[pc2g4d]

Cults fill important human needs for human connection, structure, seemingly-legitimate authority, existential meaning and a driving purpose for life. To the degree these aren't provided by healthier structures in our society, individuals will be drawn to these organizations. And many things which we do not often think of as cults in many ways fit into the broader conception thereof: militaries, political parties, yoga studios, etc. have all been known to fall into that classification.

Steve Hasan's BITE model is a great framework for thinking about these things. In many ways, control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions is what all human organizations do, so it's more of a cost/benefit analysis than an either/or analysis that's called for. There are varying degrees of "cultiness". Recommended reading: "Combating Cult Mind Control".

An evolutionary analysis of these sorts of social structures is also fascinating. If you treat a cult like a superorganism that must compete for resources with other organizations in the culture, you can understand many of the pressures driving them. Jonathan Haidt has shown how "morality binds and blinds", and this is nowhere stronger than in cults whose distinct moral code both binds people together into a unit, and blinds them to the true nature of the group.

[solipsism]

In many ways, control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions is what all human organizations do

I'm pretty cynical, and I recognize how pervasive and successful these manipulation techniques are (so pervasive that it seems silly to talk about them as if they're particular to cults at all), but it seems wrong to say "all human organizations" seek to control. Unless you consider things like the following examples of control: disseminating information, saving lives or healing people, having fun, etc.

I think it would be much more accurate to say there's the potential for manipulation to seep into any human organization. But a weekend softball league isn't manipulating anyone.

Give humanity a little credit.

[cobbzilla]

Exertion of control does not always imply manipulation; compliance can be enthusiastic and voluntary.

A weekend softball league might schedule games, which to a (yes, very minor) degree, is all about controlling who goes where and when for those who want to play softball.

Really, if an organization cannot expect voluntary compliance from its members on anything at all, is it even an organization? A single shared common belief is all it takes.

[solipsism]

This reduces the meaning of "control" to be completely useless. "Combating mind control" kind of loses its edge if you're going to war with book clubs.

[forkandwait]

Control is both enabling and disabling, depending on the specifics; I think that is an important lesson that can come from looking at "cults".

Examples of enabling control: Learning math was forced on me as a child (unlike reading, I hated doing problems), but its importance to my life cannot be overstated. I join exercise classes to control myself and make sure that I get healthier. Etc. While there is a lot of difference between these and a "cult", I think the point of the OP is that control isn't simply bad.

[solipsism]

And yet that doesn't change the point of this thread -- that it's going too far to say all human organizations exert control over their members.

[forkandwait]

I think the point of the thread is a discussion of whether "all human organizations exert control..." You disagree, but I think the statement under question is basically correct. Your last reply doesn't add any support to your position.