The Impossible Tolerance? The Mariani Thesis on French Cult Policy

The Impossible Tolerance?

The IEP of Toulouse makes available a thesis by Monsieur Lionel Mariani entitled:

“Political responses to the ‘question of the cults’ - the French example of the impossible tolerance.”

An exemplary piece of work

This thesis is a very complete and balanced description of the modern anti-cult fight in France from its genesis in the 1970s to the present day. One must in particular salute the work of methodological verification employed by the author to free himself as far as possible “from multiple biases [which] risk at any moment making the researcher stumble into an analysis tinged with subjectivity (…) Every researcher in the social sciences must therefore carry out an intellectual surveillance of himself in order to remain conscious of the possible interferences of his background and social habitus on scientific production”. The author mentions in particular his various internships within the Central Bureau of Religious Affairs (at the Ministry of the Interior) and at the MIVILUDES, and the ties of friendship which may have tinged his analyses.

This quality document will interest anyone wishing to understand the French climate relating to the question of the cults and the responses brought by the various political actors. All the parties involved are presented and quoted, this panorama allows the reader to have an overall view and to form his own opinion, an editorial attitude one would like to see in the media on this subject.

The CICNS critique

We shall nevertheless make a set of remarks concerning the description of the action of the MIVILUDES, not to criticise the quality and constant balance of the elements presented, but to comment on what may resemble an unconvincing position-taking (tinged perhaps by the ties of friendship mentioned above) and a difficulty (in this precise case) in calling a spade a spade. We are aware that the author did not wish to analyse the effectiveness of the political responses. His remarks nevertheless give us the occasion to raise this aspect.

Lionel Mariani concludes his thesis with these words: “The frame of reference of the intrinsic dangerousness of the cults remains in effect predominant and legitimises, a fortiori, a public approach in terms of struggle. Any nuanced, indeed sympathetic approach seems difficult: ‘the impossible tolerance’ towards the cults seems to be the only conceivable and legitimate option in France.”

Is “the frame of reference of the intrinsic dangerousness of the cults” legitimate? That is the heart of the problem. This dangerousness can only be qualified scientifically by comparison, as Eileen Barker expressed at the colloquium we organised on the theme: “Cults: social scourge or scapegoat?”. What studies, in any fashionable domain: paedophilia, abuse of weakness, violence, etc., show that the said cults are a home of dangerousness greater than the rest of society? To our knowledge none exists, and for good reason. If these studies were done they would perhaps show that this dangerousness is lesser, and the question would be not that of the cult danger but rather that of the positive contribution of the spiritual minorities. Yet the dangerousness of the cults in general is an a priori, a false self-evidence that one does not even wish to question. Which brings us to the action of the MIVILUDES.

The author of the thesis specifies: “The term ‘hardening’ being too strongly connoted, it does not convey the reality of the current evolution of the interministerial structure charged with conducting the political response to the ‘problem of the cults’. By deepening of the repressive character one must in reality understand the redefinition and implementation of a more offensive policy, compared with the MIVILUDES of Jean-Louis Langlais and Gilles Bottine, with the aim of fighting more effectively upstream and downstream of the dérives sectaires” and further on: “For all that, contrary to what some have said, nothing in the facts can lead one to suppose that the interministerial Mission has transformed itself into an ‘unreasonable’, ‘obscurantist’ or ‘liberticidal’ structure”.

Is it reasonable to claim, without proof and before inquiry, in unison with the deputies of the study group on cults, that 80,000 children are in danger in the cults?

Is it reasonable to claim, after parliamentary inquiry and with proof of the contrary, in unison with the deputies of the commission, that 80,000 children are in danger in the cults?

Is it a proof of respect for fundamental liberties for the president of the MIVILUDES to say (words he pronounced before us): “Were there only one victim, my policy would be justified”, without taking into account the collateral damage of that policy?

Is it a proof of respect for fundamental liberties to endorse in this way police assaults such as certain persons have undergone (people forced to the ground with a pistol at their temple) and the innumerable discriminations undergone by others by reason of their choice of life?

Is it not a proof of obscurantism to refuse the contradictory voice of the majority of researchers in the social sciences on the question of spiritual minorities?

Is it not obscurantism to speak of a social scourge without bringing the slightest proof and without activating the levers that would make it possible to bring such proofs? For a problem the size of a social scourge, a proof would be a consensus of the scientific (human sciences) and legal community on these questions: what actions has the MIVILUDES undertaken in this direction?

One must call a spade a spade. The hardening of the MIVILUDES’s policy is patent, and the term “hardening” is justified because there is no rationality behind this change of policy but rather an opportunistic political response. Lionel Mariani speaks of the competence of the MIVILUDES staff in these terms: “Thus, with their civil servants’ know-how, these individuals are capable of operating ascents into generality or descents into technicality on questions arising from the cult phenomenon”. A genuine will to dialogue and an openness of mind would doubtless have been more useful. The interministerial mission is a bad answer to a false problem or, at best, a badly posed question, and its action as it stands can only generate tension and confusion. The adequate response today in France is the creation of a genuine observatory of the new spiritualities which could apprehend the question of the spiritual emergence of these last years in its entirety, and not only from the angle of dangerousness.