Cult and Democracy

Cult and Democracy

Interview with Françoise Champion published in the magazine “Les trois mondes” no. 14

Sociology takes a close interest in the existence of the spiritual movements. Pushed aside from the debate by the public authorities, sociologists have nevertheless conducted and published various studies which show clearly the necessity of clarifying things.

Françoise Champion directed, with Martine Cohen, the publication of a work entitled “Sectes et démocratie”, which is a standard reference.

Q: Is there not a blindness on the part of the political parties?

A: I think that is quite true, and that is where the debate is difficult. If one argues “closely” both with the politicians and with the leaders of the anti-cult associations, as I do, and one tells them that the “cultic” phenomenon is extremely marginal, they acknowledge it. And they even say: “It is not because one believes in chakras, in healing by the hands, etc., that one is in a cult.” A cult is quite precise, it is this and that… and freedom of belief ought to be respected, including the most far-fetched beliefs. They say “we know it”, and then it is as if they forgot. Which is to say there is a perpetual contradiction. When one argues precisely, they know it is a very limited phenomenon and that one must not conflate. It is true that public opinion is in fact anxious and demands spectacular actions against the “cults”.

Q: Why such mediocrity in this debate?

A: The media and the general public no longer have any religious culture and no longer know what religion is. It is as if the journalists had forgotten what the religious is. Religion is the supernatural, it runs on charisma. And the very fact that religious groups run on charisma, on prophecy, means by nature that they cannot be democratic. That kind of religious, the “classical” religious that proselytises, that evangelises, has a right to religious freedom until further notice, in our democratic societies founded on the respect of public liberties, including religious freedom.

Q: In your view, how can the debate be depassioned and made really to exist?

A: To depassion it, one would have to examine the groups, the cults, case by case, that is to say get out of the logic of the amalgam; there are groups where things happen that are not at all condemnable. Here this happens, in such-and-such a group that happens, elsewhere something else happens. One should stick to facts, facts as fully established as possible, cross-check the information from the various sources and not rely solely on that supplied by the anti-cult associations, the Renseignements Généraux or the former followers - who have a right to speak and who say important things, but which must be confronted with other sources. It is not a matter, as some of our sociologist colleagues have done, of disqualifying everything that might come from the anti-cult associations or from the followers. There are things to take into account, but one must not content oneself with a single side of the story. In France, given this climate of the anti-cult fight, everyone wants to set themselves apart for fear of being classified as a cult. Thus at Lille last March, at the Assises of interreligious dialogue, I led a workshop on the subject of the cults with my colleague Jean-Paul Willaime. The final declaration of the Assises, prepared in advance by the organisers, concerning our debate went in the direction contrary to the spirit that had reigned there. We protested to the organisers, but in vain!

Interview conducted by Michel Rousseau

Read extracts from the work “Sectes et démocratie”