Cults vs. Non-Cults
A Demarcation Problem
In my first draft on the distinction between cults and non-cults, I briefly explored the criteria by which one may attach the “cult” label to the Catholic Church and to Scientology. Through these annotations of a podcast interview, I touched on the larger demarcation problem:
If you haven’t already done this, add “cult” to the long and fast-growing list of words whose usefulness is diminishing rapidly because of an intractable demarcation problem: We can’t rigorously distinguish cults from non-cults. Of course, we know undue influence when we see it, but we don’t always see it. Compared to the cults we see, the cults we don't see pose the greater threat to public health. We live with the specter of cultic influence.
In response, I heard from Sean Prophet, the publisher of ExoProphet: Notes from the Algorithmic Age. He is also the author of the forthcoming book My Cult, Your Cult: How Cults Destroy Truth and Bolster Authoritarian Power. Sean posted a comment:
Cults are defined by their behavior. I can cite a few examples:
-Authoritarianism: a single leader who cannot be questioned
-Strict rules of conduct and harsh punishments for breaking the rules
-Strong insider-outsider animosity
-Secrecy, hiding antisocial conduct behind freedom of religion
-Usually they have a living founder, most cults die when the founder dies. However more successful cults make the transition to a second generation
-Use of thought reform tactics
It's correct to say that the Catholic church is less of a cult than Scientology, because of its institutional history involving at least some official checks and balances. Religions usually have more safeguards against the abuse of power than cults. However, the Catholic church has proven over the course of decades that it's more concerned about protecting its own than holding them accountable. The rot in the Catholic church goes to the very top, so in some ways even though it's a big institution it is also the largest cult in the world.
I appreciated this thoughtful response and decided to take a closer look at Sean’s work. I started by reading the ExoProphet ‘About’ page where Sean describes himself as: “Anti-fascist. Anti-theist. Anti-spiritual. Tech enthusiast. Sci-fi nerd. Television editor and producer. Cult survivor. Former co-host at The Radical Secular, and host at National Progressive Talk Radio.” Then, I read two of Sean’s posts: "The Cult of America Must Be Destroyed: How ‘Cults Like Us’ exposes the delusion at the heart of American identity" and “The Algorithms are in Charge: Democracy is dead. Social media algorithms are now the global government.” I’m glad I took a closer look. This material helped me think.
Cults vs. Non-Cults: A Demarcation Problem
Now, I’d like to return to the central argument in my first draft about the diminishing value of the word ‘cult’. In light of Sean Prophet’s response, below are a few reflections.
Life In Cults We Do Not See
In some ways, the distinction between cults and non-cults seems straightforward. Cults have characteristics, including the ones Sean Prophet mentioned in his response above. There are many others well-documented by scholars, survivors and other serious observers. I find much value in these lists of characteristics supported by case studies from distant history and current events.
However, in my experience, this approach to the demarcation problem can’t penetrate the thick layer of ego defenses that cause people to recognize cults run by ‘them’ but not the ones run by ‘us’. For example, most of my IRL connections do not see what Sean calls “The Cult of America”. It won’t help to point out to them how many items on the cult-characteristics checklist get checked based on the study of America’s observable behaviors. My connections have other checklists that highlight ways in which America works for them and bestows blessings upon the world.
In my view, if we use the word ‘cult’ at all without also applying it to America, we are not using the word appropriately. Perhaps, we’re using it carelessly or defensively, with our judgment clouded by Identity Protective Cognition (aka my-side bias). As a result of such misuse of the word, its usefulness naturally diminishes. But this is just my subjective view.
To most of my IRL connections, the idea of America as a cult would seem far from self-evident. Even the ones who believe in ‘second comings’, for example, would dismiss any suggestion that Donald Trump may be the second coming of Sabbatai Zevi, the seventeenth century mystic at the center of a massive vortex of messianic mania. They would also deny the resemblance between Steve Bannon and Nathan of Gaza, Zevi’s PR man.
Noisy Media
Whether it’s expressed in objective or subjective forms, the distinction between cults and non-cults can be tricky. The line separating the harmful from the harmless and the harmless from the healing doesn’t translate well into words. It mocks rating scales, models and frameworks. It draws a distinction that we may feel in our guts, but our guts often provide a noisy medium for our feelings.
Especially now that the whole world is a noisy medium, I try not to use the C-word in conversation. I give myself more latitude in writing, but the reason for the reticence is that the distinction between cults and non-cults is too blurry to see through the “blizzard of everything”. Especially when I’m speaking with people worshipping the Golden Calf, I prefer not to use the C-word; I generally find it unhelpful.
When I do use the C-word, it typically produces the opposite of the desired effect. This pattern brings to mind the small apocalyptic cult described in Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails. The members of that cult doubled down in response to a mere disconfirmation of their beliefs. So, it doesn’t surprise me that devotees of a cult around the corner double down in response to a word they interpret as an attack.
Beyond Examples
The Cult of America is only an example of a cult that we don't always recognize as such. In my neighborhood, I frequently encounter another example: Chabad Lubavitch, a Jewish messianic movement that continues its missionary work decades after the Lubavitcher Rebbe died without saving the world. I also often see Jehovah’s Witnesses with Watchtower stands, US Army recruiting campaigns, Amazon workers delivering packages, psychics and healers advertising their services. For me, all these sightings bring to mind the demarcation problem:
Is Chabad a cult, or is it antisemitic to describe Chabad is a cult?
Is Amazon merely an employer, or is it a cult? I may think of it as a cult, but there’s no ESG rating that can identify corporate practices that cross an imagined threshold into cultishness.
It’s easy to describe the US Army as a cult, but with a slight shift of perspective, we may also view the organization as a defender of our freedoms.
I apply the presumption of guilt to psychics and alternative-medicine practitioners, but I increasingly apply the same presumption to mainstream medical practitioners. To me, medicine and alternative medicine are two faces of what Ivan Illich called the Medical Nemesis.
These are just examples drawn from my IRL sightings and experiences. When I turn to my digital media, I often seek shelter from the “blizzard of everything”1 on ad-free platforms. But here too, I’m often reminded of the demarcation problem. Is Substack really ad-free? Sure, it’s a platform that doesn’t run ads, at least not yet. But it’s been running people as ads from the very beginning. I haven’t found a better option yet, but I still think of Substack as the clearest beneficiary of the demotion of intellectuals to content creators. I also think of the ‘creator economy’ as kleptocracy disguised as a solution. But I won’t digress into a rant about Substack.
My point here is simply that the demarcation problem runs deep, and we may never have a litmus test to distinguish cults from non-cults. We may never have genuinely ad-free media.
There’s a metaphorical line between good and evil that, according to Solzhenitsyn, passes through every human heart. Staying on the right side of this line is a matter of life and death. As I pointed out in a recent parsing of the “People’s Opium” metaphor:
To me, these seven meanings of the metaphor suggest a clear problem statement: Our opium supply is badly polluted. What complicates the problem is that our ability to distinguish the pollutants from the good stuff is tragically impaired, and our confusion poses a threat not only to our well-being but also to our lives.
The demarcation problem is ancient, but…
The distinction between cults and non-cults is an ancient problem. Arguably, it’s been with us since the first syllable of recorded time, and it’s reflected in ancient stories like the biblical story of Exodus.
Soon, Jews around the world will be re-reading this story during Passover, but the problem with ancient stories is that they’ve been with us for millennia, and we still routinely mistake Pharaoh for Moses. We still fail to recognize pharaonic influence in daily life.
For me personally, mixing metaphors is yesterday’s game. Today, the game is fundamentally political. The cultic forces we confront are not merely metaphorical; they increasingly shape our lived reality. The metaphorical game is a real fight for our freedom and dignity.
Responsible Use
In this fight, the usefulness of the C-word may be diminishing, but it still carries meaning worth nurturing through responsible use. Given the high stakes, we should use the word with utmost precision and sensitivity to the specific context and overall media climate. It is in this sense that I agree with Sean Prophet’s description of America as a cult.
Unfortunately, irresponsible uses of the word proliferate faster than rigorous applications. Examples are not limited to people who don’t know any better. We find rampant misuse even in dictionaries whose publishers should know better. For example, according to Merriam-Webster, a cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents”. This isn’t completely wrong, but not right enough either, not worthless but also not worth much.
Ultimately, we can’t over-rely on language
The way we use language can help us get marginally better at resisting undue influence. But ultimately, we can’t over-rely on language, formal definitions, and lists of criteria. Beyond this foundational layer in the work of resistance, we must cultivate the faculty of pattern recognition, which will have to be the subject of a future post.
This post is free and public. Feel free to share it with anyone ready to receive it in the spirit in which it was intended.
Further Research
Footnotes
That’s Patricia Lockwood’s phrase.
Good insights, and thanks for quoting me! I posted a longer response as a note.