A ton of stuff is being called "a cult" lately, isn't it? Good. I just blew my first sentence on a question. Still good. I have no opening paragraph. This is a choose your own adventure deal, is what I'm saying.
As a working definition, cults are places where extreme beliefs and individual bodies meet. Sometimes the belief gains traction when a big personality takes it up, sometimes the individual comes first and the ensuing truckload of crazy is a product they engineer to better fit their needs, be those material or emotional.
So! Take what follows as a rough map of common traits I keep noticing in different groups - pyramid-shaped phenomena with cultish features - yes, every note we're about to hit could get a proper spin-off later on, but if it doesn't, focus on this.
The idea.
Sounds simple, on paper, even logical: weird that nobody thought of that before.
In reality, it's a very narrow path you need to follow step by step in order to get something (x). Perfect mental health, wellness, justice, safety, productivity, a sharper mind. A sense of peace.
If you join, you will be rewarded on a personal level: maybe you'll destroy the competition, maybe society as a whole will be forever altered for the better.
The founder.
Alright, here I'm drawing four broad types, based on what I've seen. There's probably more:
The founder as a renegade, 'maverick' type. These guys used to belong to the world of common rules and shared values, and they were good at it - until they broke away with the establishment in order to preach some kind of new way. Many times they left (or they were banned from) national and even international associations: they believe they're smarter, healthier and superior to their old peers. Still carry a massive hate-grudge against what came before.
Here's where you find the medical doctor claiming all sickness stems from bad diets or spiritual issues; the former mental health professional who wants to treat any disorder with (stuff, yelling, bag of tricks), the career politician who can't abide "the man" no longer, the minister who left the church to pursue intensely weird "mind science + philosophy" systems, the intellectual and the entertainer who like to say they've gone rogue, the one-time entrepreneur who loves crystals and dooming, or, the alleged corporate insider who's letting you in on a big secret they don't want you to know.
Founder as "benevolent genius". Keith Raniere coasted on his genius status and was regarded as a man of super-human intelligence, based on... IQ tests he took at home. When it comes to similar founders, wild claims will be made about their accomplishments, travels, artistic skills, philanthropy, wealth, influence over "world leaders", eyes, glazing - sometimes, as part of the general lore, or as a crucial incident in their origin story, you will be told how the founder refused to sign a contract with Big Business - or they decided their discoveries would not be available in any kind of marketplace at all.
("Our CEO received many offers, he always turned them down to preserve the quality and exclusivity of the product" - I was told this shit in person, live, on a sunny afternoon, by a food substitute sales rep who was optimizing her lunch break watching a philosophical training video supplied by a life coach of some local notoriety. She would look at you like from behind a glass plate, her pupils were pins.)
Founder as Person Formerly Known as the Worst. These are the first success stories of their own method. Sick sad losers who treated themselves, coming up with either a system to game reality, or a miracle bullet cure. But they used to be so bad, and they will tell you, and they will tell you. I was a slave, I was blind, I was sick, I was poor, I was miserable, I was the fuckup of all time. There's always that "- and look at me now" giant payoff waiting for you at the end of the brick road, and you can still get some before/after shots, to drive the transformation element home, but you will be bombarded with language here.
(This character arc is big with "behavior experts".)
Founder as "humble guru". Little less common, but: these founders can come across as modest, self-deprecating - they make jokes, they play on their weaknesses (they can be goofy, they have romance-novel faults like "forgetfulness" and "being clumsy"), or, they downplay their own proficiency - they might say they don't know much about their own area of expertise after all... Rest assured, the second in command is cracking the whip. (For instance: smaller wellness groups may have the second or third in line as the one authoring a book about their teachings, or leading the bulk of compulsory seminars.) This could be a case of wanting to maintain the founder's apparent purity, so they'll be lauded as "innocent", "clean", unbothered by material concerns.
Next -
Face the public.
Two trains are never late:
one, hatred of "the media",
and two, love of good celebrities.
One. Some groups will harass, stalk and sue whoever is perceived as a negative voice. They will try to get people fired, come up with "dirt" on them, threaten to call the police, get them followed by group members, and so on. Others just stonewall any effort to begin with. They paint journalists at large as vultures "out to get them", either because they're "enemies of the truth" or because they're tools of the real enemy, spies who've been sent or paid by hostile forces.
If your group shows signs of this, you might want to leave now. It doesn't get better later on.
(Other cult-y folks skip the overt threats and choose the rabid awkward. Years ago I did an interview with [some guy] who taped the whole thing on his pocket tape recorder and stared daggers at me for the full hour, as if the ultimate goal was putting "the outsider" in their place, not talking about what he was supposed to peacefully stand for. He also demanded to see the interview before it went live - in that case, the outlet I worked for had an answer ready, and the answer was, [some guy], that's not how it works.)
Hating journalists often leads groups to establish independent, obedient media, some will be clearly and openly branded as their thing - so you'll have magazines, YouTube channels, podcasts, the works - while some will be... kind of obfuscated, with money and effort going into coordinated activities disguised as "concerned citizens", "moms against [y]", "students for [x]".
Two. Celebrities are always a big get. Always. A few are targeted as wealthy people first and foremost. But mostly, you see a double strategy playing out: trying to get them on board, hating them if they say no.
When Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard first announced "Project Celebrity", he listed 63 famous individuals who would have been precious additions to the fold, and he encouraged his followers to make contact, since celebrities were the ones "to whom America and the world listens".
This used to be linked with the free publicity factor. (Still is! Celebrity shows up to an event –> photo evidence circulates forever; celebrity makes a supportive statement –> ready-made news bite, also forever.) But there's more going on here, "fame" itself keeps being associated with a whole variety of alluring qualities. Attractive, lucky, talented, determined, brilliant, crafty, strong, likable, seen.
Seen.
Maybe, if I do what they do, some of this splendor will rub off on me.
(Or: maybe I'll get to meet them and hit them up for contacts.)
Any celebrity who seems to enjoy what the group has to offer, or who's still in the process of being courted, is therefore amazing and they will be constantly talked up within the group. There's a deeper desire to just consume the famous person here, since Neon Demon didn't invent anything, and sure, let's pencil the spin-off story here.
Now watch out for the moment a cult rejects a celebrity. I've seen this happen on a personal level and in political / sectarian spaces too, so please pay attention to the timing and the intensity: the second any celebrity is not on board with the cause, they immediately become "has-beens", "losers", "ugly", "ignorant", "bitter", "talentless hacks", "are they still alive lol". (This goes quadruple for women and POCs, because of course it fucking does.)
Moving on -
Oh here comes the body part. (How you look, how you act.)
Folks, this is the point where cult stuff has significant visible overlap with one-on-one abusive relationship material. It can be subtle - if you're being swept away with a sudden influx of knowledge or if you already feel uncertain about the way you're presenting, it hits you harder and you realize it much later on. So if you notice any of this happening, take the L and start leaving. You'll have time to feel really bad about it once you've gained some distance.
monitoring how you look. You're pressured or asked to get thinner, get fitter, dress "better" (it can be more modestly or showing off more), get cleaner (this is huge). You have to get better at following instructions and taking hints at the same time.
"compromise" is never an option. Diets must be followed to a T. Daily goals need to be met. In a similar vein, "changes" have to become reality right now. If a product is boycotted, it's not "(x) is harmful - here's why", it's not "(x) is bad and that's what we're gonna carefully do to enact real change". It's always do this now or you don't care enough.
trying to mold you into a look-a-like, or rewarding you with affection, compliments, public declarations of love if you adopt a particular [fashion, hairstyle, body art]. This is not a dress code. This is turning you into a clone of whoever is deemed most attractive by the group.
you're placed in direct competition with another person: they're hotter, they're faster, more zealous, they look and act like they want it more. They are who you should be, so why are you not like them?
(meanwhile, around you:)
The world becomes very small. (Beliefs, friends and enemies.)
Everything runs on "us versus them". Might not start that way, but it does take a form, complete with near unbeatable enemy, life or death stakes, and devotion to only this can fix it.
When absolutes rule, there's no room for growth, but there's a real urgency to keep the absolute going. A few examples:
"Endless maze of courses". At best, this is a way to keep the customer on the hook: get them to come back to buy all the new brain/body parts they need to function. At worst, it's a deliberate move to lure people over and keep them in a place where there's little to no discussion. (The language becomes harder and harder to understand, the hours of training get longer, tensions can run much higher.)
Nobody really ever leaves. If this fuckery is supposed to make you better, get results and provide tools to deal with whatever life throws at you, then how come everybody's still here? Private programs' alumni lists should be jam-packed with verifiable stories of people who found satisfaction or success after (x). If this isn't happening, the disciples are not moving on - because they learnt nothing of real value or because the "training" itself has no value, or impact, outside the group - and then the basic option is to stay in the group, working as trainers or assistants, and, well -
The shape you're thinking about is a fucking pyramid. (social interactions and rank)
Take the mental picture of The Cult as a smaller group of people living in a secluded location, or traveling to that place to meet up with the others: this is still a thing (the flashbacks), but let's snap to 2021. Boundaries are blurring faster and faster. If it looks like a pyramid, it’s a pyramid; if it feels loose and free-range - try to draw it. See what it looks like.
The founder loves you, but - how?
It used to pretty normal not to be able to get that close to any person of consequence, and to some extent, it still is. (If you find yourself demanding easy, near-instant access to somebody you never met, take a seat and think about what may be your real motivation here.) But consider how much a number of cult-y groups are thriving on this very lack of strong boundaries.
So -
Watch out for the ritual element. Is there a ceremonial pathway to reach the inner circle? Is there ample guaranteed access to "an event" - a big seminar, a stream, a showy public talk - but then the supply is cut and the human paywall comes up? Is there a steep price to pay to gain access to the pure source? Do you need to be chosen or handpicked, maybe after proving how good you are? Are you told it's a blessing to get in, are you led to believe as much?
Inner circle. Here's where you often have a staff - or a trusted group within the group - made up of former patients, former students who rose through the ranks, former clients or fans who are living the dream. So you have one or two figureheads, and a number of associates who do the grunt work. Sometimes this dynamic is advertised - loyal disciples are there as proof the stuff works; other times it's not public knowledge. (Everyone's introduced as a brilliant consultant, a leading researcher and so on, but later they're revealed to be former pupils.)
Pressure to break away from relatives and friends who don't share the same worldview. Sure, this is Cult 101 stuff. And it's still happening. Former members get shunned, current members are requested to stop any interaction with them. As of late, though, extreme belief comes with a different playbook. You could still be asked to "disavow" your loved ones - but it's way more likely the people you know are framed as potential new recruits, yours for the taking: they need to be saved, or flipped, or turned, or, and I hate this shit, pilled. For all the efforts to keep bad people out, there's way more effort to bring new people in. Your ability to recruit is the sign of how invested you are in the fight. If you don't recruit, it will be taken as a sign that (sigh) you don't want it enough.
Keeping people "in line" becomes part of your duties. When you're deep into any extreme belief system, other people are not fully human; if they can't be brought into the fold, they must be taken down.
Again, double track: you may be asked to do it, or it might be heavily implied (because the right people do that). So you may be told to harass any real or imaginary critical voice until they disappear or they start behaving "well". You have to keep an eye on your friends to report on how they're acting in private. You have to try and get people fired. You have to supply personal emails, direct messages, audio, screenshots - proof someone else is bad.
(It gets worse after the picture of Ms. Langenkamp right here.)
Some real Wheel of Misfortune * times. Morning, my dude! It's your turn to get the hose. Why? You can't stay good forever. Stick around long enough and you'll either be labeled a failure (a traitor, a fake ally, a fraud) or you'll get the hose just because it's your turn to be punished. Extreme beliefs might make one or two people rich, everybody else is bound to fall out of favor. I have now typed "get the hose" three times. Pretend it's four. Been there.
In a few documented cases, this large-scale fallout became a key reason for people leaving culty groups (quietly or slamming every door on their way out), but you could argue the very same people were more or less "ok" with cult stuff as long as they were the lucky ones doling out punishments.
If founders die, or if they become incapacitated, it's once-in-a-lifetime ghoul civil war going down. When there's a sudden power vacuum, somebody stands to inherit all of this. And in big Wheel of Misfortune days, the lack of firm evidence as far as the original idea was concerned can become - pretty damning: when (x) was supported by the founder, (x) was crucial; now that the insanity and power are the only things standing, (x) might become inadequate, dangerous, toxic, in a matter of days.
Good, we got this out of the way, cool. Now I don't have to start doing it again. Also this piece was too long. Also, it was free. See you tomorrow.
(* the name “Wheel of Misfortune” comes from Hostel part 3. I am very sorry for everything.)