Abstract
Though addressed primarily to students of religion, this paper is not concerned with religious phenomena in a narrow sense. In attempting to contribute to the literature on the social-psychological aspects of sectarianism, it presents data on social groups which may be considered “secular sects” of the “political” variety.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Anmerkungen
Wellman J. Warner, “Sect” in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb (eds.), A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, New York: The Free Press, 1964;
Thomas F. O’Dea, “Sects and Cults” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Ed. David L. Sills), New York; Macmillan Co. and the Free Press, 1968, Vol. 14
Peter L. Berger, “The Sociological Study of Sectarianism”, Social Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, Winter 1954;
Lewis A. Coser, “Sects and Sectarians”, Dissent, Vol. 1, No. 1,1954;
Robert E. Park, “Characteristics of the Sect” (1932) in On Social Control and Collective Behaviour, Ralph H. Tuner (Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. In referring to “political” sects I am following general usage, rather than (as will be clear below) making judgements regarding the instrumentality or rational goals of these groups. Eichler’s critique of Murvar, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 1972, pp. 187–191
See for example D. G. Macrae, “The Bolshevik Ideology” in Ideology and Society: Papers in Sociology and Politics, London: Heinemann Ltd., 1961;
E. Hehnann, “Atheist Theocracy”, Social Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, Autumn 1953
David E. Apter, “Political Religion in the New Nations” in C. Geertz (Ed.) Old Societies and New States, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1963;
E. B. Koenker, Secular Salvations: The Rites and Symbols of Political Religions, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
See for example, B. R. Wilson’s discussion of “Sects with the imprint of secularity” in Chapter 8 of his Religious Sects: A Sociological Study, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
See also Susan Budd, “The Humanist Societies: The Consequences of a Diffuse Belief System” in B. R. Wilson (Ed.), Patterns of Sectarianism, London: Heinemann Ltd. 1967.
Colin D. Campbell, Toward a Sociology of Irreligion, London: Macmillan and Co., 1971; and Roy Wallis (Ed.) The New Sectarianism, London: Peter Owen Ltd. (forthcoming). The study of “quasi- religious” movements seems now to be a fast-growing field.
On the “Oxford Movement” see for example Alan Eister, Drawing Room Conversion, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1950, especially pp. 161–202.
Hadley Cantril, The Psychology of Social Movements, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1941, pp. 144–168.
On “Scientology” see for example George Malko, Scientology: The New Religion, New York: Dell Publishing Co. 1970.
Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology, New York: The Olympia Press, 1972.
Roay Wallis “The Sectarianism of Scientology” in M. Hill (Ed.) The Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, No. 6,1973.
The process of “conversion” is discussed in, for example, William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, London: The Fontana Library 1960, pp. 194–257 (First published 1902)
William Sargent, Battle For the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing, London: Pan Books Ltd., 1957, pp. 79–107
Hans Toch, The Social Psychology of Social Movements, Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc. 1965, pp. 111–129
John Lofland and Rodney Stark, “Becoming a World-Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a Deviant Perspective”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, 1965, pp. 862–875
Herbert Blumer, in A. M. Lee (Ed.) Principles of Sociology, New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 1951, p. 216.
See I. P. Gellman, The Sober Alcoholic: An Organizational Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous, New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press, 1964.
The success of the Black Muslims in curing drug-addicts has been noted by a number of writers. See for example E. U. Essien-Udom, Black Nationalism, New York: Dell Publishing Co. 1962.
J. M. Yinger, Religion in the Struggle for Power, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1946, pp. 22–23
See also Lewis A. Coser, “Sects and Sectarians”, Dissent, Vol. 1, No. 1,1954, p. 361.
This phrase of Lenin’s was made famous (or infamous) by Gitlow. See V. I. Lenin, “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement” in Selected Works (3 Vol. Edition) Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970;
Benjamin Gitlow, The Whole of Their Lives, Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands Publishers, 1965 (First published 1948).
The Internationalists tried to ensure that the family was at least neutralized as a rival claimant on an individual’s loyalty, and if possible tried to involve it in the sect. The familiy may be said to present the greatest challenge to the sect in this regard. On this point see Coser, Op. Cit. p. 362; Edwin Lemert, Social Pathology, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951, pp. 220–221
Egon Bittner, “Radicalism and the Organization of Radical Movements”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 28, 1963, pp. 928–940
G. Simmel, Conflict and The Web of Group-Affiliations, New York: The Free Press, 1955, pp. 132–157.
Andrew Wernick, in The Varsity (University of Toronto Student Newspaper), Sept. 24,1969, p. 9
In a Durkheimian sense. See the classic discussion in E. Dürkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Collier Books, 1961.
These terms have a long history in the subdiscipline of Collective Behaviour and Social Movements. The origins of the distinction may be seen in Sighele, and in the work of Park and Blumer on “expressive” and “acting” crowds. See R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924, pp. 870–874
H. Blumer in A. M. Lee, Op. Cit., pp. 214–216. See the critical discussions of the distinction in K. and G. Lang, Collective Dynamics, New York: Crowell and Co., 1961, pp. 500–511
J. R. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1963, p. 179.
See also the similar distinction in R. Turner and L. Killian, Collective Behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Ltd. 1957
We use Yinger’s term. See J. M. Yinger, “Contraculture and Subculture”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, 1960, pp. 625–635
See also K. Westhues, Society’s Shadow: Studies in the Sociology of Countercultures, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryarson Ltd. 1972.
Writers on social movements have commented on the fact that a participant derives a certain “status” within the context of his group’s sense of reality. The political sect provides its members with the status of membership in an elect. They can, therefore, look with intellectual superiority on outsiders while, at the same time, priding themselves upon their moral worth as assailants of an evil social order. The Internationalist, though stigmatized by outsiders, sees himself as having leapt in stature through membership in the sect. The sect may provide “status” in this sense, therefore, to “up-and-outers” as well as “down-and-outers”. See the discussion of MRA in C. S. Braden, These Also Believe, New York: MacMillan & Co., 1949, p. 409
See also on this topic: B. R. Wilson, Religious Sects, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, pp. 31–32
H. Cantril, The Psychology of Social Movements, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1941, pp. 41–45; and W. Stark, Op. Cit. pp. 37–46 and 48–51.
We might use the term esprit de corps to refer to this. See H. Blumer in A. M. Lee Op. Cit. pp. 214–215This should be related to Internationalist ritual and private Language. See also E. Hoffer, The True Believer, New York: The New American Library, 1958, pp. 44–45.
See W. Lippman, A Preface to Politics, New York: Mitcheil Kennerley, 1931, p. 276
S. Holbrook, “Last of the Wobblies”, The American Mercury, Vol. 62, April 1946, pp. 462- 468. On the SPGB
see G. Thayer, The British Political Fringe: A Profile, London: Anthony Blond, 1965, pp. 148–150
R. J. Alexander, “Splinter Groups in American Politics”, Social Research, Vol. 20, 1953, pp. 288–289 Further work on the SPGB is being prepared by Mr. Kenneth Jones, of The Open University, England.
S. L. P. doctrine is essentially unchanged since it was expounded at the turn of the century by the movement’s towering figure Daniel de Leon, an American intellectual of South- American origins. The S.L.P. boasts that De Leon is the only person to have made any important additions to Marxism. The S.L.P. has published a number of eulogies to De Leon. See, for example, Daniel De Leon: The Man and his Work, A Symposium (1934) A. Petersen, Daniel De Leon: Social Architect (1941) I. M. Johnson, Daniel De Leon: American Socialist Pathfinder.
see also Don K. KcKee, “Daniel De Leon: A Reappraisal”, Labour History, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 1960, pp. 264–297.
L. Festinger, H. W. Riecken & S. Schachter, When Prophecy Fails, New York: Harper & Row, 1964 (first published 1956).
Daniel De Leon, Two Pages of Roman History: Plebs Leaders and Labour Leaders, and the Warning of the Gracchi, New York: New York Labour News Co. 1962. (Inset quotation at beginning of pamphlet.)
Eric Hass, The Science of Socialism: A Home Study Course, New York: New York Labour News Co., 1967, pp. 41–42
See the use of this term in E. Lemert, Social Pathology, New York: McGraw-Hill Ltd., 1951, pp. lis-235 E. Goffman Sterna, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Ltd., 1962
Robin M. Williams Jr. American Society, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961, pp. 391- 395
In terms of classic social science knowledge we might judge such activity as likely to prove unproductive. See Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet, The People’s Choice, New York: Columbia University Press, 1948, in which the famous statement is made: “In the last analysis, more than anything else people can move other people.” (p. 158)
This term is Peter Berger’s. See A Rumour of Angels, Garden City, N. Y. Doubleday and Co. Ltd., 1970, p. 17.
See G. Simmel “The Secret and the Secret Society” in Kurt H. Wolff (Ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, New York: The Free Press, 1950, pp. 307–316
Coser Op. Cit., p. 361. Compare also: L. Trotsky et al, Their Morals and Ours: Marxist Versus Liberal Views on Morality, New York: Merit Publishers, 1966.
These are, of course, terms coined by C. Wright Müls. See The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press, 1959, especially Chapter One
This view may be traced back to Sighele. See Scipio Sighele. Psychologie des Sectes, Paris: V Giard et Brike, 1898, pp. 45–46
R. E. Park and E. Burgess, Op. Cit., pp. 202–205. See also Gustave LeBon, The Crowd: A Study in the Popular Mind, New York: The Viking Press, 1960, p. 159. (First publidied 1895.)
B. R. Wilson, Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969, p. 212. We would echo this statement in the context of political sects.
The dichotomy of “Sect-Party” would seem to be useful in this context for we might consider processes of development from sect to party and from party to sect. We might also consider why groups originating as sects remain as such, and we might explore the varieties of sect origins. We might consider how far the particular origin of a sect implies “immanent” potential for a particular line of development. On “sect versus party” see E. Bernstein, „Von der Sekte zur Partei”, Jena. Eugen Diedrichs, 1911 (especially pp. 2–8); R. Michels, First Lectures in Political Sociology, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, p. 122;
R. E. Park, “Characteristics of the Sect” in On Social Control and Collective Behaviour (ed. Turner A). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp. 245–246 L. A. Coser, Op. Cit., p. 360.
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1957 (First published 1929).
David Martin, “The Denomination”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 13, 1962, pp. 1–14.
The S.L.P. regards the Socialist Party as the “Reformist” body par excellence. On the Socialist Party (form this perspective) see L. A. Coser, “Reply to Geltman and Plastrik”, Dissent, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring 1955, pp. 183–184
This term was coined as an alternative to “established sect” by Harold W. Pfautz. See his “The Sociology of Secularization: Religious Groups”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, 1955, pp. 121–128
It is also preferred by Roland Robertson, The Sociological Interpretation of Religion, New York: Schocken Books, 1970
The case of the sect is a special aspect of a general problem: the basis of religious versus secular orientations in collective behaviour and social movements, a problem compounded by the difficulty of distinguishing “religious” from “secular” behaviour in many circumstances. On the origins of religious and secular movements, see W. Stark, Op. Cit., pp. 51- 59 N. J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behaviour, New York: The Free Press 1962, pp. 313–338.
P. Wilkinson, Social Movement, London: Pall Mall Press, 1971, pp. 75–79;
K. Westhues, Op. Cit., pp. 33–34; Lang and Lang, Op. Cit., p. 182 J. L. Gillin, “A Contribution to the Sociology of Sects”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 16, 1910–11, p. 246.
See for example, P. Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound, London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1957
E. J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, New York: The Norton Library, 1965. (First published 1959). Few Sociologists of Religion would wish to maintain today Park’s association of religion ipso facto with “expressive” behaviour oriented “beyond the limits of human experience and control”. (R. E. Park, “Characteristics of the Sect” in Op. Cit., pp. 243 -244.)
See for example, B. R. Wilson, Sects and Society, p. 4; W. Stark, Op. Cit., pp. 51–59; M. Waltzer, The Revolution of the Saints, New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1968
N. Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, London: Mercury Books, 1961. For an interesting recent contribution of this literature
see V. Murvar, “Messianism in Russia: Religious and Revolutionary”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 10, No. 4, Winter 1971
This phrase plays on Dennis Wrong’s famous “Oversocialized Conception of Man”. See D. H. Wrong, “The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 26, No. 2,1961
This is Selznick’s term. See P. Selznick, The Organizational Weapon, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952
P. Berger, “The Sociological Study of Sectarianism”, Social Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, Winter 1954, p. 467.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, Opladen
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Toole, R. (1975). Some Social-Psychological Aspects of Sectarian Social-Movements: A Study in Politics and Religion. In: Beiträge zur Wissenssoziologie, Beiträge zur Religionssoziologie / Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge Contributions to the Sociology of Religion. Internationales Jahrbuch für Wissens- und Religionssoziologie / International Yearbook of Knowledge and Religion, vol 9. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-84128-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-84128-5_10
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-11257-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-84128-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive