and how utterly sad. sammieswife.
• 

  jstalin

  I would say the a cult is defined as such because it is a construct that takes advantage of human psychology to encourage people to engage in self-destructive behavior. I'm a believer in personal responsibility, so ultimately the cult victim is to blame for his or her own choices. However, those who understand human psychology well enough (cult leaders) to exploit people's emotions to a point that is destructive to the member, shares some responsibility. To dismiss the term "cult" as a social construct ignores the reality of the shared characteristics of organizations that are harmful to the individual's person and psyche.
• 

  Mulan

  My husband worked on a house yesterday, where the owner is a Sociology Professor. He's worked there before and they've had some good discussions about religion and why people are attracted to them.

  Yesterday they talked about cults. He said he would describe a cult as a group that has a policy of eliminating those who don't agree, or don't live up to the rules of the cult, among other things of course. But that one is #1 he feels. Fascinating.
• 

  proplog2

  The devout of all religions have a terrible track record.
• 

  james_woods

  Couldn't believe this thread (its appearance was so timely) - but I had this very discussion today at lunch with ex-scientology friend.

  We were talking about the freemason history channel show last week. I said something or other about elements which "might be considered to be occult" - and got kind of chastized because he thought I had used the word "cult". Part of his exit mechanism was to hang onto many scientology beliefs while leaving because he thinks they all went to hell after L.RonHubbard passed away. He doesn't believe any group is cult-like. Different in the extreme, maybe, but they should not be called such a nasty name. He thinks this is a mainstream derisive term to put down others who look a little "different". They are all perfectly legitimate "religions". ( A little self-defensive, IMHO, by the way.)

  But facts are facts...when you have a series of charismatic leaders who isolate people into strange behavior patterns (to their possible harm), and claim to have special knowledge of the universe, powers of God, etc...well, this is a cult being run by cult leaders. That's why we have this word in English - to be able to describe this kind of organization and behavior system.

  So, I guess that what some would like to call "suicide freedom fighters" I am still calling "terrorists" and "murderous madmen".

  James
• 

  logansrun

  Hi proplog: Yes. Entering alternate universes is fun in moderation. Hope you are well.

  jstalin,

  I would say the a cult is defined as such because it is a construct that takes advantage of human psychology to encourage people to engage in self-destructive behavior.

  Of course, what is considered "self-destructive" is open to debate. Some Christians consider masturbation "self-destructive." In my reality tunnel I perceive the Witnesses as promoting some features of self-destructive behavior, and some features that are not self-destructive. For instance: smoking. The tight controls that the JWs have in place in this matter might seem draconian to some -- including me -- but you cannot deny that the effect is pretty good. Another (non-JW) example: the Mormons. Now here is a group that most people consider a cult, yet Utah has one of the lowest crime rates and highest rates of longevity in the nation. Point: being in a "cult" can have some beneficial results. Would you say that the world of advertising is also a cult? Many advertisers promote people to make purchases which surely are self-destructive to the buyer and others: cigarettes, booze, SUVs :) How expansive would the term "cult" than be if it is simply a manifestation of those who use "human psychology to encourage people to engage in self-destructive behavior." I wouldn't place blame on former members of high-control groups (the phrase I like to use in place of "cult"). I don't see it as helpful in attaining one's goals. Responsibility perhaps, but not "blame." Big emotional difference in the way people read those words. Also, please note: just because something is a "human construct" does not negate it completely, but nor does it affirm it as concretely as I sometimes see people use such constructs. I mean, some people throw around the term "cult" as if it were some fundamental aspect of nature, or as logically tight as 2+2=4. Somewhere in between reification and nihilism lie the truth. B.
• 

  logansrun

  proplog: One thing you did write made me think, however:

  I view cults as little laboratories from which interesting and useful social structures emerge. Just another part of evolution. Evolution makes its greatest leaps in little isolated pools.

  The problem with your analogy is that isolated populations in the biological world are constantly mutating. The JWs seem to be pretty stagnant -- actually, that's an understatment. There are no signfiicant new mutations (essentially, new information) going on in the JW world, unless of course you consider the latest pimple-faced 19 year old off to Bethel as a mutation.

  B.
• 

  logansrun

  james woods,

  well, this is a cult being run by cult leaders. That's why we have this word in English - to be able to describe this kind of organization and behavior system.

  The problem is that language can be slippery: it is ever evolving and any word can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, definitions. For instance: "queer" in modern parlance refers to homosexuals (unfortunately), but it's original meaning simply meant "weird" or "outside the norm." Another example: God. I've heard the word "God" referred to as the Big White Man with a beard in the sky, the totality of the laws of nature (i.e. Stephen Hawking's "God"), the part of you within which is spiritual, and so on. The list for this sort of thing is enormous.

  Groups that I've heard the word "cult" used against (and appear to me to be mostly harmless): the Unitarian Universalists, Shambhala International, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Secular Humanism, the Amish, etc.

  Personally, I'd like to eliminate the word entirely from the English language because of this sort of confusion.

  B.