The Dangerous, and Dismissive, Power of Labels

Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the History of Religions, and the Rev. H. James Yamauchi, S.J., Professor of Arts and Sciences, at Loyola University New Orleans, has an essay on Religious Dispatches, found at http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=219, on the use of the term "cult" as applied to religious groups on the margins of society, specifically referencing the Branch Davidians and the FLDS.

Professor Wessinger does not argue that there were not situations in each group that should have been investigated by the proper authorities. Rather, she believes that the use of the term "cult" affected how law enforcement officials saw the people and responded to them. As she writes: "The word “cult” originally referred simply to an organized system of worship; it is still used in that descriptive manner by scholars (especially in the study of the ancient world). Since the 1970s the word “cult” has been used in popular discourse as a pejorative term for religions people fear, or hate, or do not want to recognize as a “real religion.” The use of the word “cult” can also be seen to imply that it is only in small, unconventional religious groups that believers commit hurtful and illegal actions—socially dominant religious groups are somehow let off the hook, as if their members never transgress in this way. Use of the word conveys what sociologist James T. Richardson has called “the myth of the omnipotent leader” and the “myth of the passive, brainwashed follower,” both of which dehumanize believers. Moreover, once the label “cult” has been applied it tends to stick, and it can inhibit careful investigation of what is going on inside a religious group and its interactions with members of society; broadly speaking, it is assumed that people “know” what goes on in a “cult.”"

Further, "I do not argue here that there were not problems within both communities that were and are of legitimate concern to law enforcement authorities. I argue that the public perception of small religious groups and their behaviors as deviant is intensified when the “cult” stereotype is applied, and that has led law enforcement authorities to take actions against both the Branch Davidians and the YFZ community that could potentially, and in the Branch Davidian case did, cause harm to children instead of saving them from harm."

When a group is labeled a cult, mainstream, normal folks can dismiss them with a shrug and a smirk. After all, we all know all there is to know about cults. And, since it is a cult, then, any group of law enforcement officials are justified in doing whatever it takes to rid the community of them. Being labeled a cult can legitimize any sort of behavior toward the marginalized religious groups.

But, then, we use other labels in similar ways. If your religious understanding does not match mine, I can call you a "heretic," a "fundamentalist," or a "liberal who does not believe the Bible." Once I have you pegged, I no longer need to listen to you. I know all I need to know about you. Because I have put you in my own sorting box, I can say and think anything I want about you.

We often label others on the basis of a quick glance and a momentary encounter. In the grocery store today, I saw a fellow wearing cowboy boots, blue jeans, a "trucker hat" and a T-shirt that touted the "Redneck Union." Obviously, he is a redneck. As the holder of a PhD in theology, what more do I need to know about him? I could dismiss him as unworthy of my time; I could forget that he, too, is a human being with all of the hopes and fears that I have.

Funny thing about labels. Just as often as you or I may be tempted to apply them to others; others pin them on us. I speak here with direct experience, since I have been labeled by others quite a few times and dismissed as unworthy.

Labels are dangerous things. Be cautious in using them.