Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 13
followers believe that they need their teachers‘ messages for access to desirable proffered
rewards in this life and ‗the next,‘ while the leaders need the followers to translate their
worldviews into secular structures that undertake social action. To the extent that these
worldviews, structures, and actions embody the paranoia, narcissism, delusions, and/or
sexual dysfunctions and idiosyncrasies of group leaders, they are especially unstable and
open to internal and external criticism.
As individuals come to categorize themselves as devotees or followers of particular
teachers, they accentuate or emphasize either people or things that they perceive to be
similar and people or things that they perceive to be different. According to self-
categorization theory in social psychology, this categorization-accentuation process
―highlights intergroup discontinuities, ultimately renders experience of the world
subjectively meaningful, and identifies those aspects which are relevant to action in a
particular context‖ (Hogg, Terry and White 1995:261). One aspect of this categorization
process is that ―[p]eople are essentially ‗depersonalized‘: they are perceived as, are reacted
to, and act as embodiments of the relevant in-group prototype rather than as unique
individuals‖ (Hogg, Terry and White 1995:261). When something happens to one or more
members that shifts group categorization of them from the in group to the out group, the
remaining in-group members have clear and immediate targets for hostility and aggression.
Such shifts in categorization may come about through a number of ways, initiated by
leaders‘ alteration of doctrines, internal scapegoating over a group failure, internal power
realignments among inner-circle elites, schisms (which may involve numerous ‗defectors‘),
or members‘ inability to continue the high costs of membership. Regardless of the reasons,
however, an out-group categorization gives in-group members a clear and direct target
against which they can enhance their own sense of similarity and solidarity, sometimes
through acts of violence.
A. Violence Resulting from People’s Alienation from Groups
Particularly visible targets for in-group members are clusters of former associates who now
define themselves as the true bearers of the master‘s teachings. Although former believers
who depart silently may present a challenge to remaining members if those members
believe in the universality of their teacher‘s message, a direct challenge comes from former
members who still claim allegiance to the spiritual master but assert that their way is the
true path. These people are schismatics, and members of the original group must silence
them because potentially they can ―proselytize among actual or potential adherents of that
group‖ (Coser 1974:109). Keeping in mind that many new religions form as schisms from
existing faiths (Stark and Bainbridge 1985:101-107), issues about hostile, violent, or
otherwise aggressive interactions between the old and new groups become indices of
danger. All of the issues that motivate division and divisiveness—money, authority,
legitimacy, property, doctrine, leadership-personality, and so on—amplify as participants
interpret them through religious hues, and danger increases as the stakes rise and the
disputants each claim God as their guide. Under these circumstances, shunning—acting as if
the other party were dead—may be a comparatively mild response, given that court action
and even interpersonal violence occasionally will occur. Rarely do disputes turn into gun
battles, but such battles indicate a willingness on the part of the disputants to translate
sectarian disputes into deadly confrontations.
B. Violence after Alignment with Groups and/or Traditions That Have Violent
Norms
As far back as 1971, social scientists have realized that previously nonviolent individuals
may become violent when they expect that their social roles call for it. In that year,
psychologists at Stanford University cut short (after six days) what was to have been a two-
week experiment in which college students enacted various social roles found in prison.
followers believe that they need their teachers‘ messages for access to desirable proffered
rewards in this life and ‗the next,‘ while the leaders need the followers to translate their
worldviews into secular structures that undertake social action. To the extent that these
worldviews, structures, and actions embody the paranoia, narcissism, delusions, and/or
sexual dysfunctions and idiosyncrasies of group leaders, they are especially unstable and
open to internal and external criticism.
As individuals come to categorize themselves as devotees or followers of particular
teachers, they accentuate or emphasize either people or things that they perceive to be
similar and people or things that they perceive to be different. According to self-
categorization theory in social psychology, this categorization-accentuation process
―highlights intergroup discontinuities, ultimately renders experience of the world
subjectively meaningful, and identifies those aspects which are relevant to action in a
particular context‖ (Hogg, Terry and White 1995:261). One aspect of this categorization
process is that ―[p]eople are essentially ‗depersonalized‘: they are perceived as, are reacted
to, and act as embodiments of the relevant in-group prototype rather than as unique
individuals‖ (Hogg, Terry and White 1995:261). When something happens to one or more
members that shifts group categorization of them from the in group to the out group, the
remaining in-group members have clear and immediate targets for hostility and aggression.
Such shifts in categorization may come about through a number of ways, initiated by
leaders‘ alteration of doctrines, internal scapegoating over a group failure, internal power
realignments among inner-circle elites, schisms (which may involve numerous ‗defectors‘),
or members‘ inability to continue the high costs of membership. Regardless of the reasons,
however, an out-group categorization gives in-group members a clear and direct target
against which they can enhance their own sense of similarity and solidarity, sometimes
through acts of violence.
A. Violence Resulting from People’s Alienation from Groups
Particularly visible targets for in-group members are clusters of former associates who now
define themselves as the true bearers of the master‘s teachings. Although former believers
who depart silently may present a challenge to remaining members if those members
believe in the universality of their teacher‘s message, a direct challenge comes from former
members who still claim allegiance to the spiritual master but assert that their way is the
true path. These people are schismatics, and members of the original group must silence
them because potentially they can ―proselytize among actual or potential adherents of that
group‖ (Coser 1974:109). Keeping in mind that many new religions form as schisms from
existing faiths (Stark and Bainbridge 1985:101-107), issues about hostile, violent, or
otherwise aggressive interactions between the old and new groups become indices of
danger. All of the issues that motivate division and divisiveness—money, authority,
legitimacy, property, doctrine, leadership-personality, and so on—amplify as participants
interpret them through religious hues, and danger increases as the stakes rise and the
disputants each claim God as their guide. Under these circumstances, shunning—acting as if
the other party were dead—may be a comparatively mild response, given that court action
and even interpersonal violence occasionally will occur. Rarely do disputes turn into gun
battles, but such battles indicate a willingness on the part of the disputants to translate
sectarian disputes into deadly confrontations.
B. Violence after Alignment with Groups and/or Traditions That Have Violent
Norms
As far back as 1971, social scientists have realized that previously nonviolent individuals
may become violent when they expect that their social roles call for it. In that year,
psychologists at Stanford University cut short (after six days) what was to have been a two-
week experiment in which college students enacted various social roles found in prison.
