The prompt’s original topic asked about “cult-favorite electronics that vanished from our desks.” While the given context doesn’t delve into gadgetry, it provides a rich tapestry concerning the word “cult” itself—a term that has seen its definitions, applications, and public perceptions shift dramatically over time. Much like beloved electronics that once held sway on our workspaces, certain concepts and understandings surrounding “cults” have either faded from prominence, been rigorously redefined, or entirely vanished from accepted academic and societal discourse. These conceptual shifts highlight an ongoing evolution in how we understand social groups with unconventional beliefs.
This journey into the conceptual evolution of “cults” is not merely an academic exercise; it reflects broader societal anxieties, scholarly developments, and the often-contentious interplay between social groups, media narratives, and governmental responses. It’s a story of how a single word, derived from the Latin “cultus” meaning worship, can become a “shapeshifter, semantically morphing with the intentions of whoever uses it,” as Susannah Crockford notes. Understanding these shifts offers crucial insight into how we classify and comprehend groups with “unusual, and often extreme, religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals.”
As we delve into these “vanished” concepts, we’ll explore not just what they were, but *why* they disappeared, offering a nuanced perspective on the intellectual and cultural landscape that once embraced them. From specific sociological typologies to the heated debates surrounding “brainwashing,” these ideas, once central, have either been discarded or transformed, leaving behind a complex legacy that continues to inform our understanding of new religious movements and other social groups. Let’s unpack the initial set of these intriguing, if sometimes troubling, ideas that have moved beyond our collective “desks” of current understanding.
1. **The Pejorative “Cult” as a Rigorous Analytical Term**:For decades, the term “cult” has been a battleground of meaning, particularly in academic circles. While it found common, often derogatory, usage in popular culture, the aspiration within scholarship was to refine it into a precise analytical instrument. However, this quest for an objective, rigorously defined academic term has largely receded, giving way to a more cautious and critical approach. The inherent subjectivity and the “shapeshifting” nature of the word itself proved to be significant obstacles, as noted by scholars like Susannah Crockford.
The challenge lay in the fact that the term “cult” quickly became synonymous with socially deviant or novel beliefs, often carrying a heavy burden of negative connotations. This made it exceedingly difficult to apply without bias, impacting the neutrality expected in scholarly research. Instead of serving as a clear descriptor, it often functioned as a label of disapproval, prejudicing the study of the very groups it aimed to categorize. This intellectual friction ultimately contributed to the academic community’s decision to largely abandon it for more neutral terminology.
Benjamin E. Zeller’s observation succinctly captures this vanishing act of “cult” as a robust analytical tool: “‘[l]abelling any group with which one disagrees and considers deviant as a cult may be a common occurrence, but it is not scholarship’.” This powerful statement underscores the fundamental flaw in attempting to operationalize a word so deeply embedded with subjective judgment and societal disapproval. The desire for scholarly rigor necessitated a departure from a term that inherently resisted such precision, leading to its gradual disappearance from the forefront of objective academic discourse.
Read more about: Prince Harry at a Crossroads: Unpacking the Royal Return, Marriage Tensions, and Search for Purpose
2. **The Ancient, Non-Pejorative “Cultus”**:Before the term “cult” became laden with its current pejorative baggage, it held a far more neutral and descriptive meaning, rooted in its Latin origin, “cultus,” which simply meant worship. This older sense of the word referred to a set of religious devotional practices that were considered conventional within their specific cultures. It described collective participation in rites of religion, often associated with a particular figure or place, without any inherent judgment of their legitimacy or societal harm.
A prime example of this historical usage is the “imperial cult of ancient Rome.” In this context, “cult” was used to describe established, state-sanctioned religious veneration of emperors, which was a conventional and integral part of Roman civic and religious life. There were no negative connotations associated with it; it was simply a descriptor for a recognized religious system. This academic and historical application of the term stands in stark contrast to its modern popular usage, which almost universally implies something sinister or deviant.
Today, this non-pejorative understanding has largely vanished from public consciousness, overshadowed by the more recent and emotionally charged definitions. While scholars of ancient history or anthropology may still employ “cult” in this original sense, it has almost entirely disappeared from everyday language. The word’s modern semantic evolution has effectively erased its neutral origins for most speakers, making it a “cult-favorite concept” of the past that few outside specialized fields now recognize.
Read more about: Beyond the Buzzword: Everything You NEED to Know About Cults, From Academia to Global Headlines!
3. **Troeltsch’s “Mystical” Religious Categorization**:In the academic study of religious behavior, early sociologists sought to categorize and understand diverse forms of religious expression. Building upon Max Weber’s foundational distinction between churches and sects, German theologian Ernst Troeltsch made his own significant contribution by elaborating on this typology. His work introduced an additional, nuanced category: the “mystical.” This was designed specifically to accommodate and shed light on more personal or individual religious experiences, which didn’t neatly fit into the established frameworks of institutional churches or separatist sects.
Troeltsch’s “mystical” category was a crucial step in recognizing the spectrum of religious life beyond formal organizations and communal breaks. It acknowledged the deeply personal, often unstructured, and highly subjective dimensions of faith that are central to many spiritual paths. This category allowed for a broader analytical lens, moving beyond the purely collective or doctrinal aspects to consider the individual’s direct encounter with the divine or transcendent. It was an important conceptual “tool” for its time, highlighting aspects of religiosity that might otherwise have been overlooked.
However, while the essence of individual spiritual experience remains central to religious studies, Troeltsch’s “mystical” category, as a distinct and separate classification within major typologies, has largely “vanished” as a primary, standalone category in contemporary academic discourse. Modern frameworks tend to integrate these personal dimensions within broader discussions of religious experience or classify them under other rubrics, rather than maintaining “mystical” as a discrete, top-level type alongside church and sect. Its pioneering spirit lives on, but its specific taxonomic form has evolved beyond its original distinct “desk.”
Read more about: Beyond the Buzzword: Everything You NEED to Know About Cults, From Academia to Global Headlines!
4. **Becker’s Cult Definition of “Small, Unorganized, Private Beliefs”**:The efforts to bring sociological rigor to the study of religious movements saw various scholars building upon previous work, each refining the categorizations to better capture the complexities of religious life. Howard P. Becker, an American sociologist, made his mark by further dissecting the typologies established by Ernst Troeltsch. He ingeniously expanded the framework, not only splitting the church into “ecclesia” and “denomination” but also dividing the sect into “sect” and “cult.” His particular definition of “cult” during this period stands out as a concept that has since been significantly reshaped.
For Becker, a “cult” specifically referred to “small religious groups that lack organization and that emphasize the private nature of personal beliefs.” This was a remarkably narrow and academically focused definition, drawing a clear distinction from larger, more structured sects. It painted a picture of cults as emergent, loosely structured assemblies centered around individual spiritual paths rather than institutionalized doctrines or schismatic breaks from established religions. This emphasis on privacy and lack of formal structure was key to his understanding.
While Becker’s work was influential in its time, this precise and limited definition of “cult” has largely “vanished” from contemporary sociological typologies as a sole, overarching descriptor. Subsequent academic formulations, notably those by Bainbridge and Stark, began to characterize “cults” in broader terms, even introducing “cult movements” as complete organizations. The evolution of research moved beyond viewing cults exclusively as disorganized, private affairs, highlighting a shift in how scholars conceptualize these groups. Becker’s specific, early formulation, while historically significant, has been superseded by more complex and varied understandings.
5. **Bainbridge & Stark’s Initial Uncritical Embrace of “Cult” Terminology**:In the ongoing academic endeavor to classify religious phenomena, sociologists William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark developed a notable typology, distinguishing between “cult movements,” “client cults,” and “audience cults.” What made their work particularly distinct in its early stages was their willingness to continue using the term “cult” at a time when many other academics were actively moving away from it due to its pejorative connotations. They integrated the word directly into their classifications, attempting to reclaim it for a specific, analytical purpose within their theoretical framework.
Their approach offered a structured way to understand various forms of new religious groups, differentiating them based on their organizational completeness and the services they offered. For instance, a “cult movement” was defined as a “complete organization,” distinct from a “sect” because it wasn’t a splinter group. This demonstrated a deliberate effort to apply “cult” as a descriptive, rather than judgmental, label within a coherent sociological model. For a period, their framework seemed to offer a path for “cult” to remain a viable academic term.
However, the trajectory of this initial, somewhat uncritical embrace of “cult” terminology did not hold. A significant turning point, and indeed a form of “vanishing” for this perspective, came when Bainbridge himself “later stated he regretted having used the word at all.” This admission from one of the typology’s originators powerfully signals the deep-seated issues and persistent problems associated with the term, even when scholars attempted to use it with academic precision. His regret marks a retreat from the belief that “cult” could be neutrally applied, signifying the concept of its academic utility had largely disappeared.
6. **”Conversion” as the Sole Model for Religious Affiliation**:For a long time, the dominant narrative surrounding individuals joining new religious groups often centered on the concept of “conversion”—a dramatic, often sudden, and deeply transformative shift in belief and identity. This model, while applicable in many instances, presented a somewhat monolithic understanding of how individuals come to embrace new spiritual paths. It implied a singular, profound experience that fundamentally alters one’s worldview, often overshadowing other, more gradual or social processes of joining.
However, sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, in their insightful work on religious groups, began to critically examine the limitations of this singular focus. They openly “questioned the utility of the concept of conversion” as the primary explanatory model for affiliation. Their analytical perspective suggested that relying solely on “conversion” might not fully capture the diverse reasons and pathways through which individuals integrate into new religious movements, prompting a re-evaluation of this long-held assumption.
Instead, Stark and Bainbridge proposed “affiliation as a more useful concept.” This shift in terminology marked a significant departure, implying a broader, more inclusive understanding of the process. “Affiliation” recognizes that joining a group can be a more incremental, relational, and less dramatic process, often influenced by existing social networks and personal bonds, as exemplified by John Lofland’s study of the Unification Church. The idea of “conversion” as the exclusive or paramount lens for understanding group entry has, in a sense, “vanished,” replaced by a richer and more multifaceted view of how individuals come to participate in new religious communities.
7. **The Sociopathic Syndrome of “Destructive Cultism”**:In the wake of growing concerns surrounding certain new religious movements, particularly from the anti-cult movement, specific and often extreme definitions emerged to describe groups deemed harmful. One such concept, articulated by Eli Shapiro and cited in *Cults and the Family*, characterized “destructive cultism” as a “sociopathic syndrome.” This was a powerful and alarming framing, suggesting a deep psychological pathology inherent to such groups and their impact on individuals.
Shapiro’s definition was quite specific and highly pathologized, detailing distinctive qualities such as “behavioral and personality changes, loss of personal identity, cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders.” This comprehensive list of negative indicators painted a picture of utter individual disintegration, portraying members as victims of an inherently manipulative and damaging process. It provided a strong, albeit highly critical, framework for understanding the perceived dangers of these groups.
However, this specific framing of “destructive cultism” as a pervasive “sociopathic syndrome” has largely “vanished” from mainstream, nuanced academic discourse due to criticisms regarding its overgeneralization. Scholars like John A. Saliba argued that the term “destructive cult” itself was “overgeneralized,” especially when implying that other groups would inevitably commit acts akin to the Peoples Temple mass suicide. The attempt to apply a sweeping “sociopathic syndrome” label to a broad category of groups proved to be too simplistic and ethically problematic for sustained scholarly acceptance, prompting its disappearance from objective analytical use.
Read more about: Beyond the Buzzword: Everything You NEED to Know About Cults, From Academia to Global Headlines!
8. **The Media-Fueled “Doomsday Cult” Panic of the Late 1980s**:The phenomenon of “doomsday cults,” groups characterized by beliefs in apocalypticism and millenarianism, has long captured public imagination, often with a mix of fascination and fear. However, the late 1980s saw a specific surge in public anxiety and media attention around these groups, transforming them into a “major topic of news reports.” This period was marked by an intense, almost feverish, focus where “some reporters and commentators considering them a serious threat to society.”
This era of heightened alarm created a distinct atmosphere of “doomsday cult panic,” where such groups were frequently portrayed in a sensationalist light. News reports often focused on extreme predictions of disaster or even the potential for groups to actively attempt to bring about catastrophic events. The psychological study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter, examining a UFO religion that predicted world destruction, provided academic underpinnings to these concerns, though its findings were specific to one group.
While apocalyptic beliefs continue to exist and attract attention, the particular intensity and widespread media-driven “panic” of the late 1980s regarding “doomsday cults” as an imminent, generalized societal threat has largely “vanished.” Public and media discourse has evolved, becoming somewhat more diversified and perhaps less prone to uniform sensationalism, even as tragic events still occasionally occur. The specific wave of fear and widespread perception of “doomsday cults” as a singular, overwhelming danger characterizing that decade has become a historical artifact in the shifting landscape of public awareness and media focus.
9. **The Judicial Acceptance of “Brainwashing Theory”**:For a significant period in the United States, particularly during the 1970s, the “brainwashing theory” held considerable sway, not just in public discourse but within the legal system. This theory posited that cult members could be coerced into altering their beliefs and behaviors against their will, often used to justify interventions like deprogramming. It became a “central topic in U.S. court cases,” suggesting a profound impact on how the judiciary perceived and adjudicated cases involving new religious movements and their members.
This theory was often presented by “expert witnesses” in court, attempting to provide a scientific basis for the perceived psychological manipulation occurring within these groups. The acceptance of such testimonies implied a legal validation of the idea that individuals could be “brainwashed,” thereby diminishing their agency and free will in choosing to join or remain in certain religious communities. It reflected a societal and legal struggle to comprehend and respond to groups with unconventional beliefs, often through a lens of psychological coercion.
However, this era of judicial acceptance definitively ended in 1990 with the landmark court case of *United States v. Fishman*. In its ruling, the court invoked the Frye standard, which mandates that scientific theories presented by expert witnesses must be “generally accepted in their respective fields.” The court meticulously reviewed supporting documents, including literature from previous brainwashing cases and testimonies from critical scholars like Dick Anthony, ultimately deeming “brainwashing” inadmissible in expert testimonies. This judicial decision marked a pivotal “vanishing” point for brainwashing as a credible legal and scientific explanation for religious affiliation.
10. **The Practice of “Forceful Deprogramming” as a Legitimate Intervention**:Flowing directly from the widespread, albeit ultimately discredited, acceptance of “brainwashing theory,” the practice of “forceful deprogramming” emerged as a controversial method aimed at “rescuing” individuals from perceived cultic influence. This technique, often involving the physical abduction and confinement of members by former members or hired operatives, was based on the premise that individuals had been brainwashed and therefore could not make rational choices about their religious affiliations. It gained traction in “the more extreme corners of the anti-cult movement” during the late 1960s and 1970s.
Deprogramming was a direct, often aggressive, attempt to reverse the alleged psychological conditioning inflicted by group leaders. It reflected a deep anxiety within families and the anti-cult movement that loved ones had lost their capacity for “free will,” as evidenced by their “drastically altered lives.” The justification for such extreme measures lay in the conviction that members were not willingly participating but were victims of “mind control techniques” that needed to be forcibly broken.
However, as “psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind control” in the late 1980s, the scientific and ethical foundations for deprogramming crumbled. The *United States v. Fishman* ruling, which rejected brainwashing theory in court, indirectly undermined the legal and moral legitimacy of deprogramming. While the act of deprogramming itself may still occur covertly, its perception as a legitimate, justifiable, or even effective intervention has largely “vanished” from mainstream acceptance, replaced by a recognition that “conversion to new religious movements principally [is] an act of a rational choice.”
11. **Governmental Lists of “Cults” as Unquestioned Policy**:In the heightened climate of concern surrounding new religious movements, particularly at the zenith of the “counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s,” several governments around the world actively engaged in the controversial practice of publishing “lists of cults.” These lists represented a formal, state-sanctioned attempt to identify and often stigmatize groups deemed “dangerous” or “unwanted,” effectively drawing a line between what was considered “legitimate” religion and what was not.
The creation of such lists, exemplified by the parliamentary commissions in France and the Justice Commission in Belgium in 1997, signified a period where governments aligned themselves “more with the critics of these groups.” This approach often embraced the negative “popular and negative use of the term cult,” importing its pejorative connotations directly into official policy documents. It also risked adverse impacts on the “religious freedoms of group members,” a concern voiced by sociologists critical of this politicized usage.
Yet, the permanence and unquestioned legitimacy of these governmental lists proved fleeting. “Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements.” For instance, Austria ceased distinguishing sects in its religious freedom report from 2011, and the French Prime Minister in 2005 stated that concerns from the earlier list “had become less pertinent.” Even in Belgium, a Brussels Appeals Court in 2005 “condemned the House of Representatives” for damaging an organization’s image by listing it. This demonstrates a significant “vanishing” of the consensus and direct governmental backing for these categorical lists, reflecting a more cautious approach to religious classification.
12. **The Imperial Chinese ‘Xie jiao’ Classification’s Original State-Control Mandate**:For centuries, Chinese governments have employed the classification term *xiéjiào* (邪教), often translated as “evil cults” or “heterodox teachings,” to categorize certain religious groups. In its imperial context, this label did not necessarily imply that a religion’s doctrines were inherently “false or inauthentic.” Rather, the fundamental purpose of this designation was to identify and control “religious groups that were not authorized by the state,” or those “believed to challenge the legitimacy of the state.” This was a pragmatic tool for maintaining political and social order, rather than a theological judgment.
Under this imperial system, groups branded *xiejiao* faced severe “suppression and punishment by authorities.” The focus was squarely on the perceived threat to state authority, regardless of the intrinsic nature of the beliefs themselves. This historical application highlights a unique conceptualization where “cult” (or its Chinese equivalent) was primarily a legal and political descriptor of perceived disloyalty or insubordination to the ruling power, rather than a term rooted in Western sociological or psychological frameworks of manipulation or deviance.
While the term *xiejiao* continues to be used in contemporary China, notably against groups like Falun Gong, its *original imperial context and its sole function* as a state-control mechanism defined by authorization rather than inherent belief falsity has evolved and, in its pure historical form, largely “vanished.” Modern applications, while still emphasizing state control and suppression, now often blend with perceptions of “evil” or “false” teachings, reflecting a transformation from a purely administrative label to one layered with modern ideological and ethical judgments. The specific, narrow, and non-theological imperial mandate has thus been significantly reshaped.
13. **Russia’s 2008-2009 Specific Categorization of “Pagan cults” and “Neo-Pentecostals” as Extremist**:In a distinct governmental action that briefly shaped its policy towards religious minorities, the Russian Interior Ministry, in 2008, unveiled a list of “extremist groups.” This official categorization placed “Islamic groups outside of ‘traditional Islam'” at the top, but notably, it also included “Pagan cults” directly beneath them. This specific listing represented a snapshot in time of Russia’s approach, identifying certain non-mainstream spiritual traditions as potential threats deserving of state scrutiny.
The following year, in 2009, the Russian Ministry of Justice further solidified this stance by establishing the “Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis.” This council expanded the scope, listing “80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society,” alongside thousands of smaller ones. Among these “large sects” were explicitly mentioned “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other sects which were loosely referred to as ‘neo-Pentecostals’.”
This specific governmental designation of particular groups like “Pagan cults” and “neo-Pentecostals” within these lists reflected a particular, explicit policy posture towards religious diversity at that time. While Russia continues to monitor religious groups, the *specific, publicly presented, and highly detailed categorizations* from this 2008-2009 period, explicitly naming these particular denominations under the “extremist” or “dangerous” umbrella, represent a past approach that has since either evolved, been refined, or become less overtly articulated in subsequent official communications, effectively “vanishing” as a singular, unchanged policy.
14. **Uncritical Governmental Embrace of Brainwashing Theories in Policy (e.g., specific European nations)**:Despite the widespread academic abandonment and judicial rejection of “brainwashing” theories in the United States by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the concept continued to hold significant sway in the policy positions of certain European governments. “The governments of France and Belgium,” for example, “have taken policy positions which accept ‘brainwashing’ theories uncritically.” This represented a divergence from a growing international consensus among scholars.
This uncritical acceptance meant that government policies, reports, and public statements in these nations were often predicated on the notion that new religious movements could, through psychological manipulation, strip individuals of their autonomy. The outrage that followed tragic events, such as the “mass murder/suricides perpetuated by the Solar Temple,” significantly “contributed to European anti-cult positions,” reinforcing these deeply ingrained, yet academically challenged, brainwashing narratives in official discourse.
However, this uncritical embrace was not universal across Europe. Other nations, “such as those of Sweden and Italy, are cautious with regard to brainwashing and as a result, they have responded more neutrally with regard to new religions.” This juxtaposition highlighted a significant policy split. While some governments might still be influenced by these ideas, the *uncritical, explicit acceptance* of brainwashing as a foundational theory for policy on new religions has increasingly become a contested and, in some contexts, “vanished” approach, yielding to more nuanced understandings of religious conversion and group dynamics, particularly as academic critiques gained broader recognition.
15. **The Anti-Cult Movement’s Early Unifying Theme of Mass Brainwashing**:The emergence of the secular anti-cult movement (ACM) in the late 1960s and 1970s was largely catalyzed by a powerful, unifying narrative: the belief that “cults brainwashed their members.” This central idea served as the bedrock for the movement’s activism, explaining why individuals would join and remain in groups that family members deemed alarming or deviant. It was the primary lens through which they understood conversions to new religious movements, particularly after events like “the deaths of nearly 1000 people” at Jonestown.
This emphasis on brainwashing as the core mechanism of control and recruitment provided a compelling, albeit simplistic, explanation for profound life changes. It allowed the ACM to argue that converts were not acting out of free will, but were victims requiring intervention, often leading to calls for “deprogramming.” The concept became a powerful tool for mobilizing public opinion and garnering support for their cause, creating a shared understanding of the perceived dangers posed by new religious groups.
Yet, as academic understanding evolved, this once-unifying theme faced significant challenges. “In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind control.” Scholars increasingly “came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice,” acknowledging a more complex interplay of social networks and personal motivations. While the anti-cult movement continues its work, the *unifying and academically sanctioned belief* in mass brainwashing as the singular explanation for religious affiliation, which once defined its early approach, has largely “vanished” from robust intellectual support, forcing the movement to adapt its arguments.
16. **The Unchallenged Media Narrative of “Cult” as Universally Harmful and Deviant**:In the latter half of the 20th century, particularly following high-profile tragedies, the mass media played a significant role in shaping public perception of “cults.” The term quickly gained “an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, ual abuse, and other criminal activity, and mass suicide.” This created an almost unchallenged narrative that any group labeled a “cult” was inherently, universally harmful and deviant.
This media portrayal, while sometimes rooted in real, documented precedents from a “very small minority of new religious groups,” often saw these extreme negative qualities “extended them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant, however peaceful or law abiding it may be.” It fostered an environment where the label alone was enough to imply guilt and danger, making it difficult for new religious movements to gain fair representation or understanding in public discourse. This blanket stigmatization became a pervasive “cult-like” characteristic of media reporting itself.
However, with the passage of time and increasing academic scrutiny of the term “cult” and media’s role, the *unchallenged nature* of this uniformly negative portrayal has, to some extent, “vanished.” While sensationalist reporting still occurs, a more nuanced understanding has emerged among some journalists and scholars, recognizing the dangers of “overgeneralized” terms and the importance of differentiating between groups. The criticisms that the term “cult” itself was “dehumanizing of the people within the group” have begun to resonate, fostering a greater awareness of the complexities beyond a monolithic, inherently harmful “cult” narrative. The automatic, unquestioned extension of extreme labels has become a less universally accepted practice.
Our expedition through the intellectual landscape of “cult” terminology reveals a fascinating evolution—a story not of gadgets, but of concepts that, like beloved tech, once occupied central space on our academic and cultural “desks,” only to be refined, challenged, or ultimately discarded. The vanishing acts of brainwashing theories, uncritical governmental lists, and monolithic media narratives underscore a profound shift in how societies and scholars engage with groups holding unconventional beliefs. As we navigate an ever-more complex world of social and religious diversity, understanding these conceptual disappearances is vital, not just for historical insight, but for fostering a more discerning and empathetic dialogue about groups that stand outside the perceived mainstream. The “cult-favorite electronics” of our minds, it turns out, were never truly about the hardware, but the intricate software of human understanding and societal categorization.
