The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame 2.0
Copyright © 1979, 1996 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
Introduction
Events in the last few decades have clearly indicated just how
dangerous some religious and secular
groups (usually called "cults" by those opposed to them) can be to
their own members as well as to
anyone else whom they can influence. "Brainwashing," beatings,
child abuse, rapes, murders, mass
suicides, military drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil
governments, international terrorism, and
other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of
many groups, and in far too many
cases those accusations have been correct. None of this has been
very surprising to historians of
religion or to other scholars of what are usually labled "new"
religions (no matter how old they may
be in their cultures of origin). Minority groups, especially religious
ones, are often accused of crimes
by members of the current majority. In many ways, for example, the
"Mormons" were the "Moonies"
of the 19th century -- at least in terms of being an unusual minority
belief system that many found
"shocking" at the time -- and the members of the Unification Church
could be just as "respectable" a
hundred years from now as the Latter Day Saints are today.
Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical caveats that
could be issued, ordinary people
faced with friends or loved ones joining an "unusual" group, or
perhaps contemplating joining it
themselves, need a relatively simple way to evaluate just how
dangerous or harmless a given group is
liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or
judging it solely on theological or
ideological grounds (the usual method used by anti-cult groups).
In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call the
"Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger
Evaluation Frame," or the "ABCDEF," a copy of which was
included in that year's revised edition of
my book, Real Magic (Samuel Weiser Pub., 1989). I realize its
shortcomings, but feel that it can be
effectively used to separate harmless groups from the merely
unusual-to-the-observer ones. Feedback
from those attempting to use the system has always been
appreciated. Indirect feedback, in terms of
the number of places on and off the Net this ABCDEF has shown
up, has been mostly favorable. For
example, it was chosen by and is now displayed on the website of
the Institute for Social Inventions,
who paraphrased it for their "Best Ideas -- A compendium of social
innovations" listing.
The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and
professional observers, including
current or would-be members, of various organizations (including
religious, occult, psychological or
political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is
liable to be, in comparison with
other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and
of other people subject to its
influence. It cannot speak to the spiritual "dangers," if any, that
might be involved, for the simple
reason that one person's path to enlightenment or "salvation" is
often viewed by another as a path to
ignorance or "damnation."
As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given
group (the further to the right of the
scale), the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious
that many of the scales in the frame
are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using
it, at least of the "is this group more
dangerous than that one?" sort. This is if all numerical assignments
are based on accurate and unbiased
observation of actual behavior by the groups and their top levels of
leadership (as distinct from
official pronouncements). This means that you need to pay
attention to what the secondary and tertiary
leaders are saying and doing, as much (or more so) than the
central leadership -- after all, "plausible
deniability" is not a recent historical invention.
This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement
agents, social scientists and others
interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given
group or movement. Obviously,
different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision,
depending upon the sophistication of
their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same
observers use the same methods of
scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative
danger or harmlessness between
groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes.
People who cannot, on the other
hand, view competing belief systems as ever having possible
spiritual value to anyone, will find the
ABCDEF annoyingly useless for promoting their theocratic
agendas. Worse, these members of the
Religious Reich will find that their own organizations (and quite a
few large mainstream churches) are
far more "cult-like" than the minority belief systems they so bitterly
oppose.
It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF is founded upon both
modern psychological theories about
mental health and personal growth, and my many years of
participant observation and historical
research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that
relativism and anarchy are as dangerous
to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, could (I
suppose) count groups with total scores
nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As
far as dangers to physical
well-being are concerned, however, both historical records and
current events clearly indicate the
direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so
since the low-scoring groups usually
seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom
develop the abilities to commit large
scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political
inclinations to do so.
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.0)
Factors:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
1
INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of internal political power
exercised by leader(s) over members.
1
_____________________________
2
WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s); amount of infallibility
declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural
interpretations.
2
_____________________________
3
WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of
trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made
by leader(s).
3
_____________________________
4
DOGMA: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of
doctrinal inflexibility or "fundamentalism."
4
_____________________________
5
RECRUITING: Emphasis put on attracting new members;
amount of proselytizing.
5
_____________________________
6
FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsidiary groups using
different names from that of main group.
6
_____________________________
7
WEALTH: Amount of money and/or property desired or
obtained by group; emphasis on members' donations;
economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary
members.
7
_____________________________
8
POLITICAL POWER: Amount of external political influence
desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members' secular
votes.
8
_____________________________
9
SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members by leader(s);
amount of control exercised over sexuality of members;
advancement dependent upon sexual favors or specific
lifestyle.
9
_____________________________
10
CENSORSHIP: Amount of control over members' access to
outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
10
_____________________________
11
DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of efforts directed at
preventing or returning dropouts.
11
_____________________________
12
VIOLENCE: amount of approval when used by or for the
group, its doctrines or leader(s).
12
_____________________________
13
PARANOIA: amount of fear con- cerning real or imagined
enemies; perceived power of opponents; prevalence of
conspiracy theories.
13
_____________________________
14
GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about
the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
14
_____________________________
15
SURRENDER OF WILL: Amount of emphasis on members
not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of
individual disempowerment created by the group, its
doctrines or its leader(s).
15
_____________________________
16
HYPOCRISY: amount of approval for other actions (not
included above) which the group officially considers
immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its
doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate group's
declared principles for political, psychological, economic, or
other gain.
16
Low High
