Module 5 (Soc 4)

5-OPTBromleyNewReligionsoxfordhb-9780199588961-e-041.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Module 5 (Soc 4)

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 1 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

Print Publication Date: Feb 2011 Subject: Religion, Sociology of Religion Online Publication Date: Sep 2009 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588961.013.0041

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study David G. Bromley The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion Edited by Peter B. Clarke

Abstract and Keywords

One's sense of the level of impact made by New Religious Movements (NRMs) and New Spirituality Movements (NSMs) on contemporary thinking about and practice of religion and spirituality differs. Seen from the perspective of South Asia and parts of East Asia, it is clear that so called neo-Hindu movements and lay Buddhist movements have greatly in fluenced these regions. NRMs and NSMs have also impacted on the study and teaching of religion. This article discusses some of these issues. Limiting the discussion to the West, it traces the development of the emerging specialisation of New Religious Studies (NRS), which offers a multi-disciplinary approach to the phenomenon of New Religion and Spiri tuality. One of the scholarly merits of this discipline is that it provides space in research and teaching for topics which have hitherto been marginalised, the focus having been on the more dominant forms of religion and spirituality.

Keywords: New Religious Movements, New Spirituality Movements, New Religious Studies, spirituality, neo-Hin du movements, lay Buddhist movements

THE study of new religious movements (NRMs) is emerging as a new area of specializa tion within the study of religion. New Religions Studies (NRS) has its roots in a variety of disciplines: anthropology, history, psychology, religious studies, and sociology. NRS arose in response to the appearance of a cohort of NRMs during the 1960s and 1970s and to the existence of a cohort of scholars with more sophisticated theoretical and methodologi cal tools for studying the movements, a combination that did not previously exist. NRS has produced a substantial corpus of scholarship on the NRMs that became so visible and controversial in the West beginning in the early 1970s (Bainbridge 2007; Bromley and Hadden 1993; Dawson 2006; J. R. Lewis 2004; Robbins 1988; Saliba 1990); there has been less work connecting the contemporary expressions of new religion to other historical pe riods or cultural contexts (Jenkins 2000; Clarke 2006). Therefore, the analysis presented here is based on the contemporary cohorts of NRMs in the West.

Given the proliferation of scholarship on NRMs, it is not surprising that the question of the significance that these movements have for the study of religion has been raised. In deed, it might be, and has been, argued that NRMs are of relatively little significance.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 2 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

Most have not achieved substantial size relative either (p. 724) to mainline religious groups or to a number of new religious movements in other parts of the world. No group in the current cohort of movements appears poised to become a major force in the reli gious economy of any Western society. The movements have drawn converts largely from young, well-educated, middle- and upper-middle-class individuals; other segments of the population have been much less responsive to their appeals. Even among young adults, only a small minority of individuals actually experimented with any NRM, and in the vast majority of cases these periods of experimentation were quite brief. NRMs have had their greatest success in urban rather than rural communities; in the United States this has been primarily in cities on the East and West coasts. Elsewhere their impact has been rel atively minor. Further, the time period during which most NRMs drew substantial num bers of converts was limited and linked to specific socio-historical events.

If NRS is not to be simply the study of religious exotica, the study of NRMs must be linked to the larger project of understanding religion as a social and cultural form. It is equally true that the study of religion cannot be simply the study of established religion that has become accommodated and institutionalized. The study of new religion consti tutes a means of illuminating the origination of religious groups and the dynamics of their development. Two major points of connection between the study of religion and the study of new religion are what the study of new religions can reveal about the larger social or der and what the study of NRMs can reveal about the origination of religion. There has been considerable discussion and debate on the first issue, principally around the rele vance of NRMs for understanding macro-social processes, most notably secularization and globalization (Beckford 1992; Beyer 1994; Dawson 1998; 2004; Robertson 1985). While NRMs do provide some clues about those two macro-processes, it is unlikely that data on these groups will resolve either debate. The case for NRS needs to be made in terms of what the study of NRMs itself can contribute to the study of religion. In this es say, therefore, I shall address the less explored issue of the importance of the study of NRMs for understanding the origination of religious organization.

All contemporary religions were new religions at some time, and NRMs are significant with respect to religion because they offer insight into how new forms of religion emerge and develop. The vast majority of scholarship on religion centers on religious traditions that originated centuries or millennia ago, making it problematic to ascertain how these traditions survived and developed during their early histories, before they successfully became integral parts of their respective social orders. Contemporary NRMs offer the op portunity to observe the social construction of religion as it is occurring. I shall argue that NRS contributes to the understanding of religion in several ways: illuminating the distinguishing characteristics of various types of new religion, connecting the emergence of new religion to various types of social dislocation, providing a more complex and nu anced understanding of religious conversion, identifying the challenges (p. 725) attending the formation of new religious groups, and clarifying the role of oppositional groups in the survival and development of new religious groups.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 3 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

Conceptualizing New Religion The issue of how to define and identify different forms of religious organization is one that has been central to the study of religion. Dating to the work of Weber (1949), Troeltsch (1931), and Niebuhr (1929), and followed by the work of Johnson (1963; 1971), Yinger (1970), and Stark and Bainbridge (1979), among others, the most influential dis tinction has been between church and sect, with the later additions of denomination and cult. This distinction has been problematic for religion scholars for some time, both theo retically and empirically, but the church-sect typology continues to be widely employed in discussions of different types of religious organizations. Scholars in NRS have not found this classificatory system helpful in defining new religions, as none of these terms cap tures either the commonality or the diversity of NRMs. In particular, neither the concept sect nor cult, either in its sociological or popular culture usage, corresponds to the char acteristics of NRMs. As a result, the study of NRMs offers an occasion for rethinking types of religious organization and delineating their characteristics. While the primary fo cus has been on defining NRMs, there are broader implications for conceptualizing other types of religious organizations as well.

Several scholars have offered perspectives on how NRMs might best be delineated. Two different approaches have been adopted. Barker (2004) argues for social characteristics that NRMs exhibit: movement members are first-generation, that is converts; converts produce a high level of enthusiasm and radicalism within the movement; movements ap peal to individuals in specific locations within the social order, rather than having general appeal; movements are organized around a leader with charismatic authority; movements are typically regarded as deviant, or even dangerous, by the host society; and movements typically undergo constant and rapid change during their early histories.

Melton (2004) and I (Bromley 2005) both take a more relational approach, focusing on the religious group-societal relationship, which also incorporates other religious group forms in a comparative framework. Melton defines new religions as those that are “unac ceptably different” from the established religious bodies and identifies a number of char acteristics (aggressive proselytization, rejection of core theological tenets of established religious groups, non-conventional sexual practices, illegal conduct, violence, alternative health and healing practices) that are likely to lead to assessments of unacceptability. I di vide religious groups (p. 726) into four types based on their degree of social and cultural alignment with the dominant religious groups in the social order under analysis. From this perspective denominations are those socially “settled” (Swidler 1986) or priestly (Bromley 1997a) religious groups that are socially and culturally aligned with other estab lished institutions and are accepted as legitimate representations of the dominant reli gious tradition (s). Sects are religious groups that lay claim to and are recognized as de riving from the dominant religious tradition culturally, but have established independent, prophetic organizational auspices. Ethnic churches are priestly religious groups that are socially settled and accommodative to established religious groups but represent other cultural traditions. New religious movements are neither socially nor culturally aligned with the established traditions; their mythic systems and organizational forms both chal

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 4 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

lenge established religion. It is this latter group that has been the primary focus of NRS and that provides unique insight into the formation of new religion by virtue of creating both cultural and social forms de novo. The characteristics that Barker enumerates are consistent with new groups that have no cultural or social ties to established religious groups.

Conceptualizing religious groups in this way both expands the number of types to include ethnic religious groups and creates a single axis (alignment) for relating the various types. Although the characteristics of each type have yet to be delineated, each is likely to be distinctive. For example, sectarian groups typically recruit adults from the parent tradition, while at least the current cohort of new religions has drawn more broadly from an array of religious traditions. Ethnic churches usually reflect the parent religious tradi tion culturally and the ethnic community socially. This expanded typology also broadens the traditional sociological conception of cult so that cults become one possible form of new religion. Once the range of religious forms is acknowledged, it becomes possible to understand better the different factors that lead to their formation. The origination of sectarian groups tracks most directly to tensions within established churches, which, in turn, may reflect specific organizational tensions or tensions with the larger social order. To the extent that the latter is the case, sectarian cohorts can be the focus of analysis. The emergence of ethnic churches is clearly linked to the existence and size of ethnic populations, and hence to factors such as immigration, governmental regulation of reli gion, and cultural homogeneity. New religions appear to be the product of social disloca tion that results in individuals distancing themselves from existing social and cultural arrangements and becoming available for recruitment to alternative religious auspices. If the conditions that produce new forms of religion vary, it follows that the numbers of each type of religion group appearing at any given time will also fluctuate. The current debate over whether there are periods of greater and lesser formation of new religious movements, for example, may be partially resolvable by distinguishing and counting dif ferent types of groups. There is no particular logic to arguing for or against the appear ance of new religion overall when the factors leading to different types of new religion

(p. 727) may be quite distinct. Finally, distinguishing types of religious groups is compati ble with the widely accepted assertion that churches are groups in low tension and sects are groups in high tension with the prevailing social order (Johnson 1971; Stark and Bain bridge 1979), but allows greater specification of the kind and level of tension. In modern, Western societies, at least, ethnic religious groups typically do not arouse organized op position so long as they remain within their ethnic community niches. It is the attempt to extend their influence outside these boundaries that is most likely to produce a control response. Sectarian religious groups are most likely to engender tension with their par ent tradition, but may also precipitate conflict with other major institutions to the extent that their educational practices, child-rearing practices, and medical practices clash with those of established institutional norms.

The issue of how to conceptualize different forms of religious organization has been a seminal one in sociology and religious studies. The traditional church-sect typology ac knowledged only one type of new religion. The addition of the concept “cult” did not ade

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 5 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

quately incorporate the range of non-sectarian alternatives. Reconceptualizing the con cepts of church and sect, adding ethnic religious groups and the broader category of new religious groups, and linking them through a single dimension provides one way of ad dressing the long-standing conceptual challenges.

NRMs and Social Dislocation The study of when NRMs emerge contributes to an understanding of the relationship be tween religion and the larger social order. Religion constitutes a means of constructing transcendent meaning systems that authorize activities and relationships in the everyday world and create for adherents a sense of empowerment and control. The kind of stability to which established religion contributes is most likely in a society in which the institu tional order possesses cultural legitimасу and institutional effectiveness (Lipset 2003). For some period of time societies may endure conditions in which institutional solutions to life problems are effective even if they lack a legitimating cultural framework or if they possess legitimacy while lacking effectiveness in dealing with those problems, ultimately, however, the erosion of either legitimacy or effectiveness undermines societal stability. New religious groups offer insight into the conditions under which legitimacy and effec tiveness have eroded and new systems of meaning and social organization are sought.

(p. 728) In attempting to account for the emergence of new religious groups, one of the most common explanations is “some acute and distinctively modern dislocation which is said to be producing some mode of alienation, anomie or deprivation” that in turn leads to individuals “responding by searching for new structures of meaning and community” (Robbins 1988: 60). There appears to be general agreement on the historical dislocation that gave rise to the current cohort of NRMs. A major structural transition was under way as the burgeoning opportunities for professional/managerial employment in rapidly expanding governmental and corporate organizations following the Second World War led to the increased necessity of both educational credentialing in the middle classes and constraining rational/legal bureaucratic organization of those occupational opportunities. Beginning in the 1950s youth began encountering problems of making the transition from childhood to adulthood. There was also growing disillusionment with racism in the United States and the sometimes violent resistance to the Civil Rights movement (Friedenberg 1965; Gitlin 1987; Kenniston 1971). Opposition to increasingly regimented higher education, restrictive drug laws, systemic racism and sexism, and, most significantly, the Vietnam War fueled the emergence of the youth counterculture and protest movements. The rapid growth of the Baby Boom Generation on college campuses provided the recruitment base for those social movements. However, while the counter culture served as a means of distancing oneself from conventional society, it never of fered a viable long-term way of life for its supporters, and also met with determined resis tance from established institutions. As countercultural cohesiveness began to decline, particularly when the Vietnam War no longer served as a catalyst for protest, experimen

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 6 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

tation with NRMs became one avenue through which some members of the countercul ture continued the protest (Kent 2001).

Theoretical approaches to understanding dislocations during this historical period have emphasized either its cultural dimension or its social dimension. Robert Bellah (1976) and his student, Stephen Tipton (1982), are representative of the cultural perspective. They argue that the moral crisis during this era involved a repudiation of the two dominant ele ments of American culture through which individuals constructed moral meaning: utilitar ian individualism and biblical religion. Bellah argues that the American civil religious myth has been eroded, leading to a crisis of moral meaning and a variety of attempts to create new mythic systems. Tipton argues that youthful protesters have rejected utilitari an culture and its central values (power, money, technology) in favor of expressive culture values (self-actualization, interpersonal love, and intimacy). By joining NRMs, young adults resolved the historic tension between utilitarian and expressive culture by combin ing religious moral authority with the project of individual self-development.

One of the most developed statements of social dislocation has been formulated by James Hunter (1981). Drawing on the work of Peter Berger (1967), Hunter (p. 729) regards NRMs as a protest against modernity. There has been an erosion of traditional social or der, he asserts, with the contemporary world becoming divided into public and private spheres. The public sphere (governmental, legal, corporate institutions) is highly rational ized, impersonal, and bureaucratically organized, which undermines any sense of person al uniqueness and increases the individual's sense of vulnerability and expendability. By contrast, the private sphere (intimate, friendship, familial, and spiritual relationships) has been progressively de-institutionalized. The result is that the most central emotional rela tionships in people's lives have become unstructured, leaving individuals confronted with an overwhelming array of choices. New religious groups reduce the corrosive feelings of uncertainty and anxiety and offer their members a heightened sense of psychological sta bility and well-being by grounding their identities in a sacred order.

Arguments based on some concept related to social dislocation present а number of theo retical and empirical problems and are often criticized. There is a variety of related terms —contradiction, tension, social/cultural turbulence, crisis, upheaval, malaise, and anomie —that are often freely invoked in a global fashion without empirical connections to the emergence of new movements and without reference to the different theoretical tradi tions from which these concepts derive. Used in this way, arguments based on these con cepts are difficult either to prove or to disprove. If social dislocation is defined in struc tural terms, some type of dislocation can virtually always be identified, which makes dis confirmation problematic. It is equally hard to confirm dislocation arguments given the difficulty of convincingly creating a macro-micro link that connects structural conditions and individual-level responses. As a result, dislocation-based arguments often appear to be a convenient way to avoid incisive theoretical analysis.

At the same time, dislocation arguments appear to be integral to explanations of the emergence and nature of new religion (Barkun 1974; Cohn 1961; Eister 1974; I. Lewis

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 7 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

1971; McFarland 1967; Wallace 1956). For example, in addition to theories of NRM origi nation reviewed previously, explanations of the distinctive qualities of NRM myths are of ten linked to narrative innovation that addresses the failure of existing narratives to pro vide individuals with a meaningful symbolic orientation. One characteristic of charismatic authority that is typical of NRMs is the capacity of the charismatic leader to address the sense of dislocation that adherents are experiencing and provide authorization for an al ternative path. Influential theories of conversion also stress the importance of some type of dislocation as precipitating the process of shifting loyalty from one social network to another and as creating a pool of available recruits. Most ethnographies of NRMs implic itly or explicitly reference some dislocation as a starting point in accounting for NRM for mation and appeal.

Given the importance of theories of dislocation in accounting for the origination of NRMs, it becomes important to provide more adequate empirical anchors to ground the argu ment. Analysis of contemporary NRMs suggests means of (p. 730) identifying such empiri cal anchors. These include describing the religious econоmу in which NRMs appear, spec ifying the temporal markers that frame the designated historical period, and linking fac tors leading to the emergence of NRMs to related changes in established institutions.

A successful dislocation argument must incorporate a full description of the religious economy in which NRMs emerge: that is, the demand, supply, and control components of the historical situation. To begin, the argument must specify the identity and location of those open or motivated to reorganize identities and loyalties. The literature on NRM for mation has not only identified young adults as the general population most receptive to NRMs, but has also noted gender variation in the appeal of various groups within the young adult population, age gradations among young adults by group (communal groups drawing younger individuals prior to labor market entry and New Age therapeutic groups drawing somewhat older individuals), and specific historical events that were the source of NRM appeal for young adults. Of course, demand was increased by virtue of the excep tionally large pool of young adults that coincided with the period of dislocation. With re spect to supply-side issues, the available evidence indicates that the concept of “new reli gion” must be interpreted flexibly in understanding the relationship between dislocation and NRM formation. In the case at hand, entirely new groups were formed during a peri od of dislocation, but it was also the case that preexisting groups suddenly gained popu larity as a result of recruit availability, immigrant groups that arrived for unrelated rea sons gained popularity in part because they offered a critique of the dominant culture, and an array of other groups (communes, intentional communities, and quasi-religious groups) broadened the range of available outlets for disenchanted young adults. In other words, a variety of groups not only formed directly in response to the dislocation but also became responses to it and therefore became part of the NRM cohort. Finally, the argu ment must identify social control mechanisms that may or may not be available to contain the formation of new groups. NRM research has emphasized the importance of immigra tion law changes in producing the influx of Asian religious groups, the demise of the in lo co parentis principle by which colleges and universities had extended familial control dur ing the transition from adolescence to adulthood, legal and constitutional constraints on

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 8 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

governmental control of religious groups, and the tension facing families as they attempt ed to maintain family solidarity while simultaneously encouraging individual autonomy, voluntarism, and self-directedness for young adults. All of these factors suggest a com plex, mediated model of dislocation-religious movement formation.

An empirical anchor for the temporal dimension of a dislocation argument also needs to be established. The historical events marking both the beginning and the ending points of the dislocation period must be identified. In the case of contemporary NRMs, the begin ning point has been reasonably well tracked in (p. 731) terms of the simultaneous increase in the number of available religious groups and potential recruits as well as a decline in the availability and attractiveness of corresponding political groups. The ending point, at least of high growth rates, has been linked to the decline of countercultural activity. The findings on this point are rather dramatic as groups for which the most complete informa tion is available, and particularly the communally organized groups, began to experience a sharp decline in recruitment rates by the late 1970s.

A particularly important way of supporting the dislocation argument is to demonstrate al ternative responses to the same structural conditions. NRMs have responded to an in creasingly modern, secular environment by resisting these structural changes, on the one hand, or accommodating them, on the other hand. For example, Wallis's (1984) influential movement typology juxtaposes “world-affirming” and “world-rejecting” movements, with both types constituting responses to the same social “world”. In a similar vein, I (Bromley

1997c) treat adaptive religious movements and transformative religious movements as al ternative responses to historically rooted tensions between contractual and covenantal forms of social relations. In analogous fashion, the dislocations giving rise to NRMs can be linked to corresponding trends in established religious groups. There is considerable evidence that liberal mainline churches have contributed to increasing individual autono my by reducing their moral authority and adopting a voluntary, service-provider orienta tion (Hammond 1992). A number of NRMs, most notably New Age groups, have gone even further in that same direction by sacralizing selfhood. At the other end of the spec trum, a number of evangelical and fundamentalist Christian churches have resisted the advance of modern, secular society by attempting to build collective strength through strengthening family-church ties. In parallel fashion, a number of collectivist NRMs have sought even stronger collective strength by creating communally organized spiritual fam ilies. In this sense, both established religious groups and NRMs are reacting in compara ble ways to the same structural forces.

Conversion By far the largest body of work on NRMs has been on conversion of individuals to specific movements (Saliba 1990; Snow and Machalek 1984). The outpouring of research on con version was precipitated both by social scientists' acceptance of the secularization thesis, which rendered the conversion of well-educated young adults anomalous, and the cult controversy, which involved attempts to discredit the (p. 732) authenticity of conversions

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 9 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

to NRMs. However, theory and research on conversion in NRS have produced a more complex, sophisticated understanding of the transformation of religious identity and in volvement generally. The process is now understood to be multi-dimensional and to in volve identity and social network transformations, some combination of individual agency and group influence, various modes of connection between individuals and movements, and conversion careers.

One important distinction that has been drawn on the basis of research on conversion to NRMs is between the symbolic and social dimensions of conversion. Snow and Machalek (1984) emphasize the reconstruction of individual identity through a process of biographi cal reconstruction; adoption of a “master attributional scheme” that offers a single, all-en compassing source of explanation; the replacement of metaphorical with more literal rea soning that treats group ideology as ultimate truth; and embracing a convert identity so that individual and movement interests coincide. Lofland and Stark (1965) focus on the change in social network alliances through a sequence of problem-solving activity on the part of the convert. They identify a set of “predisposing conditions” (tension that derives from dissatisfaction with current life circumstances, defining that tension as having reli gious meaning, and dissatisfaction with one's current religious affiliation or available con ventional alternatives) and “situational contingencies” (reaching a turning point in life when current lines of action are perceived to be ineffective, building affective bonds with the new group, weakening affective bonds outside the new group, and intensifying behav ioral involvement in the group). Distinguishing the social and symbolic dimensions of con version is important, since it raises the possibility that individuals may connect on one or both dimensions, creating variable types and levels of individual commitment.

A second distinction concerns the source of the impetus and influence in the conversion process. Both Snow and Machalek (1984) and Lofland and Stark (1965) emphasize agency on the part of the convert, although both also acknowledge group influence. How ever, it is clear that NRM membership is the product of both individual agency and group socialization (Long and Hadden 1983; Straus 1979). With respect to group influence, one of the most elaborate analyses is Kanter's work on communal groups (1972; see also Coser 1974; Lalich 2004). She identifies a number of sources of organizational power that are employed both to shape individual identity and embed individuals in a closely con trolled social environment. These consist of three types of commitment mechanisms (in strumental, affective, and moral), each of which has a corresponding set of practices (sac rifice and investment, renunciation and communion, and mortification and transcen dence) that promote collective over individual interests.

A third distinction involves the mode of connection between individuals and movements. Lofland and Skonovd (1981; see also Kilbourne and Richardson 1988; (p. 733) Travisano

1970) identify six themes that characterize these different types of connection (intellectu al, mystical, experimental, affective, revivalist, and coercive). Each, in turn, reflects a dif ferent combination of factors (social pressure, temporal duration, affective arousal, affec tive content, and ordering of belief and group involvement). Although specific types of conversion may predominate in individuai movements, the implication is that movements

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 10 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

are likely to be populated by individuals with diverse kinds of relationships to the group. This observation builds on the distinction between social and symbolic identity change in illuminating the difficulty in creating organizational cohesiveness and membership com mitment when the basis for ongoing individual involvement is quite variable.

A fourth distinction emphasizes the difference between a conversion and a conversion ca reer. Since conversion historically was regarded as a transformative spiritual experience and a “change of heart”, it did not easily incorporate the notion of exit. Indeed, the prima ry corresponding concepts, such as “falling from the faith” and apostasy, have a negative connotation, what NRM research has demonstrated is that conversion theory needs to conceptualize a larger process that incorporates what is potentially an affiliation-disaffili ation sequence (Richardson 1978; Bromley 1997b). In fact, research indicates that con temporary NRMs have extremely high rates of membership turnover (Barker 1988; Bird and Reimer 1982; Galanter 1989; Wright 1987; 1988). Analogous to the affiliation process, the disaffiliation process can involve several modes of disconnection. The sever ing of bonds with a movement may involve cognitive disillusionment with the group's be liefs, practices, leadership, or potential for success; erosion of emotional energy, attach ment, belongingness, and solidarity; or organizational isolation or separation. Severing group ties cognitively, emotionally, morally, or physically increases the attractiveness of alternative personal, domestic, and occupational opportunities (Wright 1988; Jacobs

1989; Skonovd 1983).

The study of conversions to NRMs has essentially problematized the concept of conver sion. What emerges from the study of conversion in NRMs is that it is a multi-dimensional process in which both individual and group have some degree of influence, individuals and groups connect in diverse ways, personal transformation maybe symbolic and/or so cial, and involvements maybe short- or long-term. This multi-dimensional conception of conversion moves theorizing away from traditional religious/spiritual interpretations and toward a socio-political process of shifting individual alliances and social network identifi cation. The study of conversion to NRMs is also revealing about the process of movement development. Given the mixture of types and levels of involvement, it is clear that move ment organizations are much less stable or monolithic than they might appear. A major problem for developing movements is finding a means of channeling those diverse types of involvement. Particularly if movement attractiveness is related to socio-cultural crisis, movements may founder if they rely simply on a temporary supply of (p. 734) potential re cruits and a heightened level of motivation. Sustained development requires developing an institutionalized context for continued membership, a solution that has eluded many NRMs.

The Development of New Religious Movements NRS is uniquely positioned to develop theories concerning the development of new reli gious groups. Previous work has identified some issues confronting religious organiza tions as they institutionalize (OʼDea 1983: 38–64), and church-sect theory is premised on

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 11 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

the tendency of religious groups to settle and accommodate. However, there has not been systematic study on either the process of new religious group formation and development or the various organizational challenges that new groups must resolve, such as prophetic failure, death of the founder/leader, and managing charismatic authority.

Rodney Stark (1999; see also Bromley and Hammond 1987) has articulated the most com plete model of initial NRM development. He argues that revelations tend to occur in a supportive cultural tradition when recipients have role models on whom they can draw; there are countless anomalous experiences occurring at all times, and some of these may be interpreted as spiritual in nature and attributed to supernatural origin; such revelato ry experiences are most likely to originate during periods of dislocation and with individu als who are exceptionally sensitive or creative and for whom conventional faith traditions have become unsatisfying. Once individuals have revelatory experiences, their confidence in them increases with acceptance, and acceptance produces further, more detailed and novel revelations. The revelatory period is limited, however, as over time group pressure mounts to curtail and control revelations in order to create greater life stability and pre dictability. Stark (1996) has also created a model for NRM success, which identifies the kinds of problems that new groups must solve if they are to become a major force in the religious economy. He argues that movements are more likely to be successful if they oc cur within a non-hostile socio-cultural environment, maintain a moderate level of tension with dominant institutions in the host social order, have continuity with established tradi tions in the host social order, and compete with weak conventional groups. Internal move ment factors that increase the probability of success include non-falsifiable doctrines, ef fective and legitimate leadership, highly motivated membership, and a level of fertility sufficient to insure membership replacement.

(p. 735) A number of other scholars have identified other problems that must be resolved between the initial period of movement development and the later stages of institutional ization. Two such issues confronting many groups are prophetic failures and the death of the movement's founder/leader. There is reason to expect that disconfirmation of predic tions of supernatural intervention that are central to movement myths may be the occa sion for loss of faith by members and loss of legitimacy for leadership. However, there is now considerable research to demonstrate that prophetic failure is not catastrophic for movements, and identifying the variety of account construction techniques that groups employ to neutralize potentially discrediting prediction failures (Stone 2000). There is al so reason to expect that the death of a founder/leader who often personally embodies a movement could leave a movement unraveling organizationally. Again, however, a num ber of studies conclude that most religious movements are able to survive that moment and create new forms of leadership that allow the movement to continue, and not infre quently to prosper (Miller 1991).

Finally, movements face the challenge of managing charismatic leadership. It is not sim ply failed prophecies and founder/leader passings that threaten stable leadership pat terns; charismatic authority presents a continuing challenge to new movements. The identity of the charismatic founder/leader and the group are often inextricably bound to

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 12 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

gether during the early stages of NRM history. It is not uncommon for charismatic lead ers to formulate revelations that incorporate both their own personal biographies and events that are occurring in the socio-cultural environment. Leaders have to find a means of generalizing their own individual experiences so that they have broader relevance to potential recruits. They also have to find a means to forge a connection between the so cial order that they are rejecting and the new future that they envision. The genius of these charismatic leaders is that they blend new and old in innovative ways that re-estab lish a sense of empowerment and control for their adherents. Movement leaders teach that traditional goals are achievable through new means, and that new goals can be achieved through the old means (Swallow 1982). These leaders must also manage their own charismatic authority. Dawson (2002) documents four ongoing charismatic manage ment problems: protecting the leader's charismatic persona against erosion, preventing followers from over-identification and zealotry, negotiating a satisfactory routinization of charisma as the group develops, and achieving new successes to sustain the leader's charismatic resources. Charismatic leaders must also defend their authority against chal lenges from their inner-circle confidants, the emerging ranks of bureaucratic leaders, and grass-roots followers (Bromley and Bobbitt, forthcoming). The available evidence sug gests that the success that leaders achieve in managing charisma is quite variable. Most leaders appear to survive these challenges, but the challenges remain a constant threat and, in some cases, result in the collapse of leadership authority.

(p. 736) Opposition to New Religious Movements The survival and growth of new religious groups is not simply the product of the previous ly discussed socio-cultural, environmental conditions and internal movement dynamics. One of the key factors in the early development of many new religious groups is opposi tion that they encounter. While the extent of opposition varies, it is highly likely that op position will emerge given that NRMs challenge the established order socially and cultur ally. In order fully to understand how new forms of religion develop, therefore, it is impor tant to construct theories that incorporate both movements and the forces that oppose them. There is a substantial literature on certain aspects of nineteenth-century opposition to religious minorities (Billington 1974; Davis 1960; Moore 1986). However, the research on contemporary NRMs has produced more systematic analysis of movement-opposition interaction as it has occurred. The focal point here is the movement-counter-movement relationship, but clearly any adequate theory needs to incorporate other components, no tably movement-state and movement-media relationships (Richardson 2004; Richardson and van Driel 1997).

Theory and research on opposition to NRMs strongly suggest that the developmental problems confronting oppositional groups are roughly equivalent to those facing NRMs. Like NRMs, oppositional groups must develop mythic/ritual systems, organizational units, and external alliances that will produce convergence around their respective causes. In the contemporary case, oppositional groups were confronted by protest movements that were sacralizing their protest in terms of freedom of religious expression. In order to le

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 13 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

gitimate the control that they wished to exercise, oppositional groups fashioned a mythic system around the equally sacralized concept of free will. The various versions of anti-cult ideology (brainwashing, mind control, coercive persuasion) served to delegitimate NRM affiliations by denying their voluntarism. The corresponding ritual system involved a vari ety of practices (deprogramming, strategic intervention, exit counseling) designed to re orient the loyalties of NRM members to their families of orientation and to conventional lifestyles and commitments. This interactive, symbiotic relationship between movement and counter-movement has produced a kind of mirror imagery in their respective ideolo gies.

Oppositional movements also faced many of the same recruitment and organizational de velopment problems confronting NRMs. The anti-cult movement emerged as a set of inde pendent groups supported primarily by families of NRM converts. These groups faced the problem of maintaining organizational commitment, as participants were likely to disaffil iate once they had resolved their own family situations, and were never able to broaden their constituency base (p. 737) substantially beyond directly aggrieved families. More sig nificantly, the anti-cult movement was never able to forge alliances with professional as sociations and governmental agencies, which ultimately limited its capacity to implement its social control agenda. Anti-cult mythic and ritual systems raised a host of legal and constitutional issues for the state, challenged the knowledge-base claims of several acad emic disciplines and professions, and raised concerns about the broader extension of con trol over religion. They were more successful in gaining an alliance with the media and in influencing public opinion by drawing on popular culture conceptions of cults and brain washing.

NRS scholars have begun to develop theoretical models that capture the movement- counter-movement relationship. Two models have proved particularly useful: moral pan ics and counter-movements. The former focuses primarily on the reaction to NRMs and il luminates how a combination of governmental, media, and oppositional groups combine to “demonize” NRMs as “folk devils”. The counter-movement model focuses on how oppo sitional groups construct the myths, rituals, and organizational structures that allow them to pursue their social control objectives. Both models clearly indicate that the develop mental trajectory of NRMs has been significantly influenced by varying types and levels of governmental constraint, hostile media coverage, direct interventions that have in creased NRM isolation and radicalism, and widespread public mistrust. The incorporation of movement-counter-movement interaction in the development of new forms of religion represents an important contribution to understanding the developmental trajectory of NRMs.

Conclusions NRS is a newly emerging area of study that is the product of the recent cohort of NRMs and a cohort of theoretically and methodologically sophisticated scholars available to study the movements. The proliferation of new movements and the availability of interest

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 14 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

ed scholars has made possible the rapid and unprecedented accumulation of knowledge about NRMs. However, the impressive corpus of scholarship on NRMs also raises ques tions about the ultimate significance of that knowledge. One answer has been that re search on NRMs contributes to the ongoing debates concerning secularization and glob alization. Without disputing that possibility, I have argued that the more important contri bution of NRS is in providing greater insight into the ways in which religious groups orig inate and develop. Among the issues that NRS is particularly well positioned to address are the diverse types of religious groups, the socio-cultural conditions under which

(p. 738) new forms of religion emerge, the nature and dynamics of conversion, the devel opmental challenges that new religious groups face, and the role that organized opposi tion to new religion plays in the trajectory of religious group development. In a broader sense, the argument developed here is that NRS complements and provides balance to the study of the dominant forms of religion that have been the primary representation of religion among academic scholars. If a larger challenge awaits NRS, it is to transcend the focus on NRMs in the USA and Europe and to increase and integrate knowledge about the much larger number of NRMs in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

References

BAINBRIDGE, W. (2007). “Teaching New Religious Movements: A Bibliographic Essay”. In D. G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, 331–56.

BARKER, E. (1988). “Defection from the Unification Church: Some Statistics and Distinc tions”. In D. G. Bromley (ed.), Falling from the Faith. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 166–84.

—— (2004). “What Are We Studying? A Sociological Case for Keeping the Nova”. Nova Religio, 8: 88–102.

BARKUN, M. (1974). Disaster and the Millennium. New Haven: Yale University Press.

BECKFORD, J. (1992). “Religion, Modernity and Post-modernity”. In B. Wilson (ed.), Reli gion: Contemporary Issues. London: Bellew, 11–23.

BELLAH, R. (1976). “New Religious Consciousness and the Crisis of Modernity”. In c. Glock and R. Bellah (eds.), The New Religious Consciousness. Berkeley: University of Cal ifornia Press, 333–52.

BERGER, P. L. (1967). The Sacred Canopy. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

BEYER, P. (1994). Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

BILLINGTON, R. (1974). The Origins of Nativism in the United States, 1800–1844. New York: Arno Press.

BIRD, F., and REIMER, W. (1982). “Participation Rates in New Religious Movements and Para-religious Movements”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21: 1–14.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 15 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

BROMLEY, D. G. (1997a). “Constructing Apocalypticism: Social and Cultural Elements of Radical Organization”. In T. Robbins and S. Palmer (eds.), Millennium, Messiah, and May hem. New York: Routledge, 31–46.

—— (1997b). “The Process of Exiting New Religious Movements”. In W. Shaffir and M. B. Lev (eds.), Leaving Patterns of Religious Life: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Greenwich, Conn.: Association for the Sociology of Religion and JAI Press, 31–60.

—— (1997c). “A Sociological Narrative of Crisis Episodes, Collective Action, Culture Workers, and Countermovements”. Sociology of Religion, 58: 105–40.

—— (2005). “Whither New Religious Studies: Defining and Shaping a New Area of Study”. Nova Religio, 9: 83–97.

—— and BOBBITT, R. (forthcoming). “Challenges to Charismatic Leadership”. In J. Lewis (ed.), Sacred Schisms. New York: Oxford University Press.

(p. 739) —— and HADDEN, J. K. (eds.) (1993). The Handbook on Cults and Sects in Ameri ca, 2 vols. Greenwich, Conn.: Association for the Sociology of Religion and JAI Press.

—— and HAMMOND, p. (eds.) (1987). The Future of New Religious Movements. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press.

CLARKE, P. (2006). New Religious Movements in Global Perspective: A Study of Reli gious Change in the Modern World. London: Routledge.

COHN, N. (1961). The Pursuit of the Millennium. New York: Harper.

COSER, L. (1974). Greedy Institutions, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

DAVIS, D. (1960). “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature”. Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 47: 205–22.

DAWSON, L. (1998). “Anti-Modernism, Modernism, and Postmodernism: Struggling with the Cultural Significance of New Religious Movements”. Sociology of Religion, 59: 131– 56.

—— (2002). “Crises of Charismatic Legitimacy and Violent Behavior in New Religions”. In D. G. Bromley and J. G. Melton (eds.), Cults, Religion and Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 80–101.

—— (2004) “The Sociocultural Significance of Modern New Religious Movements”. In Lewis (2004), 68–98.

—— (2006). Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements, 2nd edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 16 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

EISTER, A. (1974). “Culture Crises and New Religious Movements: A Paradigmatic State ment of a Theory of Cults”. In I. Zaretsky and M. Leone (eds.), Religious Movements in Contemporary America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 612–27.

FRIEDENBERG, E. (1965). Coming of Age in America. New York: Random House.

GALANTER, M. (1989). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press.

GITLIN, T. (1987). The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam.

HAMMOND, P. (1992). Religion and Personal Autonomy: The Third Disestablishment in America. Columbia, sc: University of South Carolina Press.

HUNTER, J. D. (1981). ‘The New Religions: Demodernization and the Protest against Modernity’. In B. Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of the New Religious Movements. New York: The Rose of Sharon Press, 1–19.

JACOBS, J. (1989). Divine Disenchantment: Deconverting from New Religions. Blooming ton, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

JENKINS, P. (2000). Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. New York: Oxford University Press.

JOHNSON, B. (1963). “On Church and Sect”. American Sociological Review, 28: 539–49.

—— (1971) “Church and Sect Revisited”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10: 124–37.

KANTER, R. (1972). Commitment and Community. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Universi ty Press.

KENNISTON, K. (1971). Youth and Dissent: The Rise of a New opposition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

KENT, S. (2001). From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

KILBOURNE, B., and RICHARDSON, J. (1988). “Paradigm Conflict, Types of Conversion and Conversion Theories”. Sociological Analysis, 50: 1–21.

(p. 740) LALICH, J. (2004). Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. Berke ley: University of California Press.

LEWIS, I. (1971). Ecstatic Religion. Baltimore: Penguin.

LEWIS, J. R. (ed.) (2004). The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press.

LIPSET, S. (2003). The First New Nation. Somerset, NJ: Transaction.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 17 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

LOFLAND, J., and SKONOVD, N. (1981). “Conversion Motifs”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 20: 373–85.

—— and STARK, R. (1965). “Becoming a World-Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a De viant Perspective”. American Sociological Review, 30: 863–74.

LONG, T., and HADDEN, J. (1983). “Religious Conversion and the Concept of Socializa tion: Integrating the Brainwashing and Drift Models”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22: 1–14.

MCFARLAND, H. N. (1967). The Rush Hour of the Gods. New York: Macmillan.

MELTON, J. G. (2004). “Toward a Definition of ‘New Religion’”. Nova Religio, 8: 73–87.

MILLER, T. (ed.) (1991). When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

MOORE, R. L. (1986). Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans. New York: Ox ford University Press.

NIEBUHR, H. R. (1929). The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Henry Holt.

OʼDEA, T. (1983). The Sociology of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

RICHARDSON, J. (ed.) (1978). Conversion Careers: In and Out of the New Religions. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

—— (ed.) (2004). Regulating Religion: Case Studies from around the Globe. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

—— and VAN DRIEL, B. (1997). “Journalists' Attitudes toward New Religious Move ments”. Review of Religious Research, 39: 116–36.

ROBBINS, T. (1988). Cults, Converts and Charisma. London: Sage.

ROBERTSON, R. (1985). “The Relativization of Societies, Modern Religion, and Global ization”. In T. Robbins, W. Shephard, and J. McBride (eds.), Cults, Culture, and the Law, Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 31–42.

SALIBA, J. (1990). Social Science and the Cults: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing.

SKONOVD, L. N. (1983). “Leaving the Cultic Religious Milieu”. In D. G. Bromley and J. T. Richardson (eds.), The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy. New York: Edwin Mellen, 91–105.

SNOW, D., and MACHALEK, R. (1984). “The Sociology of Conversion”. Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 167–90.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 18 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

STARK, R. (1996). “Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Mod el”. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 11: 133–46.

—— (1999) “A Theory of Revelations”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38: 287–308.

—— and BAINBRIDGE, W. (1979). “Of Churches, Sects and Cults: Preliminary Concepts for a Theory of Religious Movements”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18: 119–21.

STONE, J. (2000). Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. New York: Routledge.

(p. 741) STRAUS, R. (1979). “Religious Conversion as a Personal and Collective Accom plishment”. Sociological Analysis, 40: 158–65.

SWALLOW, D. (1982), “Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God- man's Cult”. Modern Asian Studies, 16: 123–58.

SWIDLER, A. (1986). “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”. American Sociological Review, 51: 273–86.

TIPTON, S. (1982). Getting Saved from the Sixties. Berkeley: University of California Press.

TRAVISANO, R. (1970). “Alternation and Conversion as Qualitatively Different Transfor mations”. In G. Stone and H. Faberman (eds.), Social Psychology through Symbolic Inter action. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn-Blaisdell, 594–606.

TROELTSCH, E. (1931). The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, 2 vols. New York: Macmillan.

WALLACE, A. F. C. (1956). “Revitalization Movements”. American Anthropologist, 58: 264–81.

WALLIS, R. (1984). The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

WEBER, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.

WRIGHT, S. (1987). Leaving Cults: The Dynamics of Defection. Washington: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

—— (1988). “Leaving New Religious Movements: Issues, Theory and Research”. In D. G. BROMLEY (ed.), Falling from the Faith. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 143–65.

YINGER, J. M. (1970). The Scientific Study of Religion. New York: Macmillan.

New Religions as a Specialist Field of Study

Page 19 of 19

Subscriber: Arizona State University; date: 09 July 2019

Suggested Reading The following are recommended: Clarke (2006); Dawson (1998; 2006); and Robertson (1985).

David G. Bromley

David G. Bromley is Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology in the School of World Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. He has written or edited over a dozen books on religious movements. Books published since 2000 include Cults and New Religions, with Douglas Cowan (Blackwell/Wiley, 2008); Teaching New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press, 2007); Defining Religion: Critical Approaches to Drawing Boundaries Between Sacred and Secular, with Arthur Greil (Elsevier Science/JAI Press 2003); Cults, Religion and Violence, (with J. Gordon Melton) (Cam bridge University Press 2001). Dr. Bromley is former president of the Association for the Study of Religion; founding editor of the ASR’s annual series, Religion and the Social Order; and former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, published by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. He is currently Director of the World Religions and Spirituality Project.