THE ADVANCED BONEWITS CULT DANGER EVALUATION FRAME
(c) 1979, 1994 by P. E. I. Bonewits
Events in the last few decades have clearly indicated just how
dangerous some religious and secular groups (usually called "cults")
can be to their own members as well as to anyone else whom they can
influence. Brainwashing, beatings, rapes and murders, mass suicides,
military drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil governments and
other crimes have been charged against many groups, and in several
cases those accusations have been true. People need a relatively
simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group is
liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or
judging solely on theological or ideological grounds (the usual method
used by anticult groups).
In 1979 I constructed an analytical tool which I now call the
"Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame," or "ABCDEF," a copy
of which was included in the revised edition of my book, "Real Magic"
(Samuel Weiser, Inc., York Beach, ME) and is reproduced at the end of
these notes. I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be
effectively used to separate the sheep from the wolves. Feedback from
those attempting to use the system would be appreciated.
The purpose of this evaluation tool 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 others 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/salvation is often viewed by another as the path to
ignorance/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, provided that all numerical assignments
are based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior (as
distinct from official pronouncements).
This frame can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement
agents, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the
actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously,
different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision,
depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on
each scale. However, if the same observer used the same methods of
scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger
or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for
their own purposes. People who cannot, on the other hand, view
competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to
anyone, will find the Frame annoyingly useless for promoting their
theocratic agendas.
It should be pointed out that this evaluation frame is founded
upon a) modern ideas of humanistic psychology concerning the nature of
mental health and personal growth, and b) the author's many years of
participant observation and historical research into minority belief
systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as
dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism are,
should count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or
low) as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well
being are concerned, however, both historical records and current
events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats
lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem
to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop
the abilities to commit large scale atrocities even had they the
philosophical or political inclinations to do so.
==============================================
THE ADVANCED BONEWITS CULT DANGER EVALUATION FRAME
(c) 1979, 1994 by P. E. I. Bonewits
Factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
1. INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of
internal political power exercised
by leader(s) over members. 1. _____________________________
2. WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s);
amount of infallibility declared
about decisions. 2. _____________________________
3. WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by
members; amount of trust in deci-
sions made by leader(s). 3. _____________________________
4. DOGMA: Rigidity of reality con-
cepts taught; amount of doctrinal
inflexibility. 4. _____________________________
5. RECRUITING: Emphasis put on
attracting new members; amount of
proselytizing. 5. _____________________________
6. FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsid-
iary groups using different names
from that of main group. 6. _____________________________
7. WEALTH: Amount of money and/or
property desired or obtained; em-
phasis on members donations; eco-
nomic lifestyle of leader(s). 7. _____________________________
8. POLITICAL POWER: Amount of ex-
ternal political influence desired
or obtained. 8. _____________________________
9. SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members
by leader(s); amount of control
over sex lives of members. 9. _____________________________
10. CENSORSHIP: Amount of control
over members' access to outside
opinions on group, its doctrines or
leader(s). 10. _____________________________
11. DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of
efforts directed at preventing or
returning dropouts. 11. _____________________________
12. ENDORSEMENT OF VIOLENCE when
used by or for the group, its doc-
trines or leader(s). 12. _____________________________
13. PARANOIA: amount of fear con-
cerning real or imagined enemies;
perceived power of opponents. 13. _____________________________
14. GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval
concerning jokes about the group,
its doctrines or its leader(s). 14. _____________________________
15. SURRENDER OF WILL: Amount of
emphasis on members not having to
be responsible for personal deci-
sions; degree of individual dis-
empowerment created by the group,
its doctrines or its leader(s). 15. _____________________________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
==========================================================================
Copyright 1979, 1994 by Isaac Bonewits. This text file may be freely
distributed by BBSs provided that no editing is done and this notice
is included. If you have enjoyed reading this "Sharetext" essay, and
would like to encourage him to post more such essays, send some $ to
the author at: Box 72, Dumont, NJ, USA 07628. If you would like to be
on the author's personal mailing/phone list for upcoming publications,
lectures, song albums, and appearances, send your data to the same
address. For more information about Neopagan Druidism, call
1-800-DRUIDRY or send an SASE (3oz.) to ADF, Box 516, E. Syracuse, NY,
USA 13057. Bright Blessings!
==========================================================================