Isaac Bonewits and the Advanced Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
Posted: 16 May 2009
I have no idea how this scale is viewed within academics etc in the field but I think it was useful following discussion on whether one would consider if the Brahma Kumaris were a "dangerous" cult. Apparently, it has been used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Union of South Africa.
For an example, see: The Boundaries Between Cultic, Benign, and Beneficial in Five Spiritual Groups by Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D.
The purpose 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.
Anyone care to calculate?
For an example, see: The Boundaries Between Cultic, Benign, and Beneficial in Five Spiritual Groups by Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D.
The purpose 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.
Anyone care to calculate?
Bonewits Scale wrote:Scale:
Low ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... High
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Factors:1) Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.
2) External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.
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.
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.
5) Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.
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.
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.
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.
10) Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.
11) Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
12) Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.
13) Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
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.
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).
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.