Talk:Cult/Cult Sandbox

1. Lead
2. What is a cult? Describe how the concept is defined in different contexts: Sociology, Anti-Cult movements, General public, politics. History of sociological definitions of cult: from characteristics to rejection of the term, introduction of "New Religious Movements" as a neutral term.
   1. Ernst Troeltsch & Becker - the first attempts at defining "cult"
   2. The 60'es and 70'es: Campbell, Wallis Richardson, Nelson, Martin, Bainbridge and others, Robbins & Anthony
   3. Rejecting the term: New Religious Movements: Richardson, Barker
3. Why join a cult? The Brainwashing controversy. Brainwashing vs. rational choice.
   1. The mainstream Sociological POV as espoused by Richardson, Melton, Barker, Beckford, Bainbridge, etc.
   2. Margaret Singer's and Ofshe's POV (including the ACM/Brainwashing controversy)
   3. Benjamin Zablocki's POV (including Lalich and Enroth)
4. Cults and Millenarianism: the end is near, cult suicides,
5. Cults and the society: violence and opposition. Roy Wallis cult typology.
   1. Incidents: Waco, Aum Shinrikyo, peoples temple, others.
   2. Governments vs. Cults - the legal perspectives: Scientology, Falun Gong, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Religious freedom, human rights.
   3. The Anti Cult Movements and their supporters

What is a cult? History of a concept..

The precise meaning of the word "cult" varies depending on the context in which it is used and who uses it. While the word originated in the the study of religion and has been given various definitions within this field, the term has also been adopted by the general public with a different set of connotations. Academic usage attempts to define a "cult" as a particular kind of organizational structure within the framework of social typology of religious groupings. In popular usage the term is used negatively, particularly about religious groups that have beliefs or practices that are not condoned by the larger society that they are a part of. The discrepancy between academic and popular usage of the term has caused some sociologists of religion to reject the term as biased, suggesting instead the alternative label "new religious movement" to describe the same groups. This change in usage has been largely successful within the academic community, but has not gained any currency in the larger society.

Origins in sociology

Main article: sociological classifications of religious movements

The concept of "cult" was introduced into sociological classification in 1932 by American sociologist Howard P. Becker as an expansion of Ernst Troeltsch's church-sect typology. Troeltsch's aim was to distinguish between three main types of religious behavior: churchly, sectarian and mystical. Becker created four categories out of Troeltsch's first two by splitting church into "ecclesia" and "denomination", and sect into "sect" and "cult". Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion" Becker's cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs. Later formulations built on these characteristics while placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture". This deviation 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. Yet sociologists maintain that unlike sects, which are products of religious schism and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, "cults" arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.

Popularizing the term: Anti-cult movements and their impact

Main articles: Anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement

By the 1940s the long held opposition by some established Christian denominations to non-Christian religions and supposedly heretical Christian sects crystallized into a more organized "Christian countercult movement" in the United States. For those belonging to the movement all new religious groups deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy were considered "cults". As more foreign religious traditions found their way into the United States the religious movements they brought with them or gave birth to attracted even fiercer resistance. This was especially true for movements incorporating mystical or exotic new beliefs and those with charismatic, authoritarian leaders.

By the early 1970s a secular opposition movement to "cult" groups had taken shape. The organizations that formed the secular "Anti-cult movement" (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of "cult" converts who did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their own free will. A few psychologists and sociologists working in this field lent credibility to their disbelief by suggesting that "brainwashing techniques" were used to maintain the loyalty of "cult" members. 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" became standard practice.

In the meantime a handful of high profile crimes were committed by groups identified as cults, or by the groups' leaders. The mass suicides committed by members of the People's Temple in Jonestown Gyana are perhaps the most prominent example in American mass culture. The publicity of these crimes, as amplified by the the Anti-cult movement, influenced the popular perception of new religious movements. In the mass media, and among average citizens "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass 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 culturally deviant however peaceful or law abiding it may in fact be.

In the late 1980s psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of rational choice. Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the term "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture. Some began to advocate the use of new terms like "new religious movement", "alternative religion" or "novel religion" to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as "cults", yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the term as one fit for neutral academic discourse, while researchers aligned with the Anti-cult movement have attempted to reduce the negative connotations being associated with all such groups by classifying only some as "destructive cults".

The political implications of definition

Main article: Cults and governments

The difference between the negative and the neutral definition of the word cult has also had political implications. In the 1970s the scientific status of the "brainwashing" theory became a central topic in U.S. court cases where the theory was instrumental in justifying the use of the forceful "deprogramming" of cult members. Meanwhile sociologists critical of these theories have assisted advocates of religious freedom in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court. 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 in public policy. France and Belgium exemplify the extreme policy position which tends to also accept "brainwashing" theories uncritically, while other European nations, like Sweden and Italy are more cautious about "brainwashing" and have adopted a much more neutral response to new religions. Scholars have suggested that outrage following the mass murder/suicides perpetuated by the Solar Temple as well as more latent xenophobic and anti-American attitudes have contributed significantly to the extremity of European anti-cult positions.

Since 1949 the Peoples Republic of China has been classifying dissenting groups as xiejiao, normally translated into English as "evil cults". In recent years the Chinese Government has allied with western anti-cult scholars in order to lend legitimacy to its crackdown on practitioners of Falun Gong. Scientology has also been the target of anti-cult legislation in several countries. This politicized use of the term "cult" provides sociologists critical of it with yet another reason to abandon it because, according to them, it may negatively effect the religious freedoms of group members. Of course for cult critics the creation of legislation restricting the religious freedom of cults is an objective in itself, since in their view "cults" are usually harmful or potentially harmful to their members and to society at large.

References

• Cowan, Douglas E. (2003). Bearing False Witness? An Introduction ot the Christian Countercult. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 978-0275974596.
• Lewis, James R. (2004). The Oxford handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0195149866.
• Richardson, James T. (1993). "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative". Review of Religious Research. 34 (4): 348–356. doi:10.2307/3511972. JSTOR 3511972.
• Richardson, James T. and Introvigne, Massimo (2001). "'Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Cults' and 'Sects'". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40 (2): 143–168. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00046.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, William Sims (1987). The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520057319.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)