Learning From Cults Without Becoming One
Cults create deep commitment and social cohesion, but they also rely on coercion, ideological rigidity, and hierarchical control. The Communitarium Project seeks to harness the strengths of cult-like communities—meaningful engagement, shared purpose, and counter-hegemonic vision—while avoiding their pitfalls. building solidarity without becoming insular, authoritarian, or dogmatic.
Navigating the Tensions Between Commitment and Coercion in Communitaria
The Communitarium Project is an effort to foster deep, engaged, and meaning-generating communities without replicating the manipulative and authoritarian structures that often define cultic formations. To build something that truly resists social fragmentation, we need a strong sense of collective purpose—but we also need to ensure that commitment does not slide into coercion, and that shared meaning does not ossify into dogma.
This challenge is particularly pronounced in the digital sphere, where online communities struggle to strike a balance between meaningful engagement and ideological rigidity. Given that communitaria will initially exist as digital spaces, before evolving into real-world infrastructures, we must carefully consider how online dynamics shape commitment, identity, and power.
The Appeal of Cult-Like Structures
Cults are remarkably effective at fostering deep social cohesion and intense collective purpose—qualities that communitaria also aim to cultivate, but in a way that remains open-ended and non-coercive. Some of the elements that cults get right include:
- A strong sense of belonging – Cults make individuals feel uniquely valued, embedded in something larger than themselves. Communitaria must achieve this without requiring submission to authority or ideological purity.
- Symbolic and ritual engagement – While cults often use ritual as a mechanism of control, symbolic practices—storytelling, shared commitments, participatory deliberation—can reinforce communal bonds without dogma.
- A counter-narrative to the dominant culture – Cults thrive by positioning themselves as revolutionary alternatives to a corrupt system. Communitaria, too, must challenge hegemonic individualism, but in a way that remains self-critical rather than sliding into insularity.
These factors explain why cult-like energy can be compelling, particularly in fragmented, alienating societies where people are desperate for real connection and collective power. But if communitaria are to endure as ethical and participatory communities, they must avoid the authoritarian tendencies that often arise when groups seek to preserve their internal coherence at all costs.
Where Cults Go Wrong—and How to Avoid It
The dangers of cultic structures are well-known: hierarchical control, coercive belonging, epistemic closure, and the demonization of outsiders. These tendencies can manifest in online communities just as easily as in physical ones. Some specific risks to be aware of:
- Leaderships and Power Accumulation – Most cults revolve around an unquestioned leader or hierarchical elite who centralizes interpretive power. In contrast, communitaria must be radically decentralized, ensuring that leadership roles are temporary, accountable, and distributed. Digital spaces must avoid the gravitational pull of personality cults—even charismatic figures should be subject to community critique.
- Epistemic Closure and Ideological Rigidity – Cults maintain control by sealing off members from dissenting viewpoints and punishing those who question the narrative. Online communities often fall into a similar trap, where engagement is filtered through algorithmic reinforcement loops that create ideological purity spirals. Communitaria must resist these enclosures by institutionalizing debate, dissent, and interpretive flexibility.
- Instead of having sacred texts or dogmas, meaning must remain an open, living process.
- Disagreement should be a feature, not a failure—structured into communal deliberation rather than seen as a threat to coherence.
Us vs. Them Thinking – Cultic formations rely on demonizing the outside world to keep members bound together. While communitaria must necessarily critique the dominant order, they must not become self-isolated enclaves that see all outsiders as adversaries. This is especially important online, where polarization is actively encouraged by platform dynamics. Communitaria must:
- Build bridges with other communities rather than fortifying ideological barriers.
- Engage outwardly rather than defensively, recognizing that cosmopolitanism strengthens rather than weakens solidarity.
Psychological Manipulation & Dependency – Cults manufacture dependency, making members feel that they cannot exist outside of the group. Online communities often replicate this dynamic by making platform participation central to members’ identities. Communitaria must provide real agency, not manufactured dependency:
- Membership must be active but voluntary—engagement should be meaningful, not performative or compulsory.
- Members should feel free to step away, shift their level of participation, and engage without fear of exclusion or retaliation.
- Privacy must be respected, ensuring that participation does not turn into surveillance or social control.
Starting Online: Unique Challenges & Safeguards
The fact that communitaria will initially exist in digital spaces brings specific risks:
- Hyper-visible online personas can lead to performative rather than genuine participation.
- Echo-chamber effects can make internal discourse brittle and resistant to critique.
- The rapid spread of information can turn minor disputes into public crises.
To counter these risks, communitaria must establish early safeguards:
- Radical Transparency – No hidden power structures, no secretive decision-making.
- Deliberative Ethics – A culture of slow thinking and collective inquiry rather than knee-jerk reactions.
- Soft Boundaries – Membership should be fluid, not rigidly enclosed—a network rather than a sect.
Final Thought: Cult Energy Without Cult Control
The Communitarium Project aims to build strong, participatory, and deeply engaged communities without replicating the rigid, coercive, and dogmatic structures of cultic formations.
A guiding question: Are we creating a space where people feel empowered and free, or one where they feel controlled and obligated?
If the answer ever tilts toward the latter, we must have the courage to dismantle and rethink our structures—always prioritizing openness, flexibility, and the continuous negotiation of meaning.