Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 36
The Teenage Dissent of Newman and Unamuno:
Conscience as a Safeguard Against Coercive Manipulation
Kevin B. Fagan, Ph.D.
California State University, San Luis Obispo
Abstract
Teenagers seem easy targets for despotic groups, such as cults. Moral
conscience, however, may be a dike against a sea of despotism. John Henry
Newman and Miguel de Unamuno were giant defenders of conscience in their
respective cultures. Their philosophies and phenomenologies of conscience
depict conscience as supreme in the mind of the ordinary person, though
subject to pressures, even death. This notion becomes alive in the deep
religious crisis and conversion of their adolescence, marked by a sense of
personal divine experience, confidence in final predestination or holy trust,
and an ethical commitment. Both men, however, dissent from their religious
authorities and doctrines within an environment of academic freedom,
individual study, and limited coercion. Hence, the interplay of friends and
environments along with personal dedication are essential to our
understanding of the role of conscience as a safeguard against coercive
manipulation, above all in the lives of youth. This article illuminates these
themes by examining the teenage years of these two great philosophical and
literary figures.
A key concern for all who are apprehensive about authoritarian mind manipulation and
totalitarian group control is the penchant for manipulative organizations to focus on young
people to achieve their purposes. Given their innocence and idealism, teenagers are
attractive prey to wolves dressed as pastors, gurus, political leaders, psychotherapists, or
even charismatic salesmen. I contend that against this sea of despotism, conscience can
serve as an ethical dike, safeguarding individuality and personal responsibility. Moreover,
reflecting upon the role of conscience in the young may help us better understand how to
help our cherished children defend themselves against the lure of cultic groups.
This essay focuses on a philosophical theory and a phenomenological analysis that proposes
the supremacy of conscience over religious authority in young people, as understood and
lived by the famed Catholic convert, John H. Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) and the
prominent Spanish dissenter from Catholicism, Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936). Whereas
Newman is considered a champion of intellectual Catholicism in the English-speaking world,
Unamuno is oft the supporter of academic dissent in the Hispanic diaspora. Newman
followed conscience to embrace Catholicism, while Unamuno, as a ―lone heretic‖ (Rudd),
sincerely abandoned the Catholic Church of his childhood. However, both shared the
conviction of courageously following conscience above authority, paying a high price with
their careers and confreres.
John Henry Newman sees conscience as both natural and open to change. Conscience is
defined as a moral sense of right and wrong, independent of any authority, which may, in
life, become distorted and even seem to die due to abusive environments. If conscience is
independent of any source of authority, does that mean that the content of conscience, of
The Teenage Dissent of Newman and Unamuno:
Conscience as a Safeguard Against Coercive Manipulation
Kevin B. Fagan, Ph.D.
California State University, San Luis Obispo
Abstract
Teenagers seem easy targets for despotic groups, such as cults. Moral
conscience, however, may be a dike against a sea of despotism. John Henry
Newman and Miguel de Unamuno were giant defenders of conscience in their
respective cultures. Their philosophies and phenomenologies of conscience
depict conscience as supreme in the mind of the ordinary person, though
subject to pressures, even death. This notion becomes alive in the deep
religious crisis and conversion of their adolescence, marked by a sense of
personal divine experience, confidence in final predestination or holy trust,
and an ethical commitment. Both men, however, dissent from their religious
authorities and doctrines within an environment of academic freedom,
individual study, and limited coercion. Hence, the interplay of friends and
environments along with personal dedication are essential to our
understanding of the role of conscience as a safeguard against coercive
manipulation, above all in the lives of youth. This article illuminates these
themes by examining the teenage years of these two great philosophical and
literary figures.
A key concern for all who are apprehensive about authoritarian mind manipulation and
totalitarian group control is the penchant for manipulative organizations to focus on young
people to achieve their purposes. Given their innocence and idealism, teenagers are
attractive prey to wolves dressed as pastors, gurus, political leaders, psychotherapists, or
even charismatic salesmen. I contend that against this sea of despotism, conscience can
serve as an ethical dike, safeguarding individuality and personal responsibility. Moreover,
reflecting upon the role of conscience in the young may help us better understand how to
help our cherished children defend themselves against the lure of cultic groups.
This essay focuses on a philosophical theory and a phenomenological analysis that proposes
the supremacy of conscience over religious authority in young people, as understood and
lived by the famed Catholic convert, John H. Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) and the
prominent Spanish dissenter from Catholicism, Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936). Whereas
Newman is considered a champion of intellectual Catholicism in the English-speaking world,
Unamuno is oft the supporter of academic dissent in the Hispanic diaspora. Newman
followed conscience to embrace Catholicism, while Unamuno, as a ―lone heretic‖ (Rudd),
sincerely abandoned the Catholic Church of his childhood. However, both shared the
conviction of courageously following conscience above authority, paying a high price with
their careers and confreres.
John Henry Newman sees conscience as both natural and open to change. Conscience is
defined as a moral sense of right and wrong, independent of any authority, which may, in
life, become distorted and even seem to die due to abusive environments. If conscience is
independent of any source of authority, does that mean that the content of conscience, of
