Cult Danger, an overview.

One of, and perhaps the most definitive evaluation methods for the danger of any group is the Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (which I will refer to as ABCDEF from here on).

The ABCDEF asks you to rate groups on a scale from 1 to 10 on 18 distinct factors. A very high score indicates a group that poses a high risk of danger. A very low score is problematic as well, but groups that score low tends to be very scattered and disorganized rather than posing serious risks to the physical and mental health and wellbeing of the membership.

Let's take a look at the factors being evaluated. Italics are my commentary.

1. Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

Internal control is pretty self explainatory. How much control over members do the leader(s) exert over members? Are there clear member's rights? A low score here would indicate a group that does not try to control their members and clearly defines the members rights. A high score would indicate a group that tries to control many aspects of the lives of members and that does not make any attempt to define member's rights.

2. External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

See above. Pretty much everything that applies there applies here.

3. Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s): amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

Does the leader of the group have verifiable credentials and admit to their own fallibility? Low score. Does the leader claim credentials they have absolutely no proof for and claim to be speaking the infallible words of the gods? That's a 10.

4. Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members: amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

Is the membership open to hearing criticism of the teachings of the leader? Does the membership trust the leader but at the same time remember at all times that the leader is ultimately human and fallible? Low score. Do members of the group become extremely hostile towards members or outsiders that question the teachings of the leader? Do members trust the leader absolutely? That's a 10.

5. Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.

Have flexible doctrine and cosmology and open to the views of others? That's a 1. Rigid, inflexible doctrine and cosmology and a belief that reality is only what the leader says it is with no regards to the views of others? 10.

6. Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.

7. Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

This is a complicated one. As a general rule, almost all groups do not have front groups. Generally if there are any groups outside of the primary group, they are just subgroups that are clearly part of the mother group. A classic representation of a front group would be a store that is staffed by members of the group (generally unpaid) that "donates" all of it's proceeds to the group but does not claim any association with the parent group. This is generally only a scenario you are going to see with high power, financially heavy hitting cults.

8. 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.

Wealth and front groups can go hand in hand, and I would say that both factors would get higher scores of the front groups exist solely for fundraising purposes. A group that would score low on this factor most likely would have a negligible budget, will not emphasize donations, and the leaders will live roughly the same kind of lifestyle as the membership. A group that would score high would most likely either have or want a large amount of liquid assets and/or real property, members will be called on to give large portions of their finances to the group and the leaders will likely have a much higher standard of living.

I personally feel that this is one of the most subtly dangerous factors. It's fairly common for groups to ask for member donations and I think it's very easy to loose track of exactly how far that is getting pushed and in a group with far flung membership it would be very easy for a leader to be living a much higher standard of living on the groups dollar without people becoming overly aware of it for awhile.

9. Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups: amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

I'm not going to go in to much commentary here, for fear of triggering myself. This was a huge element in my former cult. I think everyone reading this is well aware of the controversy over sexual abuse within religious organizations.

10. Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.

Again, I don't have much commentary to offer here.

11. Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

This one is a little hard for groups to exercise unless there is some sort of communal living environment. Short of that, this is typically going to consist of leaders using heavy peer pressure and discrediting outside sources.

12. Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

Again, you are mostly going to see this factor when there is some sort of communal living environment or when members are strongly encouraged to only live in certain neighborhoods and communities. Short of that, you might see leaders encouraging members to abandon relationships and threatening them with various consequences should they fail to do so.

13. Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

All I'm going to say on this one is if leadership physically stalks and seriously injures anyone trying to leave the group, you have a serious problem.

14. Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

15. Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

Leader think the rest of the world is out to get them with advanced weaponry and hostile magics? You might be looking at a 10.

16. Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

17. 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).

I would also like to point out that surrender of will can go the other direction as well. Some dangerous groups hold members responsible for their every action with the expectation that members will entirely subjugate personal will to the will of the "group" (which I'll also point out is generally just the will of the leader in a dangerous group).

18. Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

I'll pull an example from my own history for this one. If the group does something like condemn child rape but also makes sexual intercourse part of a mandatory rite of passage for young teens, you've got a 10. Another example a little less close to home would be the group openly approving doing things that would generally be considered unethical or immoral to fund raise for the group.

So, as you can see, the ABCDEF is a comprehensive framework for evaluating groups of any type. I would like to point out that this can be extended to cover any type of group that is not entirely consensus based, not just religious ones. While the focus of our work here mostly deals with religious cults there are also financial, corporate, lifestyle and myriads of other types of groups that can also be classified as dangerous cults. If you are worried about any group that you are a member of, take a serious look at your group through the framework you've seen here.


Advanced Bonewit's Cult Danger Evaluation Form
Copyright © 1979, 2008 c.e., Isaac Bonewits. This text file may be freely distributed on the Net, provided that no editing is done, the version number is retained, and everything in this notice box is included. If you would like to be on one or more of Isaac Bonewits’ emailing lists, click here to get subscription information.