Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 79
scapegoat diminishes. As a consequence, the anxieties might be rechanneled back onto the sect
members and the sect itself. Maintenance of strict shunning behaviors thus appears functional to
the group in that it minimizes and deflects the ambivalence inherent within a totalistic
environment. The solutions the sect offers for reconciliation are often so extreme that accepting
sect terms is impossible.
[Tom] I was excommunicated by the elders. I called them up to find out my crimes.
I am told that I must repent fully before the elders can tell me my crimes because I
have been factious they are not to talk to me. Consequently, the elders use this as
an excuse for not telling me my crimes. I am left in the hopeless dilemma of
repenting for crimes that I have no knowledge of before the elders can tell me what
my crimes really are.
In a letter of excommunication to the 1976 excommunicant are these statements:
Any communication on the part of [your wife] to anyone that would justify you or
her side of the story, by word, innuendo, or attitude is willful participation in your
sin.
Any communication on the part of [your wife] that would call into question the
justice of this action will be considered interference with the discipline of this
church. This includes communication by word, innuendo, or attitude.
Love,
(Letter signed by 12 national elders)
All the solutions found in the excommunications were for targets to not only stop sharing
information, but to actually reverse themselves and compromise their own opinions in favor of the
leadership's definitions. There is never any appeal for a trial, simply an admission of guilt. Since
targets can't admit guilt to crimes they either do not know or haven't committed, deviance is
perpetuated until the target buckles under the weight of oppression. Maria's case illustrates the
pressures of induced guilt.
I talked to one of the leaders of the group and asked him how one got ―un-
excommunicated.‖ What does that entail? And the bottom line was repentance in
front of the whole church. I said, ―Well, how can I repent of something I didn't do?‖
I hung up the phone and again I was just flooded with this emotion of deep-rooted
guilt and I didn't understand where it was coming from. I was going in circles -I
was thinking, ―Christians ought to be unified, not separated.‖ Finally I just had to
stop. I realized that they were causing me to feel guilty and I couldn't even see it.
There is something wrong with that.
Creating the Deviant Identity: Retrospective Interpretation and Stereotyping
Essential to the members' successful adoption of negative definitions of targets is the skillful use
of stereotyping and retrospective interpretation (Garfinkel, 1956). These tools are necessary for
the imputation of the ultimate master status on ―enemy deviants.‖
Use of stereotyping within this sect is closely tied to the nebulous and mystical stature of the
crimes committed. Since, for the most pan, the crimes are ―thought crimes,‖ it is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to prove innocence or guilt by judicial standards. Such crimes are
indeed essential to the creation and maintenance of the bicameral normative system.
The archetypical deviant in the sect is entirely mystical. He looks like a common member. He acts
like a common member. He can even reach the status of elder within the sect. He could be
anybody (except for the founding apostles). Actual historical figures are used to reinforce the
stereotype. Judas, who betrayed Jesus, is considered the example of a ―false disciple.‖ Thus,
deviants within the sect could betray members with as innocent a behavior as ―a kiss.‖ They could
scapegoat diminishes. As a consequence, the anxieties might be rechanneled back onto the sect
members and the sect itself. Maintenance of strict shunning behaviors thus appears functional to
the group in that it minimizes and deflects the ambivalence inherent within a totalistic
environment. The solutions the sect offers for reconciliation are often so extreme that accepting
sect terms is impossible.
[Tom] I was excommunicated by the elders. I called them up to find out my crimes.
I am told that I must repent fully before the elders can tell me my crimes because I
have been factious they are not to talk to me. Consequently, the elders use this as
an excuse for not telling me my crimes. I am left in the hopeless dilemma of
repenting for crimes that I have no knowledge of before the elders can tell me what
my crimes really are.
In a letter of excommunication to the 1976 excommunicant are these statements:
Any communication on the part of [your wife] to anyone that would justify you or
her side of the story, by word, innuendo, or attitude is willful participation in your
sin.
Any communication on the part of [your wife] that would call into question the
justice of this action will be considered interference with the discipline of this
church. This includes communication by word, innuendo, or attitude.
Love,
(Letter signed by 12 national elders)
All the solutions found in the excommunications were for targets to not only stop sharing
information, but to actually reverse themselves and compromise their own opinions in favor of the
leadership's definitions. There is never any appeal for a trial, simply an admission of guilt. Since
targets can't admit guilt to crimes they either do not know or haven't committed, deviance is
perpetuated until the target buckles under the weight of oppression. Maria's case illustrates the
pressures of induced guilt.
I talked to one of the leaders of the group and asked him how one got ―un-
excommunicated.‖ What does that entail? And the bottom line was repentance in
front of the whole church. I said, ―Well, how can I repent of something I didn't do?‖
I hung up the phone and again I was just flooded with this emotion of deep-rooted
guilt and I didn't understand where it was coming from. I was going in circles -I
was thinking, ―Christians ought to be unified, not separated.‖ Finally I just had to
stop. I realized that they were causing me to feel guilty and I couldn't even see it.
There is something wrong with that.
Creating the Deviant Identity: Retrospective Interpretation and Stereotyping
Essential to the members' successful adoption of negative definitions of targets is the skillful use
of stereotyping and retrospective interpretation (Garfinkel, 1956). These tools are necessary for
the imputation of the ultimate master status on ―enemy deviants.‖
Use of stereotyping within this sect is closely tied to the nebulous and mystical stature of the
crimes committed. Since, for the most pan, the crimes are ―thought crimes,‖ it is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to prove innocence or guilt by judicial standards. Such crimes are
indeed essential to the creation and maintenance of the bicameral normative system.
The archetypical deviant in the sect is entirely mystical. He looks like a common member. He acts
like a common member. He can even reach the status of elder within the sect. He could be
anybody (except for the founding apostles). Actual historical figures are used to reinforce the
stereotype. Judas, who betrayed Jesus, is considered the example of a ―false disciple.‖ Thus,
deviants within the sect could betray members with as innocent a behavior as ―a kiss.‖ They could
