Clarifying the Cult

7/30/2019 Clarifying the Cult

1/15

Clarifying the CultAuthor(s): Colin CampbellSource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1977), pp. 375-388Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/590001 .

Accessed: 24/04/2013 17:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:42:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/590001?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/590001?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/15

British rournal f Sociology lzolume8 J%umberSeptember977ColinCampbell

ClarifyinghecultABSTRACT

This paper is an attemptto clarifythe conceptof cult and, inparticular,nattempt oreplace hepresentpredominantlympiricalconceptwithonewhichmoreclosely esemblesnidealtype.Thekeyto such a formulations seen to lie in theidentificationf a distinctlyculticsystemof beliefs,whlchpossessnternalcoherenceandimplya particularormof socialorganization.Sucha system s foundinTroeltsch's riginaldescription f 'spiritual eligionand Mysticism'which is herepresentedas the ideal-typical ult religion.This formof belief is then shown as logicallyimplyingthe existenceof themysticcollectivity,whilstthe cult, as this has been conventionallydescribed, s relegatedto the categoryof a primarilyempiricalconstruct.

INTRODUCTIONThe need for a moreadequate ormulation f the conceptof cult hasbecome ncreasingly pparent.lAlthough hevagueandunsatisfactorynatureof this term has long been commentedon, it has taken therenewed ociologicalnterestn cults andculticphenomena n the latesixtes and early seventies2o highlightthis deficiency.Attemptstoremedy histhroughgreaterconceptual larification avebeenmade,3but it is still the case, as Wallis has observed,that Canalyticffortdirectedat the cult has . . . issued n little theoreticaladvance'.4Theaimof thispaper s to identify he problemswhichhavepreventedhesuccessfulormulation f a conceptually oherentconceptof the cultandto propose hatanalysishas so farfailedto distinguish dequatelybetween heempirical onstruct fthecultand theidealtypeconceptofthe mysticcollectivity.In TheSocialTeachingf theChristianhurches,Troeltschdistinguishedthree main types of Christian houghtand tracedboth their inter-connections ndimplicationsorsocial ifeup to theeighteenth entury.His threetypeswerechurchreligion,sect religionand mysticismor'spiritualand mysticalreligion'.The firsttwo he identifiedwith thedichotomousormsof religiousorganization,he churchand the sect,

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:42:02 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

376 ColinGampbellwhilsthe describedhe third ypeas a formof anti-associationalndividu-alism which, although t did not lead to the formationof religiousorganizations n the conventional ense, might be the occasion forsmall, nformaland transient roups.However,most studiesof the cult derivetheir inspiration ess fromTroeltsch hanfromHowardBecker,6 hoseconceptof the cult a kindof quasi-group mbodyingan individualisticearch for cstaticexperi-ence-did not so much violate Troeltsch'susage as sever it from itsclose associationwith a particular ormof religion.WhereasTroeltschhad been principally oncernedwith distinguishingystems f religiousbelief and demonstratinghat each had distinctive ociological onse-quences,Beckerwas merelyconcerned o delineate ypes of religiousorganization.Thus, although there is a resemblancebetween theirrespective ormulations,heirmannerof approachs very diffierent. orTroeltsch he cult was merelya phenomenon ontingenton mysticalreligion, whilst for Becker a vague mysticismbecame a contingentfeatureof the cult.SubsequentAmerican sociologistsbroke entirely with Troeltsch'soriginalconception,droppingall referenceso mysticism nd mysticalreligion,and indeed in some instances o religionof any kind, beingcontent to specifycultic beliefsas those which were deviantfrom theperspective f religiousand secularorthodoxy.7This usage s not onlyat odds with Troeltsch's ormulation ut also contrastswith Becker's,neitherof whommadeuseofthe criterion f deviancy. n Britain,DavidMartinrevivedan important eatureof Troeltsch's riginalperspectivewhen he identified he cult as embodying he mostradically ndividua-listic ormof religious xperience8ndrecent tudieshaveeither ollowedthis line of argument, tressing he principleof 'epistemologicalndivi-dualism',9 r have attempted o synthesize he Britishand Americanapproaches o the conceptualizationf the cult.lThe current tateof conceptualizations thussomewhat onfused ndunsatisfactory. here s still no standardusageand no obviousmannerof reconciling he traditions f thoughtwhich stemfromTroeltschandBeckerwith the more recenttendency o definethe cult as a 'deviant'formof religion.Neither s there any agreement ver the sub-varietiesof the cult. The distinctionproposedby David Martin between themystic-religious ult and the quasi-religious,manipulative' ult hasnot becomewidely adopted;ll nor does it look as if GeoffreyNelson'scategorization f cults as 'Permanent', Centralized' nd the like willfind readyacceptance.l2 n addition, here s an absenceof agreementover the questionof whethercults are necessarilynon-Christian,oralthoughTroeltsch ormulated is conception f mysticreligion romastudy of Christianity,David Martin and BentonJohnson have bothsuggested hat cults are essentiallynon-Christiann character.l3 nview of these diXerencest is not surprising o End that there is littleagreement ver heories f the origin,development nd demise f cults.l4



4/15

C;larifyinghecult 377CULT AS A NON-GROUP

Thereis some agreementabout the structural eaturesof the cult.Successivetudieshaveled sociologistso endorseBecker'sdescriptionof a 'veryamorphous,oose-textured,ncondensedypeof socialstruc-ture',l5whilstit is generallyagreedthat cultsare transient, olerant,non-exclusive,ack a clear distinctionbetweenmembersand non-membersand are poorlydiffierentiatedrom the surrounding ulticmilieu.l6To thisextent t mayappearasif someveryrealprogress asbeenmade n buildinga coherent onceptof the cult.Butappearancescan be deceptive.In thefirstplace,thisconsensuss largelyanagreement verwhatthecultisnot,rather hanwhat t is.Thecultis described sa groupwhichone doesnotjoin, whichis not permanentand enduring,whichis notexclusiveandwhichdoesnot haveclearlyarticulatedbeliefs.Althoughthereare sometermsused,suchas 'tolerant',whichare positive,theoverwhelmingbias of this descriptions negative.Consequently,tsvalueis verymuchlessthanit otherwisemighthavebeen.What,onewonders, s the actualdenotativepowercontained n such termsas'amorphous',loosely-structured'nd 'undefined' What,therefore,s

thevalueof a generalagreemento definethe cultin suchtermsSecondly,what is even more disturbing,s that this consensusofopinion ocusesuponcharacteristicshichtendtonegate heconceptofa socialgroup,whenit is a typeof socialgroupwhichis beingdistin-guished.Becker'sdescriptions of a groupwhichlacksstructure:The cult is the mostephemeral f all typesof religious tructure-indeed,it is usuallyso loosely ntegratedand so transitoryhat theterm'structure's almosta misnomer.17

Fromthisit wouldappear hat the distinguishingeatureof the cultisthat it is 'almost'not a group.18 ndeed, the negativecharacteristicsmentionedaboveas characterizinghe cult are exactlythoseconven-tionallyusedto identify heconceptof a socialgroup, .e. membership,structureand commonbeliefs.19f the cult is identifiedby its lackofthese, then we are forcedto concludethat the cult is that kind ofreligious roupwhich snota group.Thisconclusion ppearsunaccept-ablebecause llogical,20ut it serves o demonstratehattheconsensusover the structural haracteristicsf the cult is basedupon a doublenegativity.Firstof all, it is baseduponthe view that the cult is thatformof religiousorganizationwhichis not a sect,churchor denomina-tionastheseareconventionallynderstood, ndsecondly, hatthecultis thatformof socialphenomenonwhichcomesclosest o resemblingnon-group. Sucha formulations bound osuggesthatcultis littlemorethana residualcategory.21It is apparent romthis that no designation f the cult in termsofstructure lonewillsuffice,norcananyamountofattentionostructure

cc



5/15

378 ColinCampbellmakeup forthe lackof an adequate tatement f culticbelief.A formofnon-sect,non-denomination, on-church,non-group or quasi-group)is not a sufficient efinition f this concept s to have any value for thesociologyof religion.There has to be some designationof a form ofreligiousbelief,and such beliefshave to be clearlyrelated o structure.Unfortunately, here has been a persistent endency to ignore thequestionof belief in most discussions f the cult. This appears o stemfrom the widespreadopinion that cultic beliefs are so various andfluctuating hat they have no obvious common denominator, ther,perhaps, han a certainstraintowardmysticism.22 n the one hand,there have been detailedstudiesof belief systems uch as Scientologyand Spiritualism,and, on the other, vague comments about the'mystical'or 'individualistic'haracter f cultic belief in general.Butthere have been no attempts o specify cult religion'as such. Conse-quently, when it comes to defining the cult in terms of its culturalcharacteristics,t hasbeennecessaryo fall backon suchnon-substantivefeatures s devianceor individualism. hese attercriteria,however, requite inadequateas a basis or distinguishinghe cult fromthe sect orchurch,or indeed fromsecular quasi-groups'.If the assumption hat cult beliefs are so various as to lack anycommon denominator other than the exclusionof sect religion andchurchreligion) s to be takenseriously, hen one would be forced toconclude that the concept of cult is meaningless.For if there is nodeterminate et of religiousbeliefs, he definition f cult would have torest entirelyupon structural eaturesand, although his might identifya particular orm of social organization, t would not be a conceptwhich would have any special ignificanceor the sociology f religion.If, on the other hand, the assumptions made that cultic beliefsaredistinguished, ot by their intrinsiccontent, but by some contingentfeature uch as devianceor an individualisticmodeof adherence, henwe find that thesecharacteristicsre muchtoo vague and unspecific oenableus eitherto adequatelydifferentiate ultsfromsects,denomina-tions and secular nterestgroups,or to demonstrate ow it is that thedistinctive tructuraleatures f the cult follow rom heseculturalones.What is required, n orderfor an ideal type of the cult to be con-structed, s that thereshouldbe somespecification f a distinctive et ofcultic beliefs.Beliefs hat constitutea system and possessmeaningfulcoherenceand whilst specific enough to contrastwith those whichtypify sectarianismand church religion, are yet broad enough toembraceparticularbeliefsystems. n addition, uch a systemof beliefsshouldgenerate mplications or social actionthat lead to a distinctive'cultic'socialphenomenon.



6/15

Clarifyinghecult 379CRITERIA OF CULT BELIEP

Deviance, individualism and mysticism are the three criteria whichhave been employed, sometimes individually, sometimes in combina-tion, to distinguish cultic beliefs. None of these, however, adequatelydelineate the cult from other phenomena nor account for the peculiarstructural characteristicsof the cult.23The identification of the cult as a deviant group was made byDohrman,24whilst Lofland has adopted a similar perspective, describ-ing cults as groups which break offfrom the conventional consensusand'espouse very diffierentviews of the real, the possible and the moral'.25Glock and Stark also identify cults as 'religiousmovements which drawtheir inspiration from other than the primaryreligion of the culture'.26The deficiencies of this approach are several. Firstly, deviance andvariance are particularly diScult to distinguish n the highly pluralisticcultures of modern societies as indeed is the 'conventional consensus'. IsMormonism perhaps a cult in North America? Do the Sikhs constitutea cult in Great Britain? Is The Order of The Cross not a cult because itdoes draw its inspiration from the primary religion of the culture?Clearly this negative characterization of the cult is far from helpful,stressingonce again its status as a residualcategory. Secondly, it fails todistinguish between cultic and sectarian forms of deviant religiosity for,as Wallis has observed, 'Deviance . . . is a distinguishingfeature of bothcult and sect'.27 Thirdly, the fact that cultic beliefs are deviant is notsuicient to explain the peculiar 'quasi-group'characteristicsof culticbodies. Although one could argue that people who hold deviant beliefsfeel the need to gather together for mutual reassuranceand protectionin the face of a hostile or critical society, it is hard to see why they shouldgather in ephemeral, loosely-structuredgroups rather than in tight-knit,permanent, 'sectarian' ones.The stress upon individualism as a crucial characteristicof the cult isfound in Becker's formulation as well as constituting an importantingredient in Troeltsch'smystical religion.Beckerstated that 'tendenciestoward religion of a strictly private, personalcharacter . . . come to fullfruition in the cult' and that for the cult believer the 'center of hiscosmos is his "I" '.28 Martin endorses hisview declaring that 'The term"cult" indicates the most radically individualistic forms of religiousexperience'29and that 'the fundamentalcriterion of the cult is thereforeindividualism'.30 More recently, Roy Wallis has developed thisperspective by identifying epistemologicalindividualism as the crucialcharacteristic of the cult.31This criterion has more to recommendit than does 'deviance', but ittoo leaves much to be desired. For example, it is far from obvious whatindividualism is taken to imply, other than perhaps an absence of anyconcern with fellowship. It may refer to the fact that cult adherents areoverwhelmingly self-concerned,as Beckerimplies, or that individualism



7/15

380 ColinGampbellis a featureof eult organization nd authority tructures.As a eriterionof eultie belief, t is most usually nterpreted o mean that these beliefsare ones whieh are 'prineipally oneernedwith the problems f indivi-duals'.32 ueh a statements elearly oo vagueto distinguish ultie romnon-eultie eligious r seeularbeliefs.Religions n general an be saidtoaddress hemselveso the problems f individuals, speeially llosewhiehfoeusupon suffering,death, and the path to salvation,and even if theehurehlyand seetarian ormsof religion do on oeeasiongive greaterattention o soeialand politiealmatters, heystillgive personal roblemsa majoremphasis.What is more, sueh a criteriondoes not distinguishseeular romreligiousbeliefsdealingwith 'personal' roblems;nor is itelear how 'individualistie' eliefs ead to the formationof the 'quasi-group'structures ypieal of the eult.33 ndeed, tllere is somethingdis-turbing about speeifying individualisul as the primary definingellaraeteristief a soeialgroup, or unless omeeountervailing rinciplecan be invoked o showhow the strain oward ndividualisms kept neheck, t must logically ead to the group'sdisbandment.The third, and last, of the criteriawhiell has been used to distin-guish the cult is mysticism. n considering his as a possibledefiningcharacteristic,ne is struckby the contrastbetweenTroeltseh's riginaltreatment f tllisthemeand that of all subsequent ommentators.WllilstTroeltsehoutlined the characterof mysticismas a form of religionnsubsequentdeseriptions f the eult llave merely referred o the stressupon mystieal xperienee.Beeker, or example,refers o the goal of theeult adherentas that of 'purelypersonal cstatieexperienee, alvation,eomfortand physiealhealing',34 nd GeoffreyK. Nelson eclloes tlliswhen he distinguishesultsas groupsbasedupon mystieal,psyehieandeestaticexperiences.35What was for Troeltscha complexof beliefs, sfor Beckerand Nelson merelya stressupon mysticalexperienee.

One obviousobjeetion o sueh a formulation s Beeker's s that bylumpingmystieal xperieneeogetherwith eomfort)mentalandphysiealhealing, the distinctionbetweenseeularand mystic cults has becomeobscured.The insistenee n mysticexperienee lonedoesat leasthelp usdiseriminatehe eult fromseeularorganizations. nfortunately,t doesnot diseriminate he eult from other religiousbodies,for if the desirefor mystie experienee s made the erueial eriterionthen groups ofindividualswho belong to ehurehesand denominationswould neees-sarily be ineluded. A high valuation of religious experienee s notneeessarily t odds with membership f ehurches,denominations, reven some seets. Furthermore,t is not obvious how a stressuponmysteal experieneewould, in itself, lead to the emergeneeof thedistinetive, quasi-group,strueture of the eult. An emphasis uponmystieismmay, n someeases,be seento lead to greater oleration, on-exelusivenessnd ndividualism, ut thiswill dependuponthe systemofbeliefs whieh serve to 'interpret' he experienees. f that system ishighly traditionalor authoritarian, hen the stress upon experienee



8/15

38IClarifyingie GU/tcould just as well lead to intoleranceor an elitist form of fellow-ship. This brief survey suggests that most of the criteria commonlyemployedare simply too vague and unspecific o serve adequately oidentifytypical cultic beliefsand consequently o distinguish he cultfromotherconcepts. n addition, heirveryvaguenessmeans hat thereis little possibilityof deducingany distinctive tructural eatures romthe cultural characteristicdentified.To a considerable xtent, thissituationhas arisenbecause he contentof cultic beliefshas beerlover-looked n favourof an emphasisupon some non-substantiveharacter-istic such as deviance or tlle mode of adherence. Clearly greaterspecificity s required and it is Troeltsch'soriginal formulationofspiritualand mysticalreligionwhich promises o provide t.THE RELIGION OF MYSTICISM

Troeltsch tressed hat the religionof mysticismwas not the samethingas an emphasisupon mysticalor spiritual xperience.Mysticisnz s aningredientof a religionhe described s 'merely he insistenceupon thedirect, nwardand presentreligious xperience'n37n insistencewhichcan be combinedwith everykindof worship,mythand doctrine nd canmanifest tself n manyformsand hence has no particularly istinctivesociological onsequences. he religionof mysticism, n the otherhand,ariseswhen mysticismbecomes independent n principle,contrastedwith concretereligion'38 nd seeks o take the place of the established

s -rellglon:When this happens mysticismrealizes that it is an independentreligiousprinciple; t sees itself as the real universalheart of allreligion, of which the various myth-formsare merely the outergarment. It regards tself as the means of restoringan immediateunionwith God; it feels ndependent f all institutional eligion,andpossesses n entire nwardcertainty,which makes t indiffierento-wardseverykindof religious ellowship . . HenceforurardnionwithGod, deification, elf-annihilation,ibecomehe real and the only sub-ject of religion.39

As such,mystical eligionconsists f beliefsaboutthe nature,originandcharacter f such experiences nd consequentlyexplains he religiousexperience o itself'.40Mysticismn this 'narrower' nd 'technical' enseof the word s a distinctphilosophy f religionwhich s concernedwiththe correct nterpretation f the religiousprocess.Here mysticisms nolongermerelyan aspector ingredient f religionbut a distinctreligionirl ts own rightwith a distinct ystemof beliefs.Among hoseTroeltschmentionsare 'the unity of the divineground',Cthe ivineseed' and thebelief in spiritualevolution.It is these beliefsrather than any single



9/15

382 6,aliZt Campbellemphasisupon religious experience,which marks oWspiritual andmysticalreligion romthe churchlyand sectarian arieties.

A central belief is that all finite beings have their existencewithinGod, who is the groundof the soul, the 'seed'or 'spark' f all creatures.Some formof union with God (or more properly e-union) s thus thegoal of this form of religiorl;a goal that can only be realizedby thedevelopment f the divineseed nto a powercapableof overcomingheworld.There s, thus, a belief n a 'scaleof spirituality'whichmarks heprogression f the soul's relationshipwith the divine, a conceptionwhich is necessarily manationist nd denies dualism n favour of aspiritualmonism.There is no belief in a fundamental ppositionof'flesh'and 'spirit'or natural aw and Christianmiraclebut merely ndiffierencesn the degree o whichthe finite s separatedrom he divine.Consequently n ascetic emper s excluded houghthere s an opposi-tion to the selSsllness nd materialism f 'the world'. Indeed secularconcerns are regarded as unimportantand the placing of religionabove ethics eads to Antinomianism nd Libertarianism.Thisformof religion egards eligious xperience s a validexpressionof that universal eligious onsciousness hich s based n the ultimatedivine ground; a view which leads to an acceptanceof religious ela-tivity as far as all specificformsof belief are concernedand to thedoctrineof polymorphism,n which the truth of all religions s recog-nized.Hence,not only are widelydiffering iewsof the central ruthsofChristianityolerated,but all formsof religionareregarded s identical.Nevertheless,ts own teachings,which emphasize he truthsobtainedthroughmystic and spiritualexperience,are regardedas representingthe 'purest' ormof religion:

This type of mysticism ecomesan independent eligiousphilosophy,which recognises hat the religiousprocess s the same universalexpression nd consciousnessf the metaphysical onnection etweenabsoluteand finite being, and which discovers verywhere, eneaththe concrete ormsof religion, he samereligious erm,which, how-ever, only reachescomplete and pure maturityunder its fosteringcare . . .41This polymorphism eads into another defining characteristic fmysticreligion,which is syncretism, specially he syncretism f relig-ious and philosophicaldeas. Becauseof its rejection f dualismand its

indiSerence o literal truth, spiritualand mysticalreligion does notnecessarilyead to a positionof hostility n relation o secularculture.It is, of course, irmlyopposed o materialism nd to rationalism nd toa this-worldly emper, but has an affinitywith idealisticand meta-physical philosophicalsystems. Idea-systemswhich are frequentlycombined with a Christian-inspired ystic religion are Buddhism,Hinduism, Sufi Islam, Neo-Platonism,Gnosticismand RomanticIdealism.42 ven scienceand naturalphilosophy an be related o the



10/15

Clarifyinghecult 383tenets f mysticreligion n theworkof metaphysicallynclinednaturalphilosophersuchasJung, William ames,or Whitehead.

By definition,mysticaland spiritualreligioncannotbe identifiedwithany one religious radition.It is a philosophyof religionwhichidentifiesometruth n all religionsbutno specialorexclusive ruth nanyone of them.Also,although t doesnot haveequalprominenceneveryreligiousradition,t is found n allof them.43Troeltsch'sormu-lationnaturally endsto be couched n 'Christiananguage'but thebeliefswhichhe identifiesareby no meansspecificallyChristian.44It can be seenthat Troeltsch's onceptionof spiritualand mysticalreligionprovidesust the kindof specificationf a systemof beliefthatis requiredn order o construct n idealtypeconstruct f thecult.Thesystemof beliefs nvolvedis specificenoughto avoid confusionwithchurchlyor sectarian ormsof religion(the distinctions reset out byTroeltschhimself)whilstthere s littledangerof confusionwithpurelysecularorganizations. t thesametime,the beliefsaregeneralenoughtosubsumehespecificmanifestationsfbeliefwhichmightcharacterizean individualcult. Unfortunately,hereis one majordrawback; heform of social organizationlogically 'necessitated'by Troeltsch'sspiritualand mysticalreligion s not the cult as thishas beenconven-tionallyconceived,but the conceptof the mysticcollectivity.TIlE MYSTIC COLLECTIVITYTheindividualismhatis so mucha featureof tllereligionofmysticismstems from the statementof its primaryaim as personalholiness,perfectionor deification,and the consequent oncentration pon in-wardness ndfulfilment f theindividual'spiritual otential.Neverthe-less, this does not mean that there is no concernwith relationshipsbetween ndividuals,merely hatindividuals reregarded s related oeach otherthroughGod and the divine.Henceby movingnearertoGodtheindividuals necessarily eingunitedwithallothersouls.Thusto seekoutorinitiatesecular ellowshipswouldbeanirrelevant revencounter-productivection.Indeed, t could mplya lackof faithin therealityof the spiritualfellowshipand hence constitutean hereticaltendency.It is interesting n this context that Troeltschspeaksoforganized ormsassociatedwith mysticreligionas constitutingmereconcessionso humanfrailty'.45Obviouslyn its pureformthistypeofreligiondoesnot lead to the constructionf any type of socialgroup,but acceptsa belief n the realityof an 'invisible hurch':

Henceat thispointtherearises heideaof fellowship eculiar o thiskindof 'spiritual eligion': he idea of the InvisibleChurch,of thepurelyspiritual ellowship,knownto God alone,aboutwhichmandoesnot needto concernhimselfat all, butwhichinvisiblyrulesallbelievers,withoutexternal ignsorothermeans.Theconception f a



11/15

384 ColinCampbellpurely piritual ellowships the baekground f thissentiment, nd inthis the individual s therefore elievedof all obligation o organizeand evangelize, and from all eonneetionwith ecclesiasticalandsectarianorganization.46

It follows hat the greater he emphasis ivento thisdistinctiveeaching,the more firmly will the reality of the invisiblechurch be accepted,with the consequencellat all formsof socialorganization re regardedas redundant.Furthermore,his form of religion,with its stressuponfirst-lland xperience,s hostileto dogmaand tlle 11istoricalimensionof Christianity, hus eliminating he centre aroundwilich a religiousorganization an form.As a result, n reality, t tends o be independentof) f not hostile oward,any formof socialorganization47nd s 'entirelyunorganized' aving no desire oran organized ellowship',48 ysticismin particularbeing likely to be 'independent f all institutional eli-gion'.49Hence tllis form of religion 'createsno communities'50ndcauses he conceptof the religious ommunity o lose all significanee51for 'the idea of tlle Churclland of religiousorganizations alien'.52 tis quite clear frorn hese and other remarks hat Troeltschnever con-sideredthere was any typieal form of social organizationnecessarilyassociatedwith mysticreligion,but that on the contrary, ogic workedagainstany organized ecular ellowship.Troeltsch did recognize, however, that certain forms of proto-organization might empirically be associated with spiritual andmystical eligion,but suchformshad a purely ecularand not religiousrationale:

Whateverorganized orms t does adopt are loose and provisional,mere coneessions o human frailty, without any sense of inwarnecessityand Divine inspiration.53He adds to this by remarkinghat even the mystic s human,and feelsthe need for the give-and-take f intimate ellowshipwith other ouls.54HenceTroeltscll efers o Philadelphianismnd the formation f groupsround 'spiritual irectors nd deeplyexperiencedeaders'55 nd it is inthis context that he outlinesthe kind of looselystructured oluntaryassociationwhichhas become he basis orthe conceptof cult. However,it is quite clear that these 'cultic'formsof organization annotderiveany firm legitimation or their existenee rom the eommonbeliefsoftheir 'adherents' ut only fromsueh seeulareonsiderationss the needfor companionship,nstruction, r proteetion rompersecution.Troeltsehregarded he absenceof any form of social organizationas a principalsociological haraeteristic nd coneomitant f spiritualand mystical eligionand consideredhe formless nd ephemeral cult-like' structures s merelya possible ontingentphenomenon.Althoughapproximating o those forms of soeial organizationmost frequentlyassociatedwith this form of religion,the more spiritualand mystieal



12/15

Clarifyinghe ult 385religionapproacheshe 'pure ype', themore t willbe characterizedsa culturalconfiguration nd associatedpersonalethic without anyvisible formalsocial organization.This is in markedcontrastwithchurchand sectreligionwherethe organizationalorm s 'inherent'nthe culturaldealtype.An examination f the discussionsf the cult fromBeckeronwardsrevealshow oftenthe logic of the argumenthas pointedto this con-clusiononlyfor thesociologist o drawback rom t atthe lastmoment;Beckerhimself ame ascloseto anyone o saying hatthe cultwasthatformof religiousphenomenonwhichwasnot a socialgroup,butclungto his 'almost'andfailedto restatehisinsight n a positive orm.DavidMartinalsocorrectlynotedthat thepureexpressionf religiousndivi-dualismnegatedthevery idea of a socialfellowshipand henceof thesocial group but went on to make the doubtfulassertion hat thisrenderedmysticism purelypsychological llenomenon.56The factthatspiritual nd mystical eligionnvolvesa powerful nti-associationalmpulseand in its pure form 'createsno communities'does not mean that it is a strictlypsychologicalphenomenon,of nointerest o the sociologist.For it does havedefinitesociological onse-quencesand,although t doesnot lead to the formation f groupsandorganizations,t doeslead to the existenceof socialcollectivities.The term, collectivity,has been used by Leopold von Wiese andHowardBecker,FlorianZnanecki,Talcott Parsonsand Robert K.Merton odescribe hosepeople among hegreatestpartofwhom hereisnosocial nteraction, lthough heydosharea bodyof socialnorms.'57Collectivitieshereforeconsistof those people who have a sense ofsolidarity yvirtueof shared ommon aluesandwhohavealsoacquiredan attendant sense of moral obligation to fulEll common role-expectations.58 learlythe adherents o spiritualand mysticreligionconstitute ust such a collectivityn that tlleysharecommonvalues-derivedfrom a commonweltanschauung-andcommondefinitionoftheirreligiousduties'.Althougll here s little or no interaction mongthe majorityof the members f thiscollectivity,helNes neverthelesscommonconsciousnessf membershipn 'the invisiblechurch'or itsequivalent. t is possible hat some of the membersare in directcom-municationwith each otherand it is fromsuchinformalgroupsthatmystic cults arise, but the majorityare probablyonly in indirectcommunicationf the kindmediatedby theirreadership f the samebooksand magazines.As Mertonobserves,one of the most significantcharacteristicsfcollectivitiess thatthey functionas a baseforgroup ormation; ollec-tivitiesare'potentialsorgroup-formation',hecommon undof valuesfacilitatingustainedocial nteraction mongpartsofthe collectivity.59Thisfact is crucial orit helpsus to understandhe processof cult for-mation.Since,however, hemembers f themysticcollectivitymay alsobe membersof conventionalreligiousorganizations,whetherof the



13/15

386 ColinCampbellchurchor denomination ariety, his conceptmay also help to explainspiritualand mysticalmovements hat arise within these bodies. Notthat this concept s adequate n itself o account orsuchmovements utit does help explainone basisof their support.CONCLUSION

It would seem that, if there s an ideal-type oncept o be found n thebody of sociological iterature n the cult, then that concept s not thecult itself as this has been conventionally nderstood, ut the conceptof the mystic collectivity.This is the true counterpart o Troeltsch'smysticand spiritual eligion n the way that the sect and the churcharethe structural oncomitants f sect religionand churchreligion.Themysticcollectivity s here understood o referto all those people whohold to the tenetsof mystical eligionand consequently ave a senseofcommonsolidarityand obligation,even though they do not interact.Conceivedn thisway, whilst he sectand the churchareconventionallyidentifiedas differentkinds of religiousgroups (embodying he con-trasting principles of inclusivenessand exclusiveness), he mysticcollectivity s distinguishedrom both by the contrastbetweengroupand collectivity.The religious ult, therefore, as opposed o the seculartherapeuticcult) is to be seen as an extrusion,precipitated n allprobabilityby some secularconsideration,rom the substratum f thiscollectivity; ne which does not happento occurwithinthe confinesofan existingreligiousorganization, nd will, in all probability,dissolvebefore ong back nto the collectivityonce again.ColinCampbell,.SC., PH.D.,Senior ecturern SociologyUniversityf Sork

NotesI. This need has been commentedonby Wallis and Nelson, see Geoirey K.Nelson, 'The SpiritualistMovementandthe need for a redeSnition of cult',Journalor the Scientific tudy f Religion,vol. 8, no. I (Spring 969), pp. I52-60,and 'The Concept of Cult', SociologicalReview, ol. I6, no. 3 (November 968),

pp. 35 I-62; Roy Wallis, 'Scientology:therapeuticcult to religioussect', Socio-logy,vol. 9, no. X (January I 975), pp.89-I00, and 'Ideology, authority andthe developmentof cultic movements',SocialResearch,ol. 4I, no. 2, (SummerI 974), pp. 298-304.

2. For evidence of this new interestsee Daniel Bell, 'Religion n the sixties',SocialResearch,ol. 30, no. 3 (AutumnI 97 I ), pp. 447-97; Marcello Truzzi,CTheOccultRevival n PopularCulture:some random observationson the oldand nouveauwitch',Sociologicaluarterly,vol. I 3, no. I (Winter 97 I ), pp. I 6-36;Jacob Needleman, The JWew eligions,Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co.,I970, and the complete ssue of iournalof PopularCulture,ol. 5, no. 3 (WinterI97I).3. See GeoffreyK. Nelson ( 968), op.cit. and Roy Wallis,op. cit.



14/15

Clarifyinghecult 3874. Roy Wallis, 'Ideology, Authorityand the developmentof cultic move-

ments', SocialResearch,ol. 4I, no. X(Summer 974), p. 299.5. ErnstTroeltsch,EfieSocialTeachingoftheChristianhurches,eorgeAllenandUnwin, I 93 , 2 vols.6. L. von Wieseand HowardBecker,Systematicociolog)Jn the Basis of theBeziehungslehrendGebildelehref LeopoldvonWiese.7. H. T. Dohrman,CaliforniaCult:7Che toryof MankindUnited,Boston,BeaconPress, I958; John LoflandandRodneyStark, Becoming world-saver:a theoryof conversion o a deviantper-spective',Americanociologicaleview,ol.30, pp. 862-75; John Lofland,DoomsdayCult,EnglewoodCliffis,N. J., Prentice-Hall, I966.

8. David A. Martin, Pacifiism:AnHistoricalndSociologicaltudy, ewYork,SchockenBooks, 966, pp. I93-7.9. Roy Wallis(January 975), Op. cit.I 0. Geoffrey K. Nelson ( 968), Op.Cit.I I. David A. Martin, op. cit., pp.

I 94-6.I2. GeoffreyK. Nelson (I968), Op.cit., pp. 358-6I.I 3. DavidA. Martin,op. cit., pp. I-4and I93; BentonJohnson, 'On churchand sect', American ociological eview,vol. 28 (August 963), pp. 539-49I4. Compare, or example, the workof WallisandNelsonalreadymentioned,togetherwith the approachof Eister;AllanW.Eister,Anoutlineofastructuraltheoryof cults',yournal or TheScientificStudy f Religion,ol. 2, no. 4 (December

I972), pp 3I9-33I5. HowardBecker,op. cit., p. 627.I6. For a summaryof the structuralcharacteristicsf the cult and the use ofthe term'culticmilieu'see ColinCamp-bell, 'The cult, the cultic milieu andsecularization',n Michael Hill, ed., ASociologicalearbookf Religionn Britain,vol. 5, London,StudentChristianPress,

I972, pp. I I9-36.I7. HowardBecker,op. cit., p. 627.I8. Becker'suse of the term 'almost'hassignificance nly if cult is beingcon-sideredasan empirical onstruct;nsofaras the concernhere is to arrive at an

idealtypicalconceptof thecult it canbedisregarded.I9. For a deSnitionof the conceptofsocial group, see Robert K. Merton,SocialTheoryndSocialStructure,lencoe,Ill., FreePress, 957, p. 284.20. As will be arguedlater, this con-clusion s, in fact,not unacceptable,butentirelynecessary.2I. For a valuable discussionof thenatureandfunctionofresidual ategoriesin theorizingsee Talcott Parsons,TheStructuref SocialAction,New York,Free

Press, 968 (I937), pp. I6-I9.22. One attemptto drawa boundaryaroundcultic beliefs is to be found inColinCampbell,op. cit., pp. I22-6.23. To someextentthis difficultyhasarisen because the term cult has beenapplied to non-religiousorganizationsandmovements.Thatthisshouldhappenis understandable nough, as many oftheprominent ults,suchasSpiritualism,Buchmanism nd Scientology,areessen-

tially quasi-religiousn character,com-bining religious and secular items intheirbelief-systemsnd satisfyingnstru-mental and expressiveneeds for theiradherents.Nevertheless, hereis a clearanalyticdistinctionbetween hereligiouscultproperandsecular,voluntary ssoci-ations with 'cult-like' characteristics.For a discussionof this distinctionseeDavid A. Martin, ( 966) op. cit., pp.I 93-7 and John Jackson and RayJobling. 'Toward an analysis of con-temporary ults', in David Martin,ed.,A SociologicalearbookfReligionnBritain,London, Student ChristianMovementPress, 968, pp. 97-8.24. H. T. Dohrman,op. cit.29. John Lofland,op. cit., p. I.26. C. Y. GlockandR. Stark,Religionand Societyn Tension,Chicago, RandMcNally, I965, p. 245.27. Roy Wallis (I975), op. cit., p.90. 28. HowardBecker,op. cit., p. 6X7.29. DavidA Martin,op. cit., p. 5.30. Ibid., p. I94.3I Roy Wallis(I975), op. cit.3X. GeoffreyK. Nelson ( 968), op.cit., p 35433. Roy Wallis (op. cit., I 975) hashelped to account for many of the



15/15

388 ColinCamj7bellstruetural eaturesof the eult by identi-fying the crucial principleof epistemo-Iogieal individualism. By so doing,however,he has alsodrawnattention o aerueial question: what are the beliefs,distinetiveof cults, whieh serve to justifythis prineiple?34. HowardBecker, p. cit., p. 627.35. Geoff*reyK. Nelson ( 1968), op.eit., p 35436. It mightappearas if tlle anseler othe eonundrumof eonceptualizing hecult would be to amalgamate omeor allof these three eriteria.This, indeed, hasbeen the strategy adopted by Nelson( I 968) Though such a eonstruct mayhave some empiricalrelevence t eannotmeet the need for an ideal type conceptbecausethe componentparts possessnoneeessary or lo;,ical relationship svitheach other.37. Ernst Troeltseh,op. eit., p. 730.38 Ibid., p. 734.

39- Ibid., p. 734.40. Ibid., p. 735.4I * Ibid., p. 735.42 Ibid., p. 736.43. It is an interestingparadox thatalthoughTroeltsch llustratedmysticismand spiritual religion entirely by ex-amples drawn from Christianity,bothDavid Martin (Pacifsm:AnHistoricalndSociologicaltudy,New York, SchockenBooks, I966) and BentonJohnson ('OnChurch and Sect' AmericanociologicalReview, ol. 28. (August 963), pp. 539-49) have argued that mystic cults aresomehowalien to the Christian radition.There is little evidence n favourof this

view, for, asJacksonandJoblingobsersre,a highly ndividualisticmystical-spiritualformof religionhas been a constantele-ment n the Christianradition. 'Towardan analysis of eontemporaryeults' inDavid Martin (ed.), A Soszologicalear-book of Relzgzon n Brztazn,London,Student Christian Movement Press,68, pp. 97-8.44. For a discussionof the mystiealbeliefss^7hichre common o the world'sre]igionssee Aldous Huxley, The Peren-nzalPhilosophy, ew York, Harper andRow, I 94445. Ernst Troeltscll,op. cit., p. 743.

46- Ibid., p. 745.47. Ibid., p. 38 .4t3-Ibid., p. 377.49. Ibid. p. 377.50. Ibid., p. 7gfi.5I Ibid.,p.795.52. Ibid., p. 800.53 Ibid., p. 743.54 Ibid., p. 749.55 Ibid., p. 749.56. David A . Martin, op. cit., pp.

I 94-7-57. Leopold von Wiese and HowardBecker, p. cit., eh. I 7; FlorianZnanecki,Social Actions,New York, Farrar andRinehartd 936, pp. 364-5; Talcott Par-sons, TheSocial ystem, lencoe,Ill., TheFree Press, I95I, pp. 77-8; Robert K.Merton,SocialTheory ndSoszal tructure,Glencoe,Ill., Free Press I957, pp. 299-3oo.58. RobertK. Merton,op. cit., p. 299.59. Ibid., p. 299.

Clarifying the Cult

Documents

Transcript of Clarifying the Cult