Globalization and the “sacred canopy” of Cults in India

India, in present times, has been widely characterized by the restructuring of the economic order, ever increasing interactivity between the local and global communities through the information and communication technologies and mass media, and explicit reformulation of the discourses of social development. Further, the unbroken democratic practices under the Constitution, in India, has given rise a distinct political culture in the country. In this context, it is expected that in India religion and religious activities will be on decline and/or get privatized, and structures associated with religion get progressively diminished as public space does have place for such activities. However, what we see is that the patterns of social living associated with religion in all its diverse forms are not at all getting constricted or withering away. In fact, it is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the presence of religion in the contemporary society. Nor it is possible to find explanations about this as something else or in some other social fact.

Sociology of religion aims to discover the patterns of social living associated with religion in all its diverse forms, and to find explanations for the data that emerge. It is not, in contrast, concerned with the competing truth claims of the great variety of belief systems that are and always have been present in human societies. That is the sphere of theology, with the relatively modern discipline of religious studies hovering, somewhat uneasily, in between. Sociologists must resist the temptation to subsume the study of religion into alternative, and for some at least more congenial, areas of interest. Precisely this has happened in the past and has impeded understanding. It derives from a persistent tendency to think primarily in terms of decline rather than growth when to comes to the religious sphere. So doing implies that the presence, rather than the absence, of religion in the modern world requires an explanation. All of the leading lights of early sociology devoted considerable attention to the sociology of religion in one way or another. Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Simmel were all aware of the importance of religion to the functioning of human societies and paid careful attention to this factor in their different analyses. Religion continues to remain a uniquely human experience, without any analog found among any other living being. Thus, religion forms a “sacred canopy” that shields both individual and society from a seemingly purposeless existence.

In the 1990s religious problems such as deceitful recruitment and fundraising by the Unification Church (in United States) and criminal activities by Aum (in Japan) and ‘Santandal of Balak Bramhachary’ and ‘Ananda Margis’ (in India) cults provoked cult controversy and a cautious attitude towards religion among ordinary people. Yet, religious movements are not always harmful to society, and indeed sometimes initiate development of our culture and society. The cult controversy originated from the conflicts between some controversial religions and their self-proclaimed ‘victims’. We must remember religion enters into a dynamic interplay with different sociological variables in different times, places, and circumstances, thus the functional and substantive aspects of cults in contemporary society have to be understood in terms of the changes that are taking lace in society. Religion does not remain untouched by these changes, as evidenced in the phenomenal proliferation in the number of ‘gurus’, ‘babas’, and godmen with their ‘feel-good’ mutts or monasteries. To outsiders these may seem utterly misleading and money laundering institutions where individualism is propitiated at the expense of holism. It is assumed that lack of cultural awareness and stressful life pattern does not allow the people to concentrate on religious abstractions, causing in them an attraction for this outcropping tribe of godmen who try to offer a made-easy version of ‘Hindu’ philosophy. Another reason that is pointed out is that, these godmen run cults are taking opportunity of the profound and fast changes in values, norms and modes of behaviour in all domains of social space, which have undermined the traditional hierarchies, giving birth to a new social order devoid of any authority system that provide guidance and control. In this overall weakened changing social milieu, mainstream religion and religious organizations, with its embedded norms of sacred and profane, fail to counter these tribes of godmen due to unparalleled growth of mass media and its deep cultural penetration with the help of which the former can increase their reach. The Temple of Jagannath at Puri, in this sphere stands as an exception, because the farsighted organization of and the philosophy propagated by this Temple has allowed it to take advantage of mass media to increase its reach. Religious symbols, meanings and practices, traditions and institutions are seen by the new generation as tools for developing esoteric identities, sensitivities and consciousness. This new process of identity formation allows a sense of fluidity in religious identity of individuals’ thus continuously reconfiguring Indian society’s moral and religious values. In context of contemporary consumerist culture higher value is placed on practicality in living a religious life to achieve individual’s personal spiritual end, therefore, giving fealty to religious functionaries or organizations is now limited in only achieving the said end. Religiosity in contemporary society this way allows individuals to go beyond the iconoclastic restrictions of the past, re-prioritize their orientation to accommodate greater maneuverability between internal and external pluralism.

In context of the above, it will be relevant to examine how cults are defined by sociologists. To start with, we may accept that a cult could be defined as any group of people whose beliefs and rituals, though remain part of a major religion, but are not mainstream. A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to ‘a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents’(Collins English Dictionary).

Lorne L. Dawson (2006:28-29) exploring the literature concludes that the definition of cult is a slippery concept, therefore, goes on to “say that cults share the following cluster of traits:
1. Cults are almost always centred on a charismatic leader, who is usually the inspirational founder of the religion. The authority of this leader is relatively unrestricted. Consequently, these groups are subject to gradual disintegration when the leader dies or is discredited (Miller, 1991). Not sur¬prisingly, then, the vast majority of cults are relatively short-lived and small.
2. Cults usually lay claim to some esoteric knowledge that has been lost, repressed, or newly discovered, and they offer their believers some more direct kind of ecstatic or transfiguring experience than traditional modes of religious life.
3. Cults often display no systematic orientation to the broader society, since their primary focus is on the spiritual development of their members. This commonly means they are loosely organized and subject to frequent organizational changes.
4. To borrow from the sociologist Bryan Wilson: In comparison to established faiths, cults tend to ‘offer a surer, shorter, swifter, or clearer way to salvation’. They offer a more ‘proximate salvation' and, in principle, one more readily attained by more people. ‘In new religions,’ Wilson explains, ‘there is prospect of spiritual abundance’ (1982b: 17, 20).
This profile fits most cults, which are relatively unknown. You may have noticed, however, that it does not really describe several of the more famous groups figuring in the public controversy about NRMs. Scientology, Krishna Consciousness, and the Unification Church, for example, are quite long-lived and large. Accordingly, many of their features are sect-like. They are more organized and sophisticated in their relations with the larger world. With the exception of the Unification Church, whose founding leader is still alive, they have also managed to survive the death of their charismatic founder. Originally, though, these groups did display the traits I have suggested, and they do continue to have many of the other attitudes and practices, such as the emphasis on esoteric teachings and the satisfac¬tion of individual needs. Perhaps, then, yet another intermediate category should be added to church-sect typology, that of ‘established cult'.”

According to Mac Iver and Page (1950: 602), “…cults are not yet religions in the proper sense of the term. They are hallowed ways of doing things or of celebrating things done, and the sanctity is apt to be transferred from the functions or occasions to the rite associated with it. The social is still fused with the suprasocial”. For Johnson (1966:437-438), “cult…is a voluntary organization… (that) shows its looseness of organization by permitting its members to come and go, and to participate in other religious groups at the same time if they wish. The coherence of the group depends upon the emotional hold of a leader over the members, or upon the fascination of the beliefs or rituals…There is a tendency for cults to emphasize one doctrine above all others, or to focus upon a god or goddess with certain definite characteristics…Cult seem to flourish in metropolitan centers- that is, in places where vast population live close together physically, yet have heterogeneous cultures and many diverse problems of adjustment.”

Cults have a controversial existence in contemporarary times because largely they adopt the following characteristic features:
• The leader assumes God-like authority over its members.
• It provides an escape from reality. Reality has to do with the truth of things, truth which can be validated by other people. Cult religion provides few “reality checks”.
• It preys upon people with heavy guilt and shame and offers a false solution: total commitment to the cult.
• Cult religion demands a complete break from life to this point. All the “past” is bad or evil. Only present life in the cult is good.
• Cult religion thrives in secrecy. It creates a secret garden of perfect religion. It hides its doctrines, its rules, and its community behavior under the cloak of secrecy.
• The leaders have perfect truth and goodness and they “lord it over” the rest. They use coercive power, fear, intimidation, and manipulation to keep people in line.
• Everything is black and white. There is no gray. There is little sense of personal humility or of the Mystery of God.
• It uses scripture to defend its subjective version of the truth and to condemn all others.

The questions that should not escape from our purview are - Why and how are people attracted to these cults? What sort of people are they, and what are their backgrounds? Functionalist speculation would put forward that the people who are attracted to these cults are those who have had a deprived life, and are now desperately seeking some sort of satisfaction from these, which would make them feel more complete. Social institutions, like family, are in periods of serious transition, and that may serve to increase any alienation and separateness among individual members from the groups around them. So even if these individuals have all the material benefits in their life yet they are emotionally or psychologically deprived. Of those who are religiously inclined, it would be more likely those individuals, who are in a religiously confused state due to changed social reality, therefore are not any more secure and satisfied in their traditional faith and rituals, are most susceptible to the messages of cults. Another aspect that is progressively coming to the fore is that society tends to treat people more impersonally - resulting in both greater alienation and greater need to define oneself personally. Therefore, we see more and more people search for an identity separate from their parents and unique to themselves. This is related to the forces of globalization, since such searches for identity were not prevalent in past where identity and social roles were more rigidly defined and inclusive. A cult controls its members primarily through the promotion and inculcation of a hierarchical, cult-type belief system within a person's own mind, rather than by means of external, physical restraints. The belief system itself is the primary active agent in cult mind control. Cults actively promote and market their belief systems. Commercial companies use marketing and public relations techniques to promote an idealized image of their product or service to potential consumers, and cults do much the same. However, the difference with a cult is that both their product, and any consequences resulting from purchase and use of their product, is entirely subjective and intangible in nature. The ‘product’ that is marketed by a cult is its belief system, together with the attitudes and behaviour codes that are part of that belief system. Because of the nature of their product, cults do not really operate in the public domain. They operate in a private world, within an individual's personal religious framework or set of beliefs, and within an individual's own subjective world of self-esteem and self-confidence. They operate within a person’s mind. Some cults promote an overtly religious type of belief system. Others, such as so-called therapy cults, promote a secular type of belief system, based on quasi-scientific or quasi-psychological principles. Some so-called New Age cults combine religious and secular elements in their belief system. In general, cult organizations promote utopian ideals of self awareness or self-transcendence, ostensibly for the benefit both of the individual and of the world at large. Cult belief systems present a vision in which any individual, through following the group’s teachings, can begin to realize their own higher potential. Believers begin to aspire to a ‘new life’ or a 'new self', based on these ideals. At the same time as they begin to aspire to this improved new self, believers begin to see their old self, their pre-cult personality, as having fallen short of the ideal. An old self - new self dichotomy can grow up within a cult member's mind, as they gradually eschew beliefs and behaviour associated with their old self, and adopt attitudes and affiliations that seem appropriate for their new self. They may even come to see their unreformed old self as the enemy of their emerging new self. Cults have to compete to market their belief systems and gain adherents, just as ordinary commercial organizations have to compete to market their products or services and gain customers. Indeed some of the marketing techniques are not entirely dissimilar. Commercial businesses often use aspiration based marketing techniques, promoting their products and services to potential customers by implying that purchase of a particular product will enhance an owner's self esteem and social status. Consumers are sometimes encouraged to measure their own self-worth in terms of the quality of their possessions. The marketing advantage enjoyed by a cult is that, as a quasi-religious organization, it is protected from outside investigation, by a legal system which attempts to protect freedom of religion and freedom of belief. Broadly, freedom of religion allows cults to use their own self-referential ethical codes to justify their own behaviour, and to remain unaccountable to any outside agency. There are no consumer protection laws to regulate the marketing of personal or religious belief, without any independent quality control of the product offered. Another advantage enjoyed by a cult stems from the fact that it does not really operate in the public domain; it operates primarily within the private and subjective realm of a person's mind. Both the actual product marketed by a cult, and any consequences resulting from purchase or use of the product, are largely subjective and intangible in nature. This means that no criticisms of the allegedly harmful effect that a cult's belief system may have had upon a member’s mind or behaviour can ever be proved objectively. Robert J. Lifton (1961) pointed out eight criteria of mind control that can be used about understanding the working of the cults. They are:
1. Milieu Control: Environment control and the control of human communication. Not just communication between people but communication within people's minds to themselves.
2. Mystical Manipulation: Everyone is manipulating everyone, under the belief that it advances the “ultimate purpose”. Experiences are engineered to appear to be spontaneous, when, in fact, they are contrived to have a deliberate effect. People misattribute their experiences to spiritual causes when, in fact, they are concocted by human beings.
3. Loading the Language: Controlling words help to control people's thoughts. A totalist group uses totalist language to make reality compressed into black or white – “thought-terminating clichés”. Non-members cannot simply understand what believers are talking about. The words constrict rather than expand human understanding.
4. Doctrine over Person: No matter what a person experiences, it is the belief of the dogma which is important. Group belief supersedes conscience and integrity.
5. Sacred Science: The group's belief is that their dogma is scientific and morally true. No alternative viewpoint is allowed. No questions of the dogma are permitted.
6. The Cult of Confession: The environment demands that personal boundaries are destroyed and that every thought, feeling, or action that does not conform to the group’s rules be confessed; little or no privacy.
7. The Demand for Purity: The creation of a guilt and shame milieu by holding up standards of perfection that no human being can accomplish. People are punished and are taught to punish themselves for not living up to the group’s ideals.
8. The Dispensing of Existence: The group decides who has a right to exist and who does not. There is no other legitimate alternative to the group. In political regimes, this permits state executions.

Combination of institutional, pedagogical and cultural factors decides the attitude of people towards religion that again both shapes and is shaped by the socio-cultural systems within which it operates across time, place, and circumstance. Cults and new religious movements cannot, therefore, be seen as devoid of social basis. Religiosity survives in the context of consumerism through cults and new religious movements. It is seen that the relationship between the values of the expressive revolution and the emergent individualism that are bridged by cults and new religious movements. Cults have created a space within the personal and public rights in religious matters in contemporary society. Thus, we can conclude that in contemporary society, towards one end of religious spectrum are the established mainstream religious and humanist systems of belief and practice, in the middle are non-conformist sects and fashionable fads of various kinds, and towards the other end are various religious cults that tend towards being exclusive coteries. We can broadly differentiate between cults, sects, and mainstream religious or secular belief systems, by considering the degree to which a particular group’s belief system and culture originates from within the group, and is separate and distinct from the relevant mainstream belief system and culture. From this perspective, sects can be characterized as tending to disagree with some details of the relevant mainstream belief system, while cults can be characterized as tending to deny and reject outright significant parts of the relevant mainstream belief system.

Reference
Dawson, Lorne L. 2006, 2nd Edition, Comprehending Cults. The Sociology of New Religious Movements, Ontario: OUP Canada
Greeley, Andrew M. 1982, Religion: A Secular Theory. New York: Free Press.
Hammond, Phillip E. (ed.). 1985, The Sacred in a Secular Age: Toward Revision in the Scientific Study of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press
Johnson, Harry M. 1981, Sociology. A Systematic Introduction, New Delhi: Allied
Lifton, Robert Jay. 1961, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, University of North Carolina Press
Mac Iver, R. M. and Charles H. Page, 1950, Society, Madras: Macmillan
Wilson, Bryan. 1990, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press