Extract
from the aacultwatch forum (old)
“Difficulties
in Identifying a Cult
It
is difficult for an outsider to know whether a particular group is a
cult, or may have developed cultish undercurrents. Although there are
some pointers and external indicators, it really takes an insider's
perspective to know what goes on inside a particular group. Only
insiders can really blow the whistle on any abuses within cults.
In
theory, it is possible for a cult to be a harmless or even a
beneficial organisation. Mind control can be used beneficially, for
example to cure people of drug addiction, through reorienting their
beliefs and self-image away from addiction. One of the UK's leading
cult experts said that she first became interested in cults when she
became aware that cults were using techniques similar to those that
were being used therapeutically within the medical profession in
order to cure people of drug addiction. Rev. Jim Jones (of the
Jonestown massacre) started off as a drugs counsellor in New York.
The Scientologists claim to be able to cure people of drug addiction,
and they probably can. The FWBO has plans to set up a drug
rehabilitation unit with help from Dutch Bank Triodos. There are
allegations that some Alcoholics Anonymous groups have developed into
abusive cults.
The
problem is that abuses can occur when powerful techniques are used in
a situation without proper checks and balances. So while it may be
theoretically possible for a cult to be entirely beneficent, given
human nature and the non-accountability of cult leaders, such cults
are comparatively rare. Most cults sooner or later are revealed to
have fallen prey to some degree to their leadership's desires for
adulation, money, power, or sex.
A
cult will tend to deny and cover up any abuses by its leadership, and
details may only emerge years later [28].
A cult is more or less immune from outside investigation or
regulation, because psychological coercion in the form of
brainwashing or mind control is almost impossible to prove. This
difficulty of proof stems mostly from the subjective nature of
personal belief itself, as discussed earlier, but there are some
additional practical obstacles which may face a whistleblower,
someone who becomes openly critical of the cult they were once a
member of.
In
general, cults have a hierarchical or pyramid type of structure. At
the lowest level, members are part-timers who are only partially
committed to the group and are who are only lightly brainwashed. All
the cult leadership really requires of this level is that members
should speak well of the group and be generally positive. Members at
this level have little power or influence, and are unlikely to be
aware of the full range of the cult's teachings, knowledge of which
is restricted to a trusted inner circle of committed, full-time
members.
Members
at a part-time level of commitment are less likely to be manipulated
or abused to any significant extent, because achieving strong
influence over a person really requires that they be exposed to a
mind control environment on a more full-time basis. Mind control only
works on a foundation of personal friendship and trust, and it takes
time and effort to establish this foundation. Strong mind control is
partly a one on one process, in which the controlee is assigned a
personal mentor, a more senior and experienced member, who is willing
to devote the patience and effort needed to coach the
aspirant/controlee in the beliefs and practices of the group.
For
this practical reason, therefore, strong mind control is generally
only applied to selected individuals who are perceived to be not only
receptive, but who also have something in particular that the group
leadership wants. Sometimes this is money or sex, or it may be some
practical or business skill which is desired by the group leadership
in order to expand the group or to raise money. The greater majority
of members are not specially targeted, and are only relatively
lightly brainwashed.
A
person involved at a more superficial level may find it genuinely
difficult to believe what goes on in some of the more committed
levels of membership. Members who have not been specially targeted,
and who have enjoyed the warmth and friendship of the group without
having been exposed to its darker side, will tend to think well of
the group, and may be puzzled by criticisms of it. These positive and
supportive members can be used as a public relations shield, to
counter any allegations against the group, and to reassure new
members. Individual critics can be simply outnumbered and their
criticisms discredited.
Even
if a member involved at a less committed level is not swayed by the
general air of positivity, and does develop suspicions about the
group, they are unlikely to have enough inside information about the
group to be able to verify their suspicions, or to be in a position
to effectively warn others of potential problems. Nevertheless, the
mere suspicion that a group might be a cult can be enough to deter a
person from becoming involved, and so it can still be worth making
relevant criticisms and sowing the seeds of suspicion.
If
a critic is an insider, someone who has been more deeply involved and
who has enough inside knowledge about a cult to be able to make
detailed criticisms, they will still be unable to prove anything
(because of the subjective nature of personal belief in general, and
the non-falsifiable nature of cult belief systems in particular).
They will be unable to prove that the group used deception or
misrepresentation in marketing the benefits of participation in group
run courses and activities.
If
an ex-member claims that they were subjected to brainwashing or
mind-control techniques, not only is this again unprovable, but it is
tantamount to admitting that they are a gullible and easily led
person whose opinions, consequently, can't be worth much. If an
ex-member suffers from any mental disorientation or evident
psychiatric symptoms, this is likely to further diminish their
credibility as a reliable informant.
Additionally,
dissatisfied members or other critics have great difficulty in
disproving ad-hominem arguments, such as that they just have a
personal axe to grind, that they are trying to find a scapegoat to
excuse their own failure or deficiency, or that they are simply being
subjective and emotional. Cults have a vested interest in challenging
the personal credibility of their critics, and may cultivate academic
researchers who attack the credibility and motives of ex-members.
[29]
In
general, the public credibility of critical ex-cultists seems to be
somewhere in between that of Estate Agents and flying saucer
abductees."
The
Fellas (Friends
of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below
this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage
PPS
For new aacultwatch forum see here.
Have your say!
No comments:
Post a Comment