190 likes | 490 Views
Violence. RELS 225 Cults and New Religious Movements. NRMs and Violence. Historical accusations Are cults prone to violence? What factors make a religious movement prone to violence?. Why is violence common in cults?. antinomian Achieved a higher state of being and salvation
E N D
Violence RELS 225 Cults and New Religious Movements
NRMs and Violence • Historical accusations • Are cults prone to violence? • What factors make a religious movement prone to violence?
Why is violence common in cults? • antinomian • Achieved a higher state of being and salvation • no longer bound by moral conventions
Conditions for violence • complex conditions lead members to violent behaviour • conditions don’t result in violence for all NRMs
To keep in mind • NRMs are not the only religions with deviant behaviour • most violent incidents not related specific cult policies • amount of cult violence is not dispropotionate
Types of Factors • Violence perpetuated by interaction of endogenous and exogenous factors • main endogenous factors • apocalyptic beliefs • charismatic leadership • social encapsulation.
Apocalyptic beliefs • prevalent in many cults • usually based on the Bible, • Book of Revelation • Ezekiel • Daniel • also medieval lore or occult
Apocalyptic views and violence: why? • Reject laws • Expect violence • Demonize opponents • exemplary-dualism • enthusiasm
Charismatic leadership • common feature • Weber: charismatic authority • differs from • traditional authority and • rational-legal authority • relies on charismata • Charisma: • attributed • depends on followers • precarious • Charismatic leaders • lack support outside of their groups • pressure to conform AND to resist assimilation • balance expanding group AND maintaining personal contact • balance exposure AND secrecy
Routinization of Charisma • Resist routinizing leader’s charisma by: • keeping followers off balance • escalating demands • exploiting followers’ fears • undermining other authorities • testing loyalty • increasing dependence • damage the stability of the group and may lead to violence. • One method: separate couples
Confirming Legitimacy • demonstrate leader’s legitimacy by: • maintaining their image, • moderating members' identification with them, • attaining new successes.
Social encapsulation • forming small but complete social systems outside of mainstream society • social and physical isolation and boundaries. • lack essential feedback • combined with violation of boundaries, may lead to violence • Factors: • normative dissonance • groupthink • shift-to-risk
Encapsulation 1: Normative dissonance • people need to negotiate between different opinions, values, etc. in order to make decisions • This reduces impulsive action • Encapsulated members can’t consider such differences • no feedback from outside world • contrary opinions suppressed or expelled. • So members act more impulsively • increases likelihood of violent behaviour
Encapsulation 2: Groupthink • thought pattern cohesive groups • desire for conformity • Desire to show a united front • decisions made without critical consideration.
Encapsulation 3:Shift-to-risk • Groups more willing to entertain risky behaviour than individuals • have the support of others • may result in radicalization if someone voices a risky idea.
Surviving failed prophecy • What happens to a NRM when a prediction fails to happen? • theory of cognitive dissonance oversimplifies this phenomenon. • strategies to deal with failed expectations: • Proselytization • in conjunction with other strategies • Rationalization • Spiritualization • a test of faith • human error • blaming others. • Reaffirmation • most frequently used strategy: through group building. • Don’t usually experience dissonance after such failure • they do not typically recognize the failure.
Stages of cult tragedy • latent tension • nascent conflict • intensified conflict • dramatic denouement
Conclusion • NRM violent behaviour can be promoted by: • apocalyptic beliefs • charismatic leadership • social encapsulation • bad idea to make generalizations • NRMs are very diverse.
How biased or balanced is this documentary? • Did David Koresh have a specific apocalyptic scenario in mind? • What kinds of external opponents did the Branch Davidians have? • What triggered the investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? • What was the role of ex-members in the investigation? • What possible scenarios were considered, for serving the search warrant? • How did the BATF change their plan when they realized they had lost the element of surprise? • What is the connection between the raid and the fire? Would the fire have happened if the raid had not taken place? • What is the connection between the ex-members and the raid? Would the raid have happened if the opponents had not been active? • What did the Waco incident have in common with the Jonestown incident? • In what ways were the Waco incident and the Jonestown incident significantly different? Waco: Rules of Engagement