| YOU CAN TELL A NICE DAY FROM THE MORNING ... |
FOREWORD
Alice visits Turin, city of wonders...
" But why wonders in Turin? And why is
such a social and national alarm provoked by the wonders of Turin? This is what we shall
try to find out, in a rapid tour of the city of wonders of yesterday and today, where the
presence of bizarre parties, mad hatters, policemen and queens truly requires Alice as our
guide".
While looking for a word of introduction to my reflections
about the International Conference of CESNUR Religious and spiritual minorities:
towards the 21st Century, held in Turin from September 10 to 12, 1998, I
decided to choose this paragraph, taken from the book Il ritorno della magia (The
Return of Magic) (1), since it seemed especially suitable.
The Conference, sponsored by the regional government of Piedmont, was
held at the Congress Hall of the Industrial Union, in Via Fanti 17.
The comfortable venue of the Industrial Union was well suited for
hosting the illustrious personalities of this Conference, and the young Cesnur staff
members gave a warm welcome to those attending. In the large entrance hall, two tables
displayed many books published by Catholic and non-Catholic publishers, as well as
publications donated by "religious minorities" to the CESNUR library. Several
publications were available free of charge, such as "The Twelve Tribes
Freepaper", the booklet "Restoring and Safeguarding Freedom of Religion, care of
the European Office for Human Rights and Public Affairs of the Church of
Scientology", folders promoting "Social Compass", an international review
of sociology of religion, an issue of "Bullettin de l’Omnium", and others.
The theme of the conference, Religious and spiritual minorities:
towards the 21st Century, inspired thoughts of a wonderland, full of
mystery, which would have caught the attention of Alice - the famous character of Lewis
Carroll.
The words, "religious and spiritual minorities", could indeed
include anything in the so-called "spiritual" world, a truly vague and rather
misty term. And of course, the vaguer the words, the thicker the mystery, and the greater
the curiosity.
The expression "religious minorities" is intended to replace
the old expression, "New Religious Movements", which in its turn had replaced
the "archaic" terms "sect" or "cult". Some people might find
this disquisition on the progressive replacement over the years, of expressions which seem
innocent synonyms describing the same reality, a waste of time ...
… but words have their weight...
Many have probably read George Orwell's
novel, "1984". In this story, Newspeak is the official language of Oceania,
invented to satisfy the needs of Ingsoc, English Socialism, the regime under whose
dictatorship the main character of the novel, Winston, lives. Newspeak was supposed to
gradually replace Oldspeak (i.e., English), used before the regime came to power. Final
replacement was supposed to take place in 2050, after which nobody was supposed to ever
use Oldspeak again. The regime had set up a special Ministry (the Ministry of Truth), in
order to change the language, and a team of linguistic experts were employed full time in
drawing up the Newspeak dictionary.
A significant paragraph in the novel says: " The purpose of
Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental
habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought
impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles
of Ingsoc- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on
words ... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating
undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so
far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever... Newspeak was designed not to extend
but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by
cutting the choice of words down to a minimum" (2).
The "Newspeak" metaphor can help us to understand how even
changing a few words can affect reality. Those who, on a certain level and speaking from a
certain position, use or change words, never do so by chance. What could be the purpose of
the progressive replacement we find in " cults - new religious movements -
religious movements - religious minorities"? The answer lies perhaps in the
direction that this replacement has taken, towards increasingly inclusive and general
terms.
Some statistics.
The data I provide here are taken from
the programme and the update sheets distributed by CESNUR, as well as from what I gleaned
directly by attending the various sessions.
The Conference was attended by 104 speakers, who attended several
sessions (29 altogether). According to the data provided by CESNUR, 54 are professors or
academics variously associated with Universities, 11 are listed as students who are
working for their degree or their Ph.D, 30 are presented without any title, 6 are lawyers,
1 a politician, 1 a member of a foundation, 1 a psychiatrist. 14 scheduled speakers did
not turn up. Some speakers were members of "religious minorities". These
included: Cristina Valle of the Hindu Union of Carcare, Jane Williams-Hogan of the Academy
of the New Church College, Bryn Athyn, Mario Affuso of the Italian Apostolic Church, Paolo
Fezzi, Buddhist. Mario Ambrosetti of the National Federation of Sukyo Mahikari,
S. Yogananda Giri of the Italian Hindu Union and others also
spoke.
The number of participants, including the speakers who took turns as listeners, changed
from session to session, and was generally between 80 and 120, with a minimum of 65 and a
peak of about 150.
Besides people who came out of curiosity, those attending for other
reasons -including several Catholic priests - and the observers, there were also members
of such "religious minorities" as Aumists, Hindus, Kremmerzians, Raelians,
Scientologists, followers of the Reverend Moon, Mormons, Mahikari, Apostolicals,
Damanhurians, Swedenborgians, Orthodox, Buddhists, etc.
Also present were members of GRIS (Group for Research and Information
on Sects), of ARCA, and even of CAN (Cult Awareness Network). The presence of
representatives of several associations, interested for various reasons in the issue of
"religious minorities", also gave me an opportunity to get to know several
activities.
During the coffee break, while speaking to other attendees, I had the
interesting experience of meeting Davide Murmora, who introduced himself as the director
of the Italian branch of CAN (Cult Awareness Network). Such congresses afford an
opportunity for making contact between associations dealing with the same issues,
exchanging information on case histories and comparing operations in the field of shared
interest. Among other things, this person told me that CESNUR occasionally receives
requests for help from people with problems due to some "religious minority";
since it is not CESNUR's task to provide such help, CESNUR addresses such people to CAN,
among others. I also had the pleasure of meeting and sharing views and information with
Gianni Trapletti and Paolo Maggi, members of ARCA, a Catholic group which deals with the
issue of "religious minorities". It was an interesting exchange, which would not
have been possible without this Congress, with its variuous stimulating events.
PERSPECTIVES
Any object can be observed in a
different manner, depending on the perspective of the observer. Perspectives are always
partial, and it is never possible to look at all the aspects of one phenomenon at the same
time. This is why choosing one perspective instead of another is very important for an
overall and final description of the object being observed. The paper entitled Who
is Afraid of Religious Minorities? The Social Construction of a Moral Panic,
read in full by Massimo Introvigne, introduced the Conference. It shows, in a certain
sense, the perspective from which the Conference dealt with the issue of "Religious
and spiritual minorities: towards the 21st Century ".
The title of the paper clearly reveals the perspective which was
chosen: religious minorities are viewed as the target of unjustified attacks, out of all
proportion to the actual danger they may pose to society. These unjustified attacks,
spread by the mass media and by anti-cult organisations, are supposed to have led to a
reaction of "moral panic". "Moral panics were defined as
socially constructed social problems characterized by a reaction, both in media
representation and in political forums, out of proportion to the actual threat"
(3). "Moral panics" supposedly have the function of
presenting social problems which have been around for decades as something new, thus
exaggerating their impact, thanks to the spreading of "folklore statistics", not
supported by academic studies.
While this stance is perfectly in line
with the point of view of the speaker, the issue might also be put in a completely
opposite manner. For example, in cases of mass suicides/homicides or of the Tokyo gas
outrage, many people complained that certain groups, the dangerousness of which was
already known to the authorities, were never properly monitored and enjoyed de facto
impunity, since they were "religious" groups and hence above all control.
A typical case is that of Aum Shinrikyo. According to Prof.
Beit-Hallahmi, Japanese authorities were not only cautious but even negligent and possibly
protective towards the criminal activities of Aum, thanks to its status as a NRM. It seems
that serious evidence had already turned up, before the outrage, concerning certain
activities by Aum which would have required far more careful police monitoring - 33 Aum
followers killed between 1988 and 1995, another 21 missing and perhaps dead, a triple
homicide in 1989, and another nerve gas attack in 1994 which killed 7 people, along with
other less serious crimes which the police had not investigated (4).
If one views so-called "religious minorities" from this point
of view, one can hardly say that societies and governments exert repressive police action
against them; indeed, one could say that they enjoy a certain "freedom of
action" thanks to the shield provided to them by - among others - scholars, experts,
academics, researchers, lawyers and politicians strenuously engaged in defending
"freedom of religion".
Therefore, if the issue of discrimination against "religious
minorities" does exist, there is also the opposite problem of overly protected
minorities which commit crimes. The proper attitude of course is to distinguish
objectively among them; however it is strange, to say the least, that certain scholars
made the long trip to Japan only in order to defend an organisation which, according to
several sources, had for years been committing illegal actions, some very serious, and
which peaked in the Tokyo outrage.
In such cases, an attempt is often made in court to justify the
organisation involved, claiming it has nothing to do with deeds committed by a few
individual members. This kind of defence can however be counterproductive, since it could
play into the hands of those who intend to exploit the label of "religion" in
order to achieve a sort of "legal impunity". When the author of a
crime can be clearly identified, one must ask whether this individual is a monad isolated
from any context, with no relations to the group he belongs to. Such a group certainly
includes honest people in good faith, but also less honest people who give orders and use
their followers to implement them. In ordinary crimes, it is not only the person who
actually commits them who is sought, but also the person commissioning the deed. When a
murderer is suspected of belonging to a criminal group, investigations focus not only on
him, but also on possible instigators. Investigators also have to look for those
commissioning and paying for the crime, since it is only by tracking down instigators and
planners that one can pull out the root of the criminal enterprise.
This very obvious procedure in ordinary cases is supposedly not suited
for dealing with crimes committed in the "world of religious minorities".
In the Tokyo case, for example, we may ask: were the people who placed
the nerve gas in the underground simply deranged individuals who just "happened"
to have some gas at home, and decided to spend a few free moments releasing it in the
underground for the amusement of the passengers? And were the people who "committed
suicide" or were murdered at Jonestown just suddenly seized by an incomprehensible
and contagious fit which led them to prepare a poisonous brew which they
"freely" drank and "freely" administered to their children? Did Jim
Jones simply "invite" his followers to commit an act which they
"freely" executed? And in this case too, did nobody in the US suspect anything,
and was nobody aware of Jim Jones "eccentricity"? Or can we say that there was a
guilty passivity on the part of those who could have done something? And did nobody ever
notice the weapons stockpiled in the Waco ranch, or did somebody know and let things run?
These are doubts which come to mind when we consider certain very
serious facts which are called to our attention by the mass media, certainly in a
scandal-mongering and crude fashion. One can agree with this criticism of the media, but
one is left with the suspicion that it can also mask the unease of those who do not
appreciate the broadcasting of alarming, but unfortunately true, information on certain
groups, since they fear that this "bad publicity" could affect other, similar,
groups.
Speaking of such serious episodes, Introvigne says "The
real problem, however, is prevalence, not existence" (5).
Does this mean that, since these are sporadic episodes, generalised implication of all groups should be avoided? In this case, one can only agree. If however, it means that one should extend the same criteria used in sociological research, opinion polls or epidemiological studies, then we honestly cannot share this view. In the case of an illness in a country, the statistical principle holds according to which health authorities must intervene only when such an illness has a statistically significant effect on the population; however, we do not believe that this method can be applied in the same fashion to such serious episodes as those we mentioned. This would in fact be equivalent to the statement, that the TRUE problem is not whether mass suicides, poison gas outrages, murders or fraud actually take place, but only in WHAT PERCENTAGE!
The introductory paper at the CESNUR conference also mentions the existence of something like an "anti-cult" coalition, whose members are called "moral entrepreneurs" who supposedly amplify social panic. Such "moral entrepreneurs" supposedly have a "vested interested" in amplifying information and exaggerating the seriousness of the phenomenon. What such interests are is never specified, although it is explicitly stated that " … some of them receive today in several European countries an unprecedented degree of public support" (6).
Such vague statements, not bolstered by any clear information or certain evidence, only create an atmosphere of suspicion. It would be better if those who know of any "vested interests" of individuals or groups in fomenting hatred against religious minorities clearly specified names, places and circumstances, so as to unmask any abuses or even crimes or violations of the rights of such groups to profess and spread their beliefs freely. Should such accusations be proved, this would serve a positive social function; if, on the other hand, this is mere hearsay, it can only help to discredit the so-called "anti-cult" movements. In this case one is free to suspect that someone else may have "personal interests".
The paper then includes a critique of what are called "Type I reports", such as those of the French and Belgian parliaments… these are supposed to follow a "four stage pattern" and to " …have adopted an interpretative model that is … a virtual guarantee that moral panics will be inflated rather than deflated" (7). These reports are supposed to be based on the so-called brainwashing theories, used to discriminate against religious groups, as contrasted with all others. Speaking of the reliability of such theories, the speaker says that "By the end of the 1980s the first "crude" theories of brainwashing had been largely debunked in the English-speaking debate " (8).
For a proper understanding of the circumstances which conditioned the debate about these theories, and made it particularly heated, further examination of the context in which it took place would be necessary (9).
The other criticism against "Type I reports" is "apostates", i.e. " … the former members converted into active opponents of the group they have left" (10), are used as sources, while the contribution of scholars is rejected; concerning this matter, we refer to a previous article (11).
In any case, it should be appreciated that the speaker explained that the term "apostate" is only "technical, not derogatory", and also hinted at the possibility of replacing this term in the future, a change which we believe would be good idea. Mention should also be made of Introvigne's statement, that "apostates" are "an interesting minority" (supposed to be around 15-20 percent of former members) and that " Most former members have mixed feelings about their former affiliations and, at any rate, are not interested in joining a crusade against the group they have left" (12). These data, drawn from empirical studies and " … available only for a limited number of new religious movements…" (13), are certainly not final, but they are interesting, and show that, in the case of certain groups, there is active dissent on the part of a minority (a percentage of 15-20% does not seem negligible to us), while the "majority" is supposed to have "mixed feelings" about the group the belonged to.
Certainly, former members, when asked to
speak of the group they have left, will give different information and express different
opinions. For this reason, anybody seeking truthful information has a very difficult task.
Perhaps one useful criterion for distinguishing between various testimonies, and making
the best use of them, is to assign greater reliability to those which are supported by a
certain amount of evidence, documents and other useful comparisons; such material, it
appears, is often provided by so-called "apostates" too. It would be
interesting, and objective, to compare the documentation provided by the critics of the
group with the documentation in the hands of the organisation. In our experience, it has
often happened that the group replies to the documentation provided by the
"apostate", by merely declaring it to be false, without providing any evidence.
Why should the burden of proof always lie on the shoulders of so-called
"apostates"?
The final part of the paper says that
moral panics "… disappear when either the general public loses
interest in the issue, or is reached by more balanced assessments and statistics"
(14).
We hope that any such "loss of interest" on the part of
the public will be due to a change of the climate, with an end being put to episodes of
serious abuse such as take place in certain "religious" organisations. If the
climate changes, and abuses against individuals cease, then there will no longer be any
talk of a "danger posed by cults". This would be better for all concerned,
including those who defend religious freedom. We also hope that "more balanced
assessments and statistics" will be real, and obtained using scientific methods,
objectively and without ideological prejudices. Objective and accurate research and
information will certainly be of service to society as a whole, and will help to
discriminate between "religious minorities" which need to be
"defended" and those which should be monitored since their actions are harmful
to human rights. However, if information and scientific research continue to be the
uncontested and uncontrollable monopoly of a few individuals, then there will be a lasting
risk of favouring antidemocratic systems which are only interested in continuing to hold
power without being controlled in any way.
Let us hope that the history of our times will not be remembered for
such a "catastrophe". Should there actually be such a danger, then there would
be reason for all to fear, and the "panic" in such a case would not be only
"moral", but would turn into a "real panic".
NOTE :
(1) Massimo Introvigne, Il
ritorno della Magia, Ancora,1998, p. 153
(2) George Orwell, 1984, Mondadori, 1982, p. 331-332
(3) Massimo Introvigne, Who is Afraid of Religious Minorities?
The Social Construction of a Moral Panic , Paper read at the International CESNUR
Conference on September 10, 1998, p.1
(4) Cfr. B. Beit-Hallahmi, Dear colleagues: integrity and
suspicion in NRM research, paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion.
(5) Massimo Introvigne, Who is Afraid of Religious Minorities?
The Social Construction of a Moral Panic, Ibid, p.3
(6) Ibid, p.3
(7) Ibid, p.3
(8) Ibid, p.5
(9) We refer to the
Memorandum, signed by the BSERP (11 maggio 1987) and by some members of Professional
Bodies. For further information, we invite you to
read some other articles.
(10) Massimo Introvigne, Who is Afraid of Religious
Minorities? The Social Construction of a Moral Panic, Ibid, p.5
(11) Cfr. Blind or just
don’t want to see?
(12) Massimo Introvigne, Who is Afraid of Religious
Minorities? The Social Construction of a Moral Panic, Ibid, p. 6
(13) Ibid, p. 6
(14) Ibid, p. 9
RAFFAELLA DI MARZIO
Copyright © 1998 - Reproduction of this
article, in part or
in whole, is forbidden without express consent of the authors.