BlackOxford's Reviews > Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism
Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism
by
by
![17744555](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p2/17744555.jpg)
BlackOxford's review
bookshelves: american, epistemology-language, biography-biographical
Dec 29, 2021
bookshelves: american, epistemology-language, biography-biographical
Emancipate Yourselves From Mental Slavery
Bob Marley had some sensible universal advice: “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery.” Jesus had been slightly more explicit when he said, “The truth shall make you free.” Martin Luther King probably summarised the issue best, however: “No one is free until we all are free.”
Amanda Montell, like Marley, Jesus, and MLK wants us to be free. She wants to liberate us from the covert linguistic manipulation of QAnon, Trump, and the hundreds of other conspiracy theorists, politicians, religious leaders, and exploitative commercial ventures that are after our attention, our money, and our souls.
Montell has a lot to say about the most obvious instances of such manipulation, from the Jonestown self-immolation of over 900 hundred people to the aggressively threatening tactics of Scientologists. But she also argues effectively that the linguistic activities of commercial ventures like SoulCycle and 3HO are just less lethal forms of the same techniques. Her intention is to alert us all to the range of possible traps we might fall into:
But Montell has a problem which is obvious from her own research: Cults speak to those who need them. The need could be friendship, attention, money, sex, a sense of belonging, a sense of superiority, spiritual completion, or literally thousands of other human cravings, many without names. So her claim to be able to unhear potentially destructive language may be valid right up to the point at which it is needed.
Face it: human beings are neurotic. It’s probably language that makes them so. We all have psychic deficiencies, flat sides, perversions, unwanted traits, gaps in our abilities, and unfulfilled aspirations. We are likely to be immune to the cultist palaver until it strikes home in one of these personal, and likely unconscious, flaws. Then, bingo, we may not be off to Jonestown but that rather pricey contract with SoulCycle looks awfully inviting.
So while I admire Montell’s epistemological ambitions, I think it only right to point out the self-referential character of her thesis. She’s likely to appeal most to just those folk who already have a horror of becoming any kind of groupie (You know who you are!). But Bob Marley’s follow-up line in the chorus of Real Situation is also an apt critique:
Postscript 30Dec21: This popped up fortuitously today. Yet another set of theories of why America is so prone to conspiracy thinking: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...
Bob Marley had some sensible universal advice: “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery.” Jesus had been slightly more explicit when he said, “The truth shall make you free.” Martin Luther King probably summarised the issue best, however: “No one is free until we all are free.”
Amanda Montell, like Marley, Jesus, and MLK wants us to be free. She wants to liberate us from the covert linguistic manipulation of QAnon, Trump, and the hundreds of other conspiracy theorists, politicians, religious leaders, and exploitative commercial ventures that are after our attention, our money, and our souls.
Montell has a lot to say about the most obvious instances of such manipulation, from the Jonestown self-immolation of over 900 hundred people to the aggressively threatening tactics of Scientologists. But she also argues effectively that the linguistic activities of commercial ventures like SoulCycle and 3HO are just less lethal forms of the same techniques. Her intention is to alert us all to the range of possible traps we might fall into:
“From the crafty redefinition of existing words (and the invention of new ones) to powerful euphemisms, secret codes, renamings, buzzwords, chants and mantras, ‘speaking in tongues,’ forced silence, even hashtags, language is the key means by which all degrees of cultlike influence occur.”Montell is confident that simply knowing about these linguistic tactics, we will be safe from their insidious effects. “Once you understand what the language of ‘Cultish’ sounds like, you won’t be able to unhear it,” she assures us.
But Montell has a problem which is obvious from her own research: Cults speak to those who need them. The need could be friendship, attention, money, sex, a sense of belonging, a sense of superiority, spiritual completion, or literally thousands of other human cravings, many without names. So her claim to be able to unhear potentially destructive language may be valid right up to the point at which it is needed.
Face it: human beings are neurotic. It’s probably language that makes them so. We all have psychic deficiencies, flat sides, perversions, unwanted traits, gaps in our abilities, and unfulfilled aspirations. We are likely to be immune to the cultist palaver until it strikes home in one of these personal, and likely unconscious, flaws. Then, bingo, we may not be off to Jonestown but that rather pricey contract with SoulCycle looks awfully inviting.
So while I admire Montell’s epistemological ambitions, I think it only right to point out the self-referential character of her thesis. She’s likely to appeal most to just those folk who already have a horror of becoming any kind of groupie (You know who you are!). But Bob Marley’s follow-up line in the chorus of Real Situation is also an apt critique:
“Well, it seems like: total destruction the only solution
And there aren't no use: no one can stop them now
Ain't no use: nobody can stop them now”
Postscript 30Dec21: This popped up fortuitously today. Yet another set of theories of why America is so prone to conspiracy thinking: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Cultish.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
December 16, 2021
– Shelved
December 16, 2021
– Shelved as:
to-read
December 29, 2021
–
Started Reading
December 29, 2021
– Shelved as:
american
December 29, 2021
– Shelved as:
epistemology-language
December 29, 2021
– Shelved as:
biography-biographical
December 29, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-35 of 35 (35 new)
date
newest »
![Down arrow](https://cdn.statically.io/img/s.gr-assets.com/assets/down_arrow-1e1fa5642066c151f5e0136233fce98a.gif)
message 1:
by
Patrick
(new)
Dec 29, 2021 11:14AM
![Patrick Peterson](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1485370968p1/2173066.jpg)
reply
|
flag
![Nancy](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1201201996p1/803323.jpg)
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
I’m sure she mentions him but after a while I just lost interest. She expands the topic beyond religion in any case.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Now you know where I get my inspiration. And I don’t even smoke da weed.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
There really isn’t much new here aside from implicating commercial advertising in the cult tradition. Who wasn’t aware of the power of group vocabulary and the threats of exclusion? In any case she thinks there are good and bad uses of the techniques but has no idea of the boundary between the two. So not very helpful at all.
![Cecily](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1480285828p1/1199525.jpg)
Very true, but also true of more benign groups: wishy-washy Anglicanism, political parties, campaign groups, sports teams, activity groups, and so on. Do we infer that those who join a cult are needier than those who join Greenpeace, for example, or is there something else at work - linguistic or otherwise? (That's rhetorical, unless you, or anyone else, wants to reply.)
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Very true, but also true of more benign groups: wishy-washy Anglicanism, political parties, campaign groups, sports teams, activity groups, and so on. Do we in..."
Montell would agree I’m sure. But she can’t come up with a reasonable definition of a cult much less a criterion for distinguishing a good one from a bad one. This is her epistemological problem. We are all subject to indoctrination of one sort or another from the moment we notice the world is talking to us. Scientologists don't seem themselves as evil just as CofE congregants don’t. Therefore aside from scary stories and their connection to language she has nothing to say.
To answer your question, yes I think the severity of one’s neurotic needs is associated with vulnerability to extremist groups. I have no proof of this and certainly such vulnerability would depend on other conditions like education and societal norms. Montell cites the feeling of rootlessness as a continuing issue in an immigrant America. And I know that the quality of basic education is simply horrid for a large segment of the population. This facilitates what I would call a linguistic neurosis, a feeling of educational inferiority which can be compensated for by acquisition of secret knowledge. Forget not that America’s religion is indeed Gnosticism.
![Patrick Peterson](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1485370968p1/2173066.jpg)
I’m sure she mentions him but after a while I just lost interest. She expands the topic beyond religion in any case."
You're not implying that Hoffer only dealt with religious "true believers" are you? As I remember it, his little book encompassed all sorts, including ideological types too, such as Marxists, nihilists, etc.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
I’m sure she mentions him but after a while I just lost interest. She expands the..."
I guess you’d know. I don’t.
![david](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1674750693p1/67794375.jpg)
![Cecily](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1480285828p1/1199525.jpg)
I think the most obvious one is that cults force usually followers to sever most ties with non-believers, but I realise that's over-simplifying.
BlackOxford wrote: ... We are all subject to indoctrination of one sort or another from the moment we notice the world is talking to us....."
And often we want to be: it's reassuring to be with like-minded people and be reassured about whatever scares us. That can be a beneficial crutch if one's afraid of what happens after death, but it's also why online echo-chambers can rapidly become a dangerous source of misinformation.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Eye and I is most grateful, mon.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
I think the most obvious one is that cults f..."
The ‘problem’ of course is that lots of organisations promote severance of ties either actively or incidentally - the military, churches, political parties, international corporations, etc. narcissistic spouses do the same. Where to draw the line?
And you’re entirely correct, we want to belong, desperately. And we figure that if language invented hell it ought to provide something like redemption, which it does of course. And as Harari says, it’s probably gossip that promoted the species to top planetary dog, for the moment. And of course, then there’s Martin Heidegger!
Oh, the world is so paradoxical. Ain’t it tho’.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Rastaman know de score… also Ra’s secrets. You just got to listen.🌿
![Glenn Russell](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1505195595p1/23385697.jpg)
![Kristy](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1685640364p1/1316647.jpg)
Thank you, so much for linking that article. It was really fantastic. I have this book, but I haven't read it yet. I should up it's importance level.
![Kristy](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1685640364p1/1316647.jpg)
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Thanks Kristy. Good luck with Mum. You might try my ‘epistemology/language’ shelf for suggestions (as well as books to avoid).
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
The one protective trait seems easier to define though. If you have a scientific mind that demands or gets stimulated by theories you could falsify and put to test you wouldn't join a cult. But then again, you might not join any religious club.
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
The one protective t..."
Language is such a tricky thing isn’t it. Always outsmarting us and acting like a friend. Insidious.
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Yes, the complexity draws one in. Those who master this complexity we consider successful. Their devotion to language has no limit. They/we are hopelessly trapped.
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
Maybe you mean in a more symbolic way, as a weapon of the intellect and a possibility to reach power with, and so on? Sorry if I'm being slow. I feel I miss out on something
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
I mean language as all the symbolic forms by which humans communicate, including the behavioural cues that accompany speech and the subtleties of sarcasm and misdirection (among other things) in both spoken and written language.
What I mean is that language itself has its own agenda. It is an entity with power that none of its users can control. Ultimately this is the justifiable fear that AI will control humanity. What the pundits miss, however, is that language won the battle at the moment of its inception.
Perhaps language is the Spirit which has always fascinated human beings - that which is in us, among us, and beyond us simultaneously. Language is omni-present, omniscient, and perceived as benign. But of course it is not so. It could care less about us except that we are the ‘host’ upon which it feeds. Apparently machines will make us redundant in this regard. We will become ‘impedimenta’, that is, excess baggage.
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
But, as with the concept 'psychoanalysis' its a hermeneutic system creating answers for everything, out of being true to some plausible principle that puts an end to continuous discoveries. It's probably the same with political ideas. The desire for the idea to be true shields its flaws, sometimes even gigantual. The oedipus complex has never ever been verified in therapies/research, other than as private anecdotal stories for example. If people like it, fall for its structure for some reasons, they make it come true.
That language has its own power is my new hermeneutic system of interest. There's something in it, something explanatory, and being wild, beautiful and almost logical. It removes religion and ideas couldn't be completely true which is attractive. It's due to language fooling us, using us. I want to read more, even though it is a hermeneutic system, simplifying everything, although being complicated. And it seems universal without a gain for someone but maybe intellectual superiority. This theory is of course also due to how you use it, and if you put your trust in believing it?
But if there were a book explaining it, i would probably not understand it, since I use language, which controls me?
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
The individual cravings and unfulfilled needs of us humans vary a lot due to individual factors, but some are universal. The fear of us and loved ones dying created ideas of the afterlife. Some of them varied due to cultural/personal preferences. Language as being in control is also dismissing freedom, and that we ourselves created it. I think it's because we seem to fall so heavy on idiotic concepts, any iedas without being able to se for ourselves they are completely insane. Hence there must be something very primary controlling our minds. The perfect theory is language covering up for this. I love it, even without getting it. What would that process look like? How could it conquer unstoppable thoughts and the emotional ruling system? Is it by dampening pain and insecurity?
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
I think that language ability will ultimately prove to be a maladaptation. It allows tremendously successful social efforts from law to technological advance. But it also creates delusion, hatred, and the drive for domination. Much of literature and religious mysticism is an attempt to undermine the unfortunate consequences of language. But of course this just feeds the beast which devours every attempt to outwit it. Language has the unique capacity to feed on itself without diminishing in the least. We are its (temporary) hosts.
![Anders Demitz-Helin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1530251994p1/53897588.jpg)
![BlackOxford](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1484863606p1/17744555.jpg)
Not that I know of. Emil Cioran discusses the problem indirectly. See my various reviews of him for an introduction.