Five Elements Of A Cult
By Syran Warner
Definitions Matter.
The Body International recently published an article about a podcast called Cultish, a show that appears to be about cult education, but is actually a tool to indoctrinate listeners to the right-wing Christian ideology of a church with a bonanza of red flags. Essentially, it’s an anti-cult podcast created by a cult, and the content is as ridiculous as you might imagine if you’re hip to the context.
Bigfoot is seriously considered as if the fictional myth of Bigfoot was a cult story. Manson turns out to be a conspiracy by the government. Zen Buddhism at large is a cult!
Nothing about the show is rational.
The notes for a new Cultish episode.
After the story went up here, Cultish responded by joyfully posting the article on social media and sending a legion of trolls our way. Followers aimed to discredit the piece and the irreverent online cult magazine the story was published in. This is a very common road for a cult to travel.
What’s more, as the beliefs of the church behind Cultish came out in the comments, the misinformation being shoved down the throats of followers became stunningly obvious. That also is a red flag cults are known to wave.
In between the insults, one commenter was adamant that the capital “G” used to identify the Christian god as “God” was something that was exclusive to Christianity. Apparently, this person was unaware of other names for things we capitalize like Honda, Michael Jordan, and Microsoft.
Another commenter defended the very ironic Cultish slogan “bad theology hurts people” with a strange take about how the word “theology” only applies to Christianity. When they were asked to Google Jewish theology the tip was refused and the argument continued in bad faith.
These absurd comments went on and on and the genesis of the bogus claims was obvious. The Cultish die-hards seem to believe the bullshit that reinforces their worldview is founded in what is truly the one and only version of a legitimate religion, and even our language proves it to be true.
These concepts totally miss the mark because they’re fictitious, but it’s true that language and definitions are important.
What A Cult Isn’t.
The most incredible thing about the comments on Instagram was that the accounts sent to smear from a cult podcast funded by a church towards a cult magazine funded by tips from serving pizza were totally clueless about what actually constitutes a cult in the first place. In the minds of Cultish listeners, people who are mean to Cultish are in a cult, and pretty much all sects of all religions that don’t subscribe to the Apologia-centric version of Christianity are cults.
Nothing else was a cult, except maybe Bigfoot.
The “holy shit” moment of the dialogue about what a cult is came when the specifics of the definition known to Cultish listeners rolled out.
Wow Wow Wow. Did Heaven’s Gate add to scripture? Did NXIVM subtract from the Trinity? Did Charles Manson multiply the means of salvation? Is a division of loyalties the problem with yoga cults?
Not only does this ridiculous list of total bullshit not account for the extremely wide variety of cults, many of which are not religious in the first place, it clearly illustrates what members of this group have been taught to think on the subject from the manipulative perspective of the source. It’s just like thinking theology only applies to Christians. That doesn’t mean it’s not effective, however.
If you know anything about cults, listening to Cultish is test of endurance without a rival, but still it’s easy to imagine that if you subscribed to Apologia’s belief system and their insane “four point method,” and if that was the only measuring stick you’d ever been introduced to, believing a factor in cultdom is “multiply[ing] the means of salvation” would make some logical sense.
What’s most problematic here is that despite all the cult models built by experts who didn’t flunk out of Bible school, absolutely no one could be convinced to seek out an alternative to the fake version. That is in some respects a sign of classic information control, a factor in a real expert’s cult model, which is not theologically based.
For a variety of reasons, a right-wing Christian perspective on what makes a cult a cult is nowhere near as valuable as the perspective of that of a social psychologist, but this case is particularly egregious, because, you know, it’s the product of an actual cult.
For the record, Cultish deleted all posts about the article they put up, and the comments from followers magically ceased at the same time.
The Cultish social accounts distancing themselves from the article had a legitimately hilarious conclusion though. Cultish may have deleted all it’s posts drawing attention to the fact that they were being labeled a cult publically, but they went so HAM when they embraced their smear it wasn’t just links they posted. Cultish took one of the images from the article and made it their wallpaper on Facebook.
As of press time the image of one of the hosts with the word “control” covering his eyes is still live, and it’s now devoid of all context after everything else they deleted. Amazing!
Alexandra Stein
Knows What A Cult Is.
The meaning of the word “cult” has expanded greatly over the past 100 years. It used to be that a self-help group like NXIVM wouldn’t fit the popular definition of a cult because of the religious connotations associated with the word. Then academics like Robert Jay Lifton (who coined the term “brainwashing”) arrived on the scene and studied coercive control on a broad scale. Researchers documented similarities between things like state-run authoritarian regimes and coercive religious groups. In the 70’s cults exploded in our culture to such a degree that academia on the subject expanded further, and “cult expert” became a legitimate description for a social psychologist who studies cults.
Dr. Alexandra Stein got her degree in social psychology from the University of Minnesota where her thesis was very much cult related. She’s now a research fellow at London South Bank University.
Not only is Stein deeply educated on the subject of cults and authoritarian systems, she has first-person experience that comes from her time in a political cult called The O that she was a member of for over a decade. Alexandra Stein councils cult survivors. She lectures about cults. She didn’t drop out of school and pretend to be an expert on a podcast, she is as legitimate of a cult expert as there is. It’s literally her job.
Alexandra doesn’t subscribe to the four point system Cultish listeners are fond of for a variety of reasons.
One, that system fails to describe all cults, particularly those that are nonreligious- this is why Cultish can’t talk about Manson without blending what happened with a conspiracy theory- and being that Stein was in a cult where religion wasn’t a factor, you can imagine why a theological model wouldn’t be taken seriously. Two, Dr. Stein understands that “subtracting from the Trinity” has nothing whatsoever to do with what a cult is because she studies cults. Three, she’s a cult expert so she doesn’t fuck around with theories that bubble up on podcasts. Four, she has her own model based on decades of research. Five, psychology experts don’t typically base their beliefs on fiction.
Recently, Dr. Alexandra Stein submitted a document to the January 6th Committee, which is all about coercive control, authoritarianism, and some very culty elements to the insurrection that should be considered by honest people. Included in Stein’s submission was her simple, easy to follow guide of five elements you’ll find in virtually every cult on planet earth. It’s the strongest model we’ve seen and it has absolutely nothing to do with theology.
1) A cultic or totalist system is formed and controlled by a charismatic authoritarian leader (which in later generations may become a leadership group).
2) It is a rigidly bounded, dense, steeply hierarchical and isolating social system. Looser front groups may exist for the purpose of recruitment, gaining resources and spreading propaganda.
3) The structure is supported and represented by a total, exclusive and isolating ideology.
4) The leader sets in motion processes of brainwashing or coercive persuasion designed to isolate and control followers. This involves social and psychological isolation, engulfment within a supposed benevolent cultic system, and the chronic arousal of stress and fear.
5) As a result followers are able to be exploited and potentially become deployable agents, demonstrating “hyper-credulity” for and uncritical obedience to the group, regardless of their own survival needs.
For a more complete picture of Dr. Stein’s model, you can visit her website. These five elements that define what a cult is are valuable, and though there are other models, hers does not conflict with any other legitimate resource. It can be applied to Manson. It can be applied to Warren Jeffs. It can be applied to any cult. It won’t be useful if you’re talking about Bigfoot, but you could certainly use it in a discussion about Apologia and it’s product Cultish.
The five elements of a cult listed in Stein’s model certainly are not the end of the story on what a cult is. Anyone who is curious about this stuff should absolutely consult multiple sources. It’s the model editorial turns to first when deciding if any particular group should be labeled a cult or not, but it’s totally understandable if readers who want another trustworthy perspective to turn to someone who was in a Christianity-based religious cult first, like Dr. Steve Hassan, who has his own model.
You can search all kinds of opinions from educators and psychologists to gain a fuller picture, but they’ll generally all say the same things essentially, and none of them will tell you their version of the factors that make up a cult is an empirical truth that should be the final word on cults if they’re legitimate.
That’s something a cult would do.
