Assess the view that sects and cults are only fringe organisations that are inevitably short lived and of little influence in wider society

Troeltsch believed that a sect was “the opposite of a church”. He defines this type of religious organisation as a small, tightly-knit group of individuals that often oppose mainstream values and attempt to change society in some way. Cults on the other hand, are loosely knit and lack any concrete beliefs. Stark and Bainbridge suggest that cults often have “clients” rather than members. There are therefore some significant differences between these two organisations, although it is widely accepted that they are similar, in that they are usually short lived and have little influence on society as a whole.

Supporting the notion that sects and cults are short lived; Niebuhr offers a number of explanations as to why this is so. He proposes that sects cannot survive beyond one generation, as they are often led and “held together” by one charismatic individual who claims to have some kind of “divine power/connection”. Following the death of this leader, the sect usually disappears. Furthermore, second generation members that are born into sects may not maintain the traditions of the movement with the same fervour as the founding generation. As a result, it is difficult for sects to maintain their extreme values, and they may accommodate/compromise their theology and become denominations. This can be seen in the example of early Methodism, which began life as a sect. During the age of urbanisation and industrialisation, Methodism gave individuals the comfort of a stable set of values and rules, as well as offering certainty during times uncertainty. As time progressed, its values became less extreme, and the movement grew into a denomination.

There are however, a number of problems with these explanations. First of all, the death of the leader does not necessarily mean the “death” of the sect. Many sects survive long after the leader dies, as members still see the individual as existing in some other form. Many sects believe for example, that when a charismatic leader dies, the one that takes their place inherits their charismatic and spiritual abilities; they are the same leader in another form. Also, it is important to note that not all sects depend on second generation members to ensure their continued existence. The Shakers for example, are celibate and as such, rely purely on the recruitment of new followers to ensure their existence. However, it could be argued that it is for this very reason sects are often short lived.

The very nature of sects may also cause them to be short lived. Niebuhr believed that sects contain “the seeds of their own destruction”, as they often teach the values of hard work, thrift and abstinence from life’s pleasures. As a result, an individual may accumulate a high amount of wealth, and thus become upwardly mobile. The result of this is that individuals may no longer feel that they need to join a sect, and thus abandon the organisation altogether. As well as this, many sects deliberately destroy themselves, and their lifespan is therefore very limited. The mass suicide pact of Jim Jones’s “people’s temple” is an example of this. Conversely, sects may also be destroyed by society. Because their values are often extreme and polarised to that of the mainstream, there is much hostility directed towards them, which may lead to their demise. State intervention and conflict with the Branch Davidians of Texas for example, led to the dissolution of the group and the death of over 80 members.

In evaluating Niebuhr’s explanations, it is evident that many sects have followed the “life cycle” which he predicts. The people’s temple, Branch Davidians and the Heaven’s Gate movement are all cults that have destroyed themselves, or have been destroyed by society. This adds testimony to Niebuhr’s claims. However, there is also evidence that sects can flourish in society and last for much longer than many sociologists assume. The Aum Shinrikyo for example, who have been responsible for numerous gas attacks on the public of Japan, began to decline when their leader was imprisoned for murder. However, this did not destroy the sect, and it actually grew, under the new guise of “Aleph”, the movement continued to recruit members. This casts doubt on the claim that sects are short lived movements. Opposing the view that sects are short lived organisations, Wilson suggests that there are a number of movements that can hold their ground and last for much longer than is popularly assumed. He claims that Adventist sects for example, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mennonites believe in the end of the world, or “the second coming of Christ”. Because of their very nature, they can’t compromise their theology, as they must live in separation from society in order to prepare for “judgement day”. The only type of sects Wilson sees as being able to become a denomination are the “conversionist” sects, such as the Amish and the Mennonites. They can still convert people and “save souls” regardless of whether they are a denomination or a sect.

It is also suggested that cults are short lived, although for different reasons. For one, cults are extremely loose-knit; their beliefs are transient and ever changing. Stark and Bainbridge distinguish between three types of cult movement; client cults, which provide a service for their “customers” (e.g. Erhard Seminars Training), audience cults, which lack structure and are based around a general interest in the supernatural (e.g. the belief in clairvoyance and UFO’s) and finally, cult movements, which are structured, formal and provide literature and “conventions” for their members (e.g. Scientology). These variations of cults often require little to no commitment (Scientology for example, allows individuals to lead normal lives) and as such, members can leave the movement as quickly as they joined it. This makes it difficult for cults to maintain membership, and they are therefore usually short lived. It is important to note however, that not all cults fit this “typology”, and many place strict commitment demands on their members. This highlights one of the many problems in attempting to define and categorise religious movements, as some sects may have characteristics that are “typical” of a cult, and vice versa. Also, in categorising cults, Stark and Bainbridge contradict themselves, as they argue that attempting to catalogue and “typify” cults creates more problems than answers.

In terms of their influence on wider society, many sociologists argue that sects and cults have little impact, as they are small, “fringe organisations”. Indeed this appears to be the case, and the mere size of these movements clearly limits their influence on society. Whereas churches are large organisations that have close links to the state, sects and cults do not, and are relatively small in comparison to the larger, more formal organisations. However, it could be argued that the fact that a number of these movements oppose mainstream values is what makes them have such an influence over society. It cannot be denied for example, that the Aum Shinrikyo did not have an influence on members of Tokyo after they gassed its subway stations. Furthermore, the fact that cults have sparked a number of “anti cult” (those that see cults as brainwashing) movements and “cult apologist” (those that sympathise with cults) movements implies that these movements can actually have a rather profound effect on society. However, some sociologists argue that cults that do seem do have an impact on society are rare, and their behaviour is often sensationalised by the media, thus creating the illusion that the movement has a powerful influence on society when in reality, this is far from the case. However, in contemporary society, it is proposed that sects and cults are beginning to play a more important role. In a globalised, individualistic and impersonal world, members of society are faced a number of problems (such as “relativisation of identity” as Beyer suggests). Sects and cults offer solutions to these problems however. Those who experience relative deprivation for example (i.e. the subjective perception of being “spiritually deprived” as opposed to materially lacking), often seek salvation in world-affirming movements. They provide guidance on how individuals can optimise their achievements, and inject a refreshing element of spirituality into their life.

In conclusion, the statement that sects and cults are “fringe organisations” that are short lived and of little impact on wider society seems to be a valid one; numerous sociologists have commented on the relatively short lifespan of cults and sects, and evidence adds testimony to their claims. However, it is rather narrow minded to assume that all sects and cults follow this path, and in contemporary society, the importance of these so called “fringe organisations” may grow substantially. From providing support during periods of anomie, to giving people an element of spirituality in their otherwise secular lives. Certainly, churches are larger, more established and more influential than sects and cults, it is argued, but perhaps the importance of the smaller religious organisations in the modern world is underestimated.