From: Kevin Crawley Newsgroups: alt.mindcontrol Subject: A behavioral definition (was TM and Cults) Date: 28 May 1994 06:22:10 GMT Organization: U of Iowa Panda System Lines: 64 Distribution: world Message-ID: <770109990-0-5135@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> Reply-To: aqualung@chop.isca.uiowa.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: chop.isca.uiowa.edu In note , jgoat@world.std.com (James Forgy) writes: >I would like someone to define the word "cult" and provide us with a list >of religions or organizations that are not cults.... > Of course, the problem with the word 'cult' is that it means different things to different folks. I'd like to put forward a behavioral definition: An organization that uses intensive indoctrination techniques to recruit and maintain members into a totalist ideology. Intensive indoctrination techniques include: 1) Subjection to stress and fatigue 2) Social disruption, isolation and pressure 3) Self criticism and humiliation 4) Fear, anxiety and paranoia 5) Control of information 6) Escalating commitment 7) Use of auto-hypnosis to induce 'peak' experiences (No, this is not 'Singer's list,' but it is pretty close. This list is my own, developed for a yearly lecture to Social Psych classes at the U of Iowa.) Totalism is defined by psychiatrist Robert Lifton as the tendency to view the world in terms of 'all or nothing' alignments. Lifton details 8 'psychological themes' that can be found in totalist groups: -- A 'sacred science' -- an ideology that is held to be true for all people at all times. This ideology generally claims to be inspired and scientific at the same time. -- 'Milieu control,' the control of human communication, not only over our communications with others, but also with ourselves. -- 'Mystical manipulation' -- including deception and 'planned spontaneity' which seeks limit self-expression and independent action. -- The demand for purity, the notion that absolute purity exists, and that anything done in the name of this purity is ultimately moral. -- 'The cult of confession' -- "There is the demand that one confess to crimes one has not committed, to sinfulness that artificially induced, in the name of a cure that arbitrarily imposed." (Lifton, _Thought_ Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism") -- 'Loading the language' -- redefinition of language, with an emphasis on moral polarization, and thought terminating cliches. -- 'Doctrine over person' -- the subordination of personal experiences to the doctrines of the sacred science. -- 'Dispensing of existance' -- the doctrine that the group can decide who has the right to exist, and who does not. In other words, the cult manipulates the environment to 'set up' the recruit to trap him or herself in a black and white mindset. I could certainly not give you a list of all the groups or organizations that do or do not meet these criteria, and I'd be real suspicious of anyone who said they could. Others will certainly disagree with me, but personally, I don't think that TM in general meets enough of these criteria to qualify. On the other hand, I think Maharishi's International University probably does. --- Kevin Crawley aqualung@chop.isca.uiowa.edu -- He who experiments learns much, but reboots often. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin Crawley Newsgroups: alt.mindcontrol Subject: Re: A behavioral definition (was TM and Cults) Date: 29 May 1994 22:52:53 GMT Organization: U of Iowa Panda System Lines: 135 Distribution: world Message-ID: <770255837-0-15593@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> Reply-To: aqualung@chop.isca.uiowa.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: chop.isca.uiowa.edu In note <2s8o22$jkc@mailhost.interaccess.com>, kenj@flowbee.interaccess.com (Ken Jones) writes: >aqualung@chop.isca.uiowa.edu writes: >In definition of a cult: I'd like to keep the whole definition, please. What I said was, An organization that uses intensive indoctrination techniques to recruit and maintain members into a totalist ideology. >>Intensive indoctrination techniques include: >>1) Subjection to stress and fatigue >>2) Social disruption, isolation and pressure >>3) Self criticism and humiliation >>4) Fear, anxiety and paranoia >>5) Control of information >>6) Escalating commitment >>7) Use of auto-hypnosis to induce 'peak' experiences > >It seems like the above items can be applied to just about >any of the major religions in the world. Judism, Christianity, >Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. Plus most of the above could also >be applied to being on a sports team, or being part of corporate >culture. Or trying to achieve just about anything which takes plenty >of hard work. This is definity true for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 I apologize -- I should have put at least some description behind those phrases. Partly, as I'll address below, it's a matter of degree. I'll readily admit that you can find instances of any one of these techniques in any social interaction, and in many situations, you might even find three or four. Intensive indoctrination is different in quality and quantity -- five to seven of the techniques, applied, at least by the higher level members, on a deliberate schedule. When you can find most of these, *and* the totalist ideology, I think you may want to do a serious review of your involvement with a group. These criteria do not just apply to religious groups. I've also seen people from secular therapy and philosophic groups who have been subjected to the same techiques. >But let's looks at some of these: >2) Social disruption, isolation and pressure. >This implies that there is a current social structure >that is being disrupted. Along with an individual which >is going against the structure and ones still involved >in the structure. This seems more like an issue of freedom. I'm not just talking about social structure -- I'm talking about the entire social fabric of one's life. If a group teaches you that your all of your relationships with your family and friends are somehow toxic, evil, or even just impeding your development, it immediately cuts you off from all of your traditional 'sounding boards.' You don't notice that right away, because the group is right there to replace them. We are all dependent, albeit to varying degrees, on feedback to evaluate our beliefs and behavior -- controlling that feedback is an incredibly powerful technique to change behavior, particularly when the recruit is unaware that it is happening. The Unification Church members at Booneville used to have a saying -- "No 'first-weekers' talking to 'first-weekers.'" That meant if you were in your first week of 'training,' they didn't want you comparing notes with anyone else who just got there. If you think that you are the only one with doubts about the teachings or practices of the group, you are less likely to act on those doubts. Unified, but surreptitious group reinforcement can be can supress dialog and debate, and encourage self-criticism. Booneville was a real blatant example of social control through physical isolation, but it not really necessary. Once you believe that you can be tainted by non-group contact, you are effectively isolated, no matter what environment you are in. >Freedom for the individual to choose. One way to control >society is to limit freedom of choice. People should have >the freedom to choose what they want to get involved in. I agree with this absolutely. If you *choose* to join any organization, this is your right. My whole premise here is that is possible for an unethical group to substitute compliance for choice through deception and manipulation. >How about 5) Control of information. >Just about every social structure in the history of the >world does this. Most companies and countries in the >world try to control information. Be it via commentary >or out right physical control. This is not a "cult" related >issue, but a standard human tactic of living. Unless you >reveal all information at all times, you are "guilty" of >control of information. Let's not be naive and think that >only "cults" control information, please! This is a matter of degree. There is a big difference between not reveal all information at all times, and a bold-faced lie, or forbidding your members access to information that might undermine your teachings. > >But since this topic relates to "minds", perhaps the >most on-topic part is number 7. >7) Use of auto-hypnosis to induce 'peak' experiences >Do you know of any "valid" way to have a 'peak' experience? I believe that a spiritual 'peak' experience is certainly a possibility. I also know that such an experience can be counterfeit. If a person has never had a spiritual experience, and has never done auto-hypnosis before, it's not very difficult to convince them that trance is proof that the group's teaching are Truth. >Do you consider praying auto-hypnosis? Do you consider >meditation auto-hypnosis? Do you think there is any metaphysical >way to have a 'peak' experience which is not auto-hypnosis? Sometimes, sometimes, and that depends on your definition. Saying a rosary, for example, could very well be auto-hypnosis. I have no doubt that TM is auto-hypnosis, (on objective and subjective criteria), but I won't presume to say that of all forms of meditation or prayer. I believe that chanting, speaking in tongues, meditation, centering, guided-imagery, closed-eye processes, are all capable of inducing trance. Now, it may be that by using meditation or hypnosis, one could be achieving an altered state that makes a legitimate peak experience. Using the fact that meditation does induce an altered state as proof of it's spiritual or scientific validity, however, is a fallacy. >kenj@edb.com --- Kevin Crawley aqualung@chop.isca.uiowa.edu -- He who experiments learns much, but reboots often. --