Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/Truth in Cults

This piece will discuss the role of truth within the interdisciplinary field of cults around the world. How does truth act like an interdisciplinary issue regarding cults ?

Introduction

File:Illuminati Eye.svg

The Illuminati, often considered as a conspiracy theory, fits the definition of a cult and is commonly used in popular culture.

Upon studying cults, discrepancies have arisen between various academic disciplines, with each field giving their own answers as to what a cult is. All of these disciplines have a particular vision on what is true, false or blurred regarding cults. With no true definition existing; they are only subjective truths, with each discipline viewing cults through their academic lens.

The word cult, by itself, appeared in the Latin language as ‘cultus’ meaning ‘to cultivate’ or ‘to worship’ and was initially used to describe the religious practices in the Antiquity; rituals, offerings and prayers. The purpose of these ‘cultus’ was to cultivate the benevolence of the Gods. However, as time has passed, disciplines have adopted different definitions of cults. Overall, as a subjective truth, it is challenging for disciplines to combine and study cults because of their differing definitions.

The lens of Sociologists

Nowadays, cults are referred to 'New Religious Movements' in Sociology. They are groups whose beliefs are recognized by the society as 'unorthodox', whose members show excessive devotion to a person, an idea, an object and whose leader uses manipulative methods of persuasion and control over the followers (financially, sexually...)

Based on earlier definitions of cults by Troeltsch, Howard P. Becker distinguished four categories of religious behaviors in his sociological classification of 1932 : churchly (ecclesia, denomination), sectarian (sects, cults). The definition ended up to be ; ‘Small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs’. Later, works built on these characteristics focused on the fact that cults were a derivation of predominant religious cultures (leading to tensions). Cults arose spontaneously over new beliefs detaching from traditional beliefs and practices.

However, Roy Wallis argued in 1970 that cults were in fact characterized by ‘epistemological individualism’ and didn’t have a clear place of final authority beyond its individual members. He described cults as ‘loosely structured’ with ‘vague boundaries’

The tension lies in the fact that cults are supposed to be secret and even nonexistent to public knowledge. Thus, the truth about what they are and how they function is an issue in Sociology. Studies show that 1000 cults existed in 2017; the apprehension regarding cults isn't complete... The modern understanding and its true value about cults are complex and uniquely diverse (there is more than one 'true vision').

A legal blur

In law, a cult is considered as valid if it is « a group of individuals with some common religious or metaphysical-philosophical ideology » and it does not consider the presence of a charismatic leader like in sociology. However, making cults illegal may be difficult considering cults intrinsic nature. To be effective, the law usually refers to the activities or rituals mostly done by cults instead of merely forbidding the association of people under a religious practice. The European Parliament states that: “Legally, there was no such thing as a 'cult'. The laws on associations and those guaranteeing freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and the right of association were applicable to cults, and should be adhered to.”

There is therefore a distinction between types of legality, yet an overwhelming assumption that cults are negative and have detrimental effects on the public sphere. To assess whether cults are indeed a threat to society, the law examines the public opinion made on these religious movements as well as the legal and political constraints in play. There is therefore a legal blur on the true definition of a cult, making interdisciplinary work challenging.

In Psychology

A table to show Psychological Characteristics Of Cult Members, Leaders, Recruitment Techniques, and Techniques To Prevent Members Leaving

Psychological definitions of cults involve that members (a) have a shared belief system, (b) display high levels of social cohesiveness, (c) are strongly influenced by the group’s behavioral norms, (d) impute charismatic or divine power to its leaders and (e) cults have alien and deviant values from the culture that the group lives in. Thus, cults have many overlapping features with other groups with firmly held common beliefs. Psychology assumes a continuum from normal beliefs and behaviors to those observed in cults. Arthur Deikman argued that the psychological processes that explain the behaviors of cult members are not abnormal, but the same as those that everyone uses in everyday life (distortion of perception, biased thinking, and the inoculation against beliefs and values of others).

Modern psychology therefore explains through general psychological tendencies of behavior and beliefs why cult practice occurs, rather than describe it as purely ‘other’ or ‘unusual’ as in Sociology. To explain the formation of cults, psychologists have investigated the psychological characteristics of people who join cults and of cult leaders, and the techniques used to persuade people to join and stay in cults. Psychologists also study long-lasting psychological distress experienced by people who leave cults, with 27 to 95% experiencing clinical symptoms. This research has contradicted traditional litigation against cults, which used to focus on economic damages. A limitation of psychological research into cults is that direct observations of cult practices and leaders are usually not possible, and results are mainly based on interviews with people who have left the cult.

A different religious approach

Evolution of cults and new religious movements deviated from Christianity in the United-States since 1775

Religious studies only find legitimate a new religious movement if it involves a deity or a spiritual aspect which comes in reaction with a troubling political context. Religious Studies considers that violence is also a fundamental criteria to understand what makes a new religious movement a “cult”, or not, along with the presence of a spiritual aspect. It is noted that a cult has a form of systematic violence, either psychological or physical. A cult can also use the violence occurring in the world to convince its members to join. Violence is not systematic and omnipresent in a religion.

Religious studies also consider cults according to the historical foundations. The diagram on the right shows an example of how fractures in religious history lead to the rise of cults. If a cult succeeds to persist over a long period and develop itself, it can be considered a religion.

Conclusion

The discrepancy lying between the mentioned disciplines' perception of truth regarding cults, results in a very challenging interdisciplinary work. In Sociology, Psychology, Religious Studies and Law, the definition varies because of what disciplines focus on, influencing what is seen as true or not from each lens. In Sociology, the emphasis is on the popular opinion. In Law, it is considered illegal if fundamental freedoms are neglected. A psychologist's point of view overlaps with sociology when defining cults as outside the boundaries of accepted beliefs and treatment of members. In explaining the formation of cults, Psychology focuses more on the continuum from 'normal' to 'abnormal' beliefs and behaviors. Finally, in Religious Studies, the highlight is on violence, that cults tend to link closely with religion. There are persuasive examples where the research of one discipline has altered the practice of another, such as in psychology and law.