Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 70
The Segmentation and Categorizing of “Deviants”
[Dave – 1986 [The elder] read off several names [and as he was reading] these
names, this was the first time that most of these [members) had heard anything
about it and ...and ...they were stunned. They were [saying], ―Oh, no! Oh, no!‖
They thought [those listed] were gone ...they'd failed [sic] away from God -
[members] were so upset. And that was the first list.
The second list that [the head elder] read off, he said, ―Now these people have
heard the information but they haven't made a decision. They are trying to work
things out so let‘s just give our support, welcome them and ah, encourage them to
seek truth.‖ We called that the ―grey list.‖ The first one was the ―black list.‖ They
called it list one -list two, but it was the black list and the grey list.
He read off six names [on the grey list] and they said to be friendly with them.
Throughout that week they were continually calling all of us on that list, asking us,
―Can we get together? Can we talk?‖ And, ―How you been? How's school going?‖
and, ah, ―Are you going to be distributing information?‖ Every time. That is all they
were concerned about. That was obvious that that is what those calls were
ultimately for, was ―Oh, by the way, are you going to be distributing information?‖
In this case, several participants discovered that they were among several who were officially
designated ―potential‖ troublemakers at the meeting.
This interview illustrates that a segmentation of deviants is clearly developed in the initial
definitional meetings. The targets are divided into two camps: 1) Those who not only have heard
the ―information‖ but are distributing it to other members, and 2) those who have heard the
―information‖ and as yet are not distributing it to others.
Further interviewing revealed a clearer understanding of the evolution since 1976 of the see(s
practice of ―marking.‖ In this particular meeting, the sect leadership had three separate lists that
were presented to the membership. The first list was titled ―affected.‖ Five names were read from
this list, which sect members dubbed ―the grey list‖ A second list was titled ―divisive‖ and
contained the names of five other sect members. This list was dubbed by listeners as ―the black
list.‖ A third list was also compiled which was titled ―other affected,‖ and contained the names of
several other members of the sect. [Allen] suggested that
the distinction between lists apparently was that those that were on the ―darkest‖
list were the ones that were actually active and those on the ―grey‖ list were there
under the belief that ―when people even hear something it can affect them.‖
The grey list was thus comprised of people the sect acknowledged had not done anything but
hear information. Yet, even receipt of information marks a member as a potential deviant. The
member exposed to ―information‖ is ―infected‖ whether the member knows it or not, regardless of
that member's subsequent activity. [Allen] elaborates:
It seems [the elders] segmented us into aggressive versus passive. Both groups
were basically considered enemies, but the passive enemies were enemies only to
the people that they knew. That is the reason [the elders] read off the third list.
Those were all the people the elders could think of that those on the first two lists
could possibly infect with information.
Consequently, members of the sect may find themselves a candidate for .marking,‖ not only by
simply hearing ―information,‖ but by being friends with someone who did. Potential deviance
within OASIS is now expanded by simple association with members who by the sect's own
admission ―have done nothing wrong‖ but listen.
The Segmentation and Categorizing of “Deviants”
[Dave – 1986 [The elder] read off several names [and as he was reading] these
names, this was the first time that most of these [members) had heard anything
about it and ...and ...they were stunned. They were [saying], ―Oh, no! Oh, no!‖
They thought [those listed] were gone ...they'd failed [sic] away from God -
[members] were so upset. And that was the first list.
The second list that [the head elder] read off, he said, ―Now these people have
heard the information but they haven't made a decision. They are trying to work
things out so let‘s just give our support, welcome them and ah, encourage them to
seek truth.‖ We called that the ―grey list.‖ The first one was the ―black list.‖ They
called it list one -list two, but it was the black list and the grey list.
He read off six names [on the grey list] and they said to be friendly with them.
Throughout that week they were continually calling all of us on that list, asking us,
―Can we get together? Can we talk?‖ And, ―How you been? How's school going?‖
and, ah, ―Are you going to be distributing information?‖ Every time. That is all they
were concerned about. That was obvious that that is what those calls were
ultimately for, was ―Oh, by the way, are you going to be distributing information?‖
In this case, several participants discovered that they were among several who were officially
designated ―potential‖ troublemakers at the meeting.
This interview illustrates that a segmentation of deviants is clearly developed in the initial
definitional meetings. The targets are divided into two camps: 1) Those who not only have heard
the ―information‖ but are distributing it to other members, and 2) those who have heard the
―information‖ and as yet are not distributing it to others.
Further interviewing revealed a clearer understanding of the evolution since 1976 of the see(s
practice of ―marking.‖ In this particular meeting, the sect leadership had three separate lists that
were presented to the membership. The first list was titled ―affected.‖ Five names were read from
this list, which sect members dubbed ―the grey list‖ A second list was titled ―divisive‖ and
contained the names of five other sect members. This list was dubbed by listeners as ―the black
list.‖ A third list was also compiled which was titled ―other affected,‖ and contained the names of
several other members of the sect. [Allen] suggested that
the distinction between lists apparently was that those that were on the ―darkest‖
list were the ones that were actually active and those on the ―grey‖ list were there
under the belief that ―when people even hear something it can affect them.‖
The grey list was thus comprised of people the sect acknowledged had not done anything but
hear information. Yet, even receipt of information marks a member as a potential deviant. The
member exposed to ―information‖ is ―infected‖ whether the member knows it or not, regardless of
that member's subsequent activity. [Allen] elaborates:
It seems [the elders] segmented us into aggressive versus passive. Both groups
were basically considered enemies, but the passive enemies were enemies only to
the people that they knew. That is the reason [the elders] read off the third list.
Those were all the people the elders could think of that those on the first two lists
could possibly infect with information.
Consequently, members of the sect may find themselves a candidate for .marking,‖ not only by
simply hearing ―information,‖ but by being friends with someone who did. Potential deviance
within OASIS is now expanded by simple association with members who by the sect's own
admission ―have done nothing wrong‖ but listen.
