In the field of sociology, much really excellent work has been done on analyzing the polity of cult behavior. The analysis has proceeded quite helpfully across confessional boundaries, to think in terms of cult social behavior, cult attitudes (in terms of social psychology), cult social structures, etc. There have been many studies and many lists of earmarks of cults put out, and some points are controversial, while others have nearly universal agreement. “Nearly”, because of course some groups feel justifiably threatened by the analysis. The analysis can apply to an entire group, to a group within a group, to a mere congregation of something vast and universal, or to an entire confession. The sociological elements are key, not anything like “official” status, sanction, or membership. Your tax-exempt status has no relevance. Likewise it does not assume that all cult or cult-like groups will have all of the elements, so analysis is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather to look for a constellation of attitudes and behaviors that elicit a trend. Here are set of common elements culled from some of this analysis:
- The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to a charismatic leader and regards his particular version, flavor, or interpretation of beliefs, as the truth.
- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished, usually by a series of social reprisals to include stigmatization (or even framing), shunning, and ostracizing dissenters with the goal of isolation, denial of support, and breaking down the reputation of those who leave or who try to remain but hold different views. The group may even go after dissenters in the larger culture, maintaining dossiers and conducting witch hunts for the ‘incorrect’ in our midst – essentially a kind of stalking of ideological opponents at large, and may employ moles, propaganda agents, and others to conduct operations against these opponents.
- The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel.
- The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members.
- The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality.
- The leader successfully evades accountability to proper authorities in key matters relating to cult characteristics.
- The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group.
- The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
- The group is preoccupied with correctness of belief and behavior, well beyond the norm.
- Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities, and simultaneously to curtail ordinary behavior within the context of family, friends, etc.
- Physical abuse is present and is justified or concealed.
- Angry or vehement mistreatment may result from failing to achieve goals.
- The passions (zealous rage, continual gossip, prelest…) are given free reign.
The implication is, of course, that any group environment can be cult-like. It’s probably safe to say that most group environments, in contemporary culture, are at least mildly dysfunctional, and so display at least some of these characteristics.
George Constanza, who is a great ikon for all the woes of the world, in an episode of Seinfeld, is applying for a job, and they want to see if he’ll be a good “fit” for the team, all of which seem to have the same haircut and wear the same suit. They take him out to lunch and George won’t eat the cake. Says one of the executives, “If you’re one of us, George. You’ll eat the cake. Eat the cake George. You want to be one of us, right?”
So what differentiates a cult from a cult-like group? The jury is out on that one; it’s a matter of degrees. The question becomes why and whether we want any of these things to be dominant group dynamics in the first place.
From Seinfeld episode: The Pie:
GEORGE: I heard the last guy got fired because his nose whislted.
MACKENZIE: No, no, no. He got fired because he wasn’t a team player. That’s something we don’t joke about at MacKenzie. You’ll find we’re team here George. We don’t tolerate dissent. If you want to go your own way, you’re in the wrong place.
GEORGE: No problem there. Conformity is an obsession with me.
(The waiter brings dessert)
WAITER: Chocolate cream pie. Compliments of the house.
MACKENZIE: Oh! Hope you saved room for dessert.
WAITER: (to George) The chef said that he made it special for you.
GEORGE: Oh… (George looks around and sees the chef hiding behind a plant: it’s Bob!)
MACKENZIE: Mmm.. Best pie I’ve ever tasted. Take a bite George. (George shakes his head doing “no”) Well, take a bite. It’s delicious. (still shaking) I insist. (still shaking)
BUSINESSMAN: If you’re one of us, you’ll take a bite.
Also: In the episode The Checks, The Sunshine Carpet Cleaners are a front for a cult.