Chapter Two: Cult definitions and dynamics
2.5 Theological perspectives
2.6.1 Defining cults sociologically
Eileen Barker, a professor emerita of sociology of the London School of Economics, founder of the Information Network Focus on Religious Movements (INFORM), and prolific author in the area of new religious movements offers seven characteristic features of cults: 144
1. Members are largely first generation converts, and tend to be more enthusiastic and committed (perhaps to the point of fanaticism) than people who have grown up in a particular faith.
2. The membership tends to be atypical of the demographics of society. For example, there may be a disproportionate number of young people.
3. The group will have a founder or leader who wields charismatic authority. This leader will themselves be unbound by tradition or rules, but followers may give him/her the right to pronounce on any aspect of their lives: marriage partners, reproduction, employment, lifestyle and perhaps even whether they should live or die.
4. The “truth” will be more definitive than in older religions which have compromised their beliefs through accommodation to successive generations over time.
144 Eileen Barker, “An Introduction to New Religious Movements”
http://web.archive.org/web/20060219080908/http://www.chaplaincy.ic.ac.uk/images/nrm_by_eb.pdf , p.3. (Accessed 21/3/2012)
57
5. The group will embrace a dichotomous worldview where the “us” are regarded as being all good and godly whereas the “them” will be regarded as uniformly bad, even satanic.
6. The group may experience suspicion or hostility from the society in which they find themselves.
7. New religions will change more rapidly and radically than the older and more established religious groups. This is largely due to the influence of a second generation born into the group and the death of the charismatic leader and initial convert. Both factors result in marked transformation of the group.145
Barker is not afraid to acknowledge that cults may apply pressure to recruits and that they can become dangerous. She argues that they might, like evangelical groups who are committed to convincing others of their “truth”, pressurise potential members through love-bombing,146 isolation, inducing guilt, and masking their true identity or agenda. Furthermore, when groups display characteristics like insisting that they alone have the truth; have no accountability structures for leaders and/or structures requiring unquestioning obedience; encourage an unhealthy dependency on the group for material, spiritual and social resources; and cut themselves off from the rest of society, whether socially or geographically, she declares that they have become dangerous.
Sociologists typically display a concern for the influence of social context on individuals. In general they suggest that during periods of socio-political turbulence structures, norms and rules in society are challenged and may be replaced. This very often leaves individuals alienated from themselves, their communities, their culture and even their spirituality and they long to be “found” and connected once again to what is meaningful. Cults so often claim to be able to offer renewed meaning and provide novel
145Eileen Barker, 2011. “Ageing in New Religions: The Varieties of Later Experiences.” The Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions. Diskus 12. p. 3.
146 A tactic frequently associated with cultic groups and used to recruit new members. Potential members are showered with affection, praise, and offers of friendship. Such offers are manipulative, geared to recruitment rather than based on any genuine regard for the individual, but are especially effective with vulnerable or insecure individuals.
58
and exotic compensators,147 in response to the overwhelming challenges of a society in flux or distress.148 This point reflects another central tenet of the sociological position on cults: that cults originate and develop around the need for meaning, which they meet in unique ways.
History appears to support a link between social upheaval and cult formation.149 There are two eras in the last 150 years that are known for their tumult and their spawning of new and unusual religious groups, some of which could be accurately described as cults.
A religious upheaval known as the Second Great Awakening150 occurred in the United States between 1820 and 1860. The period in which this occurred was marked by rapid social and economic shifts in North American society and those whose needs were not met by the mainstream religions of the day – black people, women, and young people – joined or formed a number of new sectarian groups.
The 1960’s in the West are synonymous with the psychedelic drug culture, anti- Vietnam War protests, civil disobedience, the sexual revolution and hippy subculture – all challenges to the existing social and political establishment. The alternative lifestyle of the 60’s embraced self-transcendence and personal enlightenment and spawned many new and unconventional religious groups. Some of the best known neo-Christian and Eastern style cults began in this period – groups such as the Hare Krishnas, the Children of God, Transcendental Meditation, The Way International, the Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, The Love Family, the Divine Light Mission, and the Unification Church [the Moonies].151
Singer contends, somewhat pointedly,
147 William S. Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, 1979. “Cult Formation: Three Compatible Models”:
Sociological Analysis 40. p. 284.
148 Vatican Secretariat, “Sects or New Religious Movements”.
149 Singer, Cults in Our Midst, p. 29.
150 The First Great Awakening a.k.a The Great Awakening swept through Protestant Europe and the American Colonies in the 1730s and 1740s and emphasised the need for existing Christians to experience a personal and affective faith. The Second Great Awakening was a Christian revival movement aimed at non-believers in anticipation of Christ’s imminent second coming.
151 Singer, Cults in Our Midst, p. 39.