How should we hold appropriate discussions of ‘cults’ and minority religions? It’s a sensitive topic with varied implications for academic disciplines and supportive organisations. Aled Thomas and Edward Graham-Hyde outline the challenges surrounding the term and share insights from their upcoming book, ‘Cult’ Rhetoric in the 21st Century: Deconstructing the Study of New Religious Movements.
Why is the term ‘cult’ still being used? Within the fields of Sociology, Anthropology, Religious Studies, and increasingly in Psychology, the term has been consistently shown as not fit for purpose (at best) or utterly destructive (at worst). In fact, some scholars may wonder why we are raising this issue once again. Surely this is a discussion that was concluded in the 1980s?
Yet, here we are…
Despite the term ‘cult’ becoming the new ‘c-word’ for those of us in the field, in the last year alone we have seen the term being used consistently, and pejoratively, in major documentary productions on Netflix. Equally, a quick search of British tabloid and broadsheet media also demonstrates that the term ‘cult’ is appearing regularly in comment and news sections, although not always in religious contexts. Indeed, use of the term ‘cult’ is not only increasingly popular within political and health discourses, but often problematic (see Thomas & Graham-Hyde 2024 and Graham-Hyde 2023).
There is no scholarly consensus on what the term entails, and that’s where our problems begin.
The idea of a ‘cult’ conjures rich imagery and most people have, at the very least, an idea of what a ‘cult’ is. The term is as fluid as it is widespread. Popular culture, political debates, scholarly work, media accounts (amongst many others) have presented ideas of ‘cults’ in engaging and exciting ways (see Deslippe 2023 and Crockford 2023). As scholars, this gives us rich and exciting ground for conversations surrounding normative ‘cultic’ language; yet simultaneously presents an impossible challenge in establishing rigorous frameworks. There is no scholarly consensus on what the term entails, and that’s where our problems begin.
People identify and categorise groups in different ways – scholars of new religions will often tell you that ‘one person’s cult may be another’s religion’ (and vice versa). When someone points out a ‘cult’, our own perceptions may not match theirs. Rather, it is far more effective for us to ask, ‘what does this person mean by “cult”?’ Which characteristics have they identified? A high-control environment? Strange beliefs? Charismatic and/or duplicitous leadership? A theology that is not in-keeping with their own? Undesirable political views? Abusive dynamics? The list is endless, and the conclusion is clear: to simply categorise a group as a ‘cult’ lacks rigour and clarity.
The humanities and social sciences often encourage people to ‘make the strange familiar and the familiar strange,’ which is a helpful way of unpacking the reductive ‘cult’/‘real religion’ binary. We often playfully encourage our students to think of how strange it is that some believe a man walked on water – a perfectly common and respected belief in the UK. Yet, when we take a step back, it is no less ‘strange’ than a belief in UFOs and alien deities. All beliefs are strange to those unfamiliar with them. This would result in a scholarly discussion of ‘cult’ beliefs being more of a reflection of the author’s positionality and biases, than a careful analysis. Accordingly, avoiding the term is not an ‘endorsement’ of the groups in question, but rather a rigorous approach to serious study.
to simply categorise a group as a ‘cult’ lacks rigour and clarity.
It may appear that that we are hoping the term will ‘go away.’ The reality is that we are urging caution. Despite having argued that the ‘c-word’ does not have utility in academic discourse, we have come to accept that it is an ‘immovable fixture’ within the field of minority religion. We would advocate, for example, that if the term ‘cult’ enables survivors of spiritual abuse, or other types of abuse in religious situations, to articulate and heal from their experiences, then the term obviously has utility in that context.
Of course, some of the blame for the issues we outline fall firmly on the doorstep of scholars of minority religions. It is the role of a scholar to build bridges between societies and the ivory tower, or in this case, between the study of religion and ex-members of minority religions. More care should be given to understanding the use of the terminology at source rather than decrying the usage altogether. For example, for those branded as ‘apostates’, there is a wealth of lived experience and information about their prior belonging and religious identity. For the ‘apostate’, there is an experienced reality which is real for them, irrespective of academic terminology and the definitions therein.
More care should be given to understanding the use of the terminology at source rather than decrying the usage altogether.
We still believe scholars who choose to use ‘cult’ rhetoric must be aware of the consequences of their writing. It is imperative that the author’s intentions behind using ‘cult’ rhetoric is unpicked, it is simply not good enough to use a term because it’s colloquial. An increasing use of the term ‘cult’ has been found in political and medical/health journals with researchers simply espousing a popular understanding of a ‘cult’ rather than an academically robust one. This is hazardous and, in our opinion, a demonstration of an article not ready for publication. Therefore, we will continue to point out the misuse of the term and encourage our readers and colleagues to do the same when the term is clearly being used without justification.
In our forthcoming volume, ‘Cult’ Rhetoric in 21st Century, we have sought to rebuild the scaffolding necessary for the appropriate discussion of minority religions – moving beyond the use of ‘cult’ and other derogatory terms in the pursuit of academic rigour where possible. Within this volume, we aim to sensitively approach the topic of ‘cult’ rhetoric and appreciate that this topic is often emotive. As part of our wider commitment to the study of minority religions, we are also involved with Inform (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) – a charity which provides value-free information about minority religions. Thus, if you have found this blog while searching out of concern for a loved one, then we would recommend you explore this article: ‘How to Get Someone Out of a Cult – and What Happens Afterwards’.
This post first appeared on the LSE Religion and Global Society blog as, The C-Word: Why are academics so concerned about the word ‘cult’?
The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
Image Credit: Harry Shelton via Unsplash.
