[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.