David G. Bromley

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 412.

New Religious Movements

Movements/Learning from

The ‘‘moral panics'' approach to NRMs is based on a social constructionist

view of social problems. The argument is that moral panics constitute a

special category of social problem in which the issue or group becomes the

focus of exaggerated attention from a variety of interests, with the goal of

mobilizing public support for social-control initiatives against the targeted

‘‘folk devils.'' Most commonly these interests include the media, the public,

law enforcement agencies, and politicians and legislators. Applying the moralpanics

perspective to the controversy surrounding NRMs, Richardson and

Introvigne note that, in this case, the folk devils are the charismatic gurus who

allegedly possess the capacity to brainwash their vulnerable followers.

Richardson and Introvigne observe that the media have been a predominant

influence in constructing cults as a social problem. Since most individuals

have never actually encountered an NRM directly, public opinion has

largely been shaped through media accounts, which have been primarily

hostile and negative. Research on media coverage has revealed that most

journalists have relatively little direct knowledge of NRMs, have shared popular

misconceptions, and have conducted little independent investigative

journalism.

In providing guidance to instructors teaching about the cult controversy,

Richardson and Introvigne caution that students are likely to share these popular

prejudices and are probably unfamiliar with scholarly work on the subject

as well as with the stigma attached to research on NRMs. They suggest that

examining historical counterpart cases, such as the campaigns against Roman

Catholics and Mormons, is a useful means of distancing students from their

immediate sociocultural context and allowing them to see that there is a more

general dynamic at work in the contemporary controversy. A parallel approach

would be to use contemporary moral-panic episodes, such as the Satanism

scare and drug panics, to illustrate the dynamics of such episodes. Other possibilities

are in-class exercises that reveal to students how they do in fact harbor

prejudices and misconceptions as a means to motivate them to examine groups

and issues more dispassionately. The comparative approach that Richardson

and Introvigne advocate can be extended to engaging students in reading

scholarly and ACM literature in order to provide a means of assessing the different

perspectives on NRMs. Finally, the authors suggest creating a fictitious

group with classic cult characteristics and assigning students the task of analyzing

the group from different perspectives.

10 teaching/learning from new religious movements

Central Issues in Teaching New Religious Movements

New religions have attracted a great deal of public attention, but the simple facts

are that most NRMs are extremely small, do not retain a significant proportion

of those who initially join, have little impact on the larger society, and may not

survive as organizational entities in the long run. Further, the prevailing position

in sociology is that secularization is the predominant trend in charting

the future of religion. This raises the question of how to assess the significance

of NRMs both individually and collectively. Lorne Dawson takes on these issues,

analyzing the various positions that social scientists have taken in trying

to account for NRMs. Most broadly, he argues, the positions can be divided into

two interpretive perspectives: those that regard NRMs as a social problem and

those that view NRMs as indicators of larger patterns of social change.

NRMs are regarded as a social problem because they pose a challenge to

the established social order. As Dawson points out, NRMs provide visible

evidence of resistance to the existing social order, and the increasing regimentation

of that order makes conflict with groups that propose alternatives

highly likely. In terms of building support for delegitimation and containment

of NRMs, opponents have focused on recruitment practices, alleged to be the

product of brainwashing, and episodes of violence. Four different approaches

have been taken to understanding NRMs as indicators of larger patterns of

social change: NRMs as a protest against modernity, NRMs as laboratories of

social experimentation, NRMs as a re-enchantment of society, and NRMs as a

response to the dialectic of trust and risk in late modernity.

The protest-against-modernity approach draws on the work of Peter Berger

and interprets NRMs as a reaction to the increasing deinstitutionalization

of the private sphere of social life by re-sacralizing social life and creating

stronger anchors for individual identities and social relationships. An alternative

formulation of this position comes from Roy Wallis, who separates groups

into world-affirming and world-rejecting movements, emphasizing that the

movements can protest by either rejecting convention social arrangements

or creating even more radical extensions of these arrangements. The socialexperimentation

approach draws on the work of Robbins and Bromley, who

argue that the significance of NRMs derives from their attempt to resist the

current system of social organization and to experiment with alternatives,

whether in a traditionalist or a modernist mode. Significant areas of experimentation

include sexuality and gender relations, economic and social organization,

proselytization, and health and therapy. The re-enchantment approach

draws on the work of Stark and Bainbridge, who have developed a cyclical

theory of religiosity. According to this perspective, the contemporary pattern

of secularization is a prelude to a resurgence of religiosity, albeit in perhaps

a different form. The argument, then, is that religion is changing, not disappearing,

and disenchantment will give way to re-enchantment.

Finally, the explanation of NRMs as a response to the dialectic of trust and

risk in late modernity represents an extension by Dawson of Anthony Giddens's

teaching/learning from new religious movements 11

work. Dawson argues that new religions cannot be fully apprehended in terms

of either accommodation or resistance to modernity; the situation is more

complex. New religions creatively adapt to and resist modernity simultaneously

and in diverse ways. The hallmark characteristics of new forms of religiosity,

according to Dawson, are an emphasis on individualism, experience rather

than belief, fulfilling individual needs and desires, turning inward rather than

outward in search of religious truth, pragmatism on issues of religious doctrine

and authority, and tolerance in relating to other religious views. Dawson

turns to Giddens's theory of the causes and consequences of modernity as an

explanation for the emergence of these new forms of religiosity.

In order to explore the implications of the position that he summarizes,

Dawson suggests drawing on students' own experiences of modernity and how

attributes of this type of social order lead individuals to search for alternatives.

He also suggests drawing on the popular-culture themes in films and books

such as Star Wars, Matrix, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, with which students

will be familiar, for evidence of contemporary forms of spirituality and

enchantment. Such cultural material can serve, for example, as the basis for

discussions of whether these artistic products are trivial and evidence of continuing

secularization or of re-enchantment. And students can discuss the

personal significance of the themes and characters as a means of connecting

their everyday experiences with the larger societal forces and trends that social

scientists seek to discern.

Susan Palmer and I examine the distinctive qualities of myth and ritual in

NRMs. In religious studies, there are sophisticated theoretical debates on the

nature and meaning of both myth and ritual. We briefly outline some of the

major positions on each. To date, however, the study of NRMs has not addressed

the major issues in these areas. Rather, NRM scholars have focused on

conducting case studies of specific movements; myth and ritual, therefore, have

been examined contextually as a way to understand the symbolic and social

order within individual movements. NRM myth and ritual do have two obvious

qualities that distinguish them from their counterparts in more established

religious traditions: they are in the process of development and they are oppositional

in nature. Otherwise, NRM myths and ritual forms are extremely

diverse. We elect to examine cases that demonstrate the oppositional nature of

these forms in NRMs.We also distinguish between NRMs that adopt different

orientations toward the dominant social order, as world-affirming or worldrejecting

movements. Finally, we consider a major emphasis in many NRM

myths and rituals—that of origin/separation, charisma, and restoration/salvation.

That is, NRMs often express their rejection of the dominant social order

by rewriting foundational narratives concerning origin/separation, charisma,

and restoration/salvation. In many world-affirming movements (such as the

Raelians, Scientology, Osho), individuals are claimed to have originally possessed

godlike qualities, although such qualities are thought to have originated

in different ways. In these cases, individuals somehow become separated

from their own true essence, and the revelations that NRMs provide offer enlightenment

on true essence and origins. In many world-rejecting groups

12 teaching/learning from new religious movements

(such as Unificationism, The Family International, the Branch Davidians), the

emphasis is collective. That is, humankind as a group or family was initially

connected to the creator but became separated in the divine kingdom. What

both world-affirming and world-rejecting movement narratives share is a reformulation

of origin myths that challenges conventional understandings and

offers an explanation for current human problems in terms of separation from

original purpose.

Charisma myths are central to NRM identities, as these movements are

closely identified with prophetic founders whose revelatory experiences and

charismatic authority provide the legitimation for the movements. The leader's

charismatic standing is constructed in a variety of ways: by assuming a

new name or identity that has spiritual meaning, through one or more revelatory

experiences that establish the charismatic leader's unique knowledge and

authority, or through a succession of charismatic claims that increase the

leader's authority over time.

Restoration/salvation myths create the basis for the NRMs' resolutions for

the problems of humankind. Each movement identifies its own solution to

human problems based on its origin/separation myths. Whether the movement

is world-affirming or world-rejecting, it claims unique knowledge, based

on the charismatic leader's revelations, that offers the potential for restoring

humankind to its rightful place in the cosmos. In each case the movement is

the product of its possession of vital knowledge, and its members enjoy special

status as the impending world transformation unfolds. A key difference between

world-affirming and world-rejecting movements is that, in the former,

individual transformation is paramount and precedes collective transformation,

while in the latter, it is the reverse.

The rituals of NRMs are, of course, complex and diverse. The key rituals

are those associated with restoration/salvation, since these movements regard

themselves as at a pivotal moment in history when fundamental changes are

about to occur. In world-affirming movements, these rituals are intended to

transform individuals by restoring the godlike qualities that they have lost; the

presumption is that, as individuals assume their authentic nature, interpersonal

and collective problems will diminish. In world-rejecting movements,

restoration/salvation rituals involve collective effort, and individuals assure

themselves restoration/salvation by playing an appropriate role within the

group that will lead to collective restoration/salvation.

Susan J. Palmer and I offer four specific lessons for teaching students

about ritual. The focus of our teaching suggestions is ritual, but the lessons are

applicable to myth as well. We recommend a number of exercises, such as

getting students to think about what distinguishes ritual from other experiences

in their own lives, when ritual has and has not been meaningful to them,

and where ritual observances can be found in popular culture. The second

lesson involves having students create their own ritual in order to recognize the

difficulties involved, and then examining the same process in which members

of new religious groups have engaged. In the third lesson, we suggest a field

trip through which students can engage in participant observation and can

teaching/learning from new religious movements 13

experience an NRM ritual personally, with specific guidelines for the experience.

Finally, the most challenging lesson asks students to locate and analyze

an NRM ritual, using one of the major interpretive frameworks available.

Stuart Wright deals with one of the most controversial issues in new religions

studies: affiliation with and disaffiliation from NRMs. As Wright points

out, NRMs do not initially possess a significant membership base; they grow

through recruitment of new members. NRMs also emerge as movements that

challenge the established social order. These two facts make it evident why

NRMs typically encounter resistance from established interests and why such

intense effort has been expended to discredit affiliations with them. Of course,

NRM growth is a product not only of affiliations but also of retaining those who

are recruited. Wright's chapter addresses both issues, which have been at the

forefront of scholarship on NRMs.

Affiliation is most often studied at the individual level. AsWright points out,

however, social and cultural factors influence the size of the pool of available

converts from which NRMs have to recruit. A number of explanations for the

availability of potential recruits during the 1960s and 1970s have been posited,

such as a crisis of moral meaning, family disorganization, a decline in mediating

structures, deinstitutionalization, secularization, and legal changes. Wright

reviews these often overlapping explanations. The vast majority of empirical

work has been case studies of specific NRMs, and there are a number of issues

that have been debated with respect to this process. These include whether

affiliations tend to be sudden or gradual,whether they are under the control of an

autonomous actor or passive responses to group influences, andwhether they are

uniform or diverse in terms of motivation and the involvement process. Wright

says that the evidence in general points to gradual, active-actor, diverse motivation,

and process explanations. Several specific models of the affiliation process

have been offered, such as those by Lofland and Stark and Levine.

The history of NRM growth suggests that understanding the process of

exiting an NRM is just as important as understanding affiliation, since NRMs

in general have not been very effective in retaining affiliates. The process that

Wright refers to as disengagement/defection involves some combination of

disillusionment (disruption of one's cognitive plausibility structure), disaffection

(breaking of emotional bonds), and severance of ties to the social organization

(disaffiliation). Wright reviews several studies that suggest specific

factors that lead to a distancing from cognitive, emotional, and organizational

ties. Beyond the motivational framework to explain defection, some scholars

have employed role theory to describe this process. While exiting NRMs has

been a voluntary process in the overwhelming majority of cases, external intervention

and coercive extraction through ‘‘deprogramming'' have been significant

factors in NRM disaffiliation, a result of the popular explanation of

brainwashing as the cause of NRM affiliation. Deprogramming is significant

both as an indicator of NRM–societal tensions and because deprogrammed

former members are more likely to be hostile toward their former movement.

Deprogramming is also more likely to produce apostates, or former members

who align with oppositional groups in the campaign against cults. Apostates

14 teaching/learning from new religious movements

have been particularly effective in galvanizing public sentiment and mobilizing

governmental interventions against NRMs.

Wright suggests a number of exercises that instructors can implement

in classroom situations to start students thinking about NRMs. One is to map

NRMs locally. The mapping exercise forces students to think about what constitutes

a new group, how to distinguish newer from more established groups,

and what degree of change from an existing tradition is sufficient to justify

referring to a group as new. The class objective can be to produce an operational

definition of newness. The mapping process inevitably leads to collecting

information on various groups, a process that introduces students to fieldwork

and data gathering. Once NRMs have been located, it may be possible to interview

converts, assuming appropriate precautions are taken; this gives students

some first-hand experience with testing one or more theories on conversion as

well as bringing an NRMto life. If contact ismade with an NRMthat has been in

existence for some time, it may be possible to compare its first- and secondgeneration

members. If fieldwork is not desirable or feasible, there are still

opportunities to study the conversion process by having NRMmembers come to

the classroom or by reading conversion accounts. These latter methods simply

require that instructors provide additional contextual material on the implications

of public and published presentations. A similar process can be used in

studying former members, with the exception that former members often are

more difficult to locate unless they have adopted an apostate role, which provides

only one possible view of a group. It is highly instructive, nonetheless, to compare

current and former member accounts of their experiences in order to

understand how biographical experiences are socially constructed.

E. Burke Rochford examines both the distinctive organization and the

leadership characteristics of NRMs. As he notes, the controversy surrounding

NRMs has colored popular conceptions of both. An array of social scientists

have argued that the emergence of NRMs must be understood in historical

context, particularly the tumultuous events of the 1960s and 1970s. The development

of NRMs as organizations is in no small measure a product of the

countercultural currents of those decades, and the decline in NRM fortunes is

equally strongly connected to the waning of the counterculture. In trying to

place NRMs in a social science framework, Rochford reviews the traditional

church, denomination, sect, and cult typologies as a prelude to discussing the

challenges that NRMs pose to these categories. A number of NRM scholars

have taken the position that NRMs possess unique characteristics that are

associated with their newness, such as their contestive stance, their charismatic

leadership and revelations, and their stigmatized status, collective organization,

syncretism, first-generation membership, and selective demographic

profile. These distinguishing characteristics argue for analyzing NRMs as a

distinctive category rather than attempting to fit them into existing organizational

typologies.

Charismatic leadership and authority are central to the NRM's organization,

particularly in the formative stages. Given the volatility of charismatic

leadership, one of the pervasive trends in NRMs is a gradual routinization of

teaching/learning from new religious movements 15

charisma. It is not uncommon for NRM leaders to develop strategies for resisting

charisma routinization, and Rochford reviews a number of the more

common methods. It is not necessarily the case that NRM leaders resist the

routinization of charisma, however; they may choose other alternatives, such

as abdication, lowering the charismatic claims, and encouraging a transition

to more institutionalized leadership. Given the crucial role that the founders/

leader plays in the development of an NRM, his or her death is a critical

juncture in a NRM's history; however, the evidence suggests that most movements

navigate this period successfully. While most NRMs survive once they

are organizationally established, their organizational success is quite variable.

Success, of course, can be defined from a variety of perspectives, and Rochford

reviews the most influential theories of movement success.

Rochford notes that students are likely to be particularly suspicious of NRM

leadership and organization, subscribing to the conventional view that both are

exploitive. He suggests a series of exercises that allow students to adopt an open,

inquiring perspective. For instance, Rochford initially attempts to convince students

to question what they think they know by asking them to state what they

think, to identify the sources of that information, and then to place themselves

inside an NRM. Producing a tentative attitude toward NRMs facilitates a more

balanced assessment as the course proceeds. Rochford takes a similar approach

toward a discussion of charisma.He offers suggestions for getting students to see

charisma as a relationship rather than as a set of inherent characteristics. Once

they are responsive to this perspective, it becomes easier for themto understand

charismatic relationships and how individuals might become part of abusive or

exploitive relationships. Understanding charisma relationally also permits students

to address the questions of what might make those relationships unstable

and how charismatic leaders might seek to preserve their privileged positions in

the face of challenges. With regard to organization, Rochford recognizes another

issue for students: identifying with an organization that limits personal freedom.

He suggests asking students to consider reasons individuals might join highly

structured communal groups and also to identify the characteristics of communal

groups inmore conventional organizations as a means of understanding

participation in an NRM. As to putting these various lessons together, Rochford

recommends having students create a fictitious NRM as a means of testing

whether they understand the basic organizational characteristics.

Another means of providing students with a perspective on NRMs and the

controversy surrounding NRMs is to encourage them to undertake their own

research. Rochford recommends asking students to explore the various perspectives

on a selected NRM. This means examining and comparing the

information available on scholarly sites, group-maintained sites, and oppositional

group sites. A variety of questions naturally arise about the sources and

the meaning of conflicting information. The website project can be followed up

with a term paper on NRM organization that examines a specific group. Finally,

Rochford suggests visiting an NRM or having representatives in class so

that students can relate to the group and its members in more human terms.

He offers a range of questions to structure the student-group encounter.

16 teaching/learning from new religious movements

Research has indicated that men's and women's experiences in NRMs

vary considerably. Pike observes that there are two opposed feminist positions

on NRMs: that NRMs are often abusive of women as a result of a charismatic

relationship in which males typically are leaders and females are followers;

alternatively, some feminists have argued that the realities are more complex

and require more nuanced interpretations based on an examination of how

women create meaning in specific NRM environments. Pike advocates integrating

the two approaches by examining sexist and abusive practices, but at

the same time being open to women's own interpretations of their involvement

in specific movements. Pike divides NRM experimentation with gender

roles into four types: male dominance, female dominance, partnerships, and

merged gender roles. She then explores how these types are manifested in

conceptions of deity; NRM leadership and organization; and sexuality, marriage,

and family for both nineteenth- and twentieth-century movements.

Conceptions of deity include a monotheistic male god, a female form of

deity, a divine pair, or a universal source of power that transcends gender.

Although there are exceptions, movements with dominant male god conceptions

are more restrictive in defining women's roles while those with goddess,

dual godhead, or divinity beyond gender conceptions are more likely to afford

more gender equality. With respect to leadership, the most common pattern

in NRMs is males as founders or charismatic leaders and females often predominating

as disciples or followers. However, there are also notable cases of

NRMs with female leaders, male leaders with women surrounded by women

in complementary leadership roles, and females and males with equal authority.

The gender patterning of leadership also may change over time, and in

some cases women have assumed leadership in movements that were initially

headed by men. It is also the case that women may exert considerable influence

in movements headed by men as they acquire power, either formally or informally.

NRMs have also experimented with a variety of marital and sexual

relationships, including celibacy, variations on traditional heterosexual marriage,

plural marriages that are male dominated, and various types of free love,

extra-marital, or homosexual relationships. Experimentation with sexual and

marital relationships frequently is accompanied by alternative forms of family,

parenting, and childrearing. While conceptions of deity, leadership forms, and

marital arrangements may appear to be restrictive for women, they do not

necessarily translate into restrictive practices; correspondingly, experiments

that promise liberation do not necessarily fulfill their promise.

In teaching about gender roles in NRMs, Pike observes that it is important

to have students' preconceptions articulated first so that the class is open to all

points of view. She recommends asking students to examine gender roles in

the religious traditions with which they are already familiar, and she provides

a list of questions as a prelude to comparing the practices adopted by various

NRMs. A second exercise is to have students read accounts by or about

women's experiences in NRMs, used as a basis for class discussions or presentations.

With this knowledge base, students can be asked to imagine themselves

as gendered members of NRMs or to assess the meaningfulness or

teaching/learning from new religious movements 17

appropriateness of alternative gender roles. The detailed information on both

nineteenth- and twentieth-century NRMs available from written and Internet

sources offers the possibility of assignments that ask students to compare and

contrast gender arrangements during different historical periods. Finally, Pike

recommends field trips or classroom visitations that allow alternative gender

arrangements to be explored in conversations with current NRM members.

Janet Jacobs briefly reviews the history of scholarship on NRMs, noting the

various social and psychological perspectives that have been utilized to study

NRMs through alternative theoretical and disciplinary lenses. As NRS has developed,

feminists began to examine the previously overlooked implications of

theologies that supported male dominance and led to the control of female

behavior and sexuality. Feminist scholars thus brought to NRS a more critical

perspective that incorporated the potential and reality of movements to engage

in exploitive and abusive practices. Ethnographic fieldwork corroborated a persistent

pattern of abuse and exploitation in some movements, which has led to a

more balanced overall assessment of NRMs. Abusive practices have included

the sexual abuse of children, incest, rape, battering, forced prostitution, and sexual

manipulation. Jacobs observes that NRMs vary on a great many dimensions;

the only characteristic that distinguishes groups on sexually abusive practices is

a patriarchal, charismatic style of leadership. The specific group characteristics

that are most prominent in groups that present an unusually high potential for

abuse and violence include a dominant male charismatic leader, a hierarchical

male leadership structure, doctrinal beliefs that privilege male superiority,

strong gender norms governing behavior, and a highly paternalistic family

structure. Findings by feminist scholars have not received ready acceptance by

NRM scholars already beset by a range of controversies surrounding NRMs. It

has taken a concerted effort by feminist scholars to have their voices heard,

which makes this chapter a particularly important contribution to the volume.

The message from feminist scholars is clear and correct: religious rights should

not be defended at the expense of women's rights.

Jacobs draws on Frederich Engels's work, tracing the historical development

of the patriarchal family and the role of the religious institutions in

legitimating that power relationship. She argues that these historical forces

have led to a succession of religious cultures in which women are defined as

property and sexual commodities. NRMs predictably have followed this same

logic as movement leaders have assumed the role of a ‘‘divine father'' and

exercise male entitlement privileges, sometimes in abusive and violent fashion.

Jacobs reviews several theories that specify more clearly the relationship

between abuse and exploitation of women in NRMs and patriarchal control.

The subjects of sexual abuse and exploitation are extremely sensitive issues,

and Jacobs cautions teachers to recognize the importance of preparing students

appropriately before initiating discussion or assignments in this area. There is a

real potential for counterproductive results, such as creating trauma in students

who have themselves been abuse victims, inadvertently playing to voyeuristic

impulses, or trivializing abuse by blaming victims. It is also important for

students to understand that NRMs are not unique in their abusive practices; in

18 teaching/learning from new religious movements

this fashion NRMs can function as a lens through which students can better

understand a significant problem in their own social world. There is now sufficient

case study material that, once students have a proper theoretical grounding,

they can use to examine specific NRMs and analyze abusive patterns. Jacobs

suggests The Family as a particularly informative case for exploring the relationship

between paternalism and sexual violence, how women are sexually

objectified, and how women's sexuality is commodified. This case also raises

interesting, complex questions about what constitutes consent in highly inequalitarian

situations or why women would ‘‘consent'' to participate in relationships

with a high potential for exploitation and abuse. The fact that abusive

practices exist, of course, raises questions about what social response is appropriate.

In the case of NRMs, oppositional groups have attempted forcible

extractions of individuals from movements, termed deprogramming, and in

the case of the Branch Davidians, federal agents assaulted the community,

resulting in a tragic loss of life. The appropriate way to respond to problematic

or dangerous situations has yet to be resolved, and students would gain a sense

of the complexity of the issues involved by debating various policy alternatives.

Thomas Robbins and John Hall take on the complex issue of violence

involving NRMs. This is an critical issue in teaching about NRMs, since allegations

of violence or violent tendencies has been one of the means through

which oppositional groups have sought to raise public apprehension about new

movements. Robbins and Hall focus on the major cases that occurred beginning

in the 1970s: the Peoples Temple murder-suicides in 1978, the Branch

Davidian murder-suicides in 1993, the Solar Temple murder-suicides in 1994,

the Aum Shinrikyo murders in 1995, and the Heaven's Gate collective suicides

in 1997. It is judicious to exercise caution in linking NRMs to violent tendencies,

since there are hundreds of new groups and very few cases of violence,

most movements are not entirely new but rather are connected in some fashion

to established traditions, NRMs are probably more likely to be the targets than

the perpetrators of violence, even allegations of violence tend to draw intense

media coverage, and cases of established religious groups being involved in

violence have not been uncommon historically.

One of the central debates on the violence issue is whether violent episodes

are internally or externally precipitated. Several models of violent episodes

involving NRMs have been formulated. Marc Galanter is one of the few scholars

focusing primarily on internal factors, such as group isolation, leader grandiosity,

leader domination, and governmental mismanagement. Most others

propose models that are premised on movement–societal interactions as precipitating

factors. Hall, Schuyler, and Trinh distinguish between two alternative

ideal-type scenarios. The ‘‘warring apocalypse of religious conflict'' type is

one in which there is escalating tension between a movement and its external

opponents, with media and government siding with opponents. By contrast,

in the ‘‘mystical apocalypse of deathly transcendence'' type a ‘‘mystical'' group

retreats from the earthly realm. I propose a ‘‘dramatic denouement'' model,

suggesting that movement–societal conflicts may move through three phases:

latent tension, nascent conflict, and intensified conflict. However, escalating

teaching/learning from new religious movements 19

conflict is not inevitable, as contestation, accommodation, and retreat are all

options. Conflicts that do intensify may yield a moment of ‘‘dramatic denouement''

in which a final reckoning is sought and that leads to either an

‘‘exodus'' (collective withdrawal) or a ‘‘battle'' (coercion). Robbins and Hall

then examine some of the internal factors (apocalypticism, charismatic leadership,

lack of institutionalization, totalistic organization, and internal conflict)

and external factors (escalating conflict, deviance amplification, dualistic orientations

by both movement and opponents) that are most commonly involved

in the various violence models. They ultimately conclude that both internal and

external factors are relevant in explaining the cases at hand, although the

importance of various factors may vary from case to case.

Teaching about violence is a challenging task since violence is a sensitive

topic and students are likely to have preconceptions about cults. Robbins and

Hall suggest beginning by creating an open atmosphere, encouraging students

to recognize the controversial nature of the topic, their own preconceptions

about NRMs, and the importance of critical thinking. Once the appropriate

classroom atmosphere is created, more substantive goals can be pursued: how

to define violence, alternative disciplinary perspectives on violence, historical or

cross-cultural case study to gain perspective on contemporary cases, evaluation

of the various models that have been proposed, and exploration of whether

violence is unique to NRMs or more generally related to religion. These substantive

goals can be pursued through various types of classroom lectures,

discussions, and exercises, as well as assigned readings and media materials.

There is a wealth of information available on the violence issue. In creating

assignments, it is particularly important to teach students the difference between

scholarly and nonscholarly materials, and to treat the latter as data to be

analyzed. This opens up productive examination of a broad range of materials.

There are major archives on a few of the major violence episodes that offer

students a real opportunity to conduct their own analyses of those events using

the alternative models that have been developed. Documentary films offer

similar opportunities for analysis and critique. Another creative alternative is

to have students act out roles in a fictional episode of potential violence so that

they are able to directly confront the kinds of situational pressures that arise in

the cases that have actually occurred.