Terminology
The term "cult," as applied to non-mainstream religious or secular organizations, has multiple overlapping or contradictory meanings in both scholarly and popular usage.
Some anthropologists and sociologists studying cults have argued that no one has yet been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to apply only to groups identified as problematic; however, even without the "problematic" concern, scientific criteria of characteristics attributed to cults do exist. Note a little-known example: the Alexander and Rollins (1984) scientific study labels the socially well-received group Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) a cult, yet Vaillant, 2005, concluded that AA is beneficial.
Commentators other than social scientists participate to a greater degree in cultic studies than in many comparable topics, which may render it difficult to demarcate the boundaries of scientific research from theology, politics, journalism, family cultural values, and the anecdotal findings of some mental-health professionals. According to James T. Richardson (1993), the "popular use" of the term "cult" has, since the 1920s, "gained such credence and momentum that it has virtually swallowed up the more neutral historical meaning of the term from the sociology of religion." A 20th century attempt by sociologists to replace "cult" with the term New Religious Movement (NRM), failed to resonate with the public and gained only partial acceptance in the scientific community. Some scholars use the term "New Religious Movement" (as opposed to "cult") with the implication that the group in question either lacks "destructive" cult characteristics or has evolved away from past controversial practices.
Members of the groups in question usually strongly dispute the label "cult", especially as used in the media and popular culture, and some scholars and social scientists regard any definitions that focus on special authoritarian characteristics as flawed.
This article deals with the treatment of such groups in literature and popular culture, which may depict exaggerated and or even inaccurate perceptions of particular or generic groups. The mention of any real (as opposed to fictional) organization or person in this article reflects only that some specific source regards it as having (or having had in the past) the characteristics associated with such groups. Some organizations or movements mentioned herein have evolved over the years, as has the surrounding culture, and no longer experience the opprobrium they did at the time particular literary works about them (or literary works by their founders or members) originated. Other historical groups, such as Theosophy in the late 19th century, became known for their novel beliefs and charismatic leadership but not necessarily for abusive practices: one might regard them as the NRMs of their day.
Read more about this topic: Cults And New Religious Movements In Literature And Popular Culture