are personalities and personality cults dangerous for xjws. In the first place what is a personality cult anyway and then was Charles Taze Russell a personality cult?
personalities and personality cults?
by soft+gentle 9 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sizemik
A personality cult is usually identifiable with a single personality who exercises control over the group . . . so yes, Russell would fall into that category.
The personality invariably claims special status by divine providence or connection.
In the case of WTS, the label doesn't strictly apply . . . but the same status is claimed by the F&DS (GB), so in thier case, the difference is so subtle as to constitute a minor variation . . . and arguably, a more dangerous one.
All cults are dangerous because of the psychological damage that invariably follows . . . as well as the potential physical danger.
-
wha happened?
I've noticed 'dubs will look for celebritty status among the many publishers. When the purple publisher was baptized, it was creature worship. I'm in Los Angeles, and when Prince threw a concert and played for 5 nights in a row, I knew of many 'dubs who went multiple nights.
I don't think the GB were happy with the competition, but he did give 'dubs alot of attention.
-
Chariklo
I'll go along with Sizemik's clear definition of a personality cult.
Personally, I'd have thought that any ex-JW with half a brain would stay well clear of anything like a personality cult, but you never know.
It takes all sorts!
-
soft+gentle
thanks size, what happened? and chariklo.
for the sake of drawing out this issue would you make a distinction between control and influence? An individual may have great influence for example and they may claim to speak authoritatively from a divine source. would this make them a personality cult or would they just be a personality.
Prince is an interesting example, what happened? because it takes us to the world of pop where fans can generally be seen to be engaging in a form of hero worship but again what i see here is influence being exercised but not control. Mind you certain pop/media personalities here in the UK, like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville have gone on to abuse children and adolescents (using influence to abuse) and then gone on to control/suppress information about their activities. this to me has shades of cultic (in the negative sense) behaviour.
The FDS example, size, chariklo, yes I agree this is a great example of control and the danger is very clear to me.
going back to Russell - he is more difficult to identify clearly as, if we compare him to Rutherford, I think he falls more into the category of charismatic personality who claimed divine authority and influence rather than being a personality cult. I'm not sure he could be said to be dangerous though.
-
sizemik
An individual may have great influence for example and they may claim to speak authoritatively from a divine source. would this make them a personality cult or would they just be a personality.
A personality is just that . . . a personality. A personality cult is already defined (above) and is a group rather than an individual. A charismatic personality may still be an influential leader of a group, without it necessarily being a cult . . . but you then need to assess the behaviour of the group, and analyse whether or not control mechanisms are being employed . . . Behaviour, Information, Thought and Emotional control. All of the mechanisms are employed by using the psychological influences of guilt and fear . . . the prospect of losing salvation, losing reward, condemnation, disapproval, status, abandonment, isolation etc. In religious cults the concept of a utopian reward along with the concept of sin and condemnation, are powerful influences used to channel and restrict information, behaviour, thought etc. Black and white concepts (them and us, angels and demons, holy and unholy etc) remove the room for individuality, opinion or dissent, creating a contrived sense of willingness to conform. At that point, even flaws in ideology or doctrine become indiscernable for cult members. One of the easiest ways to identify a cult . . . is to hear the experiences of ex-members LOL.
I think you're right about Russel . . . his notoriety stems more from what his original church has become, rather than the kind of influence he exerted. He was open to dissent and discussion to some degree . . . and the following was largely willing, and free to come and go . . . but he did subtly claim special status . . . a theme that has run unbroken through the history of the Org. He still displayed, albeit innocently, the egotistical traits found in most fledgling cults. Cults are seldom formed overnight, but quickly or slowly, they evolve, as the benefits of greater and greater control and influence present themselves. Under Rutherford, we're looking at a full-on personality cult.
Hope this helps.
-
talesin
Personally, I'd have thought that any ex-JW with half a brain would stay well clear of anything like a personality cult, but you never know.
Actually, Char, it is to be expected that some will choose that route, unless there is professional assistance involved. The exJW may have left because of the blatant lies and hypocrisy, but that person was a member of a cult for what could be a myriad of reasons. For example, s/he may enjoy living in a culture where all decisions are made for her/him. S/he may feel better being a part of a closed group that considers themselves special. And etc.
Leaving the JWs, does not necessarily mean leaving unhealthy personality traits and behaviours behind. Just as the 'dry drunk' continues her/his destructive patterns in other ways unless they figure out *why* they drink, the exJW may feel bereft and vulnerable in the 'world', and without counselling, could easily turn to another cult, because that is within their comfort zone.
sad ...
xo
tal
-
cofty
going back to Russell - he is more difficult to identify clearly as, if we compare him to Rutherford, I think he falls more into the category of charismatic personality who claimed divine authority and influence rather than being a personality cult. I'm not sure he could be said to be dangerous though.
It developed over a periods of years. Russell showed signs of genuine modesty at first. He told his readers to stay in the church to which they already belonged and be an influence for good. He said that no religion had a monopoly on the "sheep" and he had no ambition to start a new church.
Eventually he allowed himself to be influenced by the constant praise of his followers. He began to accept the title of pastor and before long there were "companies" of christians who were asking for more and more from him. At the beginning he saw himself as a servant who had been privileged to understand the bible more clearly. By the end he was teaching that his Studies in the Scriptures were more important than the bible.
The genesis of cults are a gradual thing.
-
soft+gentle
excellent points size.
A personality is just that . . . a personality. A personality cult is already defined (above) and is a group rather than an individual. A charismatic personality may still be an influential leader of a group, without it necessarily being a cult . . . but you then need to assess the behaviour of the group, and analyse whether or not control mechanisms are being employed . . . Behaviour, Information, Thought and Emotional control. All of the mechanisms are employed by using the psychological influences of guilt and fear . . . the prospect of losing salvation, losing reward, condemnation, disapproval, status, abandonment, isolation etc. In religious cults the concept of a utopian reward along with the concept of sin and condemnation, are powerful influences used to channel and restrict information, behaviour, thought etc. Black and white concepts (them and us, angels and demons, holy and unholy etc) remove the room for individuality, opinion or dissent, creating a contrived sense of willingness to conform. At that point, even flaws in ideology or doctrine become indiscernable for cult members. One of the easiest ways to identify a cult . . . is to hear the experiences of ex-members LOL.
I would argue that a utopian reward, to some degree, is also presented in politics but what is different is that the police force provide a level of stability which in religion is sought (sometimes to an inordinate degree) from prospects of salvation, losing reward etc. Mind you there is still a level of conformity even in a policed secular society but even so the freedom that results is enormous.
I guess a charismatic leader would need to keep aware of how much they try to control those whom they have fellowship with by means of concepts of sin, condemnation and salvation and how much what they are saying is solely for encouragment and love.
-
soft+gentle
run out of time - will come back later cofty and tal.