Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 44
Asahara would be an obstacle to group survival in Japan, even if Aleph members made a
monumental effort. Meanwhile, old members who truly believed in Asahara and his mystical
power regarded this idea as disloyal to Aum conventions and formed an anti-Joyu faction.
This is known as the A (Asahara) faction, in contrast to the Joyu faction, the M (Maitreya,
Joyu‘s holy name) faction. Between them there are some believers who have not committed
to either side.
On May 18th, the security police agency disclosed that the M and A factions had each held
spring seminars, and that as a result the M faction had collected approximately $70,000 in
donations from 80 participants, while the A faction had collected $400,000 from 220
participants. Joyu declared, ―We should think about the direction of the Aleph after the
execution of Asahara,‖ which could be scheduled within the next few years because of the
dismissal of Asahara‘s appeal in the Tokyo High Court. Asahara‘s capital punishment was
fixed in September 15, 2006. Some members believe Asahara will not die, even by hanging
however, such a thought is a by-product of shut-in persons who do not accept the real
world. It will be too late to start a new version of Aleph after the death of its founder. M and
A factions were expected to divide their assets and accounts respectively by July 2006. In
May 2007, Joyu separated his faction from Aleph and made a new religion, ―Hikari no wa‖
(Ring of Light), with approximately 200 members (Asahi News, 2007).
Discussions
Resource Mobilization and Cultural Framing
In this section, we discuss the resident movement from the perspective of social movement
theory, which focuses on the mobilization of resources, cultural framing, and political
opportunity (Tarrow, 1998).
The mobilization of resources means how funds and human resources are procured and
utilized in order to have successful social movements. The municipalities took urgent
budgetary steps by allocating approximately $100,000 for residents‘ anti-Aleph movements
in 1999 and 2000, because the Japanese public had already become aware of the treatment
of Aleph members as a social issue after a series of Aum-related incidents. But because this
budget was spent on lawsuits, the residents in Karasuyama were forced to raise funds for
their own activities.
Cultural framing is composed of a social appeal made by a movement, which convinces the
general public of, and enlists them in, the movement‘s cause. What values and interests did
anti-Aleph residents attempt to protect? Of course, mere dislike or fear of a ―cult‖ does not
convince other people who are not directly affected. They need more convincing reasons.
Sometimes that justification is presented by outside parties. Human-rights advocates
provided conflicting abstract arguments, such as ―public well-being for locals,‖ and Aleph
members‘ ―freedom of religion,‖ and ―the freedom and the right to have residence and
education.‖ But did the local people really participate in the movement because of those
ideas? This question must be addressed.
Some municipalities refused to accept Aleph members‘ residence registration on the
grounds of ―uneasy feelings of local residents.‖ They believed that what local residents
demanded was a guarantee of local security, and thus responding to that plea would
correspond to ―public welfare.‖ In response to the claims by the cult and its supporters, as
well as human-rights activists, the municipality insisted, ―(the community‘s) fears are not
gone.‖ Since dialogue was not working, they had no choice but to turn to the legal process.
The rationale of ―public welfare‖ was merely an expression of the municipality‘s view on the
local side, ―fear‖ was the reason for the anti-Aum movement.
It is easy to attribute a disdain for human rights to residents chanting ―Aum, Get Out!‖ or
voicing other hostile expressions and attitudes. For this reason, human-rights advocates
Asahara would be an obstacle to group survival in Japan, even if Aleph members made a
monumental effort. Meanwhile, old members who truly believed in Asahara and his mystical
power regarded this idea as disloyal to Aum conventions and formed an anti-Joyu faction.
This is known as the A (Asahara) faction, in contrast to the Joyu faction, the M (Maitreya,
Joyu‘s holy name) faction. Between them there are some believers who have not committed
to either side.
On May 18th, the security police agency disclosed that the M and A factions had each held
spring seminars, and that as a result the M faction had collected approximately $70,000 in
donations from 80 participants, while the A faction had collected $400,000 from 220
participants. Joyu declared, ―We should think about the direction of the Aleph after the
execution of Asahara,‖ which could be scheduled within the next few years because of the
dismissal of Asahara‘s appeal in the Tokyo High Court. Asahara‘s capital punishment was
fixed in September 15, 2006. Some members believe Asahara will not die, even by hanging
however, such a thought is a by-product of shut-in persons who do not accept the real
world. It will be too late to start a new version of Aleph after the death of its founder. M and
A factions were expected to divide their assets and accounts respectively by July 2006. In
May 2007, Joyu separated his faction from Aleph and made a new religion, ―Hikari no wa‖
(Ring of Light), with approximately 200 members (Asahi News, 2007).
Discussions
Resource Mobilization and Cultural Framing
In this section, we discuss the resident movement from the perspective of social movement
theory, which focuses on the mobilization of resources, cultural framing, and political
opportunity (Tarrow, 1998).
The mobilization of resources means how funds and human resources are procured and
utilized in order to have successful social movements. The municipalities took urgent
budgetary steps by allocating approximately $100,000 for residents‘ anti-Aleph movements
in 1999 and 2000, because the Japanese public had already become aware of the treatment
of Aleph members as a social issue after a series of Aum-related incidents. But because this
budget was spent on lawsuits, the residents in Karasuyama were forced to raise funds for
their own activities.
Cultural framing is composed of a social appeal made by a movement, which convinces the
general public of, and enlists them in, the movement‘s cause. What values and interests did
anti-Aleph residents attempt to protect? Of course, mere dislike or fear of a ―cult‖ does not
convince other people who are not directly affected. They need more convincing reasons.
Sometimes that justification is presented by outside parties. Human-rights advocates
provided conflicting abstract arguments, such as ―public well-being for locals,‖ and Aleph
members‘ ―freedom of religion,‖ and ―the freedom and the right to have residence and
education.‖ But did the local people really participate in the movement because of those
ideas? This question must be addressed.
Some municipalities refused to accept Aleph members‘ residence registration on the
grounds of ―uneasy feelings of local residents.‖ They believed that what local residents
demanded was a guarantee of local security, and thus responding to that plea would
correspond to ―public welfare.‖ In response to the claims by the cult and its supporters, as
well as human-rights activists, the municipality insisted, ―(the community‘s) fears are not
gone.‖ Since dialogue was not working, they had no choice but to turn to the legal process.
The rationale of ―public welfare‖ was merely an expression of the municipality‘s view on the
local side, ―fear‖ was the reason for the anti-Aum movement.
It is easy to attribute a disdain for human rights to residents chanting ―Aum, Get Out!‖ or
voicing other hostile expressions and attitudes. For this reason, human-rights advocates
