Cults: A Wicked Problem.
To ex members, cults are dangerous and ruin lives, to current members it is their way of life and their identity. To some researchers cults may appear strange but are mostly harmless, to others they are systematically abusing their members and need to be stopped. To some lawmakers the right to religious freedom reigns supreme, to others, religious freedom cannot include the right to coercively control people and force them to do things that are not in their own interests. While this sometimes, bad tempered discussion continues, depending upon how you count, thousands or even millions of people are being influenced by groups to devote their lives to goals as diverse as saving humanity by removing alien entities from minds, saving souls from God’s wrath, surviving Armageddon, achieving transcendence or growing to be the best version of you, while at the same time perpetrating the systematic abuse of their members.
The concept of the wicked problem was apparently introduced by Rittel and then discussed by C West Churchman in the journal Management Science (Churchman, 1967; Peters, 2017) to describe problems related to policy and planning that seemed to represent a level of difficulty and complexity that defied normal problem-solving methods. Wicked problems seem to mischievously evade normal logic, changing shape and nature depending on how you look at them and from whose perspective. They stated that wicked problems had ten features, including that they are difficult to define, had no useful test of a solution, were essentially unique and had multiple ways of explaining the problem. Peters (2017) argues that they are politically and socially complex with multiple actors. Wicked problems are so knotty and intractable by their nature so as to be almost if not completely unsolvable.
Whilst the concept of the wicked problem may have been conceptualised within the planning and public policy arena, the idea is of sufficient quirkiness to catch-on within all sorts of organizational settings, and in this blog I argue that cults are a classic example. The definition of cults is contested, but researchers and writers about these groups often identify specific characteristics that might identify a cult, or a cultic group. These features include lying to prospective cult members, controlling individuals’ behaviour, trying to manipulate them into giving up their freedoms, telling them what they should think, what they should do, who they can love etc. It includes controlling the information the person receives and undermining any source of information that does not come from the group. It might also include keeping an individual in a subservient state and making them feel that they are worthless and unable to take care of themselves (Hassan, 1990). Another common feature is the claim to transcendental or special knowledge (Lalich, 2019) and that only through the leader or the group can this be truly understood and salvation achieved.
Great! So we have a clearer sense of what we are talking about when we talk about cults. “Not so fast” reply some sociologists or researchers engaged in the study of religious practices, “much of what you’ve just described can be said about lots of social situations”. Institutions of all kinds try to control people’s behaviour; they might even use threats of punishment or offers of reward. Parents may try to control what their teenage children see through parental controls on devices. Cults they say, are just another type of social structure using normal social mechanisms. Mainstream religions tell their parishioners what they should believe, who they should worship and yes at times who they can love, marry and have sex with. To add to the confusion the label of cult seems to be encompassing more and more groups or movements, including political parties and social movements etc. Just a quick look at my bookshelf I see The Cult of Trump (Hassan, 2020) and also The cult of Critical Race Theory (Swartz, 2021) part of my research for past and future episodes on the podcast I co-host with my daughter called Cult Hackers.
One of the frustrations felt by former members of cults about this view as propagated by some sociologists, is that the views of ex members are sometimes seen as, if not exactly irrelevant, less useful because of their lack of objectivity. The claim is that apostates are often angry and bitter; therefore, their views lack the sober reflection and objectivity of the researcher. As both a former member and a researcher with formal psychological training I strongly disagree. Of course, former members have a certain perspective and cannot be the only source of data but to dismiss their experiences and stories because they are “biased” is like claiming that we should not listen to the victim of a burglary because they are too emotional about losing all their possessions. Ex members are a vital resource to understand the experience and phenomenology of belonging to a group and should be very much part of the conversation.
So, what about current members? Are their stories important to understand the nature of the group? Here’s a great instance of where the problem reveals its wickedness. As an ex-member of a group that I consider fits the definition of a dangerous cult, I might point out that the individuals currently in the group are not in full control of their thinking capacities. I might describe them as being brainwashed or as being the victim of thought reform — at very least as being deceived, and now trapped within an environment where their own personhood is being suppressed by the group. In the main, this is my view, however I find myself feeling slightly uncomfortable at my own stance. Surely to ignore the experience of those current members is to also leave out an important part of the data. Am I not guilty of the very thing I am accusing others of? On the other hand, if all I get from current members are essentially the words or ideas of the group leaders am I really understanding their own phenomenology or is it just the story the leader wishes to convey? During the early work on thought reform by Robert J Lifton into prisoners of communist China (Lifton, 2012) it was clear individuals were simply spouting party phrases and doctrine, with varying degrees of conviction. It is hard to know whether all people in all cults can be described in this way.
This brings us back to the question of definition. Because the word cult describes a wide range of organisations, it is logical to expect that some are more extreme than others, and this is what we find. The level of control can be said to be on a spectrum in that some extreme cults, where followers live in complete isolation, could be seen as total in their control and coercion, whereas others may wield a measure of control. Is the level of control and coercion for an individual within the Jehovah’s Witnesses the same as it was for those within The Peoples Temple? I would suggest not but many of the same mechanisms are there just not to the same extreme — at least currently.
This blog began with the question of whether society should do something about damaging cults. Wrapped up in this discussion is the subject of freedom, in particular freedom of belief. Democratic societies, rightly stringently protect this right, even if the beliefs seem crazy or ridiculous. In fact, a brief look at most religious beliefs makes it hard not to argue that, when looked at from a non-believer’s perspective, they all seem a bit — let’s say — far-fetched. Before anyone accuses me of anti-religious bias, I would also point to some of our leading physical theories about the Universe. Take your pick from the ‘many worlds theory’ or the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics among others to show that ideas that seem outlandish are not restricted to religions and in itself does not prove that they are wrong. An additional part of the wickedness of the problem is that we have competing and maybe incompatible aims and drivers. On the one hand, being able to believe whatever we want is a right we cherish, but on the other, these beliefs may have been the result of lies, indoctrination or even a psychologically abusive relationship. As a free society we cannot dictate belief, but we also need to protect citizens. We normally talk about balancing rights and responsibilities, but because we have so many different stakeholders and agendas, from the religious person anxious to protect their right to their beliefs, to the policy maker wanting to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, it is difficult to know exactly how this balance is drawn.
So the question of what, in a modern democratic society we should do about cults is indeed a wicked problem. It is for this reason that ex members of groups continually press governments to do something about abuses of these groups and try, sometimes in vain to convince society there is a problem and the problem is more than a couple of salacious stories about an extreme group somewhere over there. We are stuck in ever decreasing circles of disagreement about the issue, the definition of it, whether we should be worried and whether it’s the price we pay to allow freedom of thought, belief and religion.
Because each wicked problem is, by its nature unique, this knotty problem is one that will not easily be solved by simply doing what we have done elsewhere. It cannot however be ignored. Taking action against groups who abuse their members is a hot potato that politicians will ignore if they can — they know a wicked problem when they see one. So is there a solution to the wicked problem of cults? According to Churchman one common approach to a wicked problem it to shave a bit off and deal with this bit, let’s call that the “how to eat an elephant approach”. An example of that could be passing legislation that group-mandated shunning as a policy is illegal. Or maybe removing charity status from groups who practice shunning or other anti-social policies.
So is there anything that we can do? Is there something we could shave off to deal with? I have two suggestions. Firstly, the claim that these groups are harmless — just new and different, allows damaging cults to say that they are victims of bigotry and intolerance, or of vindictive former members and must be combatted. Research that does little but accept the assertions of the group about itself should be viewed with high levels of scepticism. A recent guest on my podcast from a former Children of God cult member, described how they had a dedicated “Media home” to bring researchers and reporters to, which would reassure the world that there was “nothing to see here”. Upon leaving her group, she struggled to recognise the group she knew well from the description the researchers provided. Of course, researchers are not investigative reporters, but simply accepting the story as told by the most faithful adherents is at best presenting incomplete data, and at worst providing academic cover for groups to continue doing harm with impunity. Here I am not saying that I’m looking for researchers to do a “hatchet job” on groups or judge them by the worst examples of behaviour. All groups will have incidents where individuals do bad things (the so-called bad apples) but where they are systematically damaging people, this needs to be part of the data.
Secondly, whilst religious groups are not the only type of cult, we need to start having a grown-up conversation about the way modern cults leverage concerns about religious freedom to avoid close scrutiny and criticism. Whilst on the face of it the established Churches have nothing to gain from protecting religious cults, they are not necessarily eager to weigh in on the side of closer scrutiny either, for fear they might be next. I call this the “first they came for the cults..” fear. Throughout history, religious intolerance has been the cause of much suffering, whether that be religions attacking each other through the mechanisms of the state, such as Catholics persecuting Protestants and vice versa or of the state banning religious belief altogether as in some Communist countries. It is understandable that society worries about singling out religious groups and I share this worry. I do not want to see us go down the road of religious intolerance, but that cannot mean we are never critical of, or scrutinise the practices of groups, or even that in some extreme cases we legislate to protect members and wider society.
Cults are a wicked problem because they expose competing claims to freedom and human rights as well as raise uncomfortable questions about how much society and the state should allow or even, as is the case when providing charity status, facilitate these organizations to thrive. Members fear religious persecution, apostates experience threats at times to their lives, livelihoods and community. The established Church fears a slippery slope, liberal democratic societies seek to respect and celebrate diversity without discrimination, and governments place the question of cults in the “too difficult pile”. The end result is that millions throughout the world endure controlling, manipulative, psychologically, and at times physically, damaging behaviour by groups and their leadership. Those that leave often have to suffer the pain of trauma from their experiences, the loss of their families and community and the realisation of the loss of many years where they might have been getting an education, finding love, having children, earning money and finding real meaning. As a society we need to understand better the nature of damaging cults, the psychological mechanisms they use, the experiences of those inside and outside as well as not being afraid to challenge bad behaviour. To ignore a wicked problem is to reward it for its wickedness and invite even more bad behaviour.
Stephen Mather MBPsS is a Podcaster, Corporate Leadership and Management Trainer & Coach with a Bachelors Degree in Psychology and a Masters in Organizational Psychology. He was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness and studies cults and high control groups.
Podcast ‘Cult Hackers’ pod.link/1540824671
References
1967) Free for All. Management Science 14(4):B-141-B-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141
B. Guy Peters (2017) What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program, Policy and Society, 36:3, 385–396, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633
Hassan, S. (1990). Combatting cult mind control (p. 213). Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Hassan, S. (2020). The cult of Trump: A leading cult expert explains how the president uses mind control. Free Press.
Lalich, J., & McLaren, K. (2017). Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Outs, and Starting Over. Routledge.
Lifton, R. J. (2012). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of brainwashing in China. UNC Press Books.
Swartz, D.M. (2021) The Cult of Critical Theory: Slaying the false narratives of Systemic Racism, White Fragility, The 1619 Project, Breonna Taylor, Critical Race Theory, Eric Garner, Michael Brown and more…
