If you are to make a list of common denominators of all destructive cults, what would you include?

I know that at [www.culteducation.com] there is already a list of warning signs, but some of these wouldn't make the cut, like
* Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
* There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Some of them would make it though. You can have a look at it and pick those that you think should be in this list.

Here are some that I can think of:
* love-bombing
* exploits guilty feelings
* leader must always be "right"
* information control
* induce fear when a member expresses wish to leave

These are for from being refined enough, I know. I'm just giving examples. If you think some of them don't make the cut, or have others to add, please tell me.

Purpose: Educating people for cult-exploit prevention.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This paper titled "Cult Formation" defines a destructive cult.

Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Also See [www.culteducation.com]

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2013 05:59PM by rrmoderator.

Quote
rrmoderator
See [www.culteducation.com]
This paper titled "Cult Formation" defines a destructive cult.
Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:
a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

The definition is good, but is more suited for academic use. I'm seeking something that is suitable for ordinary folks.

Quote
rrmoderator
Also See [www.culteducation.com]
Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Some of these, like "There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader," are examples of what wouldn't fit into this list, as most cults are hardly known.

What I'm interested in is a concise, well-defined list for public preventive education. This list provides points that are easily remembered, so that people can evaluate if a group is a destructive cult.

Anyway, let me further define the title of the list:
Common Denominators of Destructive Cults that are Absent in Safe Groups

Points in this list must
* apply to all destructive cults
* absent in all safe groups

Example: Use deliberate, unethical means to recruit members; eg, lying, guilt-tripping, peer pressure, love-bombing, etc.

To justify inclusion of this point,
* Safe groups recruit members too, but would not employ unethical means.
* Love-bombing is not be the recruitment method of all destructive cults, but it is one among the other unethical methods to recruit members. So, love-bombing is not a common denominator, but is an example of one.

If this point is not well defined enough, help me. This list requires much careful thought, but would become very useful. I'm thinking of making a computer presentation out of it.

The previous lists and papers are well established, practical and sufficient.

No need to "reinvent the wheel."

To whom it may concern:

I recnetly appeared on the "Ricki Lake Show" and was asked, "How to identify a cult."

See [search.yahoo.com]

Note the Yahoo Search result on the page titled "Cult Expert Video Results".

There is one selection in this series of video results titled "How to identify a cult" -- click on that for the Ricki Lake interview clip.

Maybe you can answer this, Rick, as I've never really been clear on this distinction between a destructive cult and a non-destructive cult. Isn't the inherently deceptive thought reform process and the side effects of that enough by itself to be considered "destructive"? And if thought reform isn't used by a group, why call it a cult at all? Is it implied that thought reform can have positive ends if used by a benevolent group/leader (for example: to gain control over one's life), and if that's the case, does the end justify the deceptive means, which leave a member dependent on a group without which the effects of the thought reform would wear off?

IMO the major earmark distinguishing a destructive from a non-destructive group is in the way former members are treated. That's a big common denominator. In a "bad group", there is no legitimate reason to leave. In fancy Lifton talk, it's called "the dispensing of existence".

IMO a non cultic group sees itself as responsible to those it serves, rather than seeing members as endlessly obligated to it and its leader.

A non cultic group doesnt only take resources from society and its members but gives clear benefits back to society--not merely intangible good vibes.

Edward Abbey was quoted as saying growth with no purpose beyond growth is the ideology of cancer. A cult only wants to grow itself and nothing more.

A non cultic group enables members to become able to grow and graduate from the group, developing its legacy in creative new ways that give back to the human family.

"Service" should go beyond proslytizing its beliefs, taking care of the group's real estate or pampering its leaders.

IMO a cult fails to educate its members on how to tell when a benevolent leader of the cult is replaced by an exploitative successor.

A cult also generates utter inability to cope with objective outside criticism and its members will engage in trolling behavior on websites and blogs where others try to discuss their misgivings about the group.

One sign of a well run group is its leadership acknowledges that their own system is does not exempt them from vulnerablity to error, corruption or abuse.

The groups charter or other founding documents should remain accessible to members at all levels.

The wealthy, beautiful and amusing, must not be favored at expense of those who are older, quieter and in modest circumstances.

A good organization acknowledges and takes precautions against the following:

*Too much money and property and expensive building projects are well known pitfalls. A small group that gets involved in building an expensive worship center or ashram may dig itself into a financial disaster, and drift into unethical practices to get more money or credit to pay

*That leaders can be fallible

*The wisest humblest leader can be fooled into appointing a successor who abuses his or her position/prerogatives

* That power without accountability is corrupting and therefore checks and balances must be put in place

* That even the best and wisest leader may become incapacitated by age or illness or may marry a new spouse who gets greedy and demands a more lavish lifestyle supported by the group

For that reason, financial transparency is one feature mentioned again and again by Mr Ross in his list of warning signs.

*Access to the leader should not be a craved commodity. Too many followers can leave a leader feeling burdened and can also create a hierarchical competition ridden set up where acess to the leader becomes a matter of anxiety, intrigue and ass kissing.

* A group should not have a secret ridden structure. There should not be one set of teachngs on the website with leaders living a lifestyle behind closed doors that makes a travesty of those same teachings.

IF a group mandates a lifestyle of sex within marriage only and no use of recreational or hallucinogenic drugs, the leader should live that way--not party and screw behind closed doors with only a few favored members allowed to be in on this secret departure from the mandated guidelines.

Wanna be a party animal? Be a DJ. You'll not need secrets, can get guru energy emanated toward you from the dance floor. And as a DJ youl make lots of people happy.

If you want to be a party animal, dont become become guru of a group with a puritanical ethic. You'll be living a secret life and and drag the group into it.

Persons with outside commitments (family, caring for elderly parents, etc) should not be made to feel inferior to persons who have independant incomes and time to court and coddle the leader's whims.

psyborgue:

It is possible that an essentially benign cult may develop. That is, a group led by a charismatic authority figure, who is the defining element of the group and the group employs something similar to a thought reform program of rather intense indoctrination to achieve a pre-determined mindset. But the group inherenly does no harm.

For example, the modern day Jesuits have authoritarian leadership and continue to use what can be seen as a type of thought reform, which they call "spiritual exercises." Thought reform as practiced by the Jesuits is not inhernelty deceptive. The Jesuit exercises are used as a means to produce a preferred mindset. But the Jesuits are essentially a benign group.

The nucleus for a definition of a destructive cult as laid out by Robert Jay Lifton in his paper "Cult Formation" 30 years ago remains the core of virtually any and all other explanations, which really only expand or extrapolate on his identified primary characteristics. Lifton's criterion remain the foremost and most saliant features of any destructive cult.

Again, no need to reinvent or attempt to find new labels for something that is already well-established.

Lifton speaks plainly and in concise easy to understand terms.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 07:13PM by rrmoderator.

Fair enough, but from my reading of Singer I get the distinct impression that she believes thought reform must be carried out on a subject that is at the very least unaware of how he/she is being changed. I mean her first condition, out of 6, is to keep a person unaware of how they are being changed. Granted Lifton's themes don't have this element, but Singer does seem to see this as a requisite part of thought reform. Therefore, I still don't see how a group that uses thought reform can be considered to be truly benign, cult or not. As Singer writes, it's a process of non-informed consent.

You say that the Jesuit exercises are a form of thought reform, yet at the same time non-deceptive. Are you saying you disagree with Singer? Or are you saying that other than this deceptive element, the process is otherwise benign in that the intended goal is to enlighten, rather than enslave? In other words, if the first two elements are met, but the third (exploitation) is missing, a group can be considered to be "benign", or "non-destructive cult".



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2013 10:23PM by psyborgue.