Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism

“The twenty-first century has produced a climate of sociopolitical unrest and mistrust of long-established institutions, like church, government, Big Pharma, and big business.”

When trust in government erodes, we desire belonging and understanding more and are more willing to turn to alternative sources. As the fear of isolation, need to conform, and radical self-creation collide with an unjust society that doesn’t meet individual needs and creates a sense of overwhelming aloneness, the prevalence of cults also rises.

“Compared to other developed nations, the US boasts a particularly consistent relationship with ‘cults,’ which speaks to our brand of distinctly American tumult. […] America’s laissez-faire atmosphere makes people feel all on their own. Generation after generation, this lack of institutional support paves the way for alternative, supernaturally minded groups to surge.”

This contextualization of the United States’ relationship with cults versus other countries hints at the deeper historical background for the U.S.'s unique position and relationship with cults. Evoking the term “laissez-faire” shows the lack of regulations around cultish rhetoric evident in the freedoms that fail to be adequately supported by the U.S.’s structures and institutions.

“Throughout the world, cultural normativity still has so much to do with a religious group’s perceived legitimacy…no matter if its teachings are any weirder or more harmful than a better-established group. After all, what major spiritual leader doesn’t have some trace of blood on their hands?”

These questions exemplify the controversial yet level stance Montell takes in weighing mainstream religions against cults. This comparison may cause some readers to bristle, but the question is intended to be rhetorical and highlight the role of perception in the use of the word “cult.”