----
Ted Crawford
Political and Religious Sectarianism
A Comparison and Contrast
THIS article was written in the late 1980s in rather sociological, not to say sociologese, language. I sent it to Bryan Wilson at All Souls, who replied very kindly and made some suggestions, but I never got round to getting it published in any respectable academic journal. Its time seems rather past, the remains of the Workers Revolutionary Party have moved on and out since I wrote, but I would argue that the past, however ridiculous, has a few lessons on pitfalls to be avoided today. The main theme is that such cultic bodies are reciprocally - I will not dignify the process with the word 'dialectically' - shaped both by their organisational structures and by the ideology. The logic of these processes might eventually result in formations far removed from the views of those who founded them, let alone those in whose name they were founded. Comrades might amuse themselves by applying this sort of approach to other left-wing groups with cultic tendencies, as it might illuminate their understanding.
'The sect is not only an ideological unit, it is, to a greater or lesser degree, a social unit, seeking to enforce behaviour on those who accept belief, and seeking every occasion to draw the faithful apart from the rest of society and into the company of each other. In its extreme form, the sect provides a sphere of investigation for the sociologist somewhat akin to the anthropologist's isolated tribal society. The essential difference, however, is that the sect, as a protest group, has always developed its own distinctive ethic, belief and practices against the background of the wider society; its own protest is conditioned by the economic, social, ideological and religious circumstances prevailing at the time of its emergence and development.'
The literature on religious sectarianism is large, and has given rise to considerable debate about the typology of such sects. The basic categories within which these debates take place seem to derive from Weber via Troeltsch, and sects are characterised by differing clusters of attributes. However, since the studies of sectarianism have expanded beyond Protestantism to the whole world with its many religions and cultures, the task of fitting the varieties of human behaviour displayed into the Procrustean bed of consistent theoretical categories which are both detailed and persuasive seems, at least to this observer, a task beyond human capacity. Others have attempted to define these groups in terms of simplified schema based on the sects' attitude to the secular, so that sects are now divided into the broad categories of world denying, world indifferent or world affirming. This would seem to confine the categories to groups whose ideology was other-worldly, and that might be too constricting, because such comparative observations might have value outside the purely religious grouping. Thus this piece simply raises the question of what constitutes the distinction between the political and the religious, and suggests the difficulty of distinguishing these two phenomena. It is not, of course, the first time that this has been attempted.
Whatever typology is adopted, it would seem that close descriptions of individual and collective behaviour of groups held together by ideologies, which cut off the individuals within these groups from the majority of society, have great value for the light it throws more generally on human dynamics. An interesting aspect of this is the way that the behaviour of sect members interrelates both with their own ideological conceptions and with the outside world. The ideology is changed by the pressures of the world outside, but it does so in subtle and unexpected ways, since there is a complex dialectical process at work between organisation, the ideology itself, which also tends to change, and the way events in the world outside are perceived. What is more, since this world is a dynamic one and always in a state of flux, the response of the sectarians to such changes has a fascination of its own. An illustrative example of the complicated and contradictory interaction of belief and organisational form is found in the anarchist journal Freedom, originally founded by Prince Kropotkin and still in existence today. Anarchists spurn the 'tyranny of the majority', and bitterly dislike the idea of the editorial board being elected at the behest of a membership. A membership to them is anathema, and is half-way to Stalin's dictatorship. As a result the editorial board simply appoints new members as positions become vacant, using the property rights which were invested in it by the late Prince, though most of the editorial board would assert, as a self-evident truth, that 'Property is Theft'. It could not have been otherwise, and, furthermore, it may not be a coincidence that Freedom is the longest-lived political journal on the left.
I intend in this short article to discuss certain other social formations - those of some of the tiny political sects which often show many of the same clusters of attributes as the religious ones. They are not, of course, the same thing, for religious sects claim to be legitimated by supra-mundane concepts and thus pursue ends that transcend normal experience and everyday rules of evidence, while the political groupings pretend to understand the world better than others, and to see below the surface phenomena that determine the actions of the unthinking majority. We shall see later that this may mean that they develop in a different fashion from their religious analogues, even if there are often strong similarities. We must also be clear that the range of behaviour that is apparent among political tendencies is very wide, at least as wide if not wider than that displayed by religious sects. Just as one must distinguish between a church and a sect, so one must distinguish between a political group with highly developed religious-sectarian attributes and what is, in fact, merely a small group of people with distinct and perhaps original political ideas. There is, of course, a spectrum of types, and some political organisations go through a pre-sectarian phase before moving to a sectarian one. The process seems less common in the other direction, though it is not unknown under conditions of social upheaval. Interestingly enough, left-wing groups are aware of these distinctions, and, using religious language, often accuse one another of sectarianism or triumphalism, frequently both at once - though these two qualities are far from being exclusive in any context - while French groups denounce 'Ceux qui gardent leur boîte de chapelle!' after others have refused unity negotiations. Marx and Trotsky themselves, much plagued by this phenomenon, attempted roughly to define the difference between a sectarian and a political individual in terms which suggest that it is the degree to which the political sectarian isolates himself from the concerns of ordinary people about him, rather than his beliefs per se, that determines his category.
My sources and techniques for this investigation are not in principle any different from those who have studied religious groups. I have used the open material which is published by the groups, and have talked with members and above all ex-members. I have also looked at some of the other studies of religio-political sectarian groups. I have, when a member of the International Socialists, debated with the Socialist Party of Great Britain in Paddington. I have not hidden the fact that I have considerable differences with these bodies. My own background is that I was a member of three broadly Trotskyist groups in between 1964 and 1978. I was never a member of the Socialist Labour League, but was present in their milieu from 1958, and went to an early and much more political meeting of theirs chaired, if I remember rightly, by Brian Behan, the brother of the playwright Brendan. In the course of 30 years, I have known and talked with many of their ex-members. My own position is that I would still consider myself some kind of Marxist, and would argue that the religious characteristics which I have perceived in the WRP and SPGB were sometimes seen in much more attenuated form in other tendencies. To any critics of mine in these other bodies, I would simply say: 'If the cap fits, wear it!' To be honest, I believe that the SLL/WRP was sui generis, though this view is not shared by some ex-members, who tend, far more than I do, to see all Trotskyist proto-parties as of this type, having a tendency to this kind of behaviour, even if these other political entities are not so extreme. I shall consider only left-wing groups, since I suspect that the internal and external dynamics of right-wing extremist groups are rather different, and I have little knowledge of, and even less empathy with, them. I am sure that some fascist groups show some religious characteristics of a sectarian kind.
It is necessary first to look at the structural characteristics that authorities who study them use to define religious sects. Bryan Wilson and Andrew Walker see 11 behavioural traits which define religious sectarians. Wilson lists the following items that are typical of a sect:
It is a voluntary association.
Membership is by proof to the sect authorities of some special merit, such as knowledge of doctrine or conversion experience.
Exclusiveness is emphasised, and the expulsion of deviants is exercised.
There is the conception of an elect or gathered remnant with special enlightenment.
Personal perfection - however defined - is the expected level of aspiration of members.
There is ideally a priesthood of all believers.
There is a high level of participation by ordinary members.
The member is allowed to express his commitment spontaneously.
The sect is hostile or indifferent to the secular society and the state.
The commitment of the sectarian is always more total and more clearly defined than that of a member of other religious organisations.
Sects have a totalitarian rather than segmental hold over their members, and their ideology tends to keep the sectarian apart from the 'world'. The ideological orientation to secular society is dictated by the sect, or member behaviour is strictly specified.
Now, of course, Wilson and Walker recognise that these are ideal types, as it were. No sect exhibits all these characteristics in a fully-fledged way, and in some religious bodies some of them are missing entirely. Yet if we change a few of these concepts slightly, we can see how some small political bodies reflect similar modes of behaviour. These little groups are voluntary, though this is their least distinctive characteristic, for so indeed are tennis clubs.
The idea of 'conversion' is missing, but merit because of knowledge of doctrine is certainly there.
Some are notorious for the expulsion of deviants, and exclusivity as regards other similar bodies is emphasised.
Some see themselves as an 'elect', the 'World Party of the Revolution', appointed for a great historical task.
Members of the group may well be exhorted to harden themselves for the great struggles ahead, to become Bolshevik Jesuits, 'shock troops of the Revolution', 'dead men on leave', to seek, in other words, for perfection, though for collective political purposes rather than for personal salvation.
The attribute of the priesthood of all believers is missing, though members may well regard themselves as at least company commanders in the revolutionary army, and capable of operating as political beings on their own without directives from above. In fact, of course, the recitation of formulae may be a poor training for independent action in the real political world.
For some groups the level of participation by members is unbelievably high, and there is at least as great a difference in this respect between them and most members of political parties as that which exists between sectarians and members of denominations.
The concept of spontaneous worship is naturally lacking in political groups, but members may well be expected to declare their allegiance and beliefs among their fellows at work and play - if indeed they have any spare time from politics.
They are never indifferent to the state, but bitterly hostile both to it and to many aspects of modern society.
Their commitment is often total and more clearly defined than in other political organisations, while some political grouplets have a totalitarian hold over their members. Thus we can see that if this cluster of attributes is indeed associated with political groups, then the use of the word 'sect' to describe them is not a mere expletive but has some descriptive power. Though there are some differences between them and religious sects, we should not be surprised if similar personality types and similar behaviour patterns are common to both sorts of organisations.
The first great contrast between political and religious groups is that the political groups are tiny, since their size may range from only 50 to 5000 at the very most, while an organisation of 300 or 400 members is a significant force. What is more, such an organisation's members will be overwhelmingly voluntaristic and one-generational, of the sort that Weber and Troeltsch regarded as typical of Protestant religious sects. Even if the sect is relatively long lived, recruitment is likely to stay voluntaristic. By contrast, a small religious sect in Britain may number several tens of thousands. Again, unlike the political group, most religious sects will be made up overwhelmingly of families, which may provide future recruits, though there have been exceptions in the past, such as the Shakers. Present day political tendencies, whether sectarian or not, probably have very low natural reproduction rates, and often, when members start families, they drop out of membership. In at least one group in Western Europe, and one moreover that is relatively very large, perhaps in 1987 the largest Trotskyist group in the developed world, this is formalised, and members are expelled for procreation.
The second great contrast is the short life-span of the political sect compared to the religious one. The reasons for these two distinctions are closely related. Like some religious sects, the political sect sets itself up in opposition to the affairs of this world, but unlike them its ideology must at least attempt to come to terms with, and indeed influence, or claim to influence, that world. In a sense, therefore, it is tested against what is happening, while the religious sect attempts to define an ideology that will remain valid whatever events occur outside. The latter's ideology, therefore, is circular and metaphysical, while that of the political tendency must appear, at least to its own members, as rational and scientific. It must, in the long run, produce material results. Thus most political sects do not have a long run, and recruitment from the children of members, therefore, is not an option. The political tendency, however, starts to shape its ideology in a metaphysical direction the more it takes on sectarian-religious behaviour and attributes, or, vice versa, it may take on sectarian attributes after it has shaped its ideology in a metaphysical way.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain
The most striking example of this type of behaviour is seen in the Socialist Party of Great Britain, a group of a few hundred people, which is rapidly approaching its centenary, and is easily the longest-lived Marxist grouping in this country. Its genesis in 1904 arose out of a split in the Social Democratic Federation, the leading Marxist party in Britain at the time. The basis for the break was an argument over the SDF's right-wing behaviour. The SDF, like most of the continental social democrats at the time, had essentially two programmes, a minimum one, which was for everyday political struggle and demands, and a maximum one, which was the total socialist programme. There was little relationship between the two, so everyday politics, and the consequent compromises with political allies that seemed inevitable in the circumstances, increasingly took precedence over the long-term objectives. There was one programme for Sunday, and another for every other day of the week. The SPGB simply declared that they would wear their Sunday best programme everyday, and in order not to dirty it they refused to have any immediate programme of everyday demands at all. The participation of their party in anything but the total demand for socialism as a whole was ruled out of court. The objective of socialism in the future increasingly took on the characteristics of a Holy Grail with little to do with mundane events which occurred around them, such as two world wars and the rise of fascism. Such problems could only be resolved by 'Socialism'. From this initial stance has flowed their behaviour since then.
Like many religious groupings, the SPGB is exclusivist and eschews any allies, so there is a consistent drive for doctrinal purity which certainly cuts across its claims to universality. Membership is determined by tests of doctrinal ability so that, unlike most such groups, members have to pass a formal exam. Levels of activity are much less frenetic than those of other groups. Activity patterns have changed somewhat over the years with the decline of street meetings, for which the old SPGB orators were famous. Television has killed off the open-air preaching tradition, and the party has no access to the mass media. Their paper, Socialist Standard, advertises meetings, and takes up the issues of the day, explaining the Marxist position generally in clear English that is refreshingly devoid of jargon. These meetings and discussions may take place perhaps as often as once a week, and occasionally debates with outsiders are arranged. All meetings are open. The paper is sold in left-wing bookshops and to contacts, but the only party activity apart from this is at elections. The SPGB believes that socialism is impossible unless a socialist government (themselves) is elected. They therefore stand in a few constituencies in every election. The recent sharp rise in candidates' deposits has meant that the numbers standing in general elections have been cut back, and this reform could be seen as religious discrimination, doubtless unintended, by parliament. Their sectarianism is shown by the fact that members are promptly expelled for going on any demonstration of a political nature not called by the SPGB, or, indeed, joining any pressure group which lobbies MPs. SPGBers may be members of trade unions and support economic strikes, but only as individuals, not as party members, and they never attempt to generate a political position inside a union. Members would refuse to join a political strike. No other political group is recognised as being socialist. Male members are conscientious objectors in both war and peace. There is some limited recruitment of the children of members, or at least this has occurred in the past. Many members are vegetarians, though this has never been a condition of membership. There are a few other very small similar groups, largely in the English-speaking world, most of which derive from British emigrants or returned immigrants as in Jamaica and Austria.
The socialist future for the SPGB has an otherworldliness about it that is far more marked than in other political tendencies. There is no time limit as to when this desirable state of affairs will come about. The only mechanism posited is via a normal parliamentary election. If members live under an undemocratic government, they might deplore it, but would not see the restoration or achievement of democracy as their task, and they would refuse to combine with anyone else to struggle for democratic rights if the latter had not passed their exam. (A small affiliate of a few individuals existed in prewar Austria. Under Hitler, from 1938 to 1945, they did nothing until after the war, when they were able to stand again in the elections.) The SPGB therefore simply 'bears witness' to its doctrinal purity, and expels individuals who are detected in heresy. They do not expel for anything else, however heinous. As an example of their very principled stand here was the case when, during the Second World War, a popular newspaper exposed a call-girl racket run by a couple who were both members. Despite the possibility that an organisation that pushed conscientious objection would have been liable to a terrible witch-hunt at that time, its annual conference firmly refused to expel the two members. Even though it could be argued that these two were exploiting working-class women in the vilest manner, the principle of expulsion solely for political reasons could not be watered down. The national newspaper never noticed the procurers' party membership, and the crisis passed, though few other political groups would have passed such a test. They are not moralists as far as party members are concerned, and do not worry if they have very privileged lifestyles, though most members could be categorised, broadly speaking, as lower-middle-class. The lack of criticism of a lifestyle arises, of course, from the fact that everyday matters cannot be issues taken up by the party. The only thing that concerns them is the formal statement of belief in the socialist future, for only that can be relevant. Other roads lead inevitably to 'reformism' and concern for the affairs of this world, together with alliances with the less-than-socialist, the impure if you will.
Thus it seems clear that the SPGB would be less likely to be affected by economic, social and political change around it than any other political group known to me. It therefore more closely approximates to the definition of a religious sect than any other, though its members, who have a formal atheist position, would strongly repudiate such a suggestion. There is indeed some overlap of its milieu with that of the Secular Society. Their only activity is propaganda or 'Witnessing to the Word', together with a few candidatures at general elections, and these latter are in the style of the conversion activities of the Brethren, formal rather than real; for example, there must be a minimum of 10 members in a constituency to stand a candidate. The SPGB is the nearest thing on the political scene to a passive, quietist 'sect' of the 'intro-versionist' type. There are some similarities with the Exclusive Brethren, though these can be exaggerated. As in the Exclusives, there are no full-time professionals, and leadership emerges as the result of the public recognition of doctrinal ability. Like the Brethren, too, there is a certain tension, for doctrine has to be developed if only to take account of changes in society. Leading individuals can therefore find themselves squeezed out to only a marginal importance if the developments that they espouse are not recognised by the other members. Consequently, they lose their authority. Quite distinct from the Exclusives, however, the SPGB does make a real effort to convert others to its point of view. If it did not the party would not have lasted as long as it has. Nevertheless, recently there have been reports of considerable changes within the SPGB. If so, that suggests that the world outside has created problems for even the quietist type Marxism of the SPGB, and there must be a possibility that great convulsions will occur in future within other Marxist groups if even the SPGB makes a radical change of direction.
Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)