Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 1 May 2007

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Shunning" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from an individual or group. In addition, shunning often, but not always, includes spurning, partial ostracization, ignoring, neglecting, and/or alienating. The opposite of shunning is to embrace or to accept.

Shunning is often associated with religious groups, other tightly-knit interest groups, and totalitarian states. Targets of shunning can include, but are not limited to apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, so-called 'sinners', 'traitors to the cause' and other people who defy or who fail to comply with the standards established by the shunning group(s). Shunning has a long history as a means of organisational coercion and control. Extreme forms of shunning and related practices have rendered the general practice controversial in some circles.

Overview

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Shunning" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Shunning as a process

Shunning refers to the deeds of those people in a group who do the shunning rather to than the conduct of those being shunned. In most cases, shunning occurs in stages which depend at least in part on the reaction or responses of the shunned targets. Specific shunning tactics vary from group to group, from mild to extreme forms of shunning, and from (apparently) compliant targets to obviously defiant targets. However, enough similarities occur even in widely disparate shunning situations to show the basic stages that occur in most forms of shunning.

Separation is the first stage in shunning. This usually involves some sort of formal or informal excommunication, dissasociation, or disconnection which is usually, but not always, imposed on the target by his or her former group. The justifications for such separations are usually decided by the group's authorities without formal fact-finding and usually without what is known in law as a fair trial. Sometimes separation is imposed for blatant violations of the group's code of conduct but often separation is merely imposed because the target upsets the group's status quo in some way, justified or not. Occasionally, the future targets of shunning separate from the group on their own accord to go their own way or to form another independent group.

Condemnation forms the second, the most meaningful, and the most enduring stage of shunning. In this stage, the target is labeled as an anathema, as 'heretical', as 'abominable', as a 'fallen sinner', as 'diseased', as traitorous, and/or whatever other contemptible classifications the group prefers. Although religious condemnation is usually carefully codified in most theological doctrines, informal or formal condemnation also occurs in secular groups with totalitarian tendencies. For example, establishment feminists in the United States have labeled credible feminist whistleblowers (who have spoken out about what they see as the totalitarian nature of post-modern feminism) "anti-feminist" as the basis for calling on all (other) feminists to shun them. By establishing the 'truth' that the group is good and that the shunning target is evil, the stage is set for the third stage of shunning; subjugation.

Once the target has been demeaned as "less than" by the 'holier than thou' group, the stage is set for the ongoing aspects of shunning which are intended to subjugate the target so that he or she will submit to the group's will, repent his or her 'sins', and restore him or herself to submissive membership once more. In this stage, shunning can take the form of ongoing social avoidance, polite but patronizing social snubs, and damage to or destruction of spousal, familial, social relationships because the group members refuse to respect normal social standards. In extreme cases, the group requires a shunning spouse to shun a target spouse by withdrawing from sexual intercourse, by dining at a separate table, and by snubbing the spouse in all but essential family functions (Delivered Unto Satan). The group usually sees itself as admininistering 'God's love' or some other worldly 'wisdom' for the benefit of the 'poor' problematic target to educate the target about his/her transgressions. In this stage, shunning is relatively free of overt malice if the target submits (or appears to submit) to the group's will. Some targets of shunning live and ultimately die in quiet resignation or commit suicide (as shown in The Shunning a fictional account of Mennonite shunning) in apparent submission while others repent and return to the group.

However, some targets of shunning decide to fight back, in which case shunning groups often use the ultimate weapon of shunning: alienation. For most groups that shun, the ultimate crime is disobedience so they reserve their most potent and pejorative forms of shunning for those courageous targets who refuse to submit to their shunning. In this stage, overt shaming becomes intense, more overtly malicious and often absurdly unreasonable as the group, tries silence and destroy the target as a credible critic. The social snubs, silent treatment, and ostracizations become more pointed and (covertly) perjorative. Double-bind blame is often used to blame the victim for the group's shunning as in 'he/she' brought it (our) shunning upon himself or herself". Character assassination, false labels of insanity, and other inhumane totalitarian tactics are used against the target with (covert) vengeance to alienate and isolate the target from all other appeals (including those to the broader society) to common decency. This often leaves the target isolated and alienated from all those who could assist him or her to fight for his/her human rights. On rare occasions, targets of shunning the target have committed murder or attempted murder as a reaction to shunning (Cast Out). However in at least one case, the target sought and received a favorable judgement in a civil court against his church (link Amish legal case).

Purposes

Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

1. To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members. It may, conversely, seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. In this context shunning may include disassociation from the member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may also include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
2. To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with clearly defined membership criteria, especially criteria based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership. This is often paired with some form of excommunication.

Some less often practiced variants may seek to:

• Remove a specific member from general external influence, so as to provide an ideological or psychological buffer against external views or behaviour. The extent can vary from severing ties to opponents of the group up to and including severing all non-group-affiliated intercourse.

Shunning is usually approved of (if sometimes with regret) by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved-of by the target of the shunning. This certainly results in a polarization of views. Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. However, more extreme forms of shunning have caused substantial damage to individuals' psychological and relational health. As such, extreme responses to the practice have evolved, primarily around anti-shunning advocacy. Such advocates highlight the detrimental effects of many of the mentioned behaviours, and seek to limit their practice either through pressure or law. Such groups will often also operate supportive organizations or institutions, to help those subjected to shunning to recover from some of the worst effects. These groups will also, sometimes, attack the organizations practicing shunning directly, as a part of their advocacy.

In many civil societies, variants of shunning are practiced either de-facto or de-jure, to coerce or avert behaviours or associations deemed unhealthy. This can include:

• restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)
• court injunctions to sever associations (to avoid criminal association or temptation)
• medical or psychological instruction to avoid association (to avoid hazardous relations, i.e. alcoholics being instructed to avoid friendship with non-recovering alcoholics, or asthmatics being medically instructed to keep to smoke-free environs)

These effects are seen as positive by society, though often not by the affected parties.

Effects

Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. It is also due to fact that the tactics used in shunning are identical to those used in more well-known forms of relational aggression. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended, but well known, consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function. It can also cause extreme damage to children who related to those shunned and/or who are related to other adults who do the shunning.

Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behaviour clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, the group membership seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules are inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunnee, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member's closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.

Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.

Civil rights implications

Some aspects of shunning may also be seen as being at odds with civil rights or human rights, especially those behaviours that coerce and attack. When a group seeks to have an effect, through such practices, outside its own membership — for instance when a group seeks to cause financial harm through isolation and disassociation — they can come at odds with their surrounding civil society, if such society enshrines rights such as freedom of association, conscience, or belief. Many civil societies, however, do not extend such protections to the internal operations of communities or organizations, so long as an ex-member has the same rights, prerogatives, and power as any other member of the civil society. Children's needs for respect from and respect to their shunned parent(s) are rarely considered rights at all in comparision to the rights of the adults in shunning group(s) so children are often the unseen and innocent survivors of adult-adult shunning.

Conversely, in cases where a group or religion is state-sanctioned (e. g. in communist states), a key power, or in the majority (Singapore), a shunned former member may face especially severe social, political, and/or financial costs. Some, including researchers of mind control, brainwashing and menticide groups, identify the practice with "cult-like" or totalitarian behaviour.

Specific practices in religious organizations

Shunning in Christian denominations

Several passages in the New Testament suggest shunning as a practice of early Christians, and are cited as such by its modern-day practitioners within Christianity. As with many Biblical teachings, however, not all Christian scholars or denominations agree on this interpretation of these verses.

1Corinthians 5:11–13: But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you."

Matthew 18:15–17: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

2Thessalonians 3:6: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2Thessalonians 3:14–15: If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

Romans 16:17: I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

2John 10–11, NASB: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Policies governing the use of shunning vary from one organization to another.

Catholic Church

Prior to the Code of Canon Law of 1983, the Catholic Church expected in rare cases (known as excommunication vitandi) the faithful to shun an excommunicated member in secular matters. In 1983, the distinction between vitandi and others (tolerandi) was abolished, and thus the expectation is not made any more.

Anabaptists: Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites

Some sects of Anabaptist origin shun former members.

Shunning occurs today in Old Order Amish and in some Mennonite churches. Shunning can be particularly painful for the shunnee in these denominations since they are generally very close-knit, and since the shunned person may have no significant social links with anyone other than those in their denomination.

The Amish call shunning Meidung, the German word for avoidance. As described in the article on the Amish, shunning was a key issue of disagreement in the Amish-Mennonite split and it is continued in contemporary practice. Former Amish woman Ruth Irene Garrett tells the story of Amish shunning in her community from the shunnee's perspective in Crossing Over: One Woman's Escape from Amish Life. Amish shunning is also the subject of popular fiction novels about shunning. Amish differ considerably from community to community in the severity and strictness of the shunning.

Some very conservative Mennonite churches use shunning to exclude, punish, and shame excommunicated members. Mainstream and progressive Mennonites do not shun, or use much less extreme forms of shunning. Those Mennonites, who shun, do so by condemning, snubbing, and shaming excommunicants in all social, spousal and familial contacts without regard for family ties. Shunning by all church members begins upon excommunication and is continued until the excommunicant either dies or repents.

The Mennonite Ban or excommunication does not usually involve shunning, but only a ban from participation in communion. A few Mennonite groups do however practice shunning, or have in the past. In some cases members spouses must shun their shunned spouses with refusal to dine with, with refusal to sleep with the one being shunned. The excommunicants closest family members also shun him or her in all ongoing social contacts if the family members are church members. Since shunning damages and often destroys the excommunicant's closest bonds, it has been called "one of the cruelest punishments known to man" by a shunned Mennonite excommunicant and "a living hell of torture" by a shunning Mennonite member and father-in-law (see Delivered Unto Satan below).

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses practice an extreme form of shunning and refer to it as "disfellowshipping". A disfellowshipped person is not to be greeted either socially or at their meetings. Shunning is not required in the case of disfellowshipped members living in the same household, although in this case the remaining members will not usually discuss spiritual matters with the disfellowshipped one. Family members are not to be spoken to once they leave home except in emergencies. There are a number of reasons that a person may be disfellowshipped, with fornication and disagreeing with the religion's doctrines being two of the most common enforced. The organization points to passages in the Bible (1 Corinthians 5:11-13), such as those mentioned above, to support this practice. See Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Disfellowshipping and External Links below.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

There is no formal process of shunning in the LDS church. For those who have committed serious sin, disfellowshipment or excommunication are the most serious actions taken by the church. These are meant to encourage repentance; it is church policy that such individuals should continue to attend church meetings and associate with members. While being disfellowshipped or excommunicated sometimes has social ramifications, church members are strongly encouraged to welcome and assist excommunicants in whatever way possible in hopes of shepherding them back into full communion.

Other Protestant groups

In some Protestant groups or churches, shunning goes by other terms, such as disfellowshipping or "marking," based on the King James Version of Romans 16:17, which says to "...mark them which cause divisions...." Some groups perceive any disagreement with their teachings or leadership as being divisive, or even having a "demonic" influence and use shunning as a means of ensuring all church members' absolute submission to church leadership. Some use the so-called "Moses Principle" as a justification to shun any dissenters.

Shunning in Judaism

Cherem is the highest ecclesiastical censure in the Jewish community. It is the total exclusion of a person from the Jewish community. Except in rare cases in the Ultra-Orthodox community, the practice of cherem ceased after The Enlightenment, when local Jewish communities lost their political autonomy and Jews were legally enfranchized into the gentile nations in which they lived.

Shunning in the Bahá'í Faith

Members of the Bahá'í Faith are expected to shun those that have been declared Covenant-breakers by the head of their faith. Covenant-breakers are defined as the leaders of schismatic groups that resulted from challenges to legitimacy of Bahá'í leadership, as well as those who follow them, or who refuse to shun these. Since unity is the highest value in the Bahá'í Faith, any attempt at schism by a Bahá'í is considered a spiritual sickness, and a negation of what the religion stands for. People so-declared are not considered Bahá'ís by the mainstream.

The extent of the disassociation is limited. For example, unavoidable contact resulting from business arrangements does not necessarily constitute a contravention of the shunning requirement. Similarly, a Bahá'í who administers an online forum may interact with Covenant-breakers who are members of such a forum, with respect to his duties as an administrator. Shoghi Effendi expressed a similar perspective. The common theme is that the Bahá'í should limit his contact to the particular transaction or business at-hand and not be drawn into discussion that would allow the offender to advance his ideas. This certainly applies to fora such as Misplaced Pages talk pages. Given the above-stated purpose of this shunning is as a protection from the spread of a "spiritual disease", and not as a form of punishment for the so-named covenant-breaker, the Bahá'í practice of shunning seems to be designed in such a way that limits the material penalty normally associated with shunning by a community. In practice, however, many Bahá'ís may not be aware of the limits expressed above.

Bahá'ís are not required to practice shunning for purely moral or legal lapses, or against those who simply leave the religion. The flagrant and unrepentant violation of Bahá'í laws and standards of conduct can result in the loss of administrative rights, which prevents an individual from offering contributions to the funds of the Faith, vote or be elected to office in community elections, or obtain marriage or divorce within the religion, etc. They may, however, attend any public gathering, are still considered members, and Bahá'ís need not shun such members. Very occasionally, Bahá'ís are expelled due merely to a variance in belief. In such cases the beliefs depart fundamentally from Bahá'í teachings and, upon investigation, they were found never to have conformed to Bahá'í belief. They are considered to have never been Bahá'ís, because they did not ever accept the Bahá'í beliefs. This is not considered synonymous to covenant-breaking, and such former members are not subject to shunning.

Bahá'ís are not expected to shun non-Bahá'ís. Contrarily, they are expected to "consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship."

European Pagan and Neo-Pagan Groups

Nithing Among Asatruar

Oathbreakers and other criminals in the Asatru faith can be marked on a website, or a nithing pole can be erected on the offender's business or residential property. Traditionally, the pole was carved with runes describing the offense and topped with a decapitated horse's head.

Wiccan Reculement

Reculement is a provision of British Traditional Wiccan faiths that allows elders to repudiate an oath-breaker. Rarely used, most often in cases that involve "outing" closeted Wiccans.

Disconnection in the Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology asks its members to quit all communication with people the Church deems are perpetually antagonistic to Scientology. The practice of shunning in Scientology is termed disconnection. Members can disconnect with parents, children, spouses, and friends. The Church teaches that typically only people with "false data" about Scientology are antagonistic, so it encourages members to first attempt to provide "true data" to these people. If providing this data does not stop the antagonistic behaviour, then disconnection is encouraged as a last resort.

Shunning in literature

Shunning is a subject in popular as well as arcane literature.

See also

• Excommunication: An often related practice of community expulsion.
• Anathema
• Mark and Avoid: A practice of The Way International
• Relational aggression
• Abuse
• Social rejection
• Komagata Maru

References

1. Church of Scientology What is Disconnection? (archive.org copy of website accessed 4/19/06)

• Scott, Stephen (1996), An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups, Good Books: Intercourse, Pennsylvania.
• Encyclopedia of American Religions, by J. Gordon Melton ISBN 0-8103-6904-4
• Friesen, Patrick, The Shunning (Mennonite fiction), 1980, ISBN 0-88801-038-9

Further reading

• Hitchens, Christopher, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything, Hachette, 2007
• McCowan, Karen, The Oregon Register-Guard, Cast Out: Religious Shunning Provides an Unusual Background in the Longo and Bryant Slayings, March, 2, 2003.
• D'anna, Lynnette, Post-Mennonite Women Congregate to Discuss Abuse, Herizons, 3/01/93.
• Esua, Alvin J., and Esau Alvin A.J., The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes, Univ of British Columbia Press, 2004.
• Crossing Over: One Woman's Escape from Amish Life, Ruth Irene Garret, Rick Farrant
• Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith, Martha Beck, Mar 2005.
• Delivered Unto Satan (Mennonite), Robert L. Bear, 1974, (ASIN B0006CKXQI)
• Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, Stanley S. Clawar, Brynne Valerie Rivlin, 2003.
• Deviance, Agency, and the Social Control of Women's Bodies in a Mennonite Community, Linda B. Arthur, NWSA Journal, v10.n2 (Summer 1998): pp75(25).

External links

• Amish Shunning Runs afoul of the law
• Does Amish Shunning Violate Civil Law?
• Disfellowshipping amongst Jehovah's Witnesses
• What Shall We Tell the Children
• Spiritual Shunning
• Article on "Avoidance"/Shunning in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
• The Amish: Technology Practice and Technological Change, (see shunning)
• Stress and Conflict in an International Religious Movement: The Case of the Bruderhof (Hutterite)
• Ritual and the Social Meaning and Meaninglessness of Religion (Mennonite)
• Rituals, Communication, and Social Systems: The Case of the Old Order Mennonites

• Articles lacking sources from April 2007
• Disengagement from religion
• Punishments
• Religious law