This list offers terms, theories and models to assist website visitors with references as they read articles on this site. This list is updated regularly.
back to Cultic Studies
back to Home
Terms
(used on this website and/or in the field)
authoritarian
Favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom (e.g.authoritarian principles or attitudes); exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others (e.g. an authoritarian group leader). A person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles. (e.g. Jim Jones was an authoritarian). Dictionary.com.
autonomy
Independence or freedom, as of the will or one’s actions (e.g. many cult members relinquish their autonomy to show loyalty to their leader or group); a self-governing community (e.g. the Church of Scientology’s headquarters in the California desert established itself with autonomy based on its own policies of ethics and justice as written by L. Ron Hubbard); the condition of being autonomous (e.g. Karen reclaimed her autonomy when she left Scientology and the Sea Organization) Dictionary.com.
bounded choice (see also Bounded Choice Theory)
A term formed by Dr. Janja Lalich in her book, Bounded Choice: A social-psychological state of being entered by a true believer; in essence, life outside the cult has become impossible to imagine. A true believer is a dedicated aherent who has made a charismatic commitment that leads to “personal closure” in a self-sealing system (his/her group/cult); a deployable agent for the group or leader. Living within the bounded reality of the cultic social system, the true believer encounters no meaningful reality checks and becomes more and more enmeshed with and invested in the closed world of the group. The member’s life and choices are constrained not only by the system but also, and perhap even more powerfully, by the close-mindedness of the individual (him- or herself ) who is functioning in alliance with that system.
charisma-related terms
charisma
A spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people (e.g. Adolf Hitler’s charisma engaged thousands of people to carry out his strategy in Europe). (Dictionary.com). A concept introduced by sociologist Max Weber in his study of ancient religions, bureaucreacy, and institution building (Weber 1946, 1964, 1968). Charisma is often thought of as constraints that inhere in special individuals...a powerful social relationship. In this vein, Weber wrote, ‘What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those sbject to charismatic authority by his ‘followers’ or ‘disciples.’ - Dr. Janja Lalich, Bounded Choice.
charismatic authority
The emotional bond between leader and followers. It lends legitimacy to the leader and grants authority to his or her actions while at the same time justifying and reinforcing followers’ responses to the leader and/or the leader’s ideas and goals. The relational aspect of charisma is the hook that links a devotee to a leader and/or his or her ideas. Charismatic Authority is the first dimension of the four-part framework of the Bounded Choice theory. - Dr. Janja Lalich, Bounded Choice
charismatic leader
The charismatic leader is the object of worship, the ultimate arbiter of what is good/bad, creative/non-creative. Able to call forth a response of willing self-sacrifice (Goffman, 1969; Foucault,1980; Hall, 1992; Lalich, 2004)." (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
charismatic commitment
A choice made by a dedicated adherent (true believer) that leads to personal closure in a self-sealing system. The conflation of the four dimensions (charismatic authority, transcendent belief system, systems of control, and systems of influence) of the social structure with their accompanying social processes generate in the most devoted members what I call charismatic commitment. This is the juncture at which there is fusion between the ideal of personal freedom (as promised in th stated goal of the group or its ideology) and the demand for self-renunciation (as prescribed by the rules and the norms). At this point, the believer becomes at true believer at the service of a charismatic leader or idology. In such a context, in relation to personal power and invididual decision making, that person’s options are severely limited as the devotee lives in a narrow realm of constraint and control, of dedication and duty. - Dr. Janja Lalich, Bounded Choice
cult/cultic group
The definition of a cult is under contention in the fields of religious studies, cultic studies, sociology of religion, and others. Various meanings are offered for this term that explore what constitutes a cult, and whether or not groups should even be called cults. Some individuals use the terms “high demand group” or “new religious movement” or “sect.” However, these terms may dull, cloak, or disregard the harm or extremist actions of many groups that should be identified and held accountable for their actions rather than hiding behind the "freedom of religion" justification. Additionally, these terms can mystify rather than clarify cultic research. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, this is not a license to harm or manipulate faithful followers.
The International Cultic Studies Association website states,
“Although there is no agreed-upon definition of cult, one proposed by Rutgers sociologist Benjamin Zablocki seems to highlight key elements of high-influence group situations: "An ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and demanding total commitment." Charisma refers to a spiritual power or personal quality that gives leaders considerable influence or authority over large numbers of people. Hence, a cult is characterized by an ideology, strong demands issuing from that ideology, and powerful processes of social-psychological influence to induce group members to meet those demands. This high-demand, leader-centered social climate places such groups at risk of exploiting and injuring members, although they may remain benign, if leadership doesn't abuse its power. The social-psychological manipulation and control associated with some cultic groups may sometimes be found in other organizations and movements, including those in the mainstream. However, unlike new groups focused on a living leader who answers to nobody, mainstream movements may be restrained or corrected by higher authorities to whom they are accountable.” ICSA WEBSITE
Arnold Markowitz, founder of the Cult Hotline and Clinic of the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, and founding member of the Interfaith Coalition of Concern About Cults, says “the difference between a cult and a non-destructive group lies in the deception cults use to lure members ... A group constitutes a destructive cult when it also has a self-appointed, charismatic leader who controls the daily lives of members.” He said that the specific nature in which the cult leader can potentially take advantage of his/her followers, is “These characteristics are geared toward taking advantage of, or abusing, people sexually or financially or for emotional or personal aggrandizement of the leader or leadership.” Markowitz was honored with the Margaret Singer Award by the International Cultic Studies Association in 2006 for 26 years of helping families and ex-members, and the Jonestown Memorial Award in 1986, given in memory of victims of the People’s Temple tragedy in Jonestown, Guyana.
Dr. Janja Lalich, world-renowned expert in cultic studies, is a professor of sociology at California State University, Chico, and author or co-author of critically acclaimed books on cults. She is an avid contributor to the field of cultic studies through her research, presentations, and articles. Her organization, cultresearch.org, explains that “a cult can be either a sharply-bounded social group or a diffusely-bounded social movement held together through shared commitment to a charismatic leader. It upholds a transcendent belief system (often but not always religious in nature) that includes a call for a personal transformation. It also requires a high level of personal commitment from its members in words and deeds. This definition is not meant to be evaluative in the sense of implying that a group is good, bad, benign, or harmful. Rather it is meant to convey a systemic view of such a group, which is comprised of a charismatic relationship, a promise of fulfillment, and a methodology by which to achieve it. Cults differ in their specific ruling ideologies and in their specific requirements, practices, and behaviors; a single group may even differ over its lifetime or across different locations. These groups exist on a continuum of influence (regarding a particular group’s effect on its members and on society, and vice versa) and a continuum of control (from less invasive to all-encompassing).”
Visit CULTRESEARCH.ORG.
Dr. Miriam Boeri, author and professor of sociology of religion at Kennesaw State University, presented at ICSA 2008 how the “naming game” in cult research has detrimentally affected not only cult researchers, but also college sudents who are entering this field of study, those who leave cults, and the public view of cults as interpreted by popular media. She examines how the dispute over cult terminology is decided by the gatekeeprs of sociology of religion journals who are sometimes paid to write favorable pieces about groups known as cults. She speaks of the consequences of our surrender in the power to name. She believes it is essential to challenge those gatekeepers who have siezed control of naming the terms to be used in academic literature, and how academics should be held accountable for passively allowing this to occur. ICSA PRESENTATION INFO
Dr. Stephen Kent, renowned cult expert, author, and professor of sociology at the University of Alberta, Canada, offers a valuable collection of articles, references, and terms on his website related to Cultic Studies. In 2008, he presented at the International Cultic Studies Association, “What the Scholars Missed and Why they Missed Them: A Retrospective Examination of Several Major “Cult” Stories from the End of the Twentieth Century. "In this presentation, I identify several of the major ‘cult’ events from the latter part of the twentieth century, and then compare those stories to much of the scholarship that took place around them. These events include the child abuse allegations around the Northeast Kingdom in Vermont; the Jonestown massacre; and child abuse in the Children of God, the Branch Davidians, and the Krishnas. Around each event or topic, most academic analyses either failed to predict what eventually occurred or downplayed the importance of what had taken place. I argue that these failures in scholarship are attributable to several factors, including many scholars’ avoidance of information widely circulated within countercult or anti-cult circles, the refusal to utilize information from former members, and political decisions to avoid critical scholarship that might have validated the oppositional positions of critics." READ ICSA PRESENTATION DESCRIPTION
Karen Pressley, communication specialist, uses the word “cult” in this context: A group led by a charismatic, authoritarian leader who reigns with a totalist ideology and autonomous organizational system that controls the members’ communication and information by instilling a polarized “us-them” mentality, and who manipulates the followers through systems of influence and control that elicit guilt and undying loyalty at the benefit of the group or leader and at the expense of the members, thus bringing psychological, physical, and/or financial harm to the members under the cloak of the group’s goals to change the world or to save humankind through its unique beliefs.
An excerpt from the paper co-authored by Dr. Miriam Boeri and Karen Pressley:“We see cults as total institutional settings in which people are isolated from the larger society under the strict control and constant supervision of a specialist staff, such as that which exists in prison or asylum environments (Goffman, 1961). A total institution regulates every aspect of its members’ lives, and isolates them from the outside world. In a total institution, power resides solely among the leadership. In total institutions known as cults, power and sovereignty reside exclusively with the charismatic leader who started the cult, and with the most devoted and loyal followers who will not question their leader’s views. The goal of a totalitarian institution is to provide individuals with a context for deep reconstruction of their identities, which is the resocialization process cult members experience (Boeri, 2005; Lofland, 1977; Singer, 1995)” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
Cultic Studies
Cultic Studies explores groups referred to as “cults” or “cultic,” which are sometimes called “high demand groups,” “new religious movements,” “alternative movements,” or “sects.” See the term "cult" for explanation of its meaning, and the perspectives drawn by Cultic Studies scholars. It is an interdisciplinary study that seeks to understand cultic processes, their relation to society, and their broad social and cultural implications and effects on individuals, families, and other groups. Cultic Studies explores many research traditions including thought reform, authoritarianism, and the social psychology of influence and control from multidisciplinary perspectives such as sociology of religion, religious studies, anthropology, psychology, social psychology, history, American Studies, communication, philosophy, religious Interfaith studies, and more.
About Cultic Studies, the International Cultic Studies Association writes:
“Education of the general public and professionals can also result in a decrease in cultic abuses.
Vigorous public discussions about cult-related problems, for example, can sometimes result in fruitful dialogues that cause controversial groups to change. In his book, Recovery from Abusive Churches, Dr. Ronald Enroth describes several cases in which criticism of cultic evangelical groups resulted in public apologies by the group leaders and clear changes in their practices. ICSA staff and advisors have had fruitful exchanges with leaders of the Hare Krishna movement, which appears to be struggling with genuine attempts to reform the organization from within.
Vigorous public discussion is also necessary before institutional authorities (including religious, educational, health, and government) can justify taking actions to curtail certain behaviors of cultic groups, which often call upon the First Amendment for protection—with some justification. Institutional authorities in most countries have thus far done very little, in part because the information base in this area has not yet reached a sufficiently sophisticated level to motivate institutional leaders to act, especially given the civil liberties dimension of the problem. ICSA hopes that in time the research base in this area will reach a level that will enable institutional authorities to make more informed, balanced, and effective decisions regarding what to do about the problems cultic groups pose.” ICSA WEBSITE
creativity-related terms:
"Why focus on creativity when talking about cults or the squelching of "inalienable" human rights? After all, a healthy self-identity and freedom of creativity may seem less important than dealing with the wanton disregard of basic human freedoms. But the importance of creativity should not be underestimated. Creativity fuels an attitude of "anything is possible" and cultivates the belief that solutions are always within reach. In a healthy environment, an individual can harness her idea-generating powers and problem-solving abilities to make her life her own masterpiece. But while under the control of a perpetrator--a cult leader, a dominant spouse or abusive parent, a bully boss, an oppressive religious leader--prolonged contact results in a relationship of coercive control that suppresses creativity." (Karen Pressley, 2010). Excerpted from "From the Fire to a Blessing Field: Transitioning from an Unhealthy Relationship to a Life of Creativity" (www.kapcomm.com).
creativity - the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationshps, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination. Dictionary.com. “Creativity occurs when a person, using the symbols of a given domain such as music, business, math ... has a new idea or sees a new pattern, and when this novelty is selected by the appropriate field for inclusion into the relevant domain” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
creativity (expanded definition) - “Building on the power aspect of creativity, we define creatvity as ‘a free expression of thought (i.e. feelings, emotions, and/or philosophies) that originates from the freedom to think with minimal restraints from the social environment. Complete freedom of thought is impossible, s it is more useful to think of creativity along a continuum of power dynamics, from complete freedom of thought in an unconstrained environment on one end, to total restriction of thought within a cultic milieu’” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
creative self - “How one sees oneself in the ‘looking glass’ eyes of others, how influenced one is by the meanings ascribed by those in power, and how one interprets and internalizes those meanings are what allow a creative self to develop further ... A healthy unsuppressed creative self is a self developed when the social environment fosters the belief that one is creative and allows expression of this creativity to others” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
secret creative self - “The power relationships found in cults suppress the expression of creativity among members. Unless encouraged by the leaders, a creative self is formed as a secret creative self while the individual is in the cult environment” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
“Personal secrets are always maintained in opposition to inner pressures toward self-exposure.The totalist milieu makes contact with these inner pressures through its own obsession with the exposure and the unmasking process..” (Lifton, 1989).
strong creative self - “After leaving the cult, one’s secret creative self is free to be expressed, emerging as a strong creative self resistant to power dynamics” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
hegemony (hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee)
Leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others (e.g. The hegemony of England over its colonized lands dissipated with the weakening of the British Empire). Leadership; predominance, expansionism by groups in an effort to achieve broad domination (Dictionary.com) (e.g The Church of Scientology builds its hegemony by its efforts to open groups on all continents in its desire to become the world's dominant religion).
“The whole lived system of ideas and beliefs organized by the specific and dominant meanings imposed by those in power. Includes coercion from the leaders, granted by the members. ‘We can understand the communication of the power elite (Mills, 1956) over a group through cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1935, 1971; Hall, 1996) ... Critical theorists extend the meaning of hegemony to include the whole lived system of ideas and beliefs, practically organized by the specific and dominant meanings imposed by those in power (Berlin, 1988; Berger, 1995). Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony explains the domination and maintenance of power (e.g.,coercion from leaders and consent granted by members) (1935, 1971)” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
mind control
Mind control is sometimes used as a synonym for brainwashing, thought control, thought reform, or coercive persuasion. However, confusing these terms can have as mystifying of an effect as confusing the term “cult” with “new religious movement” because the two can have radically different characteristics. Steve Hassan, cult expert and author of Combatting Cult Mind Control, distinguishes between the two:
“‘Brainwashing’ is a term coined in 1951 by journalist Edward Hunter. He used it to describe how American servicemen captured in the Korean War suddenly reversed their values and allegiances and believed they had committed fictional war crimes. Hunter translated the term from the Chinese hsi nao, ‘wash brain.’ Brainwashing is typically coercive. The person knows at the outset that he is in the hands of an enemy. It begins with a clear demarcation of the respective roles--who is prisoner and who is jailer--and the prisoner experiences an absolute minimum of choice. Abusive mistreatment, even torture, is usually involved ... It is too bad the word ‘brainwashing’ is used so loosely by the news media. it evokes a picture of conversion by torture. Those inside a cult know they haven’t been tortured, so they think critics are making up lies. When I was in the Moonies, I ‘knew’ I hadn’t been brainwashed. I do remember, however, Moon giving us a speech in which he said a popular magazine had accused him of brainwashing us. He declared, “Americans’ minds are very dirty--full of selfish materialism and drugs--and they need a heavenly brainwashing!’ We all laughed.” (Hassan, 1998).
I remember David Miscavige (Scientology leader) giving the International Management base briefing one Saturday night when he projected a distorted picture of cult expert Dr. Margaret Singer on the wall and said that she accused Scientology of brainwashing its people, and calls us a cult. We all looked around at each other and laughed with disgust at Singer the SP (suppressive person). (- Karen Pressley).
“Mind control (aka ‘thought reform’) is more subtle and sophisticated. Its perpetrators are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much less defensive He unwittingly participates by cooperating with his controllers and giving them private information that he does not know will be used against him. The new belief system is internalized into a new identity structure. Mind control involves little or no overt physical abuse. Instead, hypnotic processes are combined with group dynamics to create a potent indoctrination effect. The individual is deceived and manipulated--not directly threatened--into making the prescribed choices. On the whole, he responds positively to what is done to him.” (Hassan, 1988).
new religious movements (NRMs)
A term coined to describe emerging religious sects and groups sometimes called cults; religious-oriented groups that deviate from the five traditional world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism).
paradigm shift
Phrase coined by Thomas Kuhn, scientist and University of California professor of the history of science, in his 1963 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. “Kuhn hypothesizes about the process by which major changes come about in scientific fields and conjectures that they probably do not evolve gradually from patient and orderly inquiry by established investigators in the field. Rather, he suggests, revolutions in science come about as the result of breakdowns in intellectural systems, breakdowns that occur when old methods whon’t solve new problems. He calls the change in theory that underlies this kind of revolution a paradigm shift (Hairston, 1982).
I suspect that the field of Cultic Studies may be at the point of such a paradigm shift, which may have been brought about by the interdisciplinary aspect of cultic studies where the very definition of “cult” is under contention and camps are forming by proponents of different definitions of the word. These camps include some who are called “hired guns” or “cult apologists” who receive payment to write favorable articles or to serve as expert witnesses in court for groups referred to as cults. One of these individuals is J. Gordon Melton who wrote a favorable book, The Church of Scientology, in 2000 that contained such misinformation as a claim that Scientology no longer practices “fair game” when, in fact, while working for Scientology’s international management, I observed fair game practices being strategized and implemented against ex-staff and critics. I wondered, what could his motive have been for making this false statement? - Karen Pressley
personal closure
A term formed by Dr. Janja Lalich in Bounded Choice, and suggested by Dr. Robert Lifton. "The individualized version of the self-sealing system; A state entered by a true believer. The adherent’s life and choices are constrained not only by the system but also,and perhaps even more powerfully, by the close-mindedness of the individual him- or herself who is functioning in alliance with that system. (See also self-sealing system and true believer).
power
"A leader with sovereignty over the members is always right. Leaders uses physical and psychological violence, deception, intimidation, emotional manipulation, criticism, exploitation, coercion to undermine members’ creativity, autonomy, critical thinking (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934; Elshtain, 2008)." (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
power dynamics
Balances of power between the cult leader/oppressor/perpetrator and member. "Lalich (2004) describes the power dynamics in cults as a “self-sealing system” that works by “a narrow realm of constraint and control” (p. 15). Cult members relinquish to cult leaders most choices that people living in democratic societies consider fundamental human rights “Foucault (1980) proposes that meaning is constructed within power dynamics: ‘Meaning ... is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned ... the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. (p. 131).’ “The power elite influence a sense of self by holding the power to define the meaning attached to symbols. Power entitles them to draw arbitrary lines between these labels, and these distinctions have real physical effects on group members. The right or power to make meaning can literally be the power to make others crazy (Foucault, 1980). People with power in total institutions name the normal and the abnormal, the creative and the noncreative” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
power elite
"Those who hold power in a group or culture (Hall, 1997; Foucault, 1980; Mills, 1956) ... The power elite in a group, institution, or society hold the power to label an act as deviant and the individual as a deviant. As the power elite change, so does deviant behavior vary across time, social situations, and place.The power elite persuade the subordinated group members to accept and adopt the imposed external values, so that they come to see the ideas of the power elite as the norm, the universal ideologies that benefit everyone. Hall (1997) and Foucault (1980) analyzed how the power elite portray their worldview as favorable to maintain their status quo and how they generate meanings to groups who serve the power elite ... The charismatic leader is the object of worship, the ultimate arbiter of what is good/bad,creative/non-creative. Able to call forth a response of willing self-sacrifice (Goffman, 1969; Foucault, 1980; Hall, 1992; Lalich, 2004). (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
second generation adults (SGAs)
Individuals born into a cult or raised in a cult by parents who are cult members.
self
The psychology field offers definitions of "self." "Here we refer to self as defined through sociology’s symbolic interaction (SI) theory (Blumer, 1969; Cooley, 1902; James, 1950; Mead, 1934). The self is a socially constructed concept. The SI theory posits that we form a sense of self through our interaction with others and the means we attach to symbols (e.g. words like “creative”) (Berger and Luckmann, 1996; Blumer, 1969; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). Thus, the self is not innate or an individual attribute, but rather an individual concept that is formed in relation to our social environment. Moreover, the formation of a sense of self is influenced by power dynamics present in the social environment (Goffman, 1959 1961: Lacan, 1977)." (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
self-sealing system
"A social system closed in on itself and closed to the outside world. It is characterized by ideological totalism and processes of influence and control that may lead adherents to a high degree of commitment identified as “charismatic commitment.” (Also see “true believer.”) As the social dynamic closes in on itself, adherents find themselves living within a bounded reality whose parameters are enclosed and defined by the self-sealing system. - Dr. Janja Lalich, from Bounded Choice.
Examples of how Karen Pressley applies Lalich's term to her experiences in Scientology’s Sea Organization:
Charismatic authority: Leadership is authoritarian in a totalitarian system; Top-down communication, command, control. Authority is not to be counter-intended; source materials (Hubbard’s wrtings and David Miscavige’s dictates) are treated as ultimate, beyond reproach.
Transcendent belief system: Scientology’s transcendent ideal or visionary component is the personal ideal of total spiritual freedom--immortality--achieved by becoming “cause” over life, thought, matter, energy, space, and time. Scientology’s transcendent organizational component is its methodology for achieving the goal embedded in the vision: the bridge to total spiritual freedom. All community reach-out programs (Volunteer Ministers, The Way to Happiness, Narconon, Applied Scholastics, WISE, Criminon, missions, Dianetics groups, etc). exist not for humanitarian reasons but for no other reason than to get people onto and up “the bridge to total freedom.” (Hubbard, Reason for Orgs). The ideal and the organization are completely intertwined and inseparable components that reinforce and uphold each other. Involvement in this transcendent system seals the fate of the Scientologists.
Systems of Control: Scientology “technology” must be adhered to without alteration or deviation.If one commits a serious offense against Scientology, the individual can lose his/her keys to eternity. The rules, regulations, policies, and all technologies (study, ethics, justice, communication, public relations, management, leadership, personnel, finance, data evaluaton, creating art, cleaning, and on) are contained in the books, tapes, films, and other published materials written by L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology “technologies” guide and control its members’ behavior and thinking processes. Church of Scientology dictates the form of each organization at all levels in the church’s hiearchy, from public reach-out groups to public servicing organizations to management organizations. Its command structure is headed by the Religious Technology Center (David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board, RTC) and goes on down through many levels of management in a bureaucratic, highly legalistic system.
Systems of Influence: Scientologists expect each other to be “standard, on source, in ethics” according to the meanings of those concepts from a Scientology perspective. This means moving up the bridge to total freedom and not falling off or deviating from it. One’s “case level” or level achieved on the bridge or “grade chart” is more or less a bill-board for one’s spiritual state and hence, abilities in life that one demonstrates. The higher a Scientologist is on the bridge, the more “causative” they are expected to be. In the Sea Organization, the systems of influence include a plethora of symbols such as ranks and ratings, officer and non-officer stripes and bars, campaign ribbons, level of post within the hierarchy of the Sea Org management organizations, one’s personal post statistics (“up” each week = “upstat” [productive], eligible for perks, praise, ethics protection; “down” each week = “downstat” [unproductive], out-ethics, loss of privileges, subject to ethics and justic actions, to the extreme of assignment to the prison camp, or “rehabilitation project force [RPF]).
sovereignty
“Once a member of a cult, the individual will discover the hegemony and ideology of the cult and one’s place within the cult’s power dynamics, where the leader uses various tactics to achieve ascendency in both the thought and practice of members. According to Elshtain (2008), “The cult offers a total meaning system with no grounds for disputation or interpretation” (p. 18). Transference of sovereignty from self to cult leader underpins the bedrock upon which cults are sustained. In a cult environment, members form a sense of self based on how they decode the meanings encoded by their leaders. Cult members, for example, relinquish sovereignty over their selves, as well as their creativity, and transfer the power to name these entities to the cult leader. Sovereignty empowers the cult leader to name/label characteristics of members, such as creative or noncreative” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
systems of control
"This is the network of acknowledged, or visible, regulatory mechanisms that guide the operation of the group. It includes the overt rules, regulations, and procedures (including the group’s hierarchy, command structure, organizational structures, proceses, policies) that guide and control members’ behavior."
- Dr. Janja Lalich, Bounded Choice
systems of influence
"This is the network of interactions and social influence residing in the group’s social relations. This is the human interaction and group culture from which members learn to adapt their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to their new beliefs (group norms, peer influence and modeling, commitment, ideas, appearance, language). - Dr. Janja Lalich, from Bounded Choice
thought reform
Robert Lifton, M.D. investigated the thought-reform procedures used against American POWs returning from the Korean War while involved in their psychiatric evaluation. His book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of ‘Brainwashing in China’ is a study of coercive techniques that he labelled “thought reform.” He describes eight methods that he said are used to change peoples minds without their agreement. The following eight items come from Lifton with brief descriptions written by cult expert Dr. Janja Lalich. For more information see Lifton’s book and/or Lalich's Bounded Choice, or Hassan's book.
- MILIEU CONTROL: The group controls all communication and information, which includes the individual’s communication with him-self. This sets up what Lifton calls a personal closure, meaning that the person no longer has to carry on inner struggles about what is true or real. Essentially, this prevents any time being spent on doubts.
- MYSTICAL MANIPULATION: There is a claim of authority (divine, supernatural, or otherwise), which allows for the rationale that the end justifies the means since the end is directed by a higher purpose. Certain experiences are orchestrated to make it seem as though they occur spontaneously. The person is required to subordinate her-self or him-self to the group or cause, and stops all questioning of who can question Ahigher purpose? Self-expression and independent action wither away.
- DEMAND FOR PURITY: The system puts forth a black-and-white world view with the leader as the ultimate moral arbiter. This creates a world of guilt and shame, where punishment and humiliation are expected. It also sets up an environment of spying and reporting on one another. Through submission to the powerful lever of guilt, the individual loses his or her personal sense of morality.
- CULT OF CONFESSION: First one, then many acts of surrender, of total exposure are necessary. The individual is now owned by the group. The person no longer has a sense of balance between worth and humility, and there is a loss of boundaries between what is secret (known only to the inner self) and what is known by the group.
- SACRED SCIENCE: The group’s doctrine is seen as the Ultimate Truth. Questions or challenges are not allowed. This reinforces personal closure. This inhibits individual thought, creative self-expression, and personal development. Experience can be perceived only through the filter of the dogmatic belief system or ideological trappings.
- LOADING THE LANGUAGE: There is jargon internal to and understood by only the group. Constricting language constricts the person. Capacities for thinking and feeling are significantly reduced. Imagination is no longer a part of the person’s actual life experiences; the mind atrophies from disuse.
- DOCTRINE OVER PERSON: Denial of self and any perception other than the groups is required. There is no longer such a thing as personal reality, or a self separate from the group. The past societies and the individual’s are altered to fit the needs of the doctrine. Thus, the individual is remolded, the cult personality emerges, and the person’s sense of integrity is lost.
- DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE: The group is the ultimate arbiter, and all nonbelievers are considered evil, or non-people. If non-people cannot be recruited, they can be punished, even killed. This creates an us versus them mentality and breeds fear in the individual’s who sees that one’s own life depends on a willingness to obey. Here is found the merger of the individual with the belief.
(Based on the work of Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (W.W. Norton, 1961) ad adapted from Take Back Your Life by Janja Lalich & Madeleine Tobias (Bay Tree Publishing, 2006).
total institutions
" Places/groups (e.g., prisons, asylums, boarding schools) where people are physically isolated from normal activities by being bureaucratically processed and required to sleep, work, and play within the confines of the same institution (Goffman, 1961). Total institutions regulate every aspect of its member’s lives and isolate members from the outside world ((i.e. cults like Scientology’s Sea Organization)" (Boeri and Pressley, 2010). Goal: provide members with a context for their identity.“The totalist environment seeks to estblish domain over the individual’s communication with the outside (all that he sees and hears and reads...” (Lifton, 1988).
totalism
“The totalist individual characterizes himself as the tragically, even heroically oppressed, and to blame and vilify the defined oppressor.” http://www.causes-of-terrorism.net/totalism.htm For example, the Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard blames the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the field of psychiatry, and all priests on the time track for the oppression of humankind and specifically against his Dianetics and Scientology writings and the development of the e-meter for use in Scientology counseling. Hubbard went on to create a totalist organization that dictates the thinking, communication, and lifestyles of Scientologists, particularly his loyal followers who sign billion-year contracts to the Sea Organization to help make Scientology the world religion and to take over the mental health field.
transcendent belief system
"
This is the overarching ideology that binds adherents to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group’s rules and norms. It is transcendent because it offers a total explanation of past, present, and future, including a path to salvation. Most important, the leader/group also specifies the exact methodology (or recipe) for the personal transformation necessary to qualify one to travel on that path. - Dr. Janja Lalich, from Bounded Choice.
"The power of any particular belief system inheres in its ability to formulate social realities for its adherents" (Geertz, 1973).
"
A belief system, then, serves to mediate complex realities for the individuals who are drawn to it, or guided by it. (Lalich).
true believer
"An individual who has made a charismatic commitment in a self-sealing system. The true believer is a dedicated adherent to his/her group and is a deployable agent for the group or leader. Living within the bounded reality of the cultic social system, the cult member encounters no meaningful reality checks and becomes more and more enmeshed with and invested in the closed world of the group. For some, this may lead to a state of “personal closure,” or the individualized version of the self-sealing system. The member’s life and choices are constrained not only by the system but also, and perhap even more powerfully, by the close-mindedness of the individual him- or herself who is functioning in alliance with that system. Now the dedicated adherent has entered a social-psychological state of being that I am calling bounded choice: in essence, life outside the cult has become impossible to imagine. - Dr. Janja Lalich, from Bounded Choice.
Theories and models that explain aspects of Cultic Studies
Bounded Choice theory/theoretical model - Dr. Janja Lalich
The “bounded choice” model is a tool used for examining and analyzing high-demand groups or situations, sometimes called cults. This approach uses a conceptual framework of four interlocking dimensions that Dr. Lalich’s submits are integral to the social dynamic found in cults. The four dimensions are charismatic authority, transcendent belief system, systems of control, and systems of influence. The dimensions involve both structure and process. that is, they make up the framework of the social system. They also include social processes that uphold and reinforce that social structure. Please see definitions of each of these four terms above.
Communication theories re: the making of meanings (relevant to cults as total institutions)
“Cultural studies theorists such as Stuart Hall and Douglas Kellner, like critical theorists Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci, are concerned with the generation and circulation of meanings in industrial societies. Hall (1997) proposes that communication scholarship should examine power relations and social structures because it is futile to talk about meaning of words (e.g., self) without considering power at the same time. From a cultural-studies perspective, the ultimate issue is not what information is presented, but whose meaning it is. Critical theorists concern themselves with forms of authority and power dynamics in groups, and the role of the power elite in dulling group members’ sensitivity to repression. They examine power imbalances between leaders and members, and challenge the power elite’s control of language to perpetuate these imbalances while followers maintain an uncritical acceptance of meanings (Griffin, 2006)” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
Cults and Creativity thesis - Dana Wehle, L.C.S.W., MFA
"The fundamental psychological impact of cults on members is dehumanization through the suppression of creativity and imagination."- from “The Last Draw - Cults and Creativity.” Paper presented by Dana Wehle at the International Cultic Studies Association annual conference, July 3, New York. This article will be published in the Cultic Studies Review (forthcoming, 2010) in the volume named “The Last Draw - Cults and Creativity,” edited by Dana Wehle.
Hegemonic Communication Model (HCM) - Dr. Miriam Boeri and Karen Pressley
Through the HCM we can better understand power dynamics, hegemony, and sovereignty in cults, as Miriam Boeri’s and Karen Pressley’s case studies in the Children of God and Scientology show. "The HCM suggests that sovereign cult leaders encode symbols (perceptions, judgments, naming, and orders) through the hegemony of power dynamics, and that cult members employ a route of response through which they decode meanings from leaders. Together, this combination determines their actions within and outcomes relevant to the cult. Members suppress or enable their secret creative self depending on the degree of personal sovereignty they control.
The HCM synthesizes elements of various communication and sociology theories, including the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) that mass communication researchers Petty and Cacioppo (1986) developed; cultural studies’ hegemonic encoding and decoding theory (Hall, 1997); an SI understanding of self, with the addition of our idea of how the creative self (I) is obscured by the “generalized other”; and critical theory on hegemony, power dynamics, and sovereignty (Mills, 1956; Foucault, 1982; Hall, 1997; Elshtain, 2008; Gramsci, 1935, 1971; Lifton, 1982; Lalich, 2004).
We use the framework of Petty and Cacioppo’s ELM (1986) in the HCM because we posit that their findings on the relative effectiveness of strong-message arguments and high source credibility in persuasive communication are applicable to the power dynamics of cults as total institutions. Their results varied depending on which of two cognitive processes, or mental routes to attitude change, a listener chose to use: the peripheral route or the central route. As we described earlier, however, the central route requires the addition of two decoding options for the cult member. Hall’s (1997) theories of hegemonic decoding options, which the powerless who are resisting dominant ideology use, supports our proposal that cult members may change their methods of decoding from peripheral route with hegemonic decoding to “negotiable” or “free,” depending on the degree of sovereignty the cult member holds." (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
Symbolic Interaction theory (from sociology) and the development of the secret creative self - Dr. Miriam Boeri and Karen Pressley
“SI theory explains the process of how the creatve self (the I) is born or developed in every individual, when viewed in reaction to the “generalized other.” What we are adding to this explanation is the effect of a highly suppressive social environment, or the effect of power dynamics, on the development of the I and the me. Typically, we propose, the creative self can exist as an I in harmony with the more public me. However, suppressive environments such as cult environments force the I to be subservient to the me, which for a cult member is the “generalized other” of the cult. In a cult, the me overcomes the I and, we propose, the I may become ignored and obscured. The I is often called the creative self. If others--usually the leader--do not identify a cult member as creative, the member cannot continue to have a creative self without birthing a secret creative self ... We propose that the power dynamics that result in extreme suppression can also stimulate individuals to birth a secret creative self (sCS). After one leaves a cult, a secret creative self may develop into a strong creative self (SCS) that is more resistant to power dynamics.
Despite the psychological and social effects of institutionalization that make it highly difficult for cult members to resume normal life after they leave the group (Lalich, 2006), the individual can change position in the power dynamics of his or her life by shifting the role of sovereign from others and reclaiming it to self. What was once an sCS emerges and can be expressed openly. Reclaiming sovereignty of self enables the creator to manage power dynamics in general, and restores the balance of creativity and humanity in the individual, which were out of balance in the cult. The creator is likely to develop resilience to new power dynamics outside the cult that label, define, or stifle creativity.” (Boeri and Pressley, 2010).
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Dr. Robert Lifton
See term, “thought reform.”
Totalist Identity Theory - Dr. Rod Dubrow-Marshall
Coming soon
References
Berger, A. A. (1995). Cultural criticism: A primer of key concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boeri, M. W. (2005). The Children of God/The Family, in C. Manning and P. Zuckerman (Eds.), Sex and Religion (pp. 160–180). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Boeri, M. and Pressley, K. (forthcoming, 2010). “Creativity and Cults from Sociological and Communication Perspectives: The Power Dynamics in the
Emergence of the Secret Creative Self.” Cultic Studies Review, "The Last Draw - Cults and Creativity." Vol. 9, No. 1.
Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of names. Journal of Ethnography 34, 396–399.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dictionary.com. Accessed online at http://dictionary.reference.com/
Elshtain, J. B. (2008). Sovereignty: God, state, and self. New York: Basic Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Chicago: Aldine.
Goode, Erich. (2001). Drugs in American society (66th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gramsci, A. (1935, 1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hairston, M. (1982). “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication.
Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees, in D. Morley and K. Chen (Eds.), Critical dialogues in cultural studies. London: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.
Hassan, S. (1988). Combatting Cult Mind Control. Rochester, VT.: Park Street Press.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. Mineola, NY: Dover.
Lacan, J. (1977). Ecrits. New York: Norton.
Lalich, J. (2000). "Using the Bounded Choice Model as an Analytical Tool: A Case Study of Heaven’s Gate." Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004.
Lalich, J. (2004). Bounded choice: True believers and charismatic cults. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lalich, J., Boeri, M. and Kent, S. (2008). "Myths, Misnomers, and Missed Signals: Demystifying Cult Research" and "The Naming Game: Why Academics Should be Concerned about Terms" (Boeri's presentation). Presentation and the International Cultic Studies Association.
Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. New York: Norton.— (1968).
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Singer, Margaret T. (1995). Cults in our midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weber, Max. (1947). Theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
------- (1946a). “Bureaucracy.” In H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 196-244). New York: Oxford University Press.
____ (1946b). “The sociology of charismatic authority.” In H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 245-252). New York: Oxford University Press.
____ (1922/1964). The sociology of religion. E. Bischoff, trans. Boston: Beacon Press.
____ (1947/1968). “The nature of charismatic authority and its routinization.” In S.N. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Max Weber: On charisma and institution building (pp. 48-65). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, M. (1998). Heaven’s harlots: My fifteen years as a sacred prostitute in the Children of God cult. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Please visit these websites for more information relevant to terms, theories and models used in Cultic Studies:
International Cultic Studies Association
CultResearch.org
FreedomofMind.com
THIS LIST WILL BE EXPANDED SOON
back to Cultic Studies
