Cults in Context

Readings in the Study of New Religious Movements

Lorne Dawson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351524643
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religious Fundamentalism & Cults

In the face of the increasingly variegated ideological landscape of contemporary America, cults have become the focus of public controversy. The growth of new religions has been matched by the development of an organized and vocal opposition, the anti-cult movement. This in turn has prompted an extensive investigation of new religious movements (NRMs) by sociologists and psychologists of religion, as well as historians and religious studies scholars. The readings collected here contribute to the debate about cults by sampling some of the best and most accessible publications from the academic study of NRMs.The contributors address the questions most commonly asked about cults, such as: What brought about the emergence of new religious movements? What is a cult or new religious movement? Who joins new religious movements and why? Are converts to new religious movements brainwashed? Why did the Jonestown and Waco tragedies happen? Are cults inclined to be violent? What does the emergence of so many new religious movements say about our society? What does it say about the future of religion?Cults in Context surveys the descriptive typologies, theories, and data accumulated by sociologists and psychologists studying new religious movements over the last twenty years. It serves to defuse many popular fears and misconceptions about cults, allowing the reader to develop a more reasonable and tolerant understanding of the people who join new religious movements and the functions of these movements in contemporary society.

PART E
The Satanism Scare

Introduction to the Readings

By the mid-1980s the controversy surrounding the better known “cults” that had emerged into public awareness in the 1960s began to wane (e.g., Krishna Consciousness, The Unification Church, The Children of God, Scientology). The membership of these groups was stabilizing, and contrary to the dire warnings of the anti-cult movement, at relatively small levels. From the hard-knocks taken in the press and the courts of law these new religions had learned to tone-down their proselytizing and fund-raising campaigns; in general they were seeking to appear more moderate in their practices. To the public, and hence for the media, they were becoming “old news.” Curiously, at this juncture, the anti-cult movement began to switch its primary target of concern. Satanism became the main subject of discussion at lectures, conferences, and press meetings sponsored by anti-cult organizations (e.g., The American Family Foundation, The Council on Mind Abuse). Charges of “brainwashing” and “mind-control” continued to be central to the warnings issued about this new danger to society. But the threat posed is now more obviously sinister and truly covert. Thousands of people, it is alleged, are engaged in the clandestine practise of the dark arts of magic, including the ritualistic abuse, even sacrifice of babies, children, and young women. In fact the self-appointed “experts” claim that every year tens of thousands of children are kidnapped or purposefully bred for abuse or sacrifice by an organized and international network of Satanists (e.g., Schwarz, 1988; Johnston, 1989; Langone and Blood, 1990). Our surprising ignorance of this horrible state of affairs is tribute, we are told, to the success of the Satanists in brainwashing their victims and participants.

Once again, however, the hard evidence to support these charges is missing. Generalizations have been made on the basis of the stories collected in clinical interviews by therapists, of varying abilities and qualifications, with supposed victims of Satanic ritual abuse. The claims of these therapists have sparked a larger and heated debate over the reliability or even reality of “repressed memories” and the causal links between the experiences remembered and “multiple personality disorders” (technically termed, since 1994, “dissociative identity disorders” by the American Psychiatric Association). Most claims of Satanic abuse refer to the abuse of children, based on accounts of such abuse provided many years later by adult “survivors.” These survivors usually have entered psychological therapy for other reasons (e.g., Padzer and Smith, 1980; Mayer, 1991; Wright, 1994). By while in therapy, usually under the influence of hypnosis, they provide accounts of past abuses that are thought to be “repressed memories” of previously unacknowledged events. These memories have been systematically repressed, in part to simply avoid the pain associated with them, and in part as a result of sophisticated Satanist brainwashing or programming (e.g., Sakheim and Devine, 1992). The trauma of these experiences is thought to have caused the personalities of the survivors to fragment into many distinguishable alter egos. This creation of multiple personalities is also in part a psychological defense mechanism to cope with the pain of these memories, and a product of Satanist programming. The resultant tales of horror have been gathered, embellished, and widely disseminated by the anti-cult movement as proof of the need for renewed vigilance against this age-old nemesis of Christian culture. The books and lectures of the “moral entrepreneurs” crusading against this new Satanism are rife with detailed descriptions of the rites and deeds of diverse Satanist groups, though none claim to have ever witnessed a real Satanic ritual.

Many other psychologists and scholars are severely critical of the therapeutic methods used by the exponents of the Satanic ritual abuse diagnosis and they have called the veracity of the reported results into question (e.g., Mulhern, 1994; Spanos, Burgess and Burgess, 1994; Loftus and Ketcham, 1994; Wakefield and Underwager, 1994). Investigations by numerous police agencies, including a special department of the FBI, have yet to document a single case of Satanic ritual abuse or murder (Lanning, 1992). In fact no material evidence of any sort has ever been found of a crime committed by an organized Satanic group, nor of the existence of an international Satanist conspiracy (Richardson, et al., 1991; Victor, 1993). Consequently, even some of the most staunch proponents of Satanic ritual abuse as a primary cause of multiple personality disorders have admitted that most of their patients may have confabulated their “memories” of ritual abuse (e.g., Ross, 1995: Preface). Nevertheless, the view persists that where there is so much supposed smoke, there must be some fire, and the fear of Satanism remains strong in some quarters.

As the first reading in this section by Randy Lippert carefully documents, however, the Satanism scare of today is probably a “socially constructed” social problem, comparable to the “Red Menace” (i.e., fear of communism) rampant in the United States during the 1950s. With the witting and unwitting aid of the media and various self-proclaimed “experts,” rumour has carried the day. Such rumours are bolstered by the many social legends of Satanic conspiracies found throughout the history of the Christian West and enlivened by the vapid imagery of evil conjured up for popular consumption by hundreds of novels, movies, and television programs.

This is not to say that there are no Satanists. On the contrary, there are, though in very small numbers. The Satanists that exist, however, tend to fall overwhelmingly into two categories: they are either (i) self-styled and largely adolescent dabblers, or (ii) members of a few new and legally constituted Satanist groups. The best known example from the latter category is The Church of Satan, founded in San Francisco in 1966 by the flamboyant Anton LaVey (e.g., LaVey, 1969). While clearly sensationalistic, neither this group nor any of the similar groups spawned in its wake have ever run foul of the law. In fact, The Church of Satan has always been a rather disorganized group which probably never attracted more than a 1,000 members at the height of its popularity (Melton, 1992: 108–117). In the larger scheme of things, then, it is hard to say that such groups pose a serious threat to society. Nevertheless, the very existence of such blatantly deviant organizations is perplexing.

In the second reading, “Magical Therapy: An Anthropological Investigation of Contemporary Satanism,” Edward Moody offers an early (1974) and still worthwhile explanation of why some people might join these legally constituted Satanist groups. Calling on several years of participant observation in such a group, and employing the “relative deprivation” perspective outlined in Part C of this reader, Moody provides a series of plausible social psychological insights into the motives of participants. He demonstrates, in some detail, the positive functions of such organizations for individuals with certain predispositions. In the process he also provides a good description of several of the rites and activities of a typical Satanist group (e.g., The Black Mass, Invocations of Lust). In the end, the Satanists he studied remain a rather unsavoury lot, but his analysis gives us good reason to recast their activities as more therapeutic than malevolent. These groups help socially dysfunctional individuals to adapt to mounting and stressful social pressures in their lives, and as such, he suggests, they warrant a somewhat more sympathetic and tolerant reception from the public. A similar line of analysis is followed in William Sims Bainbridge’s Satan’s Power: Ethnography of a Deviant Psychotherapy Cult (1978) and in many other attempts to explain the appeal of witchcraft groups in general (e.g., Kemp, 1993).

In the third reading, “Teenage Satanism as Oppositional Youth Culture,” Kathleen Lowney gives us a close-up look at the processes shaping members of the first category of Satanists, “self-styled and largely adolescent dabblers.” Here we have an ethnographic case study of how and why one group of rather marginalized kids in a typical American town turned to a loose amalgam of Satanic ideas and imagery to vent their frustration with their relative lack of social power. We hear how the teenagers themselves think of their activities as acts of cultural protest more than commitment to an alternative religion. These adolescents, Lowney concludes, are neither mentally disturbed nor breaking the law in any significant way. They are symbolically protesting against the hegemonic values of their local society, from which by choice and chance (e.g., their relative lack of athletic prowess) they are alienated. These are the relatively innocuous roots, as Lippert’s analysis suggests (see Victor, 1993 as well), of most of the moral panics about Satanism experienced by North American communities in recent years (e.g., the city wide panic precipitated by reports of a teenage Satanic ritual suicide pack in Lethbridge, Alberta in 1989).

13
The Construction of Satanism as a Social Problem in Canada

Randy Lippert

This paper examines the problem of Satanism using a social constructionist framework. Seventy-five Canadian news articles from 1980–1989 were examined and telephone interviews carried out to obtain a picture of how the problem is emerging, the groups involved, and the claims being made. An examination of the use of rhetoric in claims is undertaken. The role of the news media and American experts in promoting the problem is then explored. The theme of Satanism as a vehicle for other social problems, how claims about it constitute a symbolic crusade, and Satanism ‘s natural history as a social problem in Canada are discussed.

Introduction

Satanism is an emerging social problem that is receiving attention from various organizations. The focus of this paper will be to examine the problem of Satanism in Canada using a social constructionist framework.¹ The emphasis of this paper is twofold. First, I will identify the claims-makers and their claims about Satanism. I will use the framework outlined by Best (1987) to do this. Through this framework, the definitions of Satanism, the alleged extent of Satanism, and finally, the problems Satanism is supposedly associated with or is “causing” will be shown. Second, I will examine four basic themes to see how they apply to Satanism: the role of the Canadian news media, the role of experts from the United States, Satanism as a vehicle for other social problems, and the natural history of Satanism as a social problem.

Methodology

A search of the Canadian periodical and newspaper indices, sociological, psychological, and educational computer data bases, and several criminological indices was made in order to obtain a picture of how Satanism is emerging and the individuals and groups involved.² Telephone interviews were carried out with these individuals and representatives of groups where possible to determine present views. The examination of the role of the media involved returning to the Canadian Newspaper Index and the Canadian Periodical Index to obtain a sample of articles. Every article pertaining to Satanism in a ten-year period (1980 to 1989 inclusive), under the headings of “Satanism,” “demonology,” “cults,” and “mind control” was selected. Other possible headings such as “devil” and “devil worship” were consulted but no such headings were found to exist. The dates and the headings under which articles on Satanism appeared were recorded. Each of the seventy-five articles found was then examined for content.

Claims-makers

Seven major categories of claims-makers were identified: police agencies and individual police officers; child welfare workers; the news media including talk show hosts; mental health professionals including social workers; participants and their families; cult monitoring organizations; and Christian religious leaders. Each type will be described separately.

Police

From the first Canadian article about Satanism (27 May 1983) to articles appearing as recently as December, 1989, the police have been quoted making claims about Satanism. Articles between 1986 and 1988 reported statements about Satanism by individual members of the police. These statements arose from the investigation of crimes, but were not made on behalf of the organization to which individual police officers belonged. Rather, statements reflected officers’ own views. Members of the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Haiton Regional Police (Ontario), and the Calgary and Winnipeg City Police among others have been involved. Often these views were presented as if they came from experts in the field. Canadian police agencies began to officially recognize Satanism in 1989 when they began holding seminars on the subject. All of these seminars were conducted by individual members, known as experts, of police agencies in the US where police interest occurred much earlier, and where Satanism has apparently developed into a larger “problem.” The police have played and continue to play a dominant role in the struggle for control of the definition of the problem of Satanism. The reason for their extensive involvement in claims-making will become clearer when the claims about Satanism are discussed later.

Child Welfare Organizations

Also making claims about Satanism are child welfare workers, and particularly those from the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) in the province of Manitoba and in metropolitan Toronto.³ Other groups of this type include the Institute For the Prevention of Child Abuse and, to a lesser extent, Childfind Alberta and the office of the Official Guardian of the Province of Ontario. Although these groups did not emerge until the latter part of 1986, they continue to play a dominant role in the construction of the problem of Satanism, with the exception of Childfind Alberta. A representative of this latter organization made a statement to the press early in 1987 concerning Satanism and its supposed link to missing children (Montreal Gazette, 1987a). Neither this alleged link nor the organization has been mentioned in the media since.

The News Media

Best (1989:260) refers to the news media as “secondary claims-makers.” They can report others’ claims in a neutral fashion, or “translate and transform them” (Best, 1989:260). Therefore, they act as both claims-maker and a forum for other claims-makers. Canadians receive much of their information about social problems from Canadian newspaper and magazine articles, but also from American television broadcasts. For example, when the Geraldo Rivera Show aired a two-hour special on Satanism in the winter of 1988, which apparently had the highest ratings of any two-hour syndicated program that has appeared on the National Broadcasting Company’s network, a large number of Canadians were undoubtedly watching. Those watching Oprah Winfrey and Sally Jesse Raphael would have similarly seen coverage of Satanism (Pearson, 1989:21). In this way, it can be seen how an alleged problem in the US might become an alleged problem in Canada ...