Why do we always consider cultures as inherently better than cults? Are there no exceptions to this?

Cults tend to be defined by how they control their members. Cultures tend to form around similarities.

The more popular something is, the less effective it is to criticize it harshly. For example, I think eating meat regularly is, by the amount of suffering it causes, worse than murdering one human. But if I went around calling everyone who ate meat "murderers" and refused to befriend or do business with them, it would just make people think I was crazy and not want to listen to me, because eating meat is seen as normal. On the other hand, when something is seen as abnormal, like being openly racist, shunning people who do it makes others less likely to do it too.

Cults are defined by cult-like activity. Cult-like activity is bad because it abuses people.

If there's a "cult" that doesn't actually have cult-like activity, then it's not really a cult.

Scientology is really bad. They have absolutely killed people, either through more direct methods or through neglect. They convince cancer patients to not get treatment, and I've recently been watching some stuff about their treatment of the elderly, who are often starved to death. They see them as spirits that need to go onto the next life so make no attempt at caring for them once they can no longer care for themselves.

That's ignoring the false imprisonment, physical abuse, and all round mistreatment of them.

Cults exercise very direct and personal control from the deified leadership to the followers. It tends to mean abuse between central leadership and the followers. Cult practices have similarities to religions and draw from religious and spiritual claims (and can become religions), but are distinguished by certain patterns of how they control members:

• Isolate from those around you, especially family and friends that don't agree with what you're doing.
• Recruit others to the cult.
• Demonstrate value to the cult through humiliation and serving the petty needs of the leader. The petty needs will be described as being much more important than they really are.
• Harsh punishment and violence for stepping out of line.
• A culture of blaming followers for their sins, including things for which they are not in any way responsible or at fault.
• A hierarchy of power that is mostly about who gets to mete out abuse.
• A specialized set of terminology for common things so that they become an in-reference that offers will not understand.
• Isolation of "troublemakers" or people that fight back. Keeping them separate from one another.

The small size of the cult makes these things have a qualitatively different impact when it comes to social control. It's not about some established mysticism or conservatism that you carry out some action or feel some guilt, it's a distinct practice where every person around you forces conformity based on the whims of a very personal power structure and just a couple people who get to decide everything, and you usually live with them.

Anyways, the main issue with Westerners criticizing Islam or Muslims is that the discourse is absolutely saturated with racism and Western chauvinism that is just a more veiled version of what white supremacists say. It's not particularly informed and, as part of the dominant hegemonic mindset of the oppressor class and oppressor nations, it gladly ignores that the most extreme, voluminous, and unnecessary violence is carried out by the power structures they implicitly or explicitly support, secular or not.

Some Western criticisms of Islam tend to present themselves as academic or at least thoughtful and informed examinations of theology and cultural practices. Sometimes they even take a critical look at other religions and cultural practices. But they very often lead to lazy and bigoted policy and advocacy positions because it's less about understanding in order to improve the world and more about identifying an enemy and it turns out that the global movers and shakers would absolutely love to use those "principled" stances to justify the domination and destruction of entire countries and peoples with your consent.

You'll notice that Sam Harris has become a full-blown islamophobe and neocon. He is not improving the world through knowledge or action, but justifying oppression by the global hegemonic powers that want to pillage for profit by playing on stereotypical racist fears. He's also gone down the self-help grifter path. He's really just laundering reactionary views through a distinct language of "skepticism", views that would fit right in at a "race science" consortium in 1912 and a bloodthirsty US State Department meeting on how to justify the genocide of brown people in the Middle East.

As others have said, there’s never going to be a clear cut line between the two. I think it’s more useful to take a functional perspective. Something isn’t problematic because it’s a cult; it’s a cult because it’s problematic. I like Hassan’s BITE model of authoritarian control here. We look for social systems that are purposefully organized to enforce different kinds of control over individuals within the system - Behavioral, Information, Thought, and Information control in the BITE model. We see where systems rely on mechanisms of control to the clear detriment of those within the system.

You mention in another comment the idea that many “cults” are going to be relatively more accepting of you than many “cultures.” That’s undoubtedly true. But the distinction is in what happens next. The border around a cult system is only permeable in one direction. You may be accepted with open arms, but that acceptance is a tool to get you into a place where you can’t leave because you won’t (or feel like you won’t) ever be accepted again outside the cult.

The control mechanisms also create an all-in system. I’m not generally a fan of religion TBH, but you can decide how much you want the culture of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or whatever to affect your life day to day and in what ways. If you’re in a Christian cult though, like the IFB or IBLP (the one the Duggars are in), the system decides your level of involvement. Scientology is a great example of this because it looks like there is a wide range of involvement level. You see a lot of celebrities who don’t seems crazy, who talk about how wholesome it is, who say they’ve never seen any of the abuses people talk about. It’s not that these celebrities are opting for a chiller version of Scientology, it’s that Scientology opted them into a less obviously, outwardly repressive day-to-day for the benefit of the system.

All this to come back to my first point - this is a functional distinction, not a formal/semantic one. Is some social system manipulating its members in an organized and harmful way? Then let’s call it a cult so we can talk about that concept more easily. THEN the question of is this or that group a cult based on whether it functionally presents as one.

The terms cult and culture have the same problem(s) as sect and religion. There is no one clear-cut definition, but many competing definitions, most of which are kind of vague or ambiguous. Both sect and cult are usually used in us versus them narratives. If you pick a random person and try to discuss if and why something is a cult/sect or culture/religion you are almost guaranteed to run into unresolvable conflict because you'll likely have different definitions in mind. The obvious solution is to settle on a common definition beforehand, but that will just cause the next conflict because there are so many and there is no obviously correct one.

People often bring up an aspect of control as the defining characteristic of cults/sects. Does that make all states cults? Does that mean every major Christian denomination was a sect 200 years ago?

Another common definition is that of a new group splitting off from the established group. Does that mean the entirety of Christianity is just a jewish sect?

Most definitions, when applied rigorously, imply that every culture/religion has been a cult/sect at least for some time in the past. And here comes the trouble: Most people from some culture/religion will provide you with a definition for cult/sect, when arguing about it, but will not accept when you apply it to theirs and point out that by that definition it either is a cult/sect, or was 200/500/1000 years ago. Because most people use those terms to denote otherness possibly even in a pejorative way.

In an academic context (for example anthropology or history) the distinction between cult and culture or sect and religion can be useful when a definition is given in the context and it is applied consistently. Outside of academia those terms aren't very useful beyond instigating people against each other or minorities, solidifying circle jerks, or starting flame wars.

My nonprofessional take on it:

Every culture started out as a cult and all cultures are or have been horrid given the opportunity.

Every religion started out as a sect and all the sects' and religions' fairy tales are equally ridiculous when observed from the outside.

The distinction between cult and culture, and sect and religion, has no net positive benefit outside of academia and should be avoided outside of fiction.

Interesting ideas. The popular interpretation of a cult revolves around a leader or leadership who use dogma to influence the members into behaviour that they wouldn't ordinarily engage in e.g. donations, alliegence to a cause. The goal is usually money, power and sexual exploitation of adherents by the leadership.

A culture is a milder form of a cult. They tend to be more permissive and less exploitative. And yet, in many ways we don't get to choose how we live. If we make choices that go against the prevailing sentiment, we can be punished even if our behaviour is ethically sound. That is a cultish outcome.

The definition of a cult is also contextual. I met someone who told me that they escaped from a cult in Italy. I imagined something Mafia-based or Communistic but I was surprised to learn it was Jehovah's Witness. In the UK we don't think of JW as a cult but this guy was insistent and gave examples.

You might like to read an example of the techniques in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Just shooting from the hip here, but I think maybe you can see cults as a subset of cultures.

A cult is a small group defined by an authority figure, how it treats its members and its relationship with the rest of the world. They are often small groups, but can be large like Jehova’s Witnesses.

Cults are usually a subset of a religious faction, like baptists or Lutherans, which in turn is a subset of for example Protestantism. (There are non-religious cults as well of course).

And confusingly religions exist within cultures and can be a core part of their identity, but one religion can also exist in a totally different culture.

So I think you’re trying to compare all apples with a specific type of oranges here.

Because the two things aren't actually the same and because of what it means in context to oppose a culture vs. a cult. You might oppose scientology in a variety of ways, they have a leader, buildings, staff, bank accounts, a documented history of infiltrating the government and harassing people, a curated list of members etc.

A cult may or may not have all of those but they're a different kind of thing than a culture. Cultures are social categories that encompass a much wider range of human behaviors for one, they include things like sport and art and language. Festivals and practices and food and manners. They're things a human can't really help having even if you can choose to adopt parts and change others. Religion, which is a thing you seem to be conflating with culture, is just a part of culture. Egyptian Copts have Christianity like many Americans. They are also very different culturally.

But the bigger reason people should be very careful when people start criticizing culture is because we know what that means. What does one do about "cultural Bolshevism?"

What do conservatives actually want done about "Black culture?" What did bringing "culture" to the "savages" mean? How does someone stop being from a culture?

We know how those questions get answered. And that tells us something about why those questions might be asked in the first place.

If anyone is being harmed, member or non-member, then I think it should be stopped. That applies to both cult activities and cultural activities.

I've got a really unscientific answer that feels good in my head.

culture is so deeply ingrained and large that only two things could change it:

1: slow change from within

2: war/genocide

cults on the other hand are small enough and new enough and not deeply enough ingrained. it feels possible to defeat them in the "marketplace of ideas" as it were.

even if that's not quite true, even if it's not actually easier to argue can against scientology. it feels like it should be.

that's why there's such a difference in criticism too. because it comes down to "well what do you think should be done about it then?" it's pretty clear that you can't argue a person out of such a deeply rooted cultural belief.

also, it's about who you're criticizing in relation to yourself. a white person living in America has way more ground to stand on calling another white American out for having bad beliefs and practices. this is because you can understand where they come from and the culture around them

ultimately there is no concrete "good" and "bad". for you to enforce your idea of that onto a people who universally agree that your "good" is actually bad then you're the bad guy no matter how right you think you are. no matter how much your people think you're right for what you do that's cultural imperialism/plain old regular imperialism.

Cults generally have a single charismatic individual leading them. Cultures not so much thought there obviously are exeptions and there's no hard line between them. For example scientology is consdered a cult but christianity or islam not.

Well, I don't. I'm not too conservative, so I don't view cultures as "always precious". I get that categories and terms are sometimes a good thing to have and they should be well-defined. But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me how you call something.

Scientology is very bad. Their main objective is to brainwash people and rob them of their money by selling them their courses. In exchange people get this strange sci-fi story (and their mental health wrecked). It is just abuse of vulnerable people and we, as a society should outlaw that in my opinion.

Islam, christianity and you-name-it are also bad. They wanna teach lies to little kids and get them under their influence. They promote reactionary and outdated world-views and want people to hate women, fun, life and people in general. I myself would like to do away with this, too.

I really don't care. If it's promoting hate, preying on kids or taking advantage of people in need to push it's own agenda, it's bad. There are different kinds of brainwashing and different levels of it, but it's all on the dark side.

Teach the kids to program those little robots instead, show the world, mountains, how other people in different societies live. Make them embrace what we have and what they are. Treat each other with respect. Not have them cling to old ideas.

If you don't agree with my premise, look at what it's doing to people. These lies implanted get them to mistreat other human beings to straight out killing people and starting wars over and over again.

Space gnosticism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology

There is a baggage associated with the word "cult" now.

It used to mean pretty much a specific practice of a religion. For example, in a polytheistic religion, you can choose a favorite god and perhaps even worship that figure exclusively, even while believing in all the others eg. later Hindu ishtadevata practices

This kind of cult evolved into those around mysteries or mysterious figures (eg. Eleusinia, Mithraism) and real-world figures like monarchs like the Roman emperor. Eventually you have the death cults of the last few decades which cemented the pejorative sense of "cult" and also inspired the sociology around the same. I should also mention, there is a chauvinism in this as well eg. cargo cults

To answer your question, there is this historical context to it. But also the perspective: one can look back through history or across the world to identify "cults" but not recognize that one lives in a culture or participates in cultish behavior themselves

I don't think cult, culture (including subculture and superculture) are mutually exclusive on the Venn diagram.

I tend to lean towards the definition that cults are groups that venerate persons and/or objects, rely on secret knowledge as a form of social status within those communities. Historically it has a negative connotation, but it can sometimes be entirely neutral, like when someone says Taylor Swift has a cult following or that they love cult films. Or the names of ancient spin-off religions like the Cult of Zeus Ammon.

Whereas cultures are just groups of people who share a common conceptual connection. Like 'blood' or 'employer' or 'nationality' or even 'hobby' or 'profession'.

I think that it's possible to have a subculture also be a superculture. Eg. The Baptist church is a subculture of the religion Christianity, but a superculture of its denominations like the Northern and Southern Baptist Convention.

I would consider the church of Scientology a cult, it has a culture of greed and secrecy, and it is a subculture of faith-based marketing, the unholy love child of economic and religious imperialism.

Cultures are just cults that have reached critical mass.