some people go insane in an ego-maniacal yet charismatic way. other people go insane in an ego-dissolving yet submissive way. sometimes these people meet each other.
I disagree. They don't have explicit hierarchies, which makes the charismatic personalities much more obscure (from an outsider perspective) but they're definitely there. They just don't get up on stage and preach.
-
-
Okay, fine, they probably do worship some entity like Judith Butler or Ta-Nehisi Coates, but the structure of the cult is so convoluted that it's a far cry from the typical image of a preacher figure in the center with followers radiating from him/her.
-
yep. it's an unusual beast and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As somebody who’s partner was born in a cult, I’d say that Dan’s analysis is pretty good, for a subset of cults.
-
I agree that there is a cohesive and distinct subset of cults focused on a central charismatic figure. But who was the charismatic figure in Protestantist cults? They were various, and they were replaced one after another, yet the cults persisted.
-
There are those in the cult that see it for what it is, learn the lessons of how to take it over (or open a franchise), and do so. See the current head of Scientology for an example. I’m not familiar with Protestant cults.
-
the Munster Rebellion is an example of a cult (radical Anabaptists) that "acquired" a charismatic figure (or even several such figures), discarded them, then persisted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion …
-
If the memetic structure of the cult is sufficiently anti-fragile, it can be self-sustaining without a corporeal charismatic leader; the mystical god takes over this role? I am only spitballing, but perhaps this is the transition from what we’d call a cult and a religion?
-
Okay, another question -- does a cult necessarily "radiate" from a charismatic figure -- or is the charismatic figure simply a person who happens to be shrewd/ruthless enough to take advantage of fools who already organized themselves in that structure?
-
In the case of Anabaptists, the second situation seems to be the case, and yet very early on it is unlikely that the Anabaptists could have seriously be considered a religion rather than a sect/cult.
-
I’d say both. The cultists of the 1970s definitely “collected” followers rather than finding them pre-collected. The anabaptists sounds like an attempt at political revolution in an environment that didn’t seperate church and state, from my quick read of the Wikipedia page.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.