Social Cults: The Scary Rise and Fall of Aum Shinrikyo
The difference between cults and social networks
Today we will explore the difference between cults and social networks through a dangerous case study.
Let’s start with something uplifting. Listen to this podcast where Noel shares how he built one of the world’s largest South Asian networks by scaling kindness, empathy, and humor.
To understand the rest of this newsletter, we must define cults and social networks as the same principles of scaling can be used for building something beautiful and also launching something scary.
Definitions
A cult is typically understood as a group centered around the worship of specific beliefs, figures, or objects, often characterized by intense devotion and unorthodox practices. Cults generally have a hierarchical structure with a leader or a small group of leaders at the apex, wielding significant control over the members. The leadership's authority is frequently deemed absolute, underpinned by claims of special knowledge or spiritual insights. In contrast, a social network is a structure composed of individuals or organizations connected by various social interactions, such as friendships, professional relationships, or shared interests. Unlike cults, social networks lack a centralized authority and are marked by the voluntary nature of relationships, which can be both digital and physical.
The primary aim of a cult is to propagate its specific doctrines among its members, which can include a wide array of religious, spiritual, or ideological beliefs. Cults focus heavily on integrating and indoctrinating their members, often isolating them from external influences and emphasizing loyalty to the group's cause. This can involve psychological manipulation to ensure conformity and obedience. On the other hand, social networks serve as platforms for social interaction, professional networking, and information exchange. They are designed to facilitate community building without necessarily being tied to any ideological or spiritual foundations, thereby supporting a broad spectrum of social functions from communication to entertainment.
Cults can profoundly impact individual members, reshaping their identities, beliefs, and behaviors to align with the group's core doctrines. This often results in significant lifestyle changes and can lead to isolation from non-member friends and family. The potentially exploitative and harmful nature of cults, especially in extreme cases like Aum Shinrikyo which we discuss today, has led to widespread criticism and concern. In contrast, social networks influence a wide range of societal dimensions, including communication patterns, business, and politics. They empower individuals by providing access to information and platforms for self-expression, although they also bring challenges such as privacy concerns, misinformation, and social polarization. The effects of social networks are pervasive, enhancing and complicating various life and societal aspects.
Overall, cults and social networks represent fundamentally different types of social organizations. Cults are tightly controlled groups focused on specific ideologies and often feature exploitative dynamics, whereas social networks are expansive, flexible structures that facilitate diverse interactions and connections across society.
However, the lines between cults and social networks can sometimes blur, particularly when social networks are used as tools for cult-like activities. For instance, a group with cult-like characteristics might utilize social media platforms to recruit members, spread its ideology, and maintain control over its followers by creating an echo chamber of ideas. This digital environment can mimic the insular, controlled setting of a traditional cult, despite the inherently open nature of social networks. Additionally, charismatic leaders can exploit the connectivity and reach of social networks to gain followers and exert influence much like cult leaders, using the platforms to foster a sense of community and belonging among disparate individuals who might not otherwise engage with such ideologies. This blending of cult dynamics with social network tools highlights the potential complexities in distinguishing between the two in the digital age.
Case Study | The Business and Underlying Social Network of Crime