In contemporary discourse, the terms "high demand groups" and "cults" are often used interchangeably to describe organisations characterised by intense devotion to a central figure or ideology, coupled with manipulative and controlling tactics. However, a closer examination reveals nuances in their definitions and connotations, prompting questions about their interchangeability. This post explores the distinctions and similarities between the two terms, considering factors such as leadership dynamics, group cohesion, belief systems, and the impact on members' autonomy and well-being.
The term "high demand group" emerged in the latter half of the 20th century as an alternative to "cult" in academic and therapeutic circles to describe groups that exert significant control over their members. The aim of doing so was to shift the focus from religious or spiritual connotations associated with "cult" and emphasise the demanding nature of such groups on their members. The terminology shift was aimed at better addressing the dynamics of these groups with less stigmatism.
Cult leaders often dislike the term "cult" because of its negative connotations and associations with manipulation, exploitation, and abuse. By rejecting the label, leaders seek to distance themselves from the stigma attached to the term and maintain a positive image of their group or movement. Additionally, acknowledging their group as a cult may undermine their authority and legitimacy in the eyes of both members and the public, potentially leading to decreased adherence and support.
I question if the term "high demand group" was developed in order to pave the way for allowing researchers to get a foot in the door of groups that were otherwise shut down if confronted with the term "cult"? The logic being that leaders are generally more likely to be open to investigation if neutral terms to describe their organisation are used. In addition to "high demand group," terms such as "new religious movement," "alternative lifestyle group," or "spiritual community," are favoured due to the language concealing cult-like characteristics.
While I personally see very little difference in the terms high demand group or cult, others perceive notable, albeit subtle, distinctions. The splitting of hairs centres around considerations regarding the degree of control exerted over members.
High demand groups typically exhibit characteristics such as strict hierarchical structures, rigid rules and regulations, and pressure to conform to group norms and beliefs. While these groups may foster intense devotion and commitment among members, they may not necessarily employ coercive or manipulative tactics to the same extent as cults. In contrast, cults are often characterised by more extreme forms of control, including psychological manipulation, isolation from outside influences, and exploitation of members' vulnerabilities. The distinction lies in the intensity and scope of the control mechanisms employed, with cults typically exerting a greater degree of influence over members' thoughts, behaviours, and personal autonomy. (For a comprehensive assessment of how destructive a group may be, see Spencer's Cult Ranking Criteria.)
By using this reasoning, tactics used in the process of pressuring people to conform to group norms are given some leniency as not being coercive or manipulative. Following, it allows scope for the use of the word cult to be reserved for the most destructive of groups.
The bottom line is that both exhibit manipulative and controlling tactics aimed at coercive control over their members. These groups are typically led by charismatic leaders who exploit their authority to manipulate and dominate their followers. While not all high demand groups exhibit the same level of coercive control, many share similar characteristics and patterns of behaviour.
It is also prudent to note that groups often evolve over time. For instance, they can start off with good intentions; however, as time progresses, the ideals regress to taking second place over the leaders' desire for control. As an example, Jim Jones initially started with altruistic intentions, aiming to create a community based on principles of racial equality, social justice, and communal living. Jones gradually tightened his grip over his members through coercive control tactics. He employed fear, manipulation, and isolation to maintain his authority. Potentially, his community could have been considered "only" a high demand group all the way up until the tragic events of November 1978 when over 900 members died in a mass murder-suicide orchestrated by Jones himself at the Jonestown compound in Guyana. Thus, its legacy is firmly defined as being a cult.
Beyond this extreme example, coercive control is also evident in more subtle forms within high demand groups. Multi-level marketing schemes, for instance, utilise coercive tactics such as manipulation, deception, and financial exploitation to recruit and retain members. These organisations often exert pressure on individuals to conform to strict sales quotas and recruitment targets, exploiting their financial vulnerabilities for the benefit of the group's leaders.
Similarly, certain religious organisations may employ coercive control tactics to maintain authority and suppress dissent among their followers. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, have faced criticism for their use of shunning as a form of punishment for members who question the group's teachings or policies. Coercive tactics, such as guilt, shame, and fear, are utilised to enforce compliance and discourage critical thinking within the group.
It can be appreciated that if a group is unjustly labelled a cult the members may feel unfairly targeted or stigmatised by the association with the term. Such groups may view the label as inaccurate and misleading, reflecting a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of their beliefs, practices, and organisational structure. Being labelled a cult can damage a group's reputation and credibility, leading to social ostracism, discrimination, and legal scrutiny. Consequently, groups falsely accused of being cults may vehemently reject the label and seek to distance themselves from its negative connotations, emphasising their commitment to transparency, autonomy, and ethical conduct. That said, given the similarities of the terms cult and high demand group, it is highly unlikely that a group to be described as being high demand but not a cult. A defining aspect of both is coercive persuasion, irrespective of how that is measured. If a group is truly not exploiting anyone then the likelihood of attracting the term cult is miniscule.
Ultimately, whether a group is referred to as high demand groups or a cult is irrelevant. If coercive control tactics are being used to manipulate and dominate their members, there is a problem. From extreme cases like the People's Temple to more subtle forms within multi-level marketing schemes and religious organisations, coercive control is a pervasive and damaging aspect of some groups. Recognizing the signs of coercive control is crucial for protecting individuals from exploitation and abuse within these groups.
To summarise, if a group displays characteristics of being socially destructive, then it doesn't matter if it is called a high demand group or a cult. The most significant differentiating factor being that the term "cult" is more easily understood by the general population, in contrast to "high demand group" being used by academia.
Essentially, the two terms can be viewed as synonyms and could be used interchangeably, depending on the context.
References
Lalich, J., & Tobias, M. (2006). Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships.
Hassan, S. (2015). Combating Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults.
Zablocki, B. D., & Robbins, T. (2001). Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field.
International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). (n.d.). Cult Education Institute. Retrieved from [Cult Education Institute](https://www.culteducation.com/)
Comments