Curious About Cult-ure
 

While helping with some research for a friend's religious studies course, I found this following checklist written by Isaac Bonewits, and it's quite interesting, so I thought it might make an interesting discussion. (Taken from this link.)

"The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence."

Factors (Each rated from 1 to 10, with the grand total being the overall influence of the group):

1) Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

2) External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

3) Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s): amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

4) Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members: amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

5) Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.

6) Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.

7) Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

8) Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

9) Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups: amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

10) Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.

11) Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

12) Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

13) Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

14) Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

15) Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

16) Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

17) Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

18) Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

Wow. I know of a few boards that would qualify for cult status based on this.

hmm, I think I know what spawned this train of thought.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of religions, because I know we have a few former members of some faiths that might qualify under this list.

It'd be interesting to hear their insight.

Although, it's an interesting concept that Kevy pointed. Now that I go back and read it with that in mind, I think it could apply to many non-religious groups. :eek:

There seems to be a pretty fundamental assumption being made on the "badness" of things that isn't necessarily true. Just because I don't want most of those things doesn't mean that it is bad that other people do.

But then so long as people choose to join I don't really care how harmful the impacts are to them. All I really care about are how harmful groups are to the people not in the group.

Also interesting that something that is bad is apparently not bad when done under the umbrella of "tantric." Maybe the way to make evangelism less bad is to put the word "evangelistic" in your name.

I'd love to hear from some of the ex-JH's on this... does it seem relevant to your experience?

What? That many of these exist or that they are necessarily bad?

If the former, then yes, I experienced many of them. If the latter, then not necessarily, though mileage certainly varies from person to person.

My experience is that a lot of the things on that list are things people actively seek out for themselves. They want someone outside themselves to give them structure and rigidity and a filter through which to view the world.

They don't necessarily get this from religion. I've seen it political groups, fraternal organizations, heck even a bowling league.

But from the list and my experience with JWs (which, admittedly, was from the perspective of an observant teenager):

1) Internal Control:
Depends on how some of the terms are defined. Seemed a pretty egalitarian group overall but there is definitely a somewhat mysterious power organization at the top in the Watchtower Organization in New York. But at the local level I didn't see a lot of overt control.

2) External Control:

JW's explicitly eschew the worldly political process so to the extent that you are discouraged from participating there is a lot. But on the other hand, beyond fighting for their ability to do what they think it is right they generally leave everybody else alone. One thing about JW's, regardless of how they feel about it personally they'll never vote against gay marriage.

3) Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s):
Pretty strong. Not infallible but presented as simply well educated and having seen through the dusty encrustation of two millennia of religious decay.

Of course, it holds that the bible is directly inspired by god, but pretty much all Christian faiths go with that idea.

4) Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members:

A lot of trust in the interpretation of leaders and this was something I was most uncomfortable with. Very little dogmatic discussion, just point to a cite and that is that.

5) Dogma:
Yes, rigid.

6) Recruiting:
Yes, evangelical.

7) Front Groups:
Not so far as I know, but if they're hidden I wouldn't.

8) Wealth:
There was no mandatory financial participation though there were the standard contribution boxes in the Kingdom Halls. I'm sure there is plenty of money floating around but it isn't an ostentatious faith. If the leaders are living like royalty they kept it to themselves.

9) Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups:
I have no idea about the sexual politics of the group but I never saw it playing an official role. Never heard anything about "bad" sexual practices between married people and any sexual practices between unmarried people would be bad.

10) Sexual Favoritism:
It is a patriarchal organization but within most day-to-day operation surprisingly egalitarian in function.

11) Censorship:
None that I ever experienced. Watched TV and movies like everybody else. Could read whatever I wanted. To the extent that there is "censorship" it is probably passive in keeping you so busy that there isn't time for consuming a lot of popular culture (if you're really active you'll be spending 5 days a week involved in activities).

Then there is the passive censorship of wanting to do what everybody else is doing.

12) Isolation:
My experience is that this varies a lot from person to person. I don't think there is a lot of formal pressure to isolate yourself but perhaps it is of a more passive type that I never really noticed.

And of course, there is the issue of being part of a very active specifically targetted social group that tends to exclude people. If you're book club meets six days a week and you have scheduled five hour trips to Barnes & Noble every Sunday then even without explicitly cutting out the non-readers you're not going to be spending a lot of time with them.

13) Dropout Control:
My experience is that it is very easy to drop out. If you can take the sudden severing from the social group.

14) Violence:
Never heard of any. JWs are pretty much a pacifistic group.

15) Paranoia:
A fair amount of this. Of course, it helps that there really was, and is, persecution. JWs were in the concentration camps with Jews and homosexuals under Hitler. Many countries have suppressed JWs. It is a strong Christian tradition to view antagonism as evidence of being on the right track.

But it isn't so much paranoia as reveling in it.

16) Grimness:
I suppose they'd be considered humorless. But I think it is more that they really don't care what outside groups think of them.

17) Surrender of Will:
None that I experienced but this is another one where some people seem to have had a wildly difference experience than I did.


18) Hypocrisy:
I found this to be minimal. Again, if the leaders were living a different life then I didn't hear about it. But JWs have a very strong tradition of standing up for their beliefs in the face of some pretty serious confrontation, quite a few landmark First Amendment cases in the U.S. started because of JWs. And being conscientious objectors during WWI and WWII was not nearly so acceptable as it has become in recent wars.

First time I'd ever heard that.... really?

You learn something new every day on this board...

Yep, JWs don't:

Vote
Join political parties
Serve in the military (a big problem in some countries with mandatory military service; for example, there are currently more than 800 JWs in prison in South Korea for refusing service)
Salute the flag (it was a case against some JW kids that got the Supreme Court to rule that the Pledge of Allegiance can not be obligatory).
etc.

Depending on the spin one puts on the claims, it wouldn't be all that difficult to claim just about any religion (and many other groups for that matter) as a "cult".