Culture In Trauma
A Basic Theory of the Origin of Cults
Throughout the 21st
century, unprecedented technological advance, economic catastrophe, mass
migration and dislocation, war, and other powerful social disturbances have
created the conditions for the accelerated growth and emergence of radical
social movements. These movements have often been defined in terms of their
inferior scale relative to larger social or religious organizations, or in
terms of their newness relative to older institutions. Neither quality,
however, is satisfactorily definitive, for many cultic movements escape one or
both of these classifications, forcing scholars to devote entire chapters to
the task of painstakingly qualifying definitions to sufficiently broaden them
to incorporate decidedly similar movements with substantial differences of
scale or age.
The traditional understanding of
the cult, emphasizing heterodoxy as its central characteristic, is both more
reliably applicable and useful although it has largely been abandoned by
leading cult experts in their effort to maintain neutrality in the ancient
contest of the church contra heresy.
This effort to lend full cultural and religious legitimacy to this variety of
movements which only constitute a single category on the basis of their want of
sanction from the greater society: on the basis of their social illegitimacy—has led most cult experts
to pursue case-study style research and merely catalog various cults’ practices
and doctrines (which are in no way static) to the neglect of structural
research regarding their sociological origins which might lend to “unfavorable”
descriptions and definitions.
Dr. J. Gordon Melton, a
profligate specialist in cults and new religious movements, has characterized
the cult phenomenon as the organic “growth of religious pluralism” (xv) in the
wake of the “destruction of religious hegemonies” (xv). This approach only attempts to account for
the emergence of those movements that can be thought of as being religious,
categorically distinguishing them from decidedly non-religious movements with
nevertheless very similar characteristics and cultures, assuming religious and
non-religious cults to be distinct phenomena. Furthermore, it’s unable to
account for the historical trends in cult activity—boom periods of cult emergence,
membership, and importance during periods of prominence for mainstream
“religious hegemonies”. Finally, it fails to explain the incidence of various psychological
and emotional conditions which are present among cult devotees and participants
at greater frequencies than are found to occur in the greater populations of
societies. Melton’s temptingly simple description of the cult phenomenon in the
terms of a mere market of supply and demand for “new religious innovation” is
fundamentally inadequate because it gives no attention to the important psychological
component of human behavior (Melton xv).
This essay will explore a theory
regarding the emergence of cult phenomena and sectarianism which posits a
widespread crisis of meaning as a necessary condition of cult emergence.
Furthermore, I will argue that the fundamental impetuses of these movements are
not religious but psychosocial, and that dramatic economic disruptions and
acute social crises contribute prominently to their emergence. Finally, I will
arrive at a definition of the cult phenomenon through my description of the
conditions of their creation. “In other words, we shall assume that the defining of the cult ought not to be
separated from theory or theories as to why cults exist” (Eister 321).
The
Crisis of Meaning
A sophisticated culture naturally
develops the means by which its members can orient themselves in the most basic
ways. It composes a system of meaning by which people can come to terms
emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually with the world and their lives
life in it. Such systems of meaning entail, both, “definitions of the condition
of human existence”, as well as the language and symbols in which such
definitions are communicated and understood (Eister 322). A system of meaning “provides the terms on
which the human enterprise, can or should, be assumed capable of being carried
on” (Eister 324). There are a number of actors in the creation of such systems
of orientation; the establishment and adaptation of a meaning system is an
organic, culture-wide operation…
As far as
personnel are concerned, “orientational institutions” may include preachers or
teachers but one need not be either of these (or be employed within any
religious or educational institutions) in order to perform these vital tasks or
interact with others in their performance. Painters, poets, editors, novelists,
journalists, dramatists, composers and others are equally important
participants. And the organizations in which they participate are often neither
religious nor educational!” (Eister324)
A theory proposed by social
scientists such as Max Weber, Meredith Mcguire, Allan W. Eister, and others propose that cults emerge out of the conditions of cultural crises of meaning.
Such crises entail “…dislocations in the orientational and communicational
institutions of contemporary societies—and especially in the norms and elements
of the communication of ‘meaning’” (Eister 327). Crises of meaning can be
caused by dramatic events with widespread effects and ramifications, for
example: devastating and widespread disasters, major economic depressions,
drastic changes in large sectors of an economy due to new technological
innovation or other economic events, the forceful imposition of an alien
culture due to a mass migration or globalization, or oppression from an enemy,
etc. Religious historian Sidney E. Ahlstrom describes such a crisis during the
1930s’ decade of the Great Depression during which “Sectarian movements arose
and strange new cults came into existence—some for the rich, others for the
poor” (919)…
Americans of every type sought and found scapegoats
and panaceas; racist attitudes and ethnic animosities intensified…Political and
religious views gravitated to the extremes; and demagogues often with the cross
of Christ on their banners, began to gather their followers…Old popular beliefs
collapsed, confidence in the redemptive power of the American way of life
faltered, the ‘religion of business’ lost votaries in droves, faith in
automatic progress evaporated (920)
Sociologist Meredith Mcguire
describes the way in which a meaning system can operate and the way in which it
can be invaded and even invalidated—constituting a crisis of meaning—and the
dislocating effect of such a crisis in her book The Sociology of Religion:
The meaning system of the individual or group is
able to integrate most routine events into an understandable pattern, a
meaningful whole. Some events and experiences, however, are not so easily
interpreted within the existing meaning system…an entire group can undergo
similar meaning-threatening experiences…Such events are particularly
meaning-threatening if they appear to contradict important aspects of the
existing meaning system… Sometimes a meaning system is completely unable to
absorb a crisis experience…the group supports of the entire meaning system may
be so weakened by the crisis that people are unable to restore a sense of order
and meaning (26).
In the event of a cultural crisis
of meaning, the most basic sensibilities and psychological dispositions—the
framework of reality—are uprooted along
with the values, identities, religious beliefs, and ethical norms, etc., that
they support. The consequence is a critical need for orientation which may
become pathological. This state of existential disorientation calls for
immediate restructuring of the meaning system “in the face of the nameless
terrors of the disordered universe. Only a firm reordering can provide an
effective protection against such terror. A new order must be established and
maintained continually against the occurrence of further order-threatening
phenomena.” (Mcguire 35)
In the wake of a crisis of
meaning, an excited and traumatized culture may seek radical solutions or turn
to radicals for solutions. The meaning systems which are most distinctly
alternative from those which were perceived to be dysfunctional and false will
be most attractive to those most traumatized crisis victims. Paradigm shifts in society, for these
reasons, are often eccentric. The sociopaths and eccentrics gain currency
during these times especially those who are adept in exploiting the fear and
trauma of a culture in crisis.
It becomes necessary, if social
life is to continue, to establish a new basis of order and a new meaning
system. If a group’s way of life has been thoroughly disrupted by a depression,
for example, the group might reorganize itself around a social movement (e.g.,
follower of a new prophet) that offers a new basis of order and meaning for
group members. (Mcguire 27)
Incidentally, the fear of repeat meaning
crises accounts for the often sectarian character of cults. The effort made by
many cults to achieve complete seclusion from the outer world can be understood
as an effort to guard the cult’s subculture from further meaning subversion. Such
seclusion may entail “physical or symbolic withdrawal from the ‘world’,
limiting outside influences (e.g., television or unapproved books, and
restricting members’ social contacts. Especially important is the socialization
of children; the group protects its children from exposure to competing world
views, perhaps by running its own schools…” (Mcguire 31)
Psychological Characteristics
of Cult Participants
French psychiatrist Jean-Marie
Abgrall is one of a number of scholars who has conducted research on the
psychological characteristics of cult participants. His research indicates
that, indeed, cult converts are experiencing psychological conditions and
stresses that may contribute to their interest in these eccentric social
movements. In Soul Snatchers: the
Mechanics of Cults, he outlines a psychological profile that is common
among cult converts which includes a variety of pathologies which may be
associated with the anxiety and panic experienced during crises of meaning and
their precipitating events. He reports
that, among those most likely to join a cult are “depressive young people
experiencing a feeling of inadequacy, even of revolt” and those feeling
“lonely, rejected, and sad”(Abgrall 107). His case-study sample population of
300 people was drawn “from a variety of groups and from a variety of different
positions within the groups…including simple participants, people who have
attended courses, thoroughly convinced converts, people who have left a cult,
and those who are currently in therapy” (Abgrall 106). According to his
research 60% of cult members are “depressive” (107).
Likely victims are often exhibit
broken or strained social bonds and difficulty with socio-cultural
integration…The cults ideal target population is young people who are
depressive or who have broken off from their family and society, who feel they
cannot handle day-to-day life and who are searching for substitute solutions…Family
or social conflicts often contribute to a person’s decision to join a cult. The
group is a shelter from the aggression that has been felt and it provides a
model of conflict resolution that intellectually satisfies the follower…going
into a cult, in such cases, serves a pseudo-therapeutic function.(Abgrall 107)
Abgrall also argues that certain
kinds of people are less likely to take interest in a cult. Of those more
statistically prone to interest in cults are people between the ages of 18-25,
for example. Older adults and more emotionally and psychologically secure
individuals participate in cults more rarely. There are several possible
explanations for this statistical trend: it may be that older, more
experienced, and more secure individuals have more sophisticated, and less
severe ways of responding to crises of meaning than cult participation. Also,
it may be possible that some experience such crises less powerfully or
profoundly than others. The English political philosopher John Plamenanatz
discusses meaning systems in his book Man
and Society and in it argues that the need for “reliable meanings…is not
felt by all men; and is felt by some much more strongly than by others” (xix).
The Non-Religious
Essential Character of Cults
The kinds of needs, for which
people turn to cults for satisfaction, appear to be predominantly emotional and
psychological, and the cult to which an individual or group suffering a meaning
crisis might turn may be either religious or non-religious. The motivating need
of the individual can be fulfilled by a variety of meaning systems and doesn’t
require any particular religious belief for satisfaction. The important
function of cults is to simply meet needs which less flexible institutions are
able to meet with their conventional and traditional systems. Even religious cults,
therefore, should not be understood as fundamentally religious organizations—though
such cults may espouse some kind of transcendental metanarrative as other
religious organizations do—because any such religious quality is not a defining
characteristic. Contrasting that of a sect, a cult’s theology or core ideology
tends to be less sophisticated, less consistent and coherent, less structured
and systematic, and less static.
This understanding of the
essential nature of cults better accounts for the general homogeneity of cults
despite their wide variety of narratives…
…the mosaic of cults that we see
today is spreading the word about topics quite unrelated to religion. Gnostic
movements predominate in Europe and pseudo-science feeds numerous ideologies.
The notion of past lives, extraterrestrial civilizations, extra-sensory powers
and so on rarely tie in with religious subtexts… Thus it is fundamental that we
define this phenomenon within a framework that excludes religion as a frame of
reference (Abgrall 15).
Defining
the Cult
The
understanding of cult phenomena as empowered by a kind of psychic trauma will
entail that cults must offer distinctly alternative cultures and meaning systems.
The particular character of such a meaning system or culture is not
consequential provided that it is perceived to be sufficiently exotic by its
participants. The need of meaning crisis victims to find a new and reliable
meaning system entails escape and complete abandonment of the former. The
efforts to exchange one’s most fundamental modes of orientation to the world
might entail adopting new speech and thought patterns, new moral convictions
and ethics, and new mannerisms—all new sensibilities, in addition to a new
world-view. This aversion to the
familiar causes the individual’s attraction to cults, the characteristic zeal
of cult participants, and the dramatic personal change associated with
brainwashing.
The
psychological aversion to the familiar caused by a crisis of meaning creates an
escapist culture looking for refuge from a failed meaning system and the institutions
and culture to which it belongs. Cults must be culturally and ideologically
exotic to provide this refuge. Thus, the traditional conception of cults as
strange and unorthodox cultural expatriates has merit. Strangeness is the
single common definitive characteristic among cults.
Works
Cited
Abgrall, Jean-Marie. Soul
Snatchers: the Mechanics of Cults. New York , NY.: Algora
Publishing, 2000.
Ahlstrom , Sidney
E., ed. A Religious History of the American People. Second
ed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972.
Eister, Allan W. "An
Outline of a Structural Theory of Cults." Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion. 1972. JSTOR. 16/11/2011 .
Mcguire, Meredith
B. Religion: the Social Context. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1981.
Melton, J.
Gordon. The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York
, NY.: Garland Publishing, 1886.
Plamenatz, John. Man
and Society. London, UK.: Longman Group, 1963.
