In the year 2001, I was interviewed approximately 200 times by various magazine columnists, radio and television show hosts, and newspaper writers. During this time I grew increasingly concerned that some interviewer would eventually put me on the spot and ask me if my organization was a cult. I agonized over this possibility, especially regarding my answer, if questioned.
I did not want to answer with denial. Whenever I have witnessed others in denial about some issue, they sounded weak and guilty. In fact, the use of denial seems a natural and forgivable red herring in any crime mystery. After all, our prisons are full of criminals who deny guilt, a few truly innocents notwithstanding.
Shortly before encountering an interview where the feared question was indeed popped, I came to an epiphany regarding cults. So when asked if I was a cult leader, I proudly answered, “Yes.”
This answered surprised the interviewer, who represented Fox News from Tampa. My complete reply was something to the effect of,
Yes, but let’s first briefly define cult. A cult is a group of people who uphold a certain belief system and/or its charismatic leader. I just described the Pilgrims, the Quakers, the Puritans, the Shakers, the Amish, the Baptists, the Catholics, the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Marxists, the Marines, the Daughters of the American Revolution, any fraternity or sorority on any university campus, the American Medical Association, the Jews, the National Academy of Science, the American Cancer Society, the Girl Scouts, the Branch Davidians, the Nazis, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, the United Nations, the Rotary Club, as well as my business and my following, just to scratch the surface.
Our forefathers fled European oppression for their beliefs and came here and settled in various enclaves. Collectively, they eventually formed a country promoting freedom of belief and speech. The United States is basically a collection of cults, and this is a major reason to be proud to be a citizen here.
The interviewer then said, “Turn off the camera. We can’t use that.”
I immediately asked, “What do you mean, you can’t use it? Granted, this is off topic, but, generally speaking, the most important information you’ve recorded in years.” He didn’t respond.
I continued to reflect on my answer for several weeks, sometimes wishing I could have stated it better. I also noted how the media has emotionally charged the word, cult, to imply something disparaging. From here, I came to realize that to label a group as a cult in this manner evolves to become an acceptable and subtle form of bigotry.
For example, if I want to disparage my competition as possessing values or practices I don’t respect, I can probably get away with calling them a cult easier than if I grouped them under any other obvious stereotype or racist remark. See? I have the option with “cult” to be judgmental, if not prejudicial and racist, without appearing such.
About 2018, Senator Bob Corker characterized Trump supporters and the GOP as “cultish.” Corker was technically correct. But he was both incorrect and morally wrong to suggest that cult carries with it any degree of the pejorative.
This was a cheap shot by Corker. It was underhanded, sophomoric babbling to camouflage unorganized thought, as readers of the late Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian, would agree.
And Trump would be incorrect to deny that his following is a cult. His is certainly a cult, just as my organization, the SuperSlow Exercise Guild, was a cult and Nautilus Sports Medical, was/is a cult.
Recently, my linguistically astute attorney friend stated, “But Ken, language evolves and cult has taken on a pejorative implication.”
I partly disagree. It’s merely been misused and misapplied with the pejorative. Yes, language evolves, but along with evolving, if so, we’ve muddied the meaning without distinctions. Besides, if you consult the dictionaries going back over the past five decades the pejorative does not clearly and exclusively creep into its meaning unless one solely consults that definition of cult by Google.
The following definition is from a 1933 Webster’s. It is not pejorative unless one considers extravagant (a judgemental criticism) to be a bad thing. I guess, by conflating definition #1 and #2, one might infer that religious observances are unreasonable:
Another example, following, is the entry from a 1961 (61 years ago) Webster’s Dictionary. There is no pejorative:
Next is the entry from a 1978 (54 years ago) New World Dictionary. There is no pejorative:
Next is the entry from a 1992 (30 years ago) Websters Dictionary. It does mention in definition #3 that it might refer to a spurious or unorthodox religion, but note that the context here is religion, a distinctive application of the word that is not clearly assumed in a general context. I elaborate on this specifically in a later section herein:
Next is cult as define online in 2018 by Google. As I might expect, Google seems to impart some pejorative slant that earlier definers have excluded. But also note that it is a restricted definition—should be much broader as in the previous ones already recited—as well as somewhat inconsistent. After stating “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister” it lists synonyms as sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, and faction. This includes pretty much everybody and everything. It is convenient for Google to ignore the fact that Google is also a cult.
Note the word, movement. Later herein, I will refer to it in my discussion of Hoffer’s work.
What’s more, who defines “relatively small group” or “strange” or “sinister?” Later in a subsequent part, I will refer to it in my discussion of the Plumed Serpent.
It’s apparent to me that whoever wrote and/or reviewed this definition was either not aware of its broader meanings or that the writers deliberately intended to narrow its meaning. Still, its usage cannot be assumed to be pejorative by the listener or reader of the word.
Now note what Wikipedia had to say in 2018. Note that “the term itself is controversial.” Also note that the sociological classification of religious movement per se, it is a social group exhibiting deviant or novel beliefs and practices. Also, that “deviant” does not necessarily denote negative or positive deviation. For improvement to occur in anything requires change, thus deviation:
Lastly we have the online Merriam-Webster’s definition with the realization that Google, Wikipedia, and Merriam-Webster are concurrently up-to-date. Note that it more clearly includes the broad panoply of the word:
For the record, cult is the root of culture and various cultures comprise our society at large. A sect is merely a further subdivision of cult—not to be confused with occult.
In Part III, we will explore how the encouragement for plurality and diversity is contradictory to the formation of cults.