Talk:Cult

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Cult: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. describing the difference between marginal, peripheral, and core members as per Eileen Barker's article in Bromley's book Politics of religious apostasy
  2. describing daily life in cults (probably no generalization is possible)
  3. sources of conflict: 1. custody dispute in case of intentional community, and 2. distraught parents whose children are encouraged or demanded to get 100% involved at the expense of friends, career, education, and family
  4. "cult" also used for political and other secular organizations with uncritically accepted ideas, high levels of control of members' lives, and a charismatic founder, e.g. Lyndon LaRouche, Wilhelm Reich, Ayn Rand, Werner Erhart
  5. experience or observation of parnormal events for which a rational is hard to find, sometimes even by non-members during the cult's meeting. Examples DLM and SSB. Refereces Messer (in Barker's introduction to NRM), Galanter (in Len Oakes' book), John Hislop, Mick Brown Spiritual Tourist, chapter House of God
  6. Governments: Russia Law_on_Freedom_of_Conscience_and_Religious_Associations and Switzerland [1] (see talk page).
  7. show distinctions between a cult and a culture. Is a cult just a little culture? Is a cultish culture a cult too?
  8. Show distinctions and connections between cults and non-cults. 1) Content (eg one-true faith against many false faiths). 2) Methods (eg open vs closed, covert vs overt, facts/fictions, state vs sanction). 3) Context (where is the cult's/non-cults locus of control.)
Priority 1 (top) 

Contents

[edit] POV tag

An editor added a {POV} with the comment:

  • this article does not reflect the scholarly POV but the popular POV ... yet by using dated scholarship this fact is not reflected adequately [2]

Could we get a better explanation of that objection? The popular POV is legitimate and siginficant, and needs to be in the article. The article does not ignore the scholarly POV, as most of the citations appear to be to scholarly sources. The accusation of "dated scholarship" needs clarification. Which scholarship is dated, and what has changed in the field to make older scholarship obsolete? Note that this article has had extensive editing in the past and yet has been fairly stable recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is in horrible shape stylistically and organizationally, not to mention its been tagged for ages with these issues. Why did I add the POV tag? The very first sentence is a great example. "Cult" does not typically refer to the old sociological definition of the term, as it is claimed, it "typically" refers to the negative media usage of the term -- that is it typically refers to the the popular POV. The contemporary scholarly POV is not that the old sociological definition is by any means typical, but precisely that the term "cult" is problematic because of its primary popular definition which is based on a series of misrepresentations. See (Richardson 1993) for instance. It is deceptive, in other words, to conflate an old academic definition with common usage, as if common usage has a solid basis in pertinent and current scholarship. A NPOV lead would report common usage and the then describe current scholarly consensus about the common usage. "Cult is a term used commonly to refer to X, Y, and Z. Scholars have for the most part abandoned the term because ... " In other word, using the old sociological definition legitimizes the term in a way that most scholars no longer do. Its inherently deceptive. Current scholarship also notes the growth of the popular negative usage throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s and the resulting de-legitimization of the old sociological definition. Yet this entry utilizes older scholarship and perspectives in key sections, like the lead. For instance, Gordon Melton notably abandoned the term and also come up with a definition of NRM that accounts for the social process behind the popular usage of the term "cult" (See Melton, 2004 "Perspective: Toward a Definition of 'New Religion'", Nova Religio. 8(1):73-87).PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"New religious movement" is covered in an article of its own. If the most common usage is the popular definition then that is what should receive the appropriate weight. If the concepts have changed then we should include both the old and the new versions, not wipe away the previous one and leave on the current one. It's fine to say that Melton later rejected his earlier views, it's wrong to throw those notable views down the memory hole and pretend they never existed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Cult as an academic term is dated. NRM = what used to be referred to as "cult". Currently, scholarship on "cult" mostly points out how popular culture utilizes the term and nothing else. You would likewise propose two seperate entries on Myanmar and Burma? What we should do is cut this entry down to size almost entirely. Move all scholarly materials utilizing the old definition to NRM and expand that entry to accurately reflect the position that a handful of scholars have not abandoned "cult" and others prefer yet other terms like "alternative religions". This entry should become about the term "cult" which scholarship most notably and currently describes as a social phenomenon involving the negative stereotyping of NRMs based upon a handful of heavily reported accounts of destructive cults. Disambiguation should be clear that for the old and/or minority scholarly usage of "cult" as referring to new religious groups in tension with their surroundings, the correct entry is NRM.PelleSmith (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
We have separate entries for USSR and Russian Empire, for Evolution and Creationism, for Phlogiston and Oxygen. Just because something new comes along doesn't mean that older concepts never existed. I disagree with your proposal. If scholars or other sources used the term "cult" then it's appropriate for those viewpoints to be covered here. When they use the term "NRM" then they should be discussed in that article. Because of the overlap, there will inevitably be some mention of both terms in both articles. The assertion that the "correct term is NRM" appears to be your own POV. We're not here to decide which term is better - we're just here to verifiably summarize what reliable sources say using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually your examples exactly illustrate my point because each entry in your pairing is factually and/or theoretically about two distinct things - yet there is no such theoretical or factual distinction between the old sociological usage of cult and new usage of NRM, but simply a terminological one. On the other hand there is such a distinction between the old academic usage of "cult" and the popular usage of "cult". The USSR and the Russian empire are not and were not ever used to describe the same period of Russian political history. They are two distinct and seperate entities. Evolution and Creationism may encompass competing claims of human beginnings, but they are rather essentially describing two completely distinct theories. Phlogiston clearly is not simply an older term for Oxygen either. In fact "phlogiston as first conceived was a sort of anti-oxygen". In scholarship, however, "cult" is actually an antiquated term for what is now called, among other things, a new religious movement -- it is the exact same phenomena. The only reference to the academic usage of cult needed in this entry is a short bit on how the phenomenon now covered in the NRM entry used to be called "cult", but due to the popular take over of the term it has been mostly abandoned. The current scheme is simply confusing and conflates distinctly different perspectives in a very unhelpful way.PelleSmith (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Do the preponderance of contemporary sources say that "NRM"="Cult"? Just one article by Melton isn't enough to establish that as a universal truth. If a hundred scholarly and popular articles use "cult", and only a dozen use "NRM", then that's not sufficient to erase the material which uses "cult". We can't decide on our own that a writer who used the term "cult" in 1970 would have used the term "NRM" if he were writing in 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No one is suggesting erasing any scholarship. Please do not put words in my mouth. I suggest retaining the content of older scholarship in the now more accurately named entry (NRM), and leaving this entry for the popular usage of "cult". There is no suggestion of deleting any content, but simply a separation of what is now being deceptively conflated. Do you actually contend that the old sociological definition is accurately reflected in popular usage? Please answer this question because I am contending that it is not. And by the way this is exactly why we have disambiguation. The even older term that derives from "cultus" is also related to this whole mess but it is given seperate treatment. Its time that we get with the program here and stop conflating scholarship with popular discourse.PelleSmith (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that your suggestion is to change old scholarship that talked about "cults" and say, with no evidence, that they really were talking about "NRMs" without knowing it. As for popular usage, that's a separate issue. "NRM" has not gained much ground in popular usage, so far as I'm aware. This article already does a fine job of separating the various uses of "cult". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Its a confusing mess. See the tags that have been up for months. Please stop pretending that NRM isn't a new term for "cult". How many references will be enough? There is nothing different about these groups except for the academic attempt to rescue them from a word butchered by popular use. I know NRM has not gained traction in popular culture. I'm not sure what your point is though. If it had replaced "cult" in popular discourse we'd be back to square one again.PelleSmith (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that modern scholars use "NRM" instead of "cult". That is well-covered in the article already. I don't agree that we should recategorize old discussions of "cults" as discussions of "NRMs". But I am impressed by your quick research. You're obviously well-veresed on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback's position speaks for me also.
Milo 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)





I would strongly oppose changing the article in this manner and agree with above comments by Will Beback (talk · contribs). In actuality both terms are still used. The sources listed below are not exactly the best representation of all sources out there, but it is rather instead quite a selective list, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt's position speaks for me also.
Milo 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)





It is not at all a selective list. It spans a spectrum of sources from those that have given up the term altogether to those that still use it. Please provide some evidence that contradicts my assessment below, otherwise you're simply stating an unfounded opinion. Also please clarify what part of the assessment you found problematic since the one thing you stated, that both terms are still used, is clearly stated by myself in the very first sentence below and reflected in many of the sources.PelleSmith (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Even scholars who argue for retaining the academic use of the term (see Goldman below) are capable of acknowledging the overwhelming consensus amongst other scholars. In case you were salivating, Goldman's argument is based on anecdote, and the very next article in the same journal was the Olson piece listed below which empirically shows the negative resonance that "cult" still has amongst the public. I'm looking forward to the evidence of my selectivity.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
These sources would be great for adding information. I don't see them as a reason to delete information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about "deleting information"? I'm still waiting for Cirt to back up the assertion that I have presented an unbalanced list. BTW, try to search for "cult" in ATLA Religion Database, and you will see that 99% of the articles from the last century relate to Cult (religious practice). Search for "new religious movement" (which is but one of the alternatives) and you will also find several times more articles than you do for the sociological/academic use of "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed most certainly quite a selective list, choosing from academics who are for the most part proponents of the term "new religious movement" which for one thing does not cover all groups referred to as "cults" that are not "religious movements" in nature, for example political groups or for-profit companies. I will work on providing a list of sources, and list them in a different subsection, below, but it will not be immediately. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have specifically not simply listed scholars who use NRM, or an alternative instead of cult. Such a list would be endless and also pointless. I've listed scholars who have actively engaged the issue of terminology either directly related to cult vs. an alternative or regarding the baggage that comes with the term "cult" (a list that itself could be much much longer). If you respond with a list of sources that simply use the term cult without reflecting actively on terminology you will pointlessly ask us to compare apples to oranges. Regards and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Few Sources

The term "cult" is still used by some scholars to this date, but never without the knowledge of how distorted the popular/media usage is. Most often when this is done it is done in conjunction with a more neutral terms like NRM and/or with "cult" in scare quotes. Other scholars have abandoned the term altogether. Two things are abundantly clear. 1) NRM and academic usages of "cult" in this context refer to the exact same thing and 2) all scholars of "cults" or NRMs acknowledge the media butchering of the term readily. Here is diversity of quotes from sources that fit all the categories I described initially.PelleSmith (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Not included here are any of the numerous sources that simply do not refer to or use "cult" at all -- instead utilizing one of its more recent synonyms. The sources listed here are ones that directly engage or reflect upon the "cult" vs. alternative terms issue.PelleSmith (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Melton, J. Gordon. 1992. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland Publishing.

  • "It should be noted that most writers, except for the harshest anti-cult polemicists, have moved away from the term 'cult' and now use the less pejorative term 'new religion' to designate the more non-conventional groups in Western society." (7)

Wilson, Bryan R. 1992. The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism. Oxford University Press.

  • "It appears that the appearance of the new religious movements, the cults as their detractors chose to call them, has, if not arrested, at least hindered the general process of religious toleration." (44)

Richardson, James T. 1993. "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular Negative." 34(4):348-356.

  • "Indeed, some would claim that the term cult is useless, and should be avoided because of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use." (348)
  • "Given the obvious negative connotations of the term cult, as shown by a number of surveys and by Pfeiffer's research, it seems reasonable to suggest that the term "cult" should be severely limited in scholarly and other writings about religious groups. [...] Scholars should abandon the term cult, in favor of terms which have not been so taken over with popular negative usage." (355)

Richardson, James T. and van Driel, Barend. 1997. "Journalists' Attitudes toward New Religious Movements." Review of Religious Research. 39(2):116-136.

  • "Our report of how the print media have used the terms 'cult' and 'sect,' which have been the topic of longstanding study in the sociology of religion, revealed that the media generally failed to recognize social-scientific effort in this important area (van Driel and Richardson, 1988b; see also Richardson, 1993a). Instead, when seeking definitions for the terms "cult" and "sect," they usually turned to those advanced by acknowledged anti-cultists." (123)

Campbell, Colin. 1998. "Cult". In Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Edited by Henry Swatos Jr. Altamira Press.

  • " ... the careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (123)

Dawson, Lorne L. 2003 Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader. Blackwell.

  • "Most people in North America or Europe have never met anyone who is a member of a 'cult,' or what scholars prefer to call 'new religious movements.'" (1)
  • "When used in this book [cult] will be accompanied by scare quotes (i.e. 'cults') in acknowledgment of its recent problematic history. In most instances the term new religious movements will be used and in line with current academic practice it will be abbreviated NRMs." (2)

Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Sociology. Polity Press.

  • "Today, sociologists are aware that the terms sect and cult have negative connotations and this is something they wish to avoid." (564)

Olson, Paul J. 2006. "The Public Perception of 'Cults' and 'New Religious Movements'". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45(1):97–106.

  • "For the better part of two decades, Barker (1986, 1989), Richardson (1993), and several other sociologists of religion, as well as religious studies scholars such as Miller (1996) and Wessinger (2000), have argued that the term 'cult' has become laden with negative connotations among the general public and media and have advocated dropping its use in academia." (97)
  • "Furthermore, scholars who have examined the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff have almost routinely argued that the ability of the government, media, and former members to define the Davidians as a 'cult' and David Koresh as a 'cult leader' played a significant role in bringing about the horrific conclusion of the siege (Lewis 1995; Richardson 1995; Tabor and Gallagher 1995; Wessinger 2000; Wright 1995)." (97)
  • "Christiano, Swatos, and Kivisto (2002:11) take the position that use of the term cult in academic literature is an 'ethical breach' for modern social scientists." (97)
  • "The results of the 2003 NASIS reveal that, at least in Nebraska, the general public certainly does not view cults in a neutral way. Because the use of the term has such potentially severe consequences, we must be extremely careful with it and, I believe, that it is time that we become 'cultphobic'(Richardson 1993:355) and do our research with more neutral terminology." (105)

Goldman, Marion. 2006. "Review Essay: Cults, New Religions, and the Spiritual Landscape: A Review of Four Collections." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45(1):87–96.

  • "The synonyms 'new religious movements,' 'NRMs,' 'novel religions,' 'alternative religions,' and 'cults' are almost interchangeable, though most sociologists argue that the word 'cult' is too loaded to be useful." (91)

Berger, Helen A. 2007. "Book Review: The New Religious Movements Experience in America by Eugene V. Gallagher." Sociology of Religion 68(2):225-226

  • "The current anti-cult movement has absorbed and further developed the negative connotations of this term. It is because the term has become so blemished that the author chooses to avoid it, relying instead on the term NRMs, which he notes is also an imperfect term insofar as some of the religions are new only in the U.S., not in other parts of the world."

Buxant, Coralie; Saroglou, Vassilis; Casalfiore, Stefania; Christians, Louis-Léon 2007. "Cognitive and emotional characteristics of New Religious Movement Members: New questions and Data on the Mental Health Issue" Mental Health, Religion & Culture 10(3):219–238

  • "Common representations of people who join groups called 'cults' by some parts of society or 'new religious movements' (NRMs) by many scholars in religious studies include the idea of some pathology or psychological disturbance in their adherents." (219)

Cowan, Douglas E. and Bromley, David G. 2008. Cults and New Religions: A Brief History. Blackwell.

  • "in reality most people get a majority of their information about new and controversial religions through the media. And though there are occasional exceptions, 'cult' has become little more than a convenient, if largely inaccurate and always pejorative, shorthand for a religious group that must be presented as odd or dangerous for the purposes of an emerging news story." (2)

[edit] Some other sources of note

The term cult is most certainly still in use in other sources other than simply the media. Not only that, it is a term that is not simply an alternative to "new religious movement" - but rather as acknowledged by Religion Newswriters Association is a wholly distinct term separate from cult. Furthermore, the term "new religious movement" as a catch-all for various types of controversial groups and movements is inappropriate - as it encapsulates other organizations that are not religious in nature, such as groups that have been referred to historically as "political cults", "psychotherapy cults", etc. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. Galanter, Marc; American Psychiatric Association Committee on Psychiatry and Religion (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Pub, 170. ISBN 0890422125. 
    • Terms such as "new religious movement" have been used by some to describe certain cultic groups. A problem with this approach is that it may lend unwarranted respectability to a less-than-respectable enterprise. Jim Jones' Peoples Temple was once considered a new religious movement. The term is also inappropriate to describe cultlike groups that are not religious; or groups of devotees that form around charismatic healers who then exploit their patients and followers in various ways; or nonprofessional psychotherapies, even if they convert themselves to "religions" in order to obtain various tax benefits and legal protections; or cabals of Satan worshipers which, while perhaps qualifying as "religious," could hardly qualify as "new."
  2. Langone, Michael D. (July 1, 1996). "Clinical Update on Cults". Psychiatric Times 13 (7), http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1158306. Retrieved on 22 October 2008. 
    • Although some scholars of religion now favor the term new religious movement over cult, many mental health professionals, perhaps because they are more likely to see the casualties of new groups, feel comfortable using the term cult (Langone; Singer and Lalich; Tobias and Lalich). They see cults as highly manipulative groups that exploit and otherwise abuse their members. Although most groups accused of being cults are religious, some claim to be psychological (Singer and colleagues; Temerlin and Temerlin) or political (Lalich).
  3. Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The Sociology of Religious Movements. Routledge, 24. ISBN 0415912024. 
    • The mass media occasionally call these groups sects, but often they came into being without a schism and they do not belong to familiar religious traditions. Consequently, many sociologists have used the word "cult" for culturally innovative new groups. Others feel that the mass media have brought the word "cult" into disrepute, applying it only when they want to disparage a group. Therefore, many scholars now employ the phrase "new religious movement," often abbreviated NRM. This also is an unfortunate term. Sects, too, are new. Rodney Stark has suggested to me that NRM should mean novel religious movement.
      These are unfortunate responses to an unfortunate situation, because the word cult has much to recommend it. "Cult is culture writ small" and has been defined as "a culturally innovative cohesive group oriented to supernatural concerns" (Bainbridge 1978:14). The word need not carry any negative connotations. In Roman Catholicism, for example, devotions dedicated to Mary can be called the cult of the Virgin, carrying neutral or even positive connotations (O'Dea 1966:39). The word is connected to the favorable concept "cultivate" which means devoting oneself to something to make it grow. Ultimately we like the word "cult" because it is a short version of culture, and surely religious cults are subcultures.
  4. Lalich, Janja (2004). Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. University of California Press, 6-7. ISBN 0520240189. 
    • The long-standing debate over cults, or new religions, is so highly charged that participants and observers tend to call it "the cult wars." The contributions of those who take a freedom of religion stance are important, especially to combat ethnocentrism, bigotry, and acts of political repression or social oppression. At the same time, using solely a religious studies paradigm to study these groups hampers us. I say this not because I am antireligion but rather because I recognize the existence of cults and the behavior of people in them as much more than a religious phenomenon. Some cults may be part of the new religious movement landscape, but many more have ideologies that stem from other sources: political, philosophy, nationalism, psychological theories, psychotherapeutic approaches, belief in extraterrestrial life, self-improvement regimens, a charismatic figure, and so on.
  5. Zablocki, Benjamin David; Thomas Robbins (2001). Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. University of Toronto Press, 5. ISBN 0802081886. 
    • The term cult is an insult to those who are positively disposed towards these groups or who feel that it is important to actively support their right to exist even while perhaps deploring some of their practices. The term new religious movement is a misleading euphemism to those who are negatively disposed. It is also thought to be misleading in that it ignores political and psychotherapeutic cults, implying, as it does, that all such groups are religious in nature.
  6. Hinnells, John R. (2005). The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Routledge, 326. ISBN 0415333113. 
    • More recently, scholars have also noted that the phrase 'new religious movements' has begun to accumulate many of the negative connotations previously ascribed to 'cults.' Opponents of the phrase have charged that academics introduced it in order to deflect what they consider to be legitimate criticism about these movements. In the face of such considerations, one suggestion has been that scholars of religion abandon the label and return to using the technical terms 'sect' and 'cult', having first agreed on their definition.
  7. Religion Newswriters Foundation (2008). Religion Style Book. Religion Newswriters Association, C, N. 
    • cult: A term that has come to be associated with religious groups far outside the mainstream that have overly controlling leadership or dangerous practices. For that reason, journalists should use it with the greatest care and only when they are certain it fits. On rare occasions, cult is an appropriate description. Two groups whose members committed mass suicide are examples: the Peoples Temple (Jonestown in Guyana, South America, 1978) and Heaven’s Gate (1997, California). Another example is the Branch Davidians, whose founder, David Koresh, died along with 75 followers in a 1993 standoff with government officials.
    • New Religious Movement: A widely accepted term that describes religious groups outside the mainstream. These fringe groups often have roots in Christianity, Judaism or other major faiths but have beliefs and practices that are rejected by mainstream organizations. Some New Religious Movements are not new, and a few eventually evolve into mainstream religious groups. Cults, which are generally considered groups with overly controlling leadership or dangerous practices, are included in this category. New Religious Movements are sometimes called NRMs, but journalists should avoid using the abbreviation. See cult and sect.

Why all sources aren't created equal

  1. As the Hinnels source you have at #7 so aptly explains, the psychological community has always maintained a different definition of "cult" and has been more resistant in letting it go. For them authoritarian leadership and coercion are key aspects of a cult, something that was not as fundamental to the more common older sociological and religious studies usages of the term. This source, almost 20 years old now, is no surprise at all.
  2. See #1, with the added caveat that Psychiatric Times isn't exactly a top of the line source to begin with -- try some peer-reviewed publications. Not to mention that the author is the editor for Cultic Studies Review.
  3. Bainbridge is arguing for the benefits of using this term in scholarship. He makes no claims that it hasn't been abandoned by most scholars (in fact his tone suggests that it has) and makes no comment on how its popular use relates to this equation. One scholars opinion on the technical merits of the term in scholarship doesn't exactly address the point. Goldman, quoted above, also argues for the use of "cult" in scholarship ... but nevertheless acknowledges that most scholars have dropped it. What is the point of this reference?
  4. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. I'll have to look at the book more closely. It seems like Lalich is in fact proposing an entirely new sociological framework for looking at groups popularly labeled as cults and that she isn't happy with simply treating them as religious groups. It certainly isn't a defense of the old sociological paradigm. Notably Lalich also co-authored several books with Margaret Singer, including Cults in our Midst, and seems not to have published in any mainstream sociology journals -- in fact it appears she has published exclusively in CSJ/CSR. This places here well within a group that represents a very extreme position in the academy regarding "cults" and NRMs.
  5. This book in fact takes a middle ground in the terminological controversy. It also readily acknowledges the biased popular/media usage of the term and does not equate it with any legitimate scholarly usage.
  6. I find it exceedingly odd that you use this book as a source since it explicates the history of abuse the term has suffered at the hands of the anti-cult movement and the media. In terms of academic popularity also includes the following sentence: In the absence of a commonly agreed upon definition from the movements themselves, the term "new religious movement" - chosen for its apparent neutrality - became widely used in the academic community. This book presents various technical difficulties with NRM, but it clearly states that NRM is more widely accepted than "cult" in the academic community. In fact the full quote you used after you edited it so nicely actually reads like this: "More recently, scholars have also noted that the phrase 'new religious movements' has begun to accumulate many of the negative connotations previously ascribed to 'cults.' Opponents of the phrase have charged that academics introduced it in order to deflect what they consider to be legitimate criticism about these movements. In the face of such considerations, one suggestion has been that scholars of religion abandon the label and return to using the technical terms 'sect' and 'cult', having first agreed on their definition. However, most believe that it would be impossible to turn back the clock in this manner."
  7. This isn't an academic source at all. Now we're going to take cues from the media about the technicality of using terms like "cult" vs "NRM" after they were the catalysts in ruining the credibility of term cult in the first place? Now that's funny.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break

Your points are indeed interesting, though they do not support your notion of somehow merging this article with "New religious movement" - as noted by many of the above cited sources the terms are different and have different applications. You yourself acknowledge that there is a gap and general disagreement between usage in the "sociology of religion" community, and by psychologists and psychiatrists and other academics in science. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. The preponderance of sources support the notion that "cult" is a problematic term when applied to religious groups, and in no small part because of how the media has butchered it. Some sources suggest also that there are technical difficulties with NRM and even fewer argue against using it altogether. One of the more mainstream usages I've seen in the last decade is to use NRM and "cult" with "cult" always in scare quotes. This signifies the fact that the groups are commonly known as cults but NRM is a preferred scholarly term for the reasons I've already stated above several times. I do not and have not denied any of this. NRM still reflects a more widely used and more neutral alternative to describing religious groups, and the material on them should be moved there. Psychologists and psychiatrists do not unanimously use the term "cult" either. "Other academics in science" is a red herring. What other academics in science? What other "sciences"? The fact also remains that primarily sociologists and secondarily religious studies scholars together author almost all of the academic material on this topic in the first place. To suggest that there is some sort of even split here between cult and NRM is deceptive. In the end, the real problem is that those groups that were discussed under the old sociological definition of "cult" should not remain on this entry in that discussion but should be merged into NRM where they belong. The terminological debates can be discussed there.PelleSmith (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the merge idea you suggest. The fact is that the term cult is still widely used, not just by academics and psychologists and psychiatrists and experts on crime, but as mentioned by Will Beback (talk · contribs) also in the media. "new religious movement" = 405 to cult = 638,000. The term simply has not gained much traction at all in popular use, and many continue not to use it or to consider it inadequate and inappropriate. I see you have attempted to discount some of the sources I presented above, the same could be said for many of your sources as well. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
In a search of United States government sites: "new religious movement = 18, and cult = 78,200. Trying to push out the term to make it more prevalent or in-use more by mainstream media, government officials, crime experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, and many noted experts on cults, will not make it so. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not object at all to leaving a well sourced treatment of media usage of the term "cult" in this entry. In fact that's my very suggestion. Of course if you research "cult" and "media" in academic sources you'll see exactly the explanation I've been trying to highlight all along. The media (along with various interest groups) has distorted the term to the point that it now suggests scientifically unverifiable phenomena like brainwashing and mind-control and while exagerating danger by highlighting occurances of mass-suicide (which are in fact very rare). "Cult" is not a neutral analytical term in the media or in popular parlance, but a discursive weapon. I'll be happy to help you source such an entry of course.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have already stated above that I oppose going that route. And apparently, so do Will Beback (talk · contribs) and Milomedes (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You oppose using the most reliable sources we have (from peer reviewed journals and academic presses) to source the entry? To source the part of the entry that deals with the media? How about we start simply with not moving anything but taking a good stab at using scholarly sources in reference to the popular/media usage of the term "cult"? The media itself should be treated as a "primary source" in this context, btw.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Not if there are specific media articles which themselves discuss usage of the term itself, with comments from various academics. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith (talk · contribs), you have not responded to points made by multiple sources that "new religious movement" as a catch-all term is inappropriate for political cults, psychotherapy cults, and other cults that are not religious in nature. As noted by Lalich: "political, philosophy, nationalism, psychological theories, psychotherapeutic approaches, belief in extraterrestrial life, self-improvement regimens, a charismatic figure, and so on." Cirt (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly comfortable with taking Lalich's lead on these categories given her various affiliations. New religious movement is of course not appropriate for non-religious groups or organizations. On the other hand the old sociological definition of "cult" comes from a religious typology. Later derivations used by a small minority of scholars, mostly from psychology related fields, which include non-religious groups are not of any particular interest or significance. The inclusion of these non-religious groups is much more intrinsic to later incarnations of popular usage than anything else. I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm supposed to answer, but I'm happy to separate the old (and in a few cases new) sociological usage of the term from these various later and much less common academic usages that you refer to above. You failed to answer my proposal. How's about we use available scholarly sources to write the section on popular and media usage of the term ... which, after all, is the most common usage amongst most English speakers. What do you say?PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to Cult#Media_attention, I think the current among of text size given to the treatment at present is appropriate, though of course it would be best if sourced properly. I remember seeing some sources specifically addressing that with interviews from various academics, I will post that here soon. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


In cultic studies, the big six players are the public, theologians, sociologists, psychologists, governments, and interest groups including those referred to as cults. In cultic studies, science does not get the last word, pro or con, or necessarily get it at Wikipedia, which has no formal commitment to the scientific point of view, sociological or otherwise. The neutral point of view is not necessarily the science point of view, and the Cult article is a specific example.
By overall weight of numbers and influence, the most important homonym of c-u-l-t is the popular positive meaning of cult following (or fan cult). By Google test there are 1,110,000 hits for "cult following". Not to consider the global cult following legions of Harry Potter, the number of fans in the Star Trek and Star Wars fiction cults alone is so large that they might exceed numbers of members in all of the other kinds of non-theological cults. The influence of entertainment cult followings is enormous in financial and social trends. Were it not for mass entertainment cult followings, the U.S. global trade deficit would be much worse than it is.
The second most important homonym of c-u-l-t includes the theological cults defined by Protestant fundamentalism. The numbers claimed are very large since it includes major religions, but its importance by influence is limited to those knowledgeable of the theology, and those who misunderstand which homonym is in use.
The c-u-l-t homonym which includes the popular negative meaning, in provable numbers of members totaling all groups is some number of millions. It is important by influence because of human destruction infamously committed by less than 20 groups, lesser crimes and torts committed by about 200 groups, and perceived excessive control of members that seems to be the most common factor causing the public to identify groups as popular negative cults – not NRMs but just plain "cults".
I will oppose unbalanced, undue-weighted Cult article coverage of the eight-some homonym meanings of c-u-l-t. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and CultFAQ.org have identified insufficient knowledge of multiple c-u-l-t meanings as a significant public knowledge problem. In the past group members have falsely attempted to portray c-u-l-t as solely a negative word, and used the article to perpetuate narrow agendas focused on victim propaganda, sometimes empty of victim supporting fact in the style of the cited Adidam publisher's website.
I will oppose attempts to suppress mass media references, which are the most important source of court, police-incident, public complaint, and legal entanglement reporting about popular negative cults, as well as being almost the only source for popular positive cults. That the media may have general biases is not a valid reason to suppress specific media references. Evidence that the media is generally biased can be covered in its own section.
(Note the self-contradictory way that "popular negative cults" reads; though the usage is odd "populist negative cults" reads without self-contradiction.)
I will also oppose unethical historic revisionism. What scientific scholars say today adds to, but does not replace what they said in the past, particularly when what they said then or now is disputed by significant factions of the other big players. Milo 09:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cult" is primarily a negative word, and that can be very well sourced in scholarly literature. The identification of your opponents here as "group members" is a serious problem, an obvious lack of AGF, and in my mind a clear self-identification on your part regarding your own perspectival affiliations. "Cultic studies" is an insignificant and dubiously biased field in the academy (in fact it is largely populated by non-academics in the first place). Most scholarly work on these groups simply comes from the sociology of religion, religious studies, and otherwise the study of NRMs. Your reference to cultic studies is an appeal to authority for a particular (academically) minority POV. The discussion of homonymic conflict is a red herring. There is one common negative connotation widely used in the media and popular culture. No amount of older or newer usages that differ from that negative usage changes the basic facts of its prominence.PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo