Frog, Ltd./North Atlantic Books, 1993. Berkeley. 385 pp. Paperback. $14.95.
W ITH LASER CLARITY KRAMER AND ALSTAD examine authoritarianism, its relationship to power and hierarchy--and why some of us give away our power, why we get seduced.
An "authoritarian" belief system, they say, is one which is unchallengeable, and in which someone or something other than the individual knows "what's best" for someone else. They assert that the ideologies of new (and old) religions, and the belief systems and practices of most societal institutions are intrinsically authoritarian if there is no way to take issue with their basic suppositions. This is not only harmful to individuals, they say but to our society as well.
They carefully distinguish between power--"the capacity of an individual or system to influence in any way other individuals or systems"--and the authoritarian abuse of power. They also distinguish between hierarchy--which occurs naturally in physical, biological, and social levels--and the authoritarian use of hierarchy.
While strongly disliking authoritarian hierarchies, the authors don't want to do away with hierarchy itself. "Any attempt to do so can only succeed by supplanting one for another," they write. "This is because the nature of power is that it never stays equally distributed, and any attempt to force equality of power itself becomes hierarchical."
Kramer and Alstad say that hierarchy is a way of structuring power, authority a way of exercising power, and authoritarianism a way of protecting and ensuring one's power. Authority may be invested in a position, a role, or some perceived capacity within an individual--such as, in the case of a spiritual leader, with presumed special knowledge.
The authors dissect spiritual groups and new religions (which they unfortunately term "cults")--the most extreme examples of one person giving power to another--because these groups sharply illuminate the issues surrounding authoritarian power. Spiritual leaders, generically termed "gurus," are authoritarian when they expect to be obeyed without question, and either punish or refuse to deal with those who do not. However, authority based on a leadership role, or even on special spiritual knowledge, does not have to be authoritarian. Experts, counselors, and teachers can share their expertise without expecting either agreement or obedience.
Part One, "Personal Masks," offers fascinating insights into the leader/follower relationship and explains why we sometimes mistrust ourselves and seek exterior authority. Topics include the seduction of surrender; authoritarian ploys--inducing surrender and maintaining dominance; the stages of spiritual groups--proselytizing to paranoia; the attractions of hierarchy; sexual manipulation--the betrayal of trust, spiritual hedonism; the traps of spiritual leadership--narcissism and adulation, deceit and corruption; channelling disembodied authorities; "do we create our own reality?"; and healing crippled self-trust.
In Part Two, "Ideological Masks," Kramer and Alstad turn to the usually veiled authoritarianism imbedded in the world views and values of Western society--in fundamentalist religion as well as Eastern spiritual traditions, intimate relationships, and addictions. If we want to survive as a species, given the mess we've gotten ourselves into, they argue, we must grow up and refuse to either surrender to, or indulge in, authoritarianism.
One of the most compelling, "can't put it down" books I've read in a long time, The Guru Papers offers challenging concepts--for both egalitarian communities attempting to erase all power differences, and high-demand spiritual communities alike.
1981, Beacon Press, Boston. 249 pp. Hardback. (Out of print in July; available in libraries.)
B ROMLEY AND SHUPE OFFER A RADICALLY different perspective. While not advocating authoritarianism, neither do they believe authoritarian new religions are guilty of the charges anticultists accuse them of.
The authors insist, on the basis of hard data, that much of the '70s-era controversy over "cults" was a hoax--a deliberate attempt to anger and horrify the public--promoted by well-meaning but misinformed parents and ardent but untrained "deprogrammers."
On the one hand, observe the authors, virtually all new religions of the time--miscalled "cults"--were not particularly likeable. They condemned and rejected the values, lifestyles, and aspirations of mainstream society. They sought to recruit and reshape anyone who would listen. Their belief systems would be considered by most to be distasteful or non-credible. The new religions showed limited concern for individual members' past ties and obligations to families and friends. Most treated outsiders with a mixture of pity and contempt. Some acted unscrupulously. Zealous, the groups presumed to know what was best for everyone. They took advantage of laws and constitutional protections to further their own ends. Their demands on their followers could be total and consuming.
At the same time, say the authors, the media grossly exaggerated the size of these groups, and by 1981 almost all had long since passed their peak. Moreover, the turnover was quite high; the vast majority of new converts walked away after a brief stay. There was--and is--no mysterious brainwashing process used to trap and enslave people, say the authors. (None of these groups confined people physically against their will tortured them, withheld food and water, as with prisoners of war in Korea, for example.) There was no convincing evidence that all new religions were out to make a fast buck, as most people believed. There was no evidence that their leaders, while authoritarian in their approach, were in fact complete charlatans. And there was--and is--no bonafide mental health therapy called deprogramming.
After an in-depth study of the beliefs, practices, recruitment methods, and lifestyles of several new religions, Bromley and Shupe concluded that the most practical, insightful way to understand the controversy generated by these and other groups--and by the anticult activists--is to see it as a conflict of interest.
In a conflict of interest two parties desire very different outcomes in the same situation, but one gains only at the expense of the other. Thus, in the case of non mainstream religions, young adult converts, seeking meaning in their lives, wanted the freedom to pursue their religious beliefs and practices, to sacrifice and commit themselves as deeply as they wished. At the same time, many parents, seeking to continue family ties with their adult children--and sometimes, to alleviate the social embarrassment of raising individuals who had become "strange"-- wanted to stop their sons and daughters from pursing those beliefs and practices.
Parties in conflicts of interest, say the authors, tend to pull their ranks together, enlist powerful allies, and use propaganda to try to discredit their opponents' motives and actions. So the new converts zealously committed to their new lifestyles, and accepted the "propaganda" of their leaders. Meanwhile parents banded together with anticult activists, generated powerful media attention and government concern, and accepted the "propaganda" of anticult activists. Sometimes they used force to kidnap and physically confine their adult sons and daughters.
The authors, who continue to research new religions and their opponents today, say not much has changed. (See Anson Shupe's "Covenantal Societies and Charges of Abuse," p. 47.)
Bromley and Shupe also put this controversy in perspective by giving the historical context for new religions in the West. Virtually all mainstream religions started out in broiling controversy, with zealous converts battling equally zealous, powerful adherents of the religious status quo.
(A "cult" is defined non-derogatorily by anthropologists and religious scholars as an organized set of beliefs and rituals surrounding some object of worship, such as the "cult of the Virgin Mary," and by scholars and sociologists as the starting point of any religion--with a single charismatic leader and a small band of devoted followers.)
So, just as Jesus and his Disciples enraged the Jewish Sanhendrin, early Christians outraged the Romans. As Martin Luther infuriated the Holy Mother Church, so Puritans, Quakers, and Shakers maddened the Protestants. Once on our shores, Quaker pacifists so outraged Puritans that they promptly hanged four of them. In the early 1800s Roman Catholic immigrants so incensed Protestants that they looted and burned convents. The Mormons infuriated them even more, so God-fearin' Americans assassinated Joseph Smith, chased the Mormons all the way to Utah, and attacked them with the U.S. Army. Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists have ran the same gauntlet on the way to respectability.
But were historic fears ever realistic? Was the Quaker opposition to military service ever really a treasonous act which threatened national security? Was it ever plausible that the Pope was masterminding a plot to foment a Catholic revolution in the United States? And do adherents of today's new religious--who may accept unusual (and to many, ludicrous) belief systems; follow improbable (and, to many, irrational) leaders; and accept uncomfortable (and to many, unwholesome) lifestyles--really pose a threat to our North American way of life?
The authors address deprogramming: the reasons why kidnapped converts often fake "cures" and then escape; why depro gramming sometimes appears to work; why we rarely hear from the large number of disillusioned ex-members who simply walked away; and why "deprogrammed" ex-members sometimes claim they were brainwashed. (See "'Deprogramming' Our Members," p. 43.)
However, Bromley and Shupe reserve their most urgent message for last. We dare not let anticult activists persuade government officials to legislate against people's belief systems, they say; this would create a dangerous precedent for the violation of religious liberty. We dare not let courts rule that parents can legally kidnap and detain adult children who joined nonmainstream religions, or worse, go after nonmainstream religious with misinformation, paranoia, outright lies--or tanks and guns.
As we relinquish the rights of some of our citizens, the authors warn, we relinquish the rights of all.
Movement groups may reprint with permission. Please direct inquiries to Communities, PO Box 169, Masonville, CO 80541-0169, (970) 593-5615. Contact us for web linking.