|
Cults & Society
Department: Group Report
|
|
|
|
|
| __________________________________________________ |
| Featured Group Report |
|
Hare Krishna: child abuse
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
2/22
|
Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna
Movement:1971-1986
E.
Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer
Heinlein
[continued]
I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader context
of ISKCON's development as a religious organisation. The expansion of marriage and family life has defined
ISKCON's transition from a communally-organised sectarian movement, to one
characterised by a loosely organised congregation of financially
independent householders and their children (Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997).
As the number of marriages and children began to grow in the
mid-1970s, householder life was redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as
a symbol of spiritual weakness. As
a stigmatised and politically marginal group, householders were left
powerless to assert their parental authority over the lives of their
children. Children were abused in part because they were not valued by
leaders, and even, very often, by their own parents who accepted
theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for
remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children.
In recent years, child abuse has played an influential role in the
ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of ISKCON's
leadership. For many ISKCON
members, and devotees marginal to or outside of the organisation, child
abuse stands as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's
traditionalist, communal, hierarchical (that is, sectarian) form of social
organisation. Child abuse has
come to represent a fundamental betrayal of trust, not only for abused
children and their parents but also for the membership more generally.
(Also, see Rochford 1998a on leader misconduct and changing sources
of religious authority within ISKCON.)
It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows how many
of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula.
It is also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas
did not uniformly experience problems of child abuse.
Finally, the virtual collapse of these institutions in North
America and world-wide in favour of community day-schools, has all but
eliminated the context of abuse considered here.3
Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first want to
build a broader context for my discussion.
One only has to pick up the local newspaper to realise that child
abuse occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.
Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain
immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest otherwise.
Various religious groups
conventional
and unconventional alike
have
been shaken by allegations of child abuse, especially sexual misconduct on
the part of church authorities (Jenkins 1996:50
52;
Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).
1/22 <
> 22/22
|
| ______________________________________________
^ |
| |
|
Cults & Society
Department: Group Report
|
|
|
|
|
| __________________________________________________ |
| Featured Group Report |
|
Hare Krishna: child abuse
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
2/22
|
Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna
Movement:1971-1986
E.
Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer
Heinlein
[continued]
I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader context
of ISKCON's development as a religious organisation. The expansion of marriage and family life has defined
ISKCON's transition from a communally-organised sectarian movement, to one
characterised by a loosely organised congregation of financially
independent householders and their children (Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997).
As the number of marriages and children began to grow in the
mid-1970s, householder life was redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as
a symbol of spiritual weakness. As
a stigmatised and politically marginal group, householders were left
powerless to assert their parental authority over the lives of their
children. Children were abused in part because they were not valued by
leaders, and even, very often, by their own parents who accepted
theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for
remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children.
In recent years, child abuse has played an influential role in the
ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of ISKCON's
leadership. For many ISKCON
members, and devotees marginal to or outside of the organisation, child
abuse stands as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's
traditionalist, communal, hierarchical (that is, sectarian) form of social
organisation. Child abuse has
come to represent a fundamental betrayal of trust, not only for abused
children and their parents but also for the membership more generally.
(Also, see Rochford 1998a on leader misconduct and changing sources
of religious authority within ISKCON.)
It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows how many
of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula.
It is also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas
did not uniformly experience problems of child abuse.
Finally, the virtual collapse of these institutions in North
America and world-wide in favour of community day-schools, has all but
eliminated the context of abuse considered here.3
Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first want to
build a broader context for my discussion.
One only has to pick up the local newspaper to realise that child
abuse occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.
Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain
immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest otherwise.
Various religious groups
conventional
and unconventional alike
have
been shaken by allegations of child abuse, especially sexual misconduct on
the part of church authorities (Jenkins 1996:50
52;
Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).
1/22 <
> 22/22
|
| ______________________________________________
^ |
|