Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism

“Compared to other developed nations, the US boasts a particularly consistent relationship with ‘cults,’ which speaks to our brand of distinctly American tumult. […] America’s laissez-faire atmosphere makes people feel all on their own. Generation after generation, this lack of institutional support paves the way for alternative, supernaturally minded groups to surge.”

This contextualization of the United States’ relationship with cults versus other countries hints at the deeper historical background for the U.S.'s unique position and relationship with cults. Evoking the term “laissez-faire” shows the lack of regulations around cultish rhetoric evident in the freedoms that fail to be adequately supported by the U.S.’s structures and institutions.

“Throughout the world, cultural normativity still has so much to do with a religious group’s perceived legitimacy…no matter if its teachings are any weirder or more harmful than a better-established group. After all, what major spiritual leader doesn’t have some trace of blood on their hands?”

These questions exemplify the controversial yet level stance Montell takes in weighing mainstream religions against cults. This comparison may cause some readers to bristle, but the question is intended to be rhetorical and highlight the role of perception in the use of the word “cult.”

“The haunting, beautiful, stomach-twisting truth is that no matter how cult-phobic you fancy yourself, our participation in things is what defines us. […] [G]roup affiliations […] make up the scaffolding upon which we build our lives. It doesn’t take someone broken or disturbed to crave that structure. Again, we’re wired to. And what we often overlook is that the material with which that scaffolding is built, the very material that fabricates our reality, is language. […] With words, we breathe reality into being.”

Normalizing the need for human connection and a sense of belonging grounds the otherwise radical statement that it is not only acceptable but expected behavior. The use of the building-associated words “scaffolding,” “material,” and “fabricates” underscores how foundational language is in shaping the world.

“If Jones were to say something like, ‘We need to do everything we can to prevent accidents,’ an everyday listener would understand that sentence to have a fairly innocuous meaning according to the shared rules of semantics and reality that most speakers agree upon. The loaded charge it carried for Jones’s followers would be lost, because for the majority of us, ‘accidents’ is simply a word with no identity or sky-high stakes attached.”

Giving an example of an ambiguous phrase that means nothing to readers without the additional context of what those words mean shows just how secretive even a person’s native tongue can be when distorted by a layer of hidden subtext. Cult vocabulary doesn’t have to utilize neologisms (meaningless invented terms), like Scientology’s use of “thetans”; it can simply render familiar words incomprehensible by restructuring them into new meanings.

“America [has] frightfully low standards for men’s charisma. As long as someone is white, male, and telling us to pay attention to him, we’ll follow even ‘the most obviously bumbling con artist dumbass birthed by the universe’ […]”

Montell’s quotation of the words “bumbling” and “dumbass” adds humor to an otherwise sobering reality: the white privilege and patriarchy that governs society and makes so many people blind to the evils of those wielding that power.

“If a form of language cues you to have an instant emotional response, while also halting you from asking further questions, or makes you feel ‘chosen’ just for showing up, or allows you to morally divorce yourself from some one-dimensionally inferior other, it’s language worth challenging. The labels and euphemisms probably won’t kill you, but if you’re after more than just basic survival, surely the most fulfilling life is the one you narrate yourself.”

Although the ideas around the complexity of cultish linguistics can be deterring, Montell lays out clear ways to avoid the pitfalls of language that can lead to unwittingly joining a toxic cult. The simplest answer is presented clearly here and throughout the manuscript: A person must follow their own compass and feel comfortable questioning everything and holding space for the nuances of conflicting feelings and ideas.

“‘[R]eligious language involves the performance of a person’s whole self and very existence.’ There’s a reason most religions encourage prayer: Language strengthens beliefs.”

Montell’s quotation of the word “performance” shows how the rituals we perform daily, like prayer or affirmations, and the language we use to describe ourselves and relate to the world create who we are and the role we play in society. Language reinforces and gives life to reality.

“‘What people struggle with,’ Abbie continued, ‘and it’s a huge philosophy question in Buddhism, is how do you challenge social injustice?’ How do you address external problems that are so clearly not rooted in your own baggage, while still following Buddhism’s principles? ‘There are a lot of really interesting answers,’ said Abbie, ‘but in Shambhala, we didn’t get any.’”

These questions from a former cult follower offer an example of healthy questioning in the practice of Buddhism and show the distinction between balanced cultish groups and truly toxic cults. Shambhala forbade these kinds of questions because they were threatening to the security and conformity of the group. Healthy groups allow for this space and individuality even as part of a collective.

“In one scene, a perspiring male preacher in his fifties repeats a quote from Doctor Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who—‘A person’s a person, no matter how small’—delivering a pro-birth sermon with such emotional gravity that it brings the young campers to tears.”

In this description of the film Jesus Camp, the image of a man twisting the words of a children’s book to speak to children about age-inappropriate topics (abortion) shows how toxic cults don’t have healthy boundaries and will use ideals close to the target’s heart (in this case, a beloved, innocuous story) to condition followers into having unhealthy beliefs. If a children’s book can be framed as a tool to turn children against abortion, then all of language on some level can be perverted to this end.

“Sticking with the kink metaphor, there’s only one way to have a constructive, nontraumatizing experience using whips and bondage, and it’s by having a key component down pat: consent.”

Montell uses the metaphor of “sexual nerds” experimenting with kinks to explore the idea of consent from “spiritual nerds” experimenting with cultish practices. This metaphor highlights the dynamic essential for ensuring neither deviance results in a traumatic experience: that the participants fully consent to what they are doing. This includes being able to leave, change, or question what’s happening at any moment with a metaphorical “safe word.”

“‘The most important thing to remember is that if something is legitimate, it will stand up to scrutiny,’ Steven Hassan told me.”

Here Montell quotes a mental-health counselor to approach cult membership from the standpoint of professional psychology. This straightforward callout underscores the importance of being able to question something, even if you believe in it or want to believe in it.

“[D]evoting your life to something so behemoth that heaven itself is on the line requires big risks, tough commitments, and a pretty intense suspension of reality to believe it’s possible.”

Big causes require big sacrifices, and that which matters deeply inherently has high personal stakes. This explains how cultish situations can veer from idealistic visions of the world to horrific scenes like those in Jonestown.

“MLMs gaslight you into believing that if you follow their flawless system and don’t succeed, there is simply something wrong with you. […] MLM language conditions you to think that if you’re not swimming in cash, it’s not the company’s fault—it’s yours.”

Montell takes care with the use of the word “gaslight,” explaining its original use and how it has become overused on social media such that it is almost a thought-terminating cliché in itself, where every miscommunication and manipulation is distorted as gaslighting. She takes the time to explain this, so she can use the word according to its original intent: to show how cults make their followers question their sanity and grasp of language. MLMs, like other cults that promise prosperity, peace, or happiness, actively gaslight members who don’t see the results they’re promised.

“[T]he truth is that this toxically positive rhetoric is fundamentally baked into American society. The cult of multilevel marketing is a direct product of the ‘cult’ that is Western capitalism itself.”

This accusation points a finger at the economic structures that ground the social systems of the United States. It’s a bold claim to criticize capitalism as a cult, but a disavowal of the toxic positivity Americans are expected to exude about work as they strive for the American Dream is tonally congruent with Montell’s earlier confrontation of white supremacy, the patriarchy, and monotheistic religions.

“Plenty of modern companies try to sell goods by associating them with larger identity benefits, like by buying this trendy lip gloss or that beach towel made out of recycled plastic, you will establish yourself as a hip, healthy, sexy, ecofriendly person in general.”

Brands, like cults, are in the business of selling people a template for who they are. By attaching desirable language to physical products, or, in the case of cults, attaching idealistic language to the actions and behaviors of the group, these groups tailor The Power of Language to their ends: selling products or practices.

“Pairing deliciously with the glamorous image of self-employed influencer, this hipper generation of MLMs pitched itself as the perfect side hustle. The nimble direct sales industry always finds a way to reinvent itself—the capitalist cockroach that just won’t stop reincarnating.”

Comparing MLMs to cockroaches shows how off-putting and invasive Montell finds them. Unlike their picture of being the key to financial independence, MLMs are the ever-evolving legal loophole to pyramid schemes that are one of many pain points of modern capitalism.

“As much as I’d like to take full intellectual credit for my exquisitely sensitive scam nose, I know that my disdain for pyramid schemes likely correlates to the fact that I am privileged enough to have no urgent need for their promises.”

Montell demonstrates humility, despite the obvious fact that she is intelligent and wary due to her extensive research and background. Intelligence doesn’t compensate for a lack of experience, and without awareness of the linguistic gymnastics cultish groups like MLMs perform, it’s all too easy to be sucked into one.

“As recently as the 1950s, the medical community didn’t even universally recommend exercise for women (much less that they sweat their asses off while shouting empowering things about themselves in public multiple times a week).”

Montell’s background in feminist writing and studies shines throughout the book, and it’s callouts like this that remind readers how dramatically American culture and beliefs have changed over time. Looking back, it is easier to see how even the larger social systems we operate in can make cultish beliefs mainstream.

“Unlike the YMCAs and Jazzercise classes of the past, these intimate studios positioned themselves as sacred spaces—as movements—offering a potent ideological, deeply personal experience. Within these hallowed, inspirational-quote-bedecked halls, you’ll not only perfect your squat and decrease your resting heart rate, you’ll also find a personal mentor, meet your best friends, get over your ex, summon the confidence to ask for a raise, manifest your soul mate, get sober, get through chemo, and prove to yourself once and for all that you’re powerful beyond measure and blessed with all you need.”

This list shows the ever-increasing expectations cult fitness devotees have of their studios, teachers, and workouts. This stems from the inability of medical, governmental, religious, and social structures to meet the fundamental needs of American citizens. Fitness cults promise so much more than a shapely physique; they promise to better the whole person and their life, like most other cults do.

“If you’re like, ‘I know times are hard! You’re going to get through this,’ they’re going to look at you and be like, ‘What do you know, child?’ Instead, be the joyous, young fun being that you are. If you’re like, ‘Do you guys want to party and have a good time?’ they’re gonna be like, ‘Yeah! My life sucks right now, and I just want to fucking party.’”

Sparkie, a coach for those applying to join Peloton as teachers, describes their interaction with a 19-year-old aspiring instructor and the importance of seeming authentic. This rawness is essential for any cultish leader or teacher to gain a following. This dialogue humorously and plainly shows the way this authenticity can be leveraged to develop a devoted following.

“Certainly the whitewashed, Protestant capitalism-fueled language of ‘namaslay,’ ‘detoxing,’ and ‘harder faster more’ reflects (and perpetuates) oppressive standards that go beyond fitness.”

As with feminism, Montell has a keen eye for the misappropriation of marginalized groups and isn’t afraid to call these out. While this language may seem harmless to members of the cultish fitness groups, there are deeper implications that are reflective of the problematic systems and perceptions in the United States.

“For me, it’s become easier to spot the difference between a warehouse full of five hundred yoga trainees war-crying that it’s their leader’s way or the highway (or a Spin instructor debasing their students as ‘little sluts’) and a studio of sixteen women, who are dressed how they like and free to cancel their memberships without the threat of shame or worse, joining in a mantra like ‘I am stronger than I seem.’ Both businesses are profiting from the language, but they’re also literally naming whom they want to empower: In one case, it’s the guru, and in the other, it’s the people.”

Montell once again cuts through the potential ambiguity of this section by directly painting a portrait of the differences between cults that serve their followers and cults that serve their leaders. While both may look strange to the outsider, dangerous cults have telltale signs, like extreme truth-telling and thought-terminating cliches, that other cultish groups do not.

“Using a Silicon Valley–savvy social media strategy and a portfolio of snazzy websites, he aims to sell you…well, your soul.”

This description of an influencer shows how cults, especially in the age of social media, don’t have to offer any tangible vision, only the feeling that they understand you and can give you a stronger sense of who you are. Members must sell their souls to buy them, and this exchange obviously doesn’t work in favor of the followers.

“Because their actual beliefs take a back seat to the success of their brand, these gurus are willing to fudge them according to whatever the zeitgeist seems to want.”

While influencers and corporations alike have embraced cultish rhetoric within their constructed brands, there isn’t the same danger in it as other cults because corporations bend to the public will to make as many sales as possible. While this results in wishy-washy capricious brand values that change with the wind, this also means that there is little rigidity to instill a particular mindset.