Critical Thinking on Cults & AntiCults
Social science is that branch of science which studies the relationship between groups and individuals. There is a kind of war between psychology and social science on how to define, approach, and think about ‘cults’.
The subject of religion, especially other peoples’ religions, has always been a somewhat hysterical area for human beings, to say the least. Social science uses quantitative scientific techniques to attempt to objectively find out what’s going on with minority religions, to delete the hysteria, and to provide perspective on ‘cults’ vs. religions and the truth of their effects.
My main criticism of psychology with respect to cults is that practitioners have been extremely exploitative of the process of re-enculturalization of Ex-members of minority religions. Psychologists since before Margaret Singer have used Ex-members in their own practice-building and marketing and, I believe, made up non-existent maladies that most Exes would not suffer from if they had not been convinced they had these maladies by psychologists.
Social scientists just write papers and books. They don’t really have a financial incentive to blow up the hysteria around other peoples’ religious beliefs like psychologists do, or to make up mental problems that they can charge to fix. This is only one reason I believe you get a much better perspective on the phenomena of ‘cults’ from social scientists.
There are many others.
‘Cults’ are primarily a social phenomenon, and not a psychological one. Where there has been abuse, just like anywhere else there has been abuse, then psychology has a role to play to help heal from that abuse. But being a member in a cult is not inherently abusive and having been a member of a cult is not some kind of a disease. The diseasification and catastrophication of cult membership by psychologists in the anti-cult movement is the most damaging thing that they have done to Ex-members. In most cases, the damage psychologists have done to Exes by far exceeds the damage any cult membership has caused them.
Whether you agree with social science on cults or not, I think it is vital that any Ex studies their work, and takes some time to think with their ideas after Scientology.
This is the level of thought that is acceptable by those who believe in the AntiCult Movement’s ideology about minority religions. This is not critical thinking – it’s the sociological equivalent of an AntiVaxer rant.
Max Scheler said that an apostate was ‘engaged in a continuous chain of acts of revenge against his own spiritual past’. Can you be an anti-apostate Apostate?
The more power that you assign to subversive techniques such as “mind control” the easier it is for Ex-members to explain their membership and participation in minority religious groups after they’ve re-entered the mainstream.
Sociologists who study the issues surrounding minority religions have identified 3 types of stories that form a socially-constructed narrative of a leave-taker’s experience inside their former group.
When you look at the cosmology of Scientology from the viewpoint of social science – its rituals such as auditing, training, dissemination, and its clearly religious teachings on the thetan, the mind, and even Xenu – it is inescapable that Scientology is a religion.
Michael Shermer has written two books, “The Believing Brain” and “Why People Believe Weird Things”, which have been life-changing reads for me. There are several key points made in these books which can help a … Read more
Your assumptions can be quite insidious. You must study the actual subjects that Hubbard “spun” for you – from sources completely independent from L Ron Hubbard – so as to challenge your own assumptions, separate out Hubbard’s installed ones, and inspect them for their weaknesses.
Once I’d spotted that my thinking was tribal, I was no longer consumed by my tribe’s survival. I resented that the tribe had taken over my thinking. I could finally see the eclipsed and thoughtless cruelty of my former tribe.
Looking into The Source Family cult is a good “parallel study” for some who have been involved in Scientology. You can gain a little better context for your Scientology experience.
The truth about Scientology, as with almost all other things in life, is dissonant: It is both the good and the bad mixed together.
One of the most hysterical & unscientific beliefs of AntiCultism is that “brainwashing” & “Mind Control” are at work whenever anyone becomes a member of a “cult”.
Celebrity anti-Scientology is a hell of a drug. Presenting all your trauma, over and over to a sympathetic audience on TV can create and maintain your whole self-identity for you. And it can get you all the status & fame you desire. But is it good for you?
I’ll hand this to Tony, whenever it is to his own advantage, he does make stabs at being intellectually honest. In this case, he published a response to his criticism of professor Hugh Urban and … Read more
Apostasy: It’s not just for the Bitter Ones Sitting on the Porch of Infinity on the Fringes of the Internet any more. Don’t look now, but it could be you!
Jeff Hawkins wrote a post a few years ago detailing much of the basics behind Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and I am very grateful that he did, as this theory is fundamental to understanding not only … Read more
For years, I thought of my own past involvement in Scientology exclusively using the ideas provided to me by the anti-cult movement. Not any more.
Did they just pay for for travel and lodgings while at a conference? Or did they slip them wads of cash to write what they wanted?
“Brainwashing” Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on “Cults” and “Sects” JAMES T. RICHARDSON MASSIMO INTROVIGNE This study examines the recent rash of official reports done by governmental agencies in Western Europe to guide … Read more
Reza Aslan’s episode of “Believer” on CNN regarding Independent Scientology changed my life for the better. It reminded me of an approach to belief and spiritual pursuits that is positive, constructive, and life-giving.
