Manson Family Vs. Scientology

With an increasing wide range of radically different and socially isolated groups, it has become problematic to singularly define a cult. While there are common characteristics between cults that can be accommodated into a singular definition, many do not take in account of variations and can therefore often be used in a broad sense. The main difficulties derive from the context of a cult’s formation and varying perspectives of a cult’s beliefs. This is highlighted through comparing distinct definitions of a cult to the Manson Family and Scientology, both of which can be considered cults.

Cults share similar features that allows them to be primarily considered as a cult. This is reflected in the definition by Hassan (1990, as cited in Seale,

Source B interprets the context of a cult focused around religion, which can apply somewhat to the Manon Family. Manson used religion to justify his ‘Helter Skelter’ theory of a predicted race war, comparing the lyrics of the Beatles’ song to verses from the Bible (Berson, 2017). Manson frequently called himself the reincarnation of Jesus, with a follower recalling that she once“really believed he was Jesus Christ” (Van Houten, 1977, as cited in Iorfida, 2017). However, a ‘fundamental break’ from ‘religious tradition’ is not clearly outlined in source B and can be variously interpreted. The unclarity makes it difficult to define the Manson Family in terms of this definition, as whether merely utilising aspects of the prevailing religious tradition for personal gain can be considered a ‘fundamental break’. Furthermore, source B does not address societal context, as the counterculture of the 1960s was significant in the formation and survival of the Manson Family. Through exploiting the movement to gather young impressionable followers who sought “love, identity, direction, and acceptance” (Watson, 2003, as cited in Altman, 2015), Manson was able to form his own community. He

Source A considers perspective and knowledge of a cult’s beliefs instrumental in defining a cult, and generalises that cult is used when the user lacks both aspects. However, individuals who consider Scientology as a cult and not a religion, often former members and critics, have done so with full knowledge and evidence. Former member Remini (as cited in Pulumbarit, 2017, para. 4) described Scientology as a “mind-controlling cult”. With the publication of her experiences in different media forms, including a memoir and documentary series, she has established her experience and proves her credibility and knowledge behind labelling Scientology as a cult. Additionally, Behar (1991) heavily criticised Scientology labelled as a religion and classified it as a cult that acts merely for the purposes of money and power. He gathered several pieces of evidence that support his choice of label and his deductions, including interviews, lawsuits and investigations of services offered by Scientology, that indicated “no cult extract[ing] more money from its members” (Kisser, n.d., as cited in Behar, 1991) than Scientology. Both cases utterly reject source A that regards cult as a label for groups the user has a lack of knowledge or dislike of