As Open Integral was initiated in large part as a reaction to Ken’s Wyatt Earp affair and charges of being a cult, here’s a recent discussion from ebuddha on the topic. What do you think?
Update on Integral Institute as a “cult“, or cult-like
by ebuddha on Wed 09 May 2007 05:27 PM PDT
Last year, when all the crazy-ness around Ken Wilber’s Wyatt Earpy posts began, I had been looking for the criteria checklist for “cultish” behavior. I had found one checklist, and blogged on that, but I knew there was one out there that was more comprehensive. (It’s clear that ANY checklist would have some points, as organizations have analogous interests, such as a cause, or getting new members, etc. Where is gets dangerous is if nearly every item on the checklist test, is “yes”. )
Today, quite by accident, I ran into it the checklist. So I thought it would be interesting to go through each check box, one at a time:
1, The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Well, certainly SOME people feel this way about Ken Wilber. But in my estimation, not many. Since this a on/off judgment call, I’m going with “no”.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
This one isn’t even close – definite “no”.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
While meditation is encouraged, as is the ILP, this is still a definite no.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marryâ€â€or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Umm…nope.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatarâ€â€or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
There is definitely this going on, because, you know, integral is the highest form of being! . Given the terms of this checklist, I’ll give this a “yes”. Although, it must be said, most groups consider themselves on a “special mission”.
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
If the “us” is the 2nd tier, versus 1st tier, then yes. While I think, most of the time, in practice, people aren’t evaluated as “1st tier” or “2nd Tier”, the philosophy as such, DOES easily lead to an “us” versus “them” mentality. I’m going to go with “yes”, but with caveats. Still counts as a yes though, for these purposes.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
This is true. While there is a new CEO, and a board, as was seen last year, Ken isn’t really accountable to anyone – the power structure rests with him solely. It must be said, for any founder of a company, this is usually the case. It is the case for Anthony Robbins, or Chopra, or any single proprietor with employees. But still, this would be “yes”, on the checklist.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
No.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
You have a little bit of this, in the 1st tier/2nd tier distinction, but not enough for a “yes”. No on the checklist.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
No, clearly not.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Isn’t nearly EVERY group preoccupied with bringing in new members, from the democratic party, to the local rotary club? Not much evidence, but the checklist would be yes. Doesn’t really prove anything though. “yes”.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
Again, most groups are preoccupied with making enough money to function. In terms of an ‘extraordinary’ desire to make money -ponzi schemes or multi-level marketing, working on your friends – that would be a “no”.
13.Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Nope.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Nope.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€Â) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
No.
So – what’s the total?
11 No’s
4 Yes’s.
Given the fact that at least 2 of the Yes’s in question have caveats to them, I think we can clearly, unequivocally, and authoritatively say that, Integral Institute is in no shape, way or form, a cult. Just an organization, with an enthusiastic mission to spread one philosopher’s views.
Now, as an alternative, if this same checklist were to be utilized for Andrew Cohen the Guru – my, my my, how quickly we get more yes’s! Very quickly you find out that yes, Cohen as Guru groups are, organizationally, a cult.