What is a Cult?

By Kathe Lowney
Guest Contributor, Valdosta State University

I admit it, I’m a political junkie. Campaign season is my favorite time of the year. And these last few months have been quite the ride, haven’t they? We have seen the rise of Huck’s Army, heard Obama Girl sing about her crush, watched McCainiacs be thrilled at their candidate’s stunning comeback, and witnessed the persuasiveness that a ringing phone at 3 a.m. might have had with Texas and Ohio voters. 

But I’m not just an avid consumer of political news; as a sociologist, I’m also a media analyst. And something has been bothering me as this presidential campaign has played out: the frequency that the media have talked about the “cult of Obama” (see this Time magazine story, and this Los Angeles Times op-ed for just a few of the many media examples of this worry; and also this blog by a supporter that might offer some evidence for the media’s concern). 

It’s the word “cult” that troubles me. Media commentators seem to imply that the enthusiasm and energy of the Senator’s supporters, their commitment to his vision for America, the world, and each other, is somehow worrisome and menacing.  

It’s made me realize once again that sociology is not only a way of thinking about the social world we live in, but that as sociologists, we talk in a distinct – and distinctive – way. For students learning sociology, I think that learning our sociological way of talking can sometimes be hard. Doesn’t it seem like sometimes we sociologists use a lot of words to make some rather simple points? I think that too once in a while! I believe, however, that it’s sociologists’ scientific preciseness that fuels our wordiness – at least that is my hope! 

“Cult” is one of those words that means one thing to sociologists and often quite different things to non-sociologists. Here’s how the text for my Sociology of Religion class defines it: 

A cult is similar to a sect in its rejection of the religious patterns and formulations of denominations–or of whatever the society’s dominant form(s) of religion happens to be. Cult members were either not attracted to dominant religious groups in the first place or, like sectarians, became disenchanted with commonly-accepted religious forms. The cult differs from the sect, however, in that it does not call for a return to the original, pure religion, but rather emphasizes the new–a new revelation or insight provided by a supernatural power, say, or the rediscovery of an old revelation that had been lost and unknown for many years (and which is, therefore, new to this age) (Johnstone 2007:78)

But is this what you think about when you hear the word “cult”? I doubt it. Since the 1970s, popular culture, led by the press, has come to define the word as a religion that many people do not like; one which uses recruitment techniques unlike many traditional Protestant denominations (i.e., “brainwashing”) in order to ensnare impressionable young adults in its grasp. Cults are often portrayed as being “alien” to the U.S., run by manipulative messianic figures who are really all about lavishly spending the monies their followers raise. 

In fact, this pop culture definition of “cult” has even altered our sociological vocabulary. Nowadays sociologists of religion tend to use the term “new religious  movement” instead of “cult” because we recognize how pervasive this pop culture definition has become. 

So when commentators write about the “cult of Obama,” they are both tapping into this negative connotation while simultaneously helping it persist. I find it interesting that it is Senator Obama’s followers who have come under such media scrutiny and not, for example, Huckabee’s Army of college-aged activists. Barack Obama is the upstart, the unexpected Democratic candidate who has more delegates than the presumptive nominee has. He is the candidate who, because of his parents’ cultural backgrounds and nationalities, has had his patriotism questioned by some opponents (i.e., the worry about an “alien” cult leader, resurfacing). 

If words matter – and as a sociologist, I absolutely believe that they do – how social institutions such as the press talk can shape the public’s social construction of reality. Words like “cult” are now perceived to be, in our culture, inflammatory. So next time you read a headline or hear political commentators talk about “the cult of Obama” – think about it for a moment. What is that reporter/analyst trying to get you to believe? And perhaps more importantly, why? How does such a negative construction of Senator Obama’s followers shape the political environment of this presidential campaign? Who might the construction help? 

[Full disclosure: In my state’s primary, I did not vote for Senator Obama.]

Comments

[Mr. Cavin]

I have two distinct reactions to this. The first is that, as a fluent speaker of language, I am adequate to the task of keeping multiple definitions and nuances in my head for particular word uses. It’s a terrible example, but if you were to use the word "bitch" to describe first your pet, then your daughter, and then your son, I would not have to make any particularly gymnastic intellectual effort to understand your different meanings. Therefore, I haven’t any trouble parsing the difference between a positive and negative use of the word “cult”.

That said, my midline understanding of the word does not include all of the negativity and suspicion of your populist example (per se), even while it also lacks the formality of the sociological. I think of "cult" as indicating a group of faith-based nonconformists. If anything, I think the negativity you are registering comes from the comparison of Mr. Obama's supporters with any type of new religious movement. This method of removing the healthy skepticism from the mindsets of a parade of possibly nutcase followers is how we frequently cartoon those who think differently from us. It's an indication that we think the new thing takes itself too seriously, takes its mandates too far, and relies on justifications too ephemeral. It is unnecessary, actually, for something to be all that new for us to pour scorn in this way. Socially, we seem to feel this about any belief system that isn't the very one we ascribe to, and therefore our comparison to belief systems is, by default, socially insulting.

Calling the followers of Mr. Obama a "cult of" is, in my opinion then, and to my ears, no worse than referring to them as a "sect of" (or as a "denomination" a "world-order" a "church of" or even a "congregation", were that word to be also used in its religious sense at the same time). The very same words would all come off as bad from a detractor and just fine from a supporter.

[anonymous]

Mr. Cavin,

However, you do have to admit that there is a generally negative image associated with the word "cult." And for most of the country, they do not keep their minds open enough to see the alternate definition. For those that just flip through the headlines to get the gist of what is going on, the word "cult" would be more than enough to implant the stereotyped and frightening image into their minds of Obama supporters. In the general American mind, cult is a very extreme version of a sect, not the same thing. Many people don't go flipping through the dictionary or a social psychology textbook to see the actual definition. They use the societal association that is now implanted in their mind.

In this case, the use of a word like "cult" that does instill a negative perception, is the use of propaganda. The reason the article's author picked the title was to not only draw in a reader, but to also evoke a specific emotion in the typical reader before the article even begins. This is called pre-persuasion.

Therefore, you must agree that our culture makes cults out to be evil and menacing, hence that title is propaganda.

It is important for us readers to question the strategically picked words. Our first instinct is to go with our first impressions, but we must fight that urge and question. We should question the use, by whom it is used, and why, to form a truly informed opinion. These titles serve to mislead, to create biases. Decisions like who should be the president should be carefully thought out. We should know who we are putting in office for four years rather than be surprised by their stupidity or incompetence once they are already there.