| |
Group Danger Evaluator
This test is a tool that will give you an indication of how
dangerous any political, social, religious or commercial group may be
to its members and to those around it.
Reprinted with permission.
Copyright ©
1995-1998 Gary Renshaw. All rights reserved.
This document may be
freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes as long as no part of
the content is changed and this copyright notice remains attached.
This test is a tool that will give you an indication of how
dangerous any political, social, religious or commercial group may be
to its members and to those around it. The test is subjective and
cannot be regarded as an absolute index of "rightness" or
"wrongness". However, if you are careful to use the same
criteria for grading all groups the comparisons should be relatively
reliable. The questions are gathered from principles of humanistic
psychology as well as illustrating some of the most common tactics
used by groups generally thought to be bad for their members and those
around them. Some of the categories overlap to illuminate various
aspects of possible trouble, and some of them are rather specific for
the same reason. There are five categories of questions.
It is suggested that you evaluate several "control"
groups such as your local government, school board, some local
mainstream churches and clubs such as the Boy Scouts. These results
will give you a basis for comparing other groups and familiarise you
with the test.
This test has 39 questions and is fairly complex. Each question is
answered on a scale from 0 (low degree) to 10 (high degree). A high
score tends to indicate a dangerous group, a low score indicates a
relatively harmless or beneficial one.
The original idea that sparked the author to write this evaluator
came from P.E.I Bonewits' Advanced
Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF) as it appeared in
his book Real Magic. The ABCDEF has 16 questions and
gives quick answers but is not as detailed. The two tests complement
each other.
Category 1: Material Wealth
WEALTH: Amount of personal wealth accumulated by the
leaders of the group. Do the leaders allow or require lavish presents
to be given to them by followers? Are members expected to pay large
sums to be taught the "secrets" of the group? DONATIONS: Does the group require members to
contribute their own money or property to the group? Does the group
only recruit members above a certain level of income? MERCHANDISING: Does the group require members to buy
special items (books, jewellery, tools, incense, candles, clothes or
whatever) which only a certain designated commercial outlet can
provide? HOARDING: Degree to which the fund raising of the
group is not matched by the visible expenses. If money comes in and
nothing obvious goes out, give the group a high score.
Category 2: Control
AUTHORITY: Degree to which the leaders control the
group and are not just organisers. Do the members have a say in the
doctrines or running of the group? Degree of internal political power
that the leaders have over the members. PUNISHMENT: Degree to which an offending member can be
punished by the group. In general, things like murder or floggings
should get high scores while things like temporary loss of voting
privileges should get a low score. SEXUAL MANIPULATION: Amount of control the leaders
have over the members' sex lives. Sexual control can range from
doctrines stating what acts are permitted all the way to compulsory,
verified sexual behaviour. OBEDIENCE: Amount of obedience required of the
members. Degree of questioning allowed of the leader's decisions. DEPENDENCE: Degree to which members rely on the group
for the basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter). EXTERNAL POWER: Degree of external political power
sought by the group or leaders. Degree to which affiliations with
famous people or organisations are used.
Category 3: Information
GOSSIP: Degree to which the leaders condone members
spreading rumours about outsiders or other members. Degree to which
the group discourages members from investigating the truth of the
gossip. PARANOIA: Degree of perceived power held by opponents.
Number of perceived enemies of the group. LACK OF HUMOUR: Degree to which jokes about the group,
its doctrines or leaders are forbidden. Does the group ever poke fun
at itself? CENSORSHIP: Degree of censorship practised by the
group. Do the members have access to differing points of view or is
asking questions forbidden? SECRECY: Degree of secrecy about group beliefs or
activities requiring participation without understanding, such as
chanting in a foreign language for which no adequate translation has
been provided or performing seemingly meaningless actions without
adequate explanation. ISOLATION: Degree to which members are isolated from
previous or non-group contacts. Is the member discouraged from
contacting people outside of the group? Degree to which non-members
who were previously known to the member are rejected by the group. INTOLERANCE: Degree to which other doctrinal systems
are not tolerated by the group. Does the group perceive "Them"
to be wrong just because they do not follow "Our" beliefs? DOGMA: Degree to which the group's doctrines are
inflexible. Can the doctrines be modified to fit changing
circumstances (low score) or are strict rules rigidly enforced
because they are traditional (high score). BUY BEFORE YOU TRY: Must you become a member in order
to find out much about what the group believes or does?
Category 4: Membership
RECRUITING: Amount of effort put into recruiting new
members. Does the group actively go out and seek new members (high
score) or do they wait for interested parties to find them (low
score). DROP OUT CONTROL: Amount of effort put into bringing
drop outs back into the group. QUICK FIX: Degree to which the group claims a "quick
fix" for personal problems. UNIVERSALITY: Degree to which members believe that the
group is right for everyone. PITCHES: Degree of salesmanship used in recruiting.
Are prospective members urged to join immediately or can they think
about it at their leisure? LACK OF ASSESSMENT: Degree to which anyone off the
street is allowed to join without a responsible assessment of that
person's suitability for the group and the group's suitability for
that person. HAZING: Severity of initiation procedures upon
joining. Does the group require prospective members to perform
actions which are illegal, immoral (to the individual) or involve
mental or physical harm (including actions which are embarrassing or
humiliating)? INFERIORITY: Degree to which new members are told that
they are in some way inferior until they have achieved full
membership in the group.
Category 5: Activities and Attitudes
VIOLENCE: Degree to which the use of violence to
achieve the organisation's goals is condoned by the leaders. Degree
of violence used during normal group activities. SEXUAL INEQUALITY: Degree to which one sex or the
other dominates the group. Degree to which the group is prejudiced
against one sex. LEADER INFALLIBILITY: Degree of infallibility claimed
by the leaders. "I have the absolute truth." GROUP INFALLIBILITY: Degree of infallibility claimed
by the group. "Our way is the only right way." WAYS AND MEANS: Degree to which "the ends justify
the means". Are there any means which are forbidden by group
ethics or does anything go as long as the ends are in accord with the
group's goals. NON-RESPONSIBILITY: Degree of personal responsibility
vested in members. Are members allowed to decide and act on issues
for themselves (low score) or does the group tell the members what to
do (high score)? Degree of control the group has over the member's
life or life style. NON-ACCOUNTABILITY: The less the members can hold a
leader accountable for his actions the higher the score. SUPERIORITY: Degree to which the group members feel
that they are superior to non-members. PAIN: Degree of discomfort imposed by the group. This
could include bad food, insults, lack of privacy, sanitation or
sleep, bullying or other physical, mental or emotional privations. PIGEONHOLING: Degree to which the individual is asked
to conform to certain rates of development or pre-ordained
categories. Lack of respect for the differences between individuals. PARROTING: Degree to which members repeat the same
phrases in praise of the group. Lack of thoughtfulness in answering
questions about the group. ALIASES: How many groups with different names are
actually controlled by the parent organisation? Note that the idea of
one organisation with many aliases is different from an association
of independent groups with a common goal (for example,
inter-denominational charity groups).
|
