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]
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]
Jehovah's Witnesses practice a form of shunning, which was for many years referred to as "disfellowshipping".[7] 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.[8]
For many years, members were instructed to not even greet shunned individuals.[9][10] 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.[11]
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.[12]
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[13] and Australia.[14] 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.[15][16]
Members of the Baháʼí Faith are expected to shun those that have been declared Covenant-breakers, and expelled from the religion,[17] by the head of their faith.[18] 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.[18] 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.[18]
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.[19][20][21] 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.[22][23]
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.[24] Failure to disconnect from a suppressive person is itself labelled a suppressive act.[25] 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.[26]
See also
Al Wala' Wal Bara' – Islamic concept of friendship toward fellow Muslims, and distance from non-Muslims.
^Ojeda, Almerindo (September 30, 2006). "What is Psychological Torture?"(PDF). humanrights.ucdavis.edu. Archived(PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
^"Disfellowshiping—How to View It". The Watchtower. Watch Tower Society. September 15, 1981. p. 25. 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?
^Van den Hoonaard, Willy Carl (1996). The origins of the Bahá'í community of Canada, 1898-1948. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. p. 107. ISBN978-0-88920-272-6.
Kraybill, Donald (2001). On the Backroad to Heaven. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Scott, Stephen (1996). An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups. Intercourse, Pennsylvania: Good Books.
Further reading
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, March 1, 1993.
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
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).
