Shunning Explained

Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules. It differs from, but may be associated with, excommunication.

Social rejection occurs when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group. This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict. Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture[1] or a low-cost punishment for failed cooperation.[2] Mental rejection is a more individual action, where a person subconsciously or willfully ignores an idea, or a set of information related to a particular viewpoint. Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas.[3]

Social rejection was and is a punishment in many customary legal systems. Such sanctions include the ostracism of ancient Athens and the still-used kasepekang in Balinese society.

In religion

Christianity

Anabaptism

Certain sects of the Amish—an Anabaptist community—practice shunning or meidung.[4] Historically, the Schwarzenau Brethren practiced a form of shunning that they called "avoidance," a refusal to eat with even a family member whom the church had placed in "avoidance."[5]

Catholicism

Prior to the Code of Canon Law of 1983, in rare cases (known as excommunication vitandi) the Catholic Church expected adherents 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 anymore.[6]

Jehovah's Witnesses

See main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline.

Jehovah's Witnesses practice a form of shunning, which was for many years referred to as "disfellowshipping". A tribunal of elders determines whether an individual has committed a serious sin and is unrepentant. Elders may meet with the individual a number of times to encourage repentance before deciding to remove the person from the congregation.[7]

For many years, members were instructed to not even greet shunned individuals.[8] [9] As of March 2024, members are permitted to invite shunned individuals to congregation meetings or offer brief greetings at meetings, unless the individual is deemed to be an apostate.[10]

Sociologist Andrew Holden's research indicates that many Witnesses who would otherwise defect because of disillusionment with the organization and its teachings retain affiliation out of fear of being shunned and losing contact with friends and family members.

Judaism

See main article: Herem (censure). Cherem is the highest ecclesiastical censure in the Jewish community. It is the total exclusion of a person from the Jewish community. It is still used in the Ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic community. In the 21st century, sexual abuse victims and their families who have reported abuse to civil authorities have experienced shunning in the Orthodox communities of New York[11] and Australia.[12] Orthodox Jewish men who refuse to grant their wives a divorce are sometimes subject to shunning or shaming, as a form of social pressure intended to compel the husband to allow his wife to leave the marriage. This pressure can take the form of refusing to allow the husband to perform certain religious rituals in the synagogue, refusing his business in commerce, legal solutions such as restraining orders, and public shaming.[13] [14]

Baháʼí faith

See main article: Covenant breaker. Members of the Baháʼí Faith are expected to shun those that have been declared Covenant-breakers, and expelled from the religion,[15] by the head of their faith.[16] Covenant-breakers are defined as leaders of schismatic groups that resulted from challenges to legitimacy of Baháʼí leadership, as well as those who follow or refuse to shun them.[16] Unity is considered the highest value in the Baháʼí Faith, and any attempt at schism by a Baháʼí is considered a spiritual sickness, and a negation of that for which the religion stands.

Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology asks its members to quit all communication with suppressive persons (those whom the Church deems antagonistic to Scientology). The practice of shunning in Scientology is termed disconnection. Members can disconnect from any person they already know, including existing family members. Many examples of this policy's application have been established in court.[17] [18] [19] It used to be customary to write a "disconnection letter" to the person being disconnected from, and to write a public disconnection notice, but these practices have not continued.[20] [21]

The Church states 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. According to official Church statements, disconnection is only used as a last resort and only lasts until the antagonism ceases.[22] Failure to disconnect from a suppressive person is itself labelled a suppressive act.[23] In the United States, the Church has tried to argue in court that disconnection is a constitutionally protected religious practice. However, this argument was rejected because the pressure put on individual Scientologists to disconnect means it is not voluntary.[24]

See also

References

Sources

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: What is Psychological Torture? . https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/resources/library/documents-and-reports/ojeda.pdf . 2022-10-09 . live . humanrights.ucdavis.edu . September 30, 2006 . August 31, 2011 . Ojeda, Almerindo.
  2. 10.1126/science.1137651. 17510357. The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science. 316. 5827. 998–1002. 2007. Haidt . J.. 2007Sci...316..998H. 10.1.1.398.8944. 6161377. (read online) Retrieved June 15, 2015.
  3. Web site: Flat Earth Society . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20091113015212/http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65 . 2009-11-13 . April 16, 2014.
  4. Web site: Why do the Amish practice shunning?. Amish America.
  5. Book: Carl F Bowman. Brethren Society: The Cultural Transformation of a Peculiar People. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1995. 90-91.
  6. Excommunication. Auguste . Boudinhon. 5.
  7. The Watchtower. August 2024. 20 - 25. Watch Tower Society. Responding to Sin With Love and Mercy.
  8. August 1, 2002. Our Kingdom Ministry. 3–4. Watch Tower Society. Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped.
  9. September 15, 1981. The Watchtower. 25. Watch Tower Society. A simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?. Disfellowshiping—How to View It.
  10. 2024 Governing Body update #2. WatchTower Bible and Tract Society. April 11, 2024. 13:12.
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community Rabbis' absolute power: how sex abuse tore apart Australia's Orthodox Jewish community
  13. Web site: Stomel . Rachel . A prying shame: The public scrutiny of get refusers . The Times of Israel . 11 January 2023.
  14. News: Lefkowitz Brooks . Jacob Joseph . Rabbis, others demonstrate against 'get refuser' while he is sitting shiva . 11 January 2023 . Shalhevet Boiling Point . August 29, 2019.
  15. Book: Van den Hoonaard, Willy Carl . The origins of the Bahá'í community of Canada, 1898-1948 . Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press . 1996 . 978-0-88920-272-6 . 107.
  16. Book: Smith, P. . 1999 . A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith . Oneworld Publications . Oxford, UK . 114–116 . 978-1-85168-184-6 .
  17. Judgement of Mr Justice Latey, Re: B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division), London, 23 July 1984
  18. News: Judge brands Scientology 'sinister' as mother is given custody of children . 24 July 1984 . 3.
  19. 30 January 1971. 297–298. News and Notes: Scientology Libel Action. 0007-1447. 1. 5294085. 5743. 1794922. 10.1136/bmj.1.5743.297. British Medical Journal.
  20. Book: Wallis, Roy. The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology. Heinemann Educational Books. London. 1976. 144–145. 978-0-435-82916-2. 310565311. The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology.
  21. Hubbard, L. Ron (23 December 1965) HCO Policy Letter "Suppressive Acts" reproduced in Book: Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand and any associated Scientology organisation or bodies in New Zealand; report of the Commission of Inquiry. Sir Guy Richardson . Powles . E. V. Dumbleton . 30 June 1969. 147661 . Wellington. 53–54.
  22. http://faq.scientology.org/discon.htm What is Disconnection?
  23. Book: Hubbard, L. Ron . Introduction to Scientology Ethics (Latin American Spanish ed.) . Bridge Publications . 2007 . 209 . 978-1-4031-4684-7.
  24. California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)