Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 82
[Elders –1976] [B] is excommunicated from the universal Body of Christ. No
Christian in any city on earth is to associate with him. And we will warn Christians
all over the world, if we have any suspicion that [B] has communicated with them.
If you receive a phone call, turn away -just hang up immediately -and let me warn
you, don't get into a discussion with him ...he'll probably come out with
tremendous arguments ...you're not to listen ...Anytime you get a phone call,
hang up immediately and contact us. If he approaches you on the street ...turn
away, have nothing to do with him, If he follows you, run away. If he runs after
you, keep running away. If he tackles you -and I'm not -that is possible -get
away!
In reality, [B] is a top insurance salesman within a national company and has been recognized as
a hard and conscientious worker. He is married (twelve years' duration), has two children, and is
actively involved in a local church in his hometown. His wife is a school teacher, and they both
seem to have an active and vibrant social life. They appear to be well-liked and respected within
the community. Yet within the sect, the man has been given a mythological master status of
diabolical dimensions and nearly limitless power, who, if listened to, could in all probability
destroy the Christian church on earth. The sect's only defense against him is the enforcement of
strict communicational control.
This master status imputation is functional to the group because it reveals one way of dealing
with conflict within the sect. Scapegoating exaggerates the prevalence of conflict and thus helps
to reinforce shared norms and goals.
Conclusion
Coercive Persuasion and the Manufacture of Deviance: Limits of Role Boundaries
This paper has attempted to answer the question: ―If a group practices coercive persuasion and
an individual does not conform, what does the group do with the non-conformist?‖ Coercive
persuasion has been described as simply placing a strict limit on the number of conformity
options. Yet this is not the only criterion. Reduced conformity options are not in and of
themselves sufficient to indicate an environment of coercive persuasion. Emile Durkheim (1895)
suggested that excessive authority would reveal itself in an immutable organization which
crushed criticism and eliminated individuality. He proposed that such an environment could exist
even within a ―cloister of saints.‖ This paper has confirmed his contention.
Robert Dentler and Kai Erikson (1959) proposed the idea of ―inducing deviant behavior.‖ This
paper confirms their premise that groups channel and organize the deviant possibilities contained
in the membership. This research further suggests that OASIS induces conformity in much the
same way: through channeling and organizing conformity options. Though Dentler and Erikson
did not suggest that a given group ―creates the motives for an individual‘s [deviant] behavior or
compels it from persons not otherwise disposed toward that form of expression,‖ (pp. 100) this
paper has shown that OASIS compels deviance from persons not otherwise disposed toward this
form of expression in much the same way as it compels members toward obedience who,
likewise, may not be disposed toward such extremes of commitment.
Pat Lauderdale (1976) suggested that ―deviance can be thought of as a product of the movement
of moral boundaries rather than as a product of the movement of actors across those boundaries‖
(pp. 663). Likewise, this research has shown that individuals can be in ―good standing‖ one day
and ―excommunicated‖ the next with very little change in their behavior. These individuals are
judged for thought crimes and punished in the extreme. The ―factious man‖ is a construct which
embodies the liberties and the freedoms that are impossible to perform within the sect. The
contented member is, likewise, a construct that is so idyllic that even the sect leaders admit
failure in ―measuring up.‖
[Elders –1976] [B] is excommunicated from the universal Body of Christ. No
Christian in any city on earth is to associate with him. And we will warn Christians
all over the world, if we have any suspicion that [B] has communicated with them.
If you receive a phone call, turn away -just hang up immediately -and let me warn
you, don't get into a discussion with him ...he'll probably come out with
tremendous arguments ...you're not to listen ...Anytime you get a phone call,
hang up immediately and contact us. If he approaches you on the street ...turn
away, have nothing to do with him, If he follows you, run away. If he runs after
you, keep running away. If he tackles you -and I'm not -that is possible -get
away!
In reality, [B] is a top insurance salesman within a national company and has been recognized as
a hard and conscientious worker. He is married (twelve years' duration), has two children, and is
actively involved in a local church in his hometown. His wife is a school teacher, and they both
seem to have an active and vibrant social life. They appear to be well-liked and respected within
the community. Yet within the sect, the man has been given a mythological master status of
diabolical dimensions and nearly limitless power, who, if listened to, could in all probability
destroy the Christian church on earth. The sect's only defense against him is the enforcement of
strict communicational control.
This master status imputation is functional to the group because it reveals one way of dealing
with conflict within the sect. Scapegoating exaggerates the prevalence of conflict and thus helps
to reinforce shared norms and goals.
Conclusion
Coercive Persuasion and the Manufacture of Deviance: Limits of Role Boundaries
This paper has attempted to answer the question: ―If a group practices coercive persuasion and
an individual does not conform, what does the group do with the non-conformist?‖ Coercive
persuasion has been described as simply placing a strict limit on the number of conformity
options. Yet this is not the only criterion. Reduced conformity options are not in and of
themselves sufficient to indicate an environment of coercive persuasion. Emile Durkheim (1895)
suggested that excessive authority would reveal itself in an immutable organization which
crushed criticism and eliminated individuality. He proposed that such an environment could exist
even within a ―cloister of saints.‖ This paper has confirmed his contention.
Robert Dentler and Kai Erikson (1959) proposed the idea of ―inducing deviant behavior.‖ This
paper confirms their premise that groups channel and organize the deviant possibilities contained
in the membership. This research further suggests that OASIS induces conformity in much the
same way: through channeling and organizing conformity options. Though Dentler and Erikson
did not suggest that a given group ―creates the motives for an individual‘s [deviant] behavior or
compels it from persons not otherwise disposed toward that form of expression,‖ (pp. 100) this
paper has shown that OASIS compels deviance from persons not otherwise disposed toward this
form of expression in much the same way as it compels members toward obedience who,
likewise, may not be disposed toward such extremes of commitment.
Pat Lauderdale (1976) suggested that ―deviance can be thought of as a product of the movement
of moral boundaries rather than as a product of the movement of actors across those boundaries‖
(pp. 663). Likewise, this research has shown that individuals can be in ―good standing‖ one day
and ―excommunicated‖ the next with very little change in their behavior. These individuals are
judged for thought crimes and punished in the extreme. The ―factious man‖ is a construct which
embodies the liberties and the freedoms that are impossible to perform within the sect. The
contented member is, likewise, a construct that is so idyllic that even the sect leaders admit
failure in ―measuring up.‖
