The term ‘cult’ has become quite problematic in recent years, particularly within the United States (Richardson, 1993). It now is understood by most members of the general public, as well as policy makers and the media, as a term that refers to controversial groups that are odd and even dangerous to group members and others. Usually there is the assumption associated with the term that there is an all-powerful leader exercising inordinate influence over members of the group who were persuaded to join through the use of unethical processes referred to under the also negatively connoted rubric of ‘brain-washing’ (Robbins and Anthony, 1982).
‘Cult’ has become a general term referring to a number of newer religious and quasi-religious groups that have attracted attention from the media and government officials in recent decades (Dillon and Richardson, 1994). Such groups as the Unification Church (known popularly as the ‘Moonies’), Scientology, Hare Krishna, Divine Light Mission, The Way International, and International Community of Christ have been designated as cults by the media, often assisted by the efforts of the so-called Anti-Cult Movement. The negatively connoted term has become widely used for these and other newer, smaller, and more ‘culturally oppositional’ religious and quasi-religious groups (Campbell, 1972). The term has also been used to refer to the Manson group that murdered several Hollywood notables several decades ago, the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, the Heavens Gate group that committed suicide in San Diego in the late 1990s, and the Solar Temple group that had several episodes of mass suicide and murders in the mid-1990s—all groups which were involved in very violent episodes. Thus the negative connotation of the term cult has been fostered by events involving some of the groups designated as cults by the media and policy makers.
The term cult has been used much less in some countries than in others, with the term sect being preferred as a somewhat negatively connoted term in Europe to refer to smaller controversial religious groups. The term in Europe includes both New Religious Movements (NRMs) and smaller non-traditional religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses that have existed for some time in European countries. However, the term cult has become an important cultural export from the US in recent years. It appears that the designation given to the controversial groups within the American context has been transported around the world as part of the baggage associated with the information disseminated about these groups. Thus the cult term has become more diffused, leading to its more frequent use in other countries such as in Europe, Japan, and China, to refer to groups that are not positively sanctioned by the government and general society.
Most scholars prefer the term ‘new religions’ or ‘New Religious Movements’ (NRMs) to refer to the groups popularly known as cults. This term is somewhat imprecise, given that some of the ‘new religions’ claim heritages that are centuries old. However, the term does not have the negative connotation of the term cult.
Sociological history of the term cult
The term cult was first developed in the writings of Ernst Troeltsch (1931) and has been used since in other socio-logically oriented writings since he wrote in the 1930s (i.e. Yinger, 1970; Wilson, 1970; Campbell, 1972). It has become something of a residual term in the traditional typology often referred to in the sociology of religion that includes such concepts as church, denomination, and sect (Niebuhr, 1929; Martin, 1962). As a technical term in sociology the characteristics of cult include: a small, transitory, amorphous group with porous or vague boundaries of belief and behavior. A few Scholars (Nelson, 1965) have taken issue with the transitory part of this definition, however, noting that some cult-like groups last over time. Van Driel and Richardson (1988) offer a lengthy comparison of the characteristics of the terms sect and cult, highlighting major differences that include much more exclusiveness and firm boundaries in sect-like groups. It is worth noting that from a sociological point of view many of the NRM groups popularly referred to as cults are in fact sects according to the characteristics usually associated with that term.
Richardson (1978) adds another perspective as he states:
The major criterion of the concept of cult is its oppositional nature: A cult is a group that has beliefs and/or practices that are counter to those of the dominant culture. Beliefs and practices may also be in opposition to those of a subcultural group. (emphasis in original)
This content oriented definitional approach, also used by other scholars such as Ellwood (1968), is useful in that it helps explain why otherwise small and relatively harmless groups may attract such attention and become the targets of normative efforts by media, government officials, and the general public. Such groups are viewed as threatening to dominant cultural values, and they have in recent decades attracted youth from dominant social classes in society.
The politics of the cult label
Groups successfully designated as cults are usually politically weak and cannot defend themselves well. They can become easy targets for politicians, traditional religious groups, the Anti-Cult Movement, or others seeking to use such controversial groups to further their own interests. This has been a common pattern in recent decades, especially in former Communist countries, as NRMs have become pawns in political battles for cultural dominance and hegemony in a number of societies (Dillon and Richardson, 1993; Shterin and Richardson, 2000; Richardson, 2004).
Controversial religious groups can be targeted by media calling attention to them, using labels that indicate their problematic nature. Politicians can decide to attack them, knowing that this can be done with impunity in most societies. The media usually follows the lead of opinion leaders and dominant groups in a society, thus contributing to the concern about such groups by labeling the targeted groups with terms such as cult. A ‘moral panic’ can ensue, which makes it very difficult for NRMs to receive fair treatment in legal actions that might be brought by the groups, or against them by others Richardson, 1991; Richardson, 2004).
Because of the problematic situation that exists with the use of the term cult, Richardson (1993) has recommended that scholars refrain from using the term when writing about NRMs. Or if scholars use the term, they should make clear that it is being used as a technical term, and not simply following—and promoting—the popular-negative usage of the term. Also, he makes another recommendation to disallow use of the label cult in legal actions involving minority religious groups, in order to avoid the baggage associated with that term becoming a factor in the legal action.
