Is it possible that there might be people unwillingly finding their entire social life wrapped up in the movement-that's-not-a-cult because of the movement but not by the movement's volition? Like, I imagine a lot of trans people have been rejected by their own society, so of *course* they're going to be dependent on the trans movement for socialization. And heck, we can turn this around: someone who grows up in (say) a Seventh-Day Adventist community who then becomes an apostate may well find themselves so isolated that the very next community they join at all immediately becomes their *only* community. From the outside, that would make the new movement/community look like a cult, but neither the movement nor the member actually wants that to be happening.
For "high-commitment communities" I've heard the term "high-demand groups", I think on the "Generation Cult" podcast (recommended!) Not sure if it's widely used.
The term for ‘high-commitment communities’ that I usually end up using is “*thick* communities,” though I’d welcome a better (more specific and/or more widely recognized) one.
Basically, benefits you get out of a community are going to scale with the commitment most people put *in.* If people aren't very committed and spending a lot of time on a thing, they're also not going to reach the kind of critical mass where we can reliably do any of the things we joined the group to do!
When I was writing about cults (am I done? who knows?) I defined a cult where the required amount you put *in* is far disproportional to the amount you get *out.* What you get out doesn't have to be tangible, it can be good feelings or ability to change the world or the support of others. But if you put in a lot of your time and energy and money and *don't* get what was promised, then someone is siphoning. You didn't buy a share, you got in on a pyramid scheme.
Naturally it follows that cultiness is on a spectrum: those that take a lot and give back less, vs. those that take a HUGE lot and give back nothing. But this math makes it possible to sort out groups that are just extremely committed and tight vs. groups that are actually unhealthy. For instance, a reasonably-healthy religious monastery has protections and rights for the members, certain things they will receive in return for their service. It's not *just* them giving up everything.
Is it possible that there might be people unwillingly finding their entire social life wrapped up in the movement-that's-not-a-cult because of the movement but not by the movement's volition? Like, I imagine a lot of trans people have been rejected by their own society, so of *course* they're going to be dependent on the trans movement for socialization. And heck, we can turn this around: someone who grows up in (say) a Seventh-Day Adventist community who then becomes an apostate may well find themselves so isolated that the very next community they join at all immediately becomes their *only* community. From the outside, that would make the new movement/community look like a cult, but neither the movement nor the member actually wants that to be happening.
That seems not only possible, or plausible, but very likely (for some people).
For "high-commitment communities" I've heard the term "high-demand groups", I think on the "Generation Cult" podcast (recommended!) Not sure if it's widely used.
The term for ‘high-commitment communities’ that I usually end up using is “*thick* communities,” though I’d welcome a better (more specific and/or more widely recognized) one.
Basically, benefits you get out of a community are going to scale with the commitment most people put *in.* If people aren't very committed and spending a lot of time on a thing, they're also not going to reach the kind of critical mass where we can reliably do any of the things we joined the group to do!
When I was writing about cults (am I done? who knows?) I defined a cult where the required amount you put *in* is far disproportional to the amount you get *out.* What you get out doesn't have to be tangible, it can be good feelings or ability to change the world or the support of others. But if you put in a lot of your time and energy and money and *don't* get what was promised, then someone is siphoning. You didn't buy a share, you got in on a pyramid scheme.
Naturally it follows that cultiness is on a spectrum: those that take a lot and give back less, vs. those that take a HUGE lot and give back nothing. But this math makes it possible to sort out groups that are just extremely committed and tight vs. groups that are actually unhealthy. For instance, a reasonably-healthy religious monastery has protections and rights for the members, certain things they will receive in return for their service. It's not *just* them giving up everything.
Looking forward to the rest of this series!
Excited for this series!