1. ViolenceViolence RELS 225 Cults and New Religious Movements RELS 225 Cults and New Religious Movements

2. Slide 2. NRMs and Violence Historical accusations Are cults prone to violence? What factors make a religious movement prone to violence?

3. Slide 3. Why is violence common in cults? antinomian Achieved a higher state of being and salvation no longer bound by moral conventions

4. Slide 4. Conditions for violence complex conditions lead members to violent behaviour conditions don’t result in violence for all NRMs

5. Slide 5. To keep in mind NRMs are not the only religions with deviant behaviour most violent incidents not related specific cult policies amount of cult violence is not dispropotionate

6. Slide 6. Types of Factors Violence perpetuated by interaction of endogenous and exogenous factors main endogenous factors 1.apocalyptic beliefs 2.charismatic leadership 3.social encapsulation.

7. Slide 7. Apocalyptic beliefs prevalent in many cults usually based on the Bible, Book of Revelation Ezekiel Daniel also medieval lore or occult

8. Slide 8. Apocalyptic views and violence: why? 1.Reject laws 2.Expect violence 3.Demonize opponents 4.exemplary-dualism 5.enthusiasm

9. Slide 9. Charismatic leadership common feature Weber: charismatic authority differs from traditional authority and rational-legal authority relies on charismata Charisma: attributed depends on followers precarious Charismatic leaders 1.lack support outside of their groups 2.pressure to conform AND to resist assimilation 3.balance expanding group AND maintaining personal contact 4.balance exposure AND secrecy

10. Slide 10. Routinization of Charisma Resist routinizing leader’s charisma by: 1.keeping followers off balance 2.escalating demands 3.exploiting followers’ fears 4.undermining other authorities 5.testing loyalty 6.increasing dependence damage the stability of the group and may lead to violence. One method: separate couples

11. Slide 11. Confirming Legitimacy demonstrate leader’s legitimacy by: maintaining their image, moderating members' identification with them, attaining new successes.

12. Slide 12. Social encapsulation forming small but complete social systems outside of mainstream society social and physical isolation and boundaries. lack essential feedback combined with violation of boundaries, may lead to violence Factors: normative dissonance groupthink shift-to-risk

13. Slide 13. Encapsulation 1: Normative dissonance people need to negotiate between different opinions, values, etc. in order to make decisions This reduces impulsive action Encapsulated members can’t consider such differences no feedback from outside world contrary opinions suppressed or expelled. So members act more impulsively increases likelihood of violent behaviour

14. Slide 14. Encapsulation 2: Groupthink thought pattern cohesive groups desire for conformity Desire to show a united front decisions made without critical consideration.

15. Slide 15. Encapsulation 3: Shift-to-risk Groups more willing to entertain risky behaviour than individuals have the support of others may result in radicalization if someone voices a risky idea.

16. Slide 16. Surviving failed prophecy What happens to a NRM when a prediction fails to happen? theory of cognitive dissonance oversimplifies this phenomenon. strategies to deal with failed expectations: Proselytization in conjunction with other strategies Rationalization Spiritualization a test of faith human error blaming others. Reaffirmation most frequently used strategy: through group building. Don’t usually experience dissonance after such failure they do not typically recognize the failure.

17. Slide 17. Stages of cult tragedy 1.latent tension 2.nascent conflict 3.intensified conflict 4.dramatic denouement

18. Slide 18. ConclusionConclusion NRM violent behaviour can be promoted by: apocalyptic beliefs charismatic leadership social encapsulation bad idea to make generalizations NRMs are very diverse.

19. Waco: Rules of Engagement Waco: Rules of Engagement Waco: Rules of Engagement Waco: Rules of Engagement 1.How biased or balanced is this documentary? 2.Did David Koresh have a specific apocalyptic scenario in mind? 3.What kinds of external opponents did the Branch Davidians have? 4.What triggered the investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? 5.What was the role of ex-members in the investigation? 6.What possible scenarios were considered, for serving the search warrant? 7.How did the BATF change their plan when they realized they had lost the element of surprise? 8.What is the connection between the raid and the fire? Would the fire have happened if the raid had not taken place? 9.What is the connection between the ex-members and the raid? Would the raid have happened if the opponents had not been active? 10.What did the Waco incident have in common with the Jonestown incident? 11.In what ways were the Waco incident and the Jonestown incident significantly different?