Shao Peng: The Dilemma of Defining Cult Groups and New Religions
The definition of "cults" and "new religions" is usually subject to significant controversy and is easily influenced by ideology and subjective emotions. Those holding a negative attitude believe these groups represent the more dangerous and abnormal aspects of religious belief and practice; those holding a positive attitude believe they construct unique religious meanings and experiences. This roughly presents two major approaches to defining cults and new religions: secular anti-cult organizations and the sociology of religion.
I. Dilemmas in Defining the Scope of Cults and New Religions
Over the past few decades, social scientists have attempted various methods to rehabilitate the term "cult" (膜拜团体). Although they have achieved some success, the term still carries negative connotations in general usage. Consequently, they have proposed several alternative concepts. Besides "new religions" or "New Religious Movements" (NRMs), which are the most commonly used, there are "alternative religious movements," "emergent religions," "controversial new religions," and "marginal or peripheral religious movements," though most of these are less than ideal. When is a group considered "new"? What is "alternative"? What kind of group is both new and alternative yet relatively uncontroversial? What does it mean to be "marginal"—does it refer merely to the size of the group, or to a distinct social characteristic? The term "emerging religions" seems to cover certain features, but since many new religions have long been ignored by society, they cannot really be considered to have "emerged." In short, no single concept is perfect.
Regardless of how new religions or NRMs are defined, they remains elusive and significant social entities and organizations. As the sociologist of religion Lorne Dawson points out, they are not only of "heartfelt interest," but their beliefs and behaviors are often "unusual, even bizarre." The appearance of new religions spans throughout history. In a sense, every religious tradition was once "new" or "alternative" at a specific time or place. For example, there was a period in history when no form of Christian belief existed. When the Christian faith emerged as a self-aware social organization, it was—much like today's new religions—universally feared and suspected. More than a thousand years later, when the Christian faith, as the dominant social and religious power in Europe, was brought to North America by zealous Catholic missionaries and imposed upon the local indigenous inhabitants, such a religion was similarly new, alternative, and dangerous to them.
Unlike evangelical anti-cult groups, which often simplify and reduce new religions, secular anti-cult organizations and the media view new religions as diverse and complex at the levels of doctrine and practice. These religions either originate from various cultural traditions or are directly composed of elements from those traditions. Some new religions, such as the Unification Church and the Branch Davidians, have already developed specific patterns of doctrine and practice, separating themselves from their "parent body," Christianity. For other NRMs, it is difficult to say they possess any "religious" tradition at all. For instance, Scientology combines technological innovation, therapy, health management methods, corporate operations, and globalized organizational styles, making it difficult to locate solely on a religious level.
II. The Definitions Provided by Secular Anti-Cult Organizations and the Critiques They Face
(1) The International Cultic Studies Association
Currently, the world's largest and most influential global non-governmental organization for studying the issue of cults (邪教 [1]) is the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). Founded in 1979, it was then known as the American Family Foundation (AFF). In the early 1980s, a series of tragic group events occurred in North America, such as the suicides of members of Heaven's Gate and the People's Temple. Consequently, the AFF took a hardline and critical stance toward cults. In a collection of essays edited by Michael Langone, psychologist Margaret Singer classified organizations like the People's Temple as "evil organizations" that employ mind control. The book pointed out that some extreme NRMs use psychological manipulation to cause harm to members and called for people to fight against them by attacking cult leaders, doctrines, and activities. This included helping cult members through radical measures such as "deprogramming."
The AFF's academic resources primarily came from psychiatric theory and practice. Many concepts requiring careful distinction and analysis were taken for granted, and the language used in their conferences lacked scholarly rigor; generalized discussions made it difficult to acquire new knowledge. In this context, the AFF renamed itself ICSA in 2004 and began a transition in its philosophy and working methods to better reflect the organization's concerns, as well as the international and academic dimensions of cult studies. ICSA declares itself to be a global network of individuals concerned about those who have been psychologically manipulated and harmed in cults, alternative movements, and other environments. Its mission is to educate the public using research and professional perspectives and to help those who have been harmed.
(2) The ICSA's Definition of Cults
Based on the ambiguity and limitations of the definition of "cult," and the fact that specific organizations and movements change across different times and spaces, it is unwise to define them directly. ICSA member Singer analyzed the characteristics of cults from three aspects: the cult leader, the relationship between the leader and followers, and the procedures for controlling members. (1) Cult leaders' titles are self-proclaimed; they are eloquent and claim to have a special mission or special knowledge. They are often determined, tyrannical, and usually describe themselves as possessing charisma [2], requiring members to worship them alone. (2) The structure of a cult is dictatorial [3]. They appear innovative and exclusive, but in reality, they practice double standards of morality, requiring members to be open and honest within the organization and to confess everything to the leader, while simultaneously encouraging members to deceive and manipulate non-members. (3) Cults are extremist in controlling the behavior of their members and also in their ideology, requiring members to undergo a major lifestyle change or to abandon their original way of life. They essentially have only two main purposes: recruiting new members and amassing wealth.
Langone and others summarized fifteen characteristics of cults: (1) Displaying excessive enthusiasm for their leader, viewing their belief system, ideology, and practice as truth and law; (2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished; (3) Excessive use of mind-altering exercises (such as meditation, chanting, etc.) to suppress members' doubts about the group and its leader; (4) Leaders sometimes prescribe in great detail how members should think, act, and feel—for example, what clothes to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, etc.; (5) The group is elitist, claiming the leader has a special, lofty status, such as being considered a Messiah, a special being, or an incarnation, or that the group or leader is carrying out a special mission to save humanity; (6) An "us versus them" polarized mentality that may lead to widespread social conflict; (7) Leaders are not accountable to any authority; (8) The group teaches or implies that any means are necessary and justified to achieve so-called noble ends. This may lead members to participate in activities that should be condemned or are immoral, such as lying to relatives; (9) Leaders control members by inducing guilt, and peer pressure among members of similar age is a common tactic; (10) Requiring members to sever ties with relatives and friends and fundamentally change the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group; (11) Preoccupation with recruiting new members; (12) Passion for amassing wealth; (13) Expecting members to devote excessive time to the group and group-related activities; (14) Encouraging or requiring members to socialize only with other members within the organization; (15) The most loyal members feel that there is no life outside the group. They believe there is no other way out and often fear retaliation if they leave the organization. These characteristics are very operational for identifying so-called cults, but they also clearly carry an ideological bias, and have therefore been questioned.
(3) Critiques of the ICSA Definition
Some scholars have expressed doubts about whether these characteristics can actually constitute a "cult," primarily in three ways: (1) There is no indication of how many of these "characteristics" a group must possess to be called a "cult"; (2) There is no appropriate definition of what constitutes "excessive" and "abnormal" beliefs, practices, or behaviors, nor proof that they are harmful; (3) No clear distinction exists between those minority religious groups that may be dangerous and a large number of other religious and social groups that exhibit similar characteristics but cause little or no harm to their members or society at large. ICSA uses the above characteristics to identify potentially dangerous groups and, on this basis, provides suggestions to families, friends, and local governments of individuals who might join a cult. However, these characteristics are controversial, and secular anti-cult organizations cannot provide answers to these problems.
First, regarding the "us versus them" issue. ICSA believes that suspicious groups have an "us versus them" polarized mentality, which may cause a war between such groups and society. In certain societies, for example, Evangelicals and Orthodox Protestants in the United States account for at least one-third of the population. There is a strict distinction between those who "accept Jesus as Savior" [4] and those who do not. Secular anti-cult author Dave Hunt once wrote: "The only reason to be familiar with other religions and other religious writings is to show those who follow a wrong system where the error lies, so as to save them." If a cult is formed because of the belief that one's worldview is correct, then many religious and political groups throughout history would fall into this category.
Second, regarding "hallucinatory practices" (致幻实践). According to ICSA, dangerous religious groups use "hallucinatory practices" (for example, meditation, chanting, denunciation, etc.). What one person considers an unreasonable amount of time for chanting or meditation, another person may feel has almost no effect on their spirit. For instance, many Roman Catholics pray the Rosary for up to several hours a day. By deploying such a subjective quantification, secular anti-cult organizations expose their lack of profound understanding of the history and practice of devout and ecstatic religious experiences. Furthermore, many of these practices are the foundations of dominant religious traditions, including Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, yet secular anti-cult organizations do not include them in their lists of dangerous cults.
Third, regarding "amassing wealth" and "recruiting new members." ICSA is concerned that cults are keen on "amassing wealth" and "recruiting new members." In terms of absorbing new members, many religious groups openly proselytize. If recruitment is a characteristic of religious activity, then in a religiously pluralistic society, according to ICSA standards, relatively few groups could escape condemnation. In the case of Christianity, the two primary goals of the multi-billion dollar Protestant televangelism industry are to persuade non-Christians to convert to evangelicalism and to encourage consumers of televangelical programming to make financial contributions. Scandals associated with the televangelism sector are well known. Although they meet this characteristic on the ICSA list, they are rarely accused of being dangerous cults.
Fourth, regarding the issue of "committing excessive time." ICSA contends that a potential danger exists when a group demonstrates a "requirement that members devote excessive amounts of time to the group and group-related activities." However, this characteristic is once again built upon extreme subjectivity and ambiguity; it is incapable of distinguishing which groups might harbor potential problems. What constitutes "excessive time" for some may be insufficient for others. Furthermore, for thousands of years and across the world, people have made lifelong commitments to their religious paths, many of whom abandoned other aspects of life in their pursuit of the divine. For instance, Carmelite nuns [5] or Zen disciples devote themselves heart and soul to their spiritual paths, yet they are rarely considered victims of dangerous cults.
Therefore, considering that secular anti-cult organizations have failed to provide empirical evidence to support the "brainwashing" or "mind control" hypotheses on the one hand, and that the characteristics of most "cults" are insufficient to categorize them on the other, other methods must be found to discuss these groups. Failure to do so risks perpetuating stereotypes of cults and leading to a general public ignorance of New Religious Movements (NRMs).
III. The Solution of the Sociology of Religion: The "Unseen Order"
(1) Definition of the "Unseen Order"
Scholars have proposed several new concepts to define new religions in late-modern society, among which the "unseen order" is a relatively influential one. In 1902, in his famous Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, William James defined the "religious life" as involving "the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto."
There are three main principles to this definition. First, it does not restrict "religion" to traditions that believe in a supreme being, but rather allows for a broad understanding of religious beliefs and practices. Second, this expanded understanding sets aside the question of "authenticity," which is a source of great concern for stakeholders within the cultural context surrounding NRMs. The issue of determining whether the religion is "real" is no longer the focus. Third, and most importantly, it avoids the so-called "good-moral fallacy"—the notion that religion always represents a force for good in society and that negative social impacts stem from "wrong" or "false" religious practices. For example, the Aztec "unseen order" presupposed the existence of a God of War who was forever battling other deities to ensure the people's prosperity. Because the God of War required a continuous flow of blood to maintain his combat strength, the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although this functioned as a mechanism of social control, from the Aztec perspective, it was a "harmonious adjustment" toward their understood "unseen order."
(2) NRM Practices Concerning the "Unseen Order"
In many instances, the narratives of new religions stand in opposition not only to the legitimate beliefs of broader society but also to the mainstream social customs that regulate human relations. For example, although the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (Unification Church) [6] acknowledges the authenticity of the Bible, it challenges traditional Christian faith by asserting special doctrines—such as "implied truths about the world obtained by its leader Sun Myung Moon through divine revelation, which are inaccessible to non-members." Within the theoretical system of the Children of God (The Family International), all contemporary Christian churches lack legitimacy because they have abandoned God and accepted the temptations of materialism, corruption, and evil. The Raëlian movement believes that traditional Christian expressions of the creation myth in the Bible are a misunderstanding. Humans were not created by God, but by the "Elohim" (whom they translate as an advanced alien race "from the heavens"). These Elohim possessed the ability to create life from DNA and used Earth as a laboratory. Similar oppositions are manifest in the emphasis many new religions place on the idea that humanity has been separated from its original purpose, leading to all sin, depravity, and suffering. For instance, a prominent theme in Unification Church doctrine is that humanity's deliberate violation of God's plan brought about moral decay and a loss of belonging. Scientology asserts that humans have been severed from their inner divinity and are trapped in the mire of the material world.
Every conception of the "unseen order" demonstrates an understanding of the "supreme good" at the practical level. Much like the myths of new religions, their rituals and practices are also adversarial in nature. Practitioners of Scientology believe that the "practice of auditing" helps them overcome physical frailties caused by trauma and aging. Unification Church members regard Sun Myung Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han, as the "True Parents," acknowledging Moon as the Second Coming of Christ, thereby aligning the Unification Church with God's plan for the creation of man. Members of the Children of God believe that by reinterpreting long-standing Christian positions on human sexuality, they can draw closer to Jesus's injunction to "use love as the foundation for all human relationships." For practitioners of advanced Transcendental Meditation (TM), "TM-Sidhi" and "yogic flying" enable them to achieve balance between the material world they inhabit and the "unseen order" of natural law.
(3) Regarding NRMs as Social Experiments
In many traditions, religious communities are organized according to systems of mythical narratives and rituals. Through specific organizational means, they adapt themselves to meet the requirements of the "unseen order." New religions also differ from established religious organizations in social terms. Although it is difficult to call new religions truly "new," as they are always able to rediscover, reintegrate, and reinvent ancient beliefs, practices, and rituals, they possess distinctive social characteristics. NRMs are "new" at the organizational level; for instance, most first-generation members provide the primary force for launching the movement. Generally, these converts do not represent the general public. Most people in NRMs share common traits: they are white, middle-class, well-educated adults. These movements are often led by charismatic figures whose ideas constitute a challenge to the existing social order, and whose charismatic authority provides the cohesive force for the movement. Because new religions lack relatively fixed organizational traditions, they often undergo rapid and frequent changes in organizational form to adapt to various pressures and challenges in their "life" cycle.
From this perspective, NRMs can be viewed as experiments through which a consensus base can be constructed for a new or modified "unseen order," persuading people to join them and "harmoniously adjust" toward a particular religious vision. As in the natural sciences, some new religious experiments succeed, witnessing what some scholars call the emergence of a "new world faith"—for example, Rodney Stark regards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) as a rising global religion. Some movements fail in their early stages. Still other experiments in religious innovation have had terrible consequences for participants and innocent bystanders alike, a representative case being the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo. Simply because something is "experimental" does not mean the act itself is noble or wise. Organizations like Aum Shinrikyo have committed atrocities in pursuit of their particular vision of the "unseen order." Usually, when new religions begin to apply concepts related to the "unseen order," controversy follows; their experiments constitute a challenge to the existing social order. Sometimes, acting as the antithesis of mainstream beliefs, new religions—despite being small and fragmented—still come into conflict with the existing social order and jeopardize mainstream social institutions.
Whether the perspective is political, economic, scientific, artistic, or religious, once an individual’s or a group’s understanding of the world is radically reorganized—which in the case of new religions is a fundamental reorganization of the "unseen order" relative to the world—the possibility of conflict with mainstream views increases. In this situation, the new perspective does not merely offer an alternative way of thinking; it implies that mainstream understanding is incorrect. Broadly speaking, the essence of religion is to claim a singular truth, and in religiously pluralistic societies, these competing claims are often tolerated. However, new understandings of truth often challenge mainstream thought to a significant degree. These conflicts are not necessarily a problem of the new understanding or behavior itself, but rather the adversarial relationship between a deep-rooted worldview and those worldviews that question its correctness. Sociologists of religion seek to understand NRMs within complex contexts. They attempt to prove that whether or not a group is accepted as a legitimate religion, it is a complex product of society, culture, and politics. It is improper to briefly compare NRMs with a set of inherent religious characteristics in an empirically objective manner. They argue that the most useful method is to understand those controversial groups called "cults" as experimental social movements.
(4) Evaluation of the "Unseen Order"
First, the conceptual tool of the "unseen order" proposed by sociologists of religion offers certain advantages for analyzing cults and new religions. Primarily, it can stimulate accounts of specific narratives, religious myths, and beliefs, thereby enabling a description of the nature of the "unseen order," an interpretation of its relationship with the everyday world, and an explanation of how individuals can find a path toward the supreme good. Secondly, these mythical stories are manifested at the concrete level as various prescriptive behaviors, religious rituals, and practices. These practices and behaviors link the believer to the "unseen order" in a visible, meaningful, and—for the practitioner—undeniable way. The cultural emphasis placed by NRMs on myth, belief, ritual, and practice distinguishes them from established religious groups and constitutes their significant difference from mainstream culture.
Secondly, the "unseen order" has certain defects. It only takes note of what is unique about new religions, viewing them as a form of "experimental faith" and providing a relatively rational explanation for their bizarre worldviews and behaviors. However, it neglects the potential or already manifested dangers within new religions. Although relevant scholars argue that violent incidents—such as the Heaven’s Gate suicides or the confrontation between the Branch Davidians and the FBI—are a small minority and that the vast majority of NRMs are relatively low-key and safe, their harmfulness does indeed exist. Such events attract global attention and, coupled with negative media coverage, fix the public impression of new religions as terrifying, strange, oppressive, and provocative. If one seeks to reverse people’s entrenched perceptions, more attention should be paid to the dangerous elements; merely regarding them as a "harmonious adjustment" makes it difficult to eliminate public fear.
NRMs and traditional religions are inextricably linked in terms of belief. The "unseen order" seems to suggest that any religion has the potential to become a cult, differing only in the way they "harmoniously adjust." Furthermore, the boundary between ordinary religion and cults becomes blurred, increasing the practical difficulty of identifying cults. This perspective creates two hidden dangers: either pushing all legitimate religions toward an adversarial position (making people recoil at the very mention of religion) or pulling cults toward legalization, further increasing the cost of religious governance. Neither outcome is desirable.
The above issues all stem from a root problem: the extension of the "unseen order" is too vast. It possesses explanatory power not only for cults but seemingly for all religions. Due to this broad extension, it is easy for people to equate cults with ordinary religions, thereby overlooking their harmfulness. Although the sociologists of religion who proposed the "unseen order" repeatedly emphasize that they are conducting academic research on cults with an objective attitude, if their harshness toward ICSA is a form of subjective criticism, does their relative tolerance not also fall into another form of subjectivity?
IV. Conclusion
The primary issue and focal point of research on cultic groups is the definition of "cultic groups" and "new religions," which also serves as the foundation for a series of tasks including warning [7], governance, and assistance. The debate between secular anti-cult organizations and the sociology of religion regarding the definition of cultic groups and new religions is mainly reflected in the academic sphere. Currently, it may be difficult for the academic community to provide a definition of cultic groups and new religions that satisfies all parties, but this does not mean they cannot be studied. Secular anti-cult organizations, led by the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), focus on the harm these groups inflict on individuals; in order to expose their deleterious nature, they rely primarily on operational definitions during the categorization process. Many negative characteristics are not unique to cultic groups and new religions, and these definitions have already incentivized a negative ideological push against them. To circumvent this issue, the sociology of religion has not rushed to define cultic groups and new religions, but has instead utilized the "invisible order" [8] to attempt to explain their behavior. However, due to the breadth of its extension, the boundaries between cultic groups, new religions, and ordinary religions have become blurred. Although both approaches have their respective problems, they are undoubtedly successful within their own domains: ICSA’s theories and methods have rescued many people harmed by cultic groups and new religions, and "invisible order" is a conceptual tool accepted by the field of religious studies. The debate between the two also continuously advances research on cultic groups and new religions.
At the practical level, the world today is undergoing great changes unseen in a century [9], and China’s governance of cultic groups faces complex internal and external environments. Internationally, cultic group issues are intertwined and entangled with issues of ethnicity and human rights. Domestically, neo-theistic and pseudo-scientific groups are constantly integrating and refurbishing themselves; furthermore, new types of cultic groups are more concealed and difficult to identify. If they collude with overseas anti-China forces, they will endanger national security. These new problems increase the difficulty of governing cultic groups. Although the ICSA standards are logically imperfect, they possess stronger operability and provide a reference for our understanding of new types of religions, allowing for alertness toward certain cultic groups even in their embryonic stage. As for "invisible order," although it may not provide clear diagnostic indicators for defining whether a specific organization belongs to a cultic group, one can use this perspective to gain an in-depth understanding and conduct research on the organization, thereby providing a certain basis for constructing a discourse and narrative system for the governance of cultic groups.
Network Editor: Tongxin Source: Science and Atheism, Issue 3, 2022.