to interactions with others, authors rely on
narrative inheritances (the stories and myths that
families share about events, which are beyond
an author’s personal experience). Families
construct stories as “one of the chief
mechanisms ...for defining who they are as a
family, including what they believe, what they
value, and how they should act” (Daly, 2003, p.
777). These stories include renditions of family
trees and familial histories that each generation
may retell, as well as stories that circulate within
the family about its current generation. Stories
that families construct are always somewhat
mythological, “selective, manipulative, and
political,” and they often construct a sanitized
family void of such complexities as alcoholism
and family violence (Daly, 2003, p. 778). The
authors’ narratives continue this lineage and
provide insights into authors’ relationships with
their parents (Craib, 2004, p. 67). Nonetheless,
these memoirs may differ slightly due to their fit
within the genre of disaffiliation narratives.
Each author’s subjectivity is dynamic and
complex beyond what a memoir can represent
(Andrews, Day Sclater, Squire, &Tamoubou,
2004 Marcus, 1995, p. 47). Bloom (1998)
termed this complexity nonunitary subjectivity.
She asserted that claiming an individual is static
and unitary “masks the critical roles that
language, social interactions, and pivotal
experiences play in the production of
subjectivity and ignores the multiple subject
positions people occupy, which influence the
formation of subjectivity” (p. 3). The “narrator”
is, therefore, attached to multiple, mobile,
subject positions (Smith &Watson, 2010, p. 63).
Even so, Smith (1998) warned, “Any
autobiographical practice that promotes endless
fragmentation and a reified multiplicity might be
counterproductive since the autobiographical
subject would have to split itself beyond
usefulness to be truly nonexclusionary” (p. 434).
Therefore, any recognition of nonunitary
subjectivity must be limited enough to grant
credence to the author’s text.
As nonunitary subjects, authors were
simultaneously influenced by loved ones,
religion, and surrounding society. These
influences led many authors to depict their
parents’ actions were normal within the religion,
yet abnormal when compared to wider society.
The religion and surrounding cultures acted as
contradictory “tool kits,” through which authors
evaluated their families. A tool kit “is a dynamic
and changing system of meanings and symbols
that provides a means for examining the flow of
family experience in context” (Daly, 2003,
p. 774). Tool kits also form authors’ standards
of evaluation (what one believes to be normal):
“In formulating stories that describe their family,
people think about how the plot enacted by their
family members measures up to what ‘should’
have happened” (Vangelisti, Crumley, &Baker,
1999, p. 338). These standards shift throughout
one’s lifetime, especially when one has new
experiences (such as exiting a religious
organization), which allow for the utilization of
new cultural tool kits.
Narratives of Parental Actions and
Conceptions of Normality
Andrews (2002) found that some people socially
position their parents to offset blame for a harsh
upbringing (p. 14). Authors used dynamic
standards of evaluation to assess how they
believed social conditions confined their
parents’ actions. In the remainder of this article,
I discuss how the authors presented their
parents’ compliance and noncompliance with
social circumstances (specifically, religiously
based demands and practices) in relation to their
standards of evaluation.
Authors often based prior standards of
evaluation on religious doctrines and norms
because several religious organizations in this
study (especially the FLDS and CUT) isolated
members from nonmembers and mainstream
media. As such, Rhoda Janzen explained that
she and her sister had “inferred that non-
Mennonites were capable of anything. The
world seemed especially hospitable to serial
killers in unmarked white vans” (2010, p. 54).
Other authors (especially former FLDS
members) detailed that they feared outsiders
because of both isolation and community
narratives that labeled outsiders as evil. For
example, Brian Mackert (2008) claimed that he
was taught that non-church members “hated us
and wanted to destroy us because we were
22 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
narrative inheritances (the stories and myths that
families share about events, which are beyond
an author’s personal experience). Families
construct stories as “one of the chief
mechanisms ...for defining who they are as a
family, including what they believe, what they
value, and how they should act” (Daly, 2003, p.
777). These stories include renditions of family
trees and familial histories that each generation
may retell, as well as stories that circulate within
the family about its current generation. Stories
that families construct are always somewhat
mythological, “selective, manipulative, and
political,” and they often construct a sanitized
family void of such complexities as alcoholism
and family violence (Daly, 2003, p. 778). The
authors’ narratives continue this lineage and
provide insights into authors’ relationships with
their parents (Craib, 2004, p. 67). Nonetheless,
these memoirs may differ slightly due to their fit
within the genre of disaffiliation narratives.
Each author’s subjectivity is dynamic and
complex beyond what a memoir can represent
(Andrews, Day Sclater, Squire, &Tamoubou,
2004 Marcus, 1995, p. 47). Bloom (1998)
termed this complexity nonunitary subjectivity.
She asserted that claiming an individual is static
and unitary “masks the critical roles that
language, social interactions, and pivotal
experiences play in the production of
subjectivity and ignores the multiple subject
positions people occupy, which influence the
formation of subjectivity” (p. 3). The “narrator”
is, therefore, attached to multiple, mobile,
subject positions (Smith &Watson, 2010, p. 63).
Even so, Smith (1998) warned, “Any
autobiographical practice that promotes endless
fragmentation and a reified multiplicity might be
counterproductive since the autobiographical
subject would have to split itself beyond
usefulness to be truly nonexclusionary” (p. 434).
Therefore, any recognition of nonunitary
subjectivity must be limited enough to grant
credence to the author’s text.
As nonunitary subjects, authors were
simultaneously influenced by loved ones,
religion, and surrounding society. These
influences led many authors to depict their
parents’ actions were normal within the religion,
yet abnormal when compared to wider society.
The religion and surrounding cultures acted as
contradictory “tool kits,” through which authors
evaluated their families. A tool kit “is a dynamic
and changing system of meanings and symbols
that provides a means for examining the flow of
family experience in context” (Daly, 2003,
p. 774). Tool kits also form authors’ standards
of evaluation (what one believes to be normal):
“In formulating stories that describe their family,
people think about how the plot enacted by their
family members measures up to what ‘should’
have happened” (Vangelisti, Crumley, &Baker,
1999, p. 338). These standards shift throughout
one’s lifetime, especially when one has new
experiences (such as exiting a religious
organization), which allow for the utilization of
new cultural tool kits.
Narratives of Parental Actions and
Conceptions of Normality
Andrews (2002) found that some people socially
position their parents to offset blame for a harsh
upbringing (p. 14). Authors used dynamic
standards of evaluation to assess how they
believed social conditions confined their
parents’ actions. In the remainder of this article,
I discuss how the authors presented their
parents’ compliance and noncompliance with
social circumstances (specifically, religiously
based demands and practices) in relation to their
standards of evaluation.
Authors often based prior standards of
evaluation on religious doctrines and norms
because several religious organizations in this
study (especially the FLDS and CUT) isolated
members from nonmembers and mainstream
media. As such, Rhoda Janzen explained that
she and her sister had “inferred that non-
Mennonites were capable of anything. The
world seemed especially hospitable to serial
killers in unmarked white vans” (2010, p. 54).
Other authors (especially former FLDS
members) detailed that they feared outsiders
because of both isolation and community
narratives that labeled outsiders as evil. For
example, Brian Mackert (2008) claimed that he
was taught that non-church members “hated us
and wanted to destroy us because we were
22 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
