Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 5:22:22 GMT -5
to follow up on this.
Thanks to Jesse Lackman.
"The Validity of the Formula*
Scholars such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, and Brian R. Wilson
challenge the testimonies of apostates, who crying the word “cult”
with stories often so compelling and frightening are just accepted
as true by society and the media without question. One can almost
imagine a similar situation centuries ago when a disgruntled former
affiliate could conduce a woman before the establishment by simply
accusing her of being a “witch”, and immediately bring upon her a
terrible stigma—being able to use a known effective social weapon
even for their own personal ends.
Wilson found that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the
truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into
major incidents. Bromley and Shupe discuss “captivity narratives”
that depict the time in the group as involuntary and point out that
the apostate is likely to present a caricature of his former group.
Massimo Introvigne, president of CESNUR, found in his study of the
New Acropolis in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes
were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes
as becoming “professional enemies” of the group they leave.[1]
Wilson states “Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the
court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or
reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose
personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his
previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must
arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself
and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first
a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader.” [2]
“Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now
contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the
process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the
worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a
caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as
apostate than by his actual experience in the group”—David G.
Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, “The Role of
Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil,” in Bromley
and Richardson, Brainwashing Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156
In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine, Gordon Melton (a research
specialist with the Department of Religious Studies at the University
of California) asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credence
to the horror stories of “hostile” former cult members, which he
says is “like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who
has gone through a bad divorce.” [4]
References
1. Wikipedia’s page on Cults: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
2. Wilson, Bryan R. (1994). Apostates and New Religious Movements. Oxford, England, UK.
3. Wilson, Bryan R. (1992). The Social Dimensions of Secretarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. USA: Oxford University Press. p.19. ISBN-13: 978-0198278832.
4. Bonfante, Jordan (1997). ‘Apologist’ Versus ‘Alarmist’. Santa Barbara, USA. Time Magazine Vol. 149 No. 4: www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970127/religion.apologist.html"
Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and
Apostates[119] defines three types of narratives constructed by
apostates of new religious movements:
Type I narratives characterize the exit process as defection, in
which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting
process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
Type II narratives involve a minimal degree of negotiation between
the exiting member, the organization they intend to leave, and the
environment or society at large, implying that the ordinary apostate
holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
They may make "comments on the organization's more negative features
or shortcomings" while also recognizing that there was "something
positive in the experience."
Type III narratives are characterized by the ex-member dramatically
reversing their loyalties and becoming a professional enemy of the
organization they have left. These apostates often join an oppositional
coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing Type II narratives prevail
among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while
apostates that profess Type III narratives are a vociferous minority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Other_religious_movements
* A lot of the attacks of Type III people are remarkably FORMULAIC.