Judicial control of the new religious movements: A historical overview and a sociological analysis

The paper is about social control practices over new religious movements (NRMs). Its first part describes the main trend in governmental judicial attempts in control over NRMs: from accusations in “brainwashing” to the “child abuse” allegations. The second part of the paper describes the factors we can find for explaining the evolution of judicial regulations on the NRM activities. Donald Black defines law as a social phenomenon, “governmental social control”, which can be considered as a quantitative variable varying in its amount and type. William Chambliss introduces some sort of a conflict paradigm. James Richardson, combining both approaches, focuses on some key factors that influence the socio-legal control over NRMs. Firstly, following Chamliss, Richardson analyses key groups of interests, such as NRMs and anti-cult movements. He considers actors' characteristics including social distance between the victim and the offender and other points made by Black. Secondly, he analyses socio-cultural context as a platform for actors' interaction, speaking particularly about the “moral panic”. Thirdly, Richardson focuses attention on such a crucial factor as characteristics of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, particularly, on the independence of the latter, and their historically shaped interaction in the local country. Fourthly, Richardson estimates the role of “third parties” (Black's concept) - groups that do not immediately take part in the conflict, but simultaneously support some side in the conflict. A special category of third parties in the situation around NRMs is academic researchers, who have been criticising the ‘brainwashing ideology” for 40 years appearing as experts in courts. Fifthly, following Chambliss, Richardson considers “triggers” - outstanding events that reveal and enforce already existing social interaction networks.

Keywords

Authors

References