\documentclass[titlepage,11pt]{article}
% -------------------------------------------------------------------
%   begin standard style and title page section 
% -------------------------------------------------------------------

\usepackage{charter}

\usepackage{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{ajs}

\usepackage[paperwidth=7in,
            paperheight=9in,
            width=5.in,
            height=7.5in,
            pdftex]{geometry}

\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage[usenames,pdftex]{color}
\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}

% This has to be the last usepackage
\usepackage[urlcolor=webblue,
            citecolor=webgreen,
            pdfpagemode={UseOutlines},
            pdfstartview=FitH,
            bookmarks,
            backref,
            pdftitle='Devil's Advocate: Converging claims and the construction of Satanic ritual abuse',
            pdfauthor='Rich Lafferty',
            colorlinks]{hyperref}

\definecolor{webgreen}{rgb}{0,0.5,0}
\definecolor{webblue}{rgb}{0,0,0.5}
\definecolor{webred}{rgb}{0.5,0,0}

\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1ex plus 0.5ex minus 0.2ex}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}\normalsize

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-2}

\lhead{\textsc{Devil's Advocate}}
\chead{}
\rhead{\textit{\thepage}}

\lfoot{}
\cfoot{\href{http://www.lafferty.ca/writing/}{http://www.lafferty.ca/writing/}}
\rfoot{}

\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0.1pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0.1pt}

\title{166-460B Paper Proposal}
\author{Rich Lafferty}

\hyphenation{Moon-ies re-port-ed-ly epi-de-mic jones-town}

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}

\begin{center}

\vspace{0.5in}

{\LARGE {\bf {\it Devil's Advocate}}}

{\Large Converging claims and\\the construction of Satanic ritual abuse}

\vspace{0.5in}

{\large
\href{mailto:rich+writing@lafferty.ca}{Rich Lafferty}\\
March 2001\\
\vspace{0.2in}
\href{http://www.lafferty.ca/writing/}{http://www.lafferty.ca/writing/}
}

\end{center}

\vfill

\begin{center}
{\bf Abstract}
\end{center}

The Satanic ritual child abuse panic of the 1980s and early 1990s is
analyzed using Spector and Kitsuse's claims-making theory of social
problems. The role of a convergence of claims-making behavior amongst
three groups---fundamentalist Christians, the Anti-Cult Movement, and
the Child Savers---in establishing Satanic ritual abuse as a social
problem is discussed and used to explain how Satanic ritual abuse
became a social problem without any abuse taking place.  Spector and
Kitsuse's theory is found to be successful in explaining the causes of
the Satanic ritual abuse panic.

\end{titlepage}


% -------------------------------------------------------------------
%   end standard style and title page section
% -------------------------------------------------------------------

% =====================================================================
%\chunk{Introduction}
\begin{center}
\textit{``Social problems are what people think they are.''}\\
\small(\cite{spector77}: 73)
\end{center}

From 1980 until the mid-1990s, the United States, and to a lesser
extent, Canada and western Europe, were reportedly facing an epidemic
of multiple-victim, multiple-offender child abuse in Satanic
ritual. Rigorously-organized groups of Satanists were allegedly
ritually molesting and murdering children, engaging in cannibalism,
and breeding babies, often incestuously, for the purpose of ritual
sacrifice. 

Using the analytical approach of \cite{spector77} which
considers social problems as claims-making activity, I intend to show
that the issue of Satanic ritual abuse in the United States served as a
mutually- and externally-reinforcing vehicle by which a variety of
(often orthogonal) value and interest groups could assert the
existence of different but complementary conditions in need of remedy.

%=====================================================================
%
\subsection{The rise of Satanic abuse} 
No accounts of Satanic ritual abuse can be found prior to 1980. In
that year, Michelle Smith, along with her psychologist, Lawrence
Padzer, published \emph{Michelle Remembers}, an allegedly true
account of Smith's tortuous childhood at the hands of a Satanic cult
of which her parents were members. The best-selling book documented in
gruesome detail how Smith was sexually abused, imprisoned for months,
tortured in houses and mausoleums, forced to drink blood, and caged
with snakes (\cite{smith80}).

Dr.~Padzer later admitted that the book was a hoax, its fictional
accounts of abuse constructed from his knowledge of African black
magic (\cite{victor93}), but the seed had been planted. Accounts from
adult women alleging experiences of Satanic ritual abuse in their childhood
began appearing immediately after the publication of \emph{Michelle
Remembers}; allegations of contemporary ritual abuse appeared from children
and parents within a year (\cite{nathan91}). There is little doubt
that Smith's account served, intentionally or otherwise, as a model
in these allegations; the book was widely disseminated, and used as an
investigative guide and as a basis for workshops on the ritual abuse
problem (\cite{nathan91}; \cite{victor93}).

The Satanic ritual abuse story was quickly taken up by the
sensationalist press. Tabloid newspapers, knowing that the story would
sell, began reporting abuse allegations from across the nation as
factual. Television talk shows picked up the Satanic scent: the
\emph{Geraldo} episode on Satanic ritual abuse---which Geraldo would
later admit to have been based in speculation---was the most widely
watched talk show episode in history (\cite{bottoms97}). Stories of
Satanic abuse began to reach the mainstream, ``hard news'' press by
1983, and a made-for-TV movie, \emph{Something About Amelia}, showed
on the ABC network in 1984 (\cite{deyoung96}). While the mainstream
papers were reporting Satanic ritual abuse with skepticism, tabloids
were responding with credulity, and television with enthusiasm.

While the complaining parents in the first allegations of contemporary
Satanic abuse suffered without exception from mental illness
(\cite{nathan95}), ``copy-cat'' but credibly sourced allegations began
appearing regularly after the \emph{Geraldo} coverage of Satanic
abuse. Children were reportedly being abducted from shopping malls and
playgrounds, sold outright, harvested from Satanist-operated
orphanages, or bred explicitly for sacrifice by adolescent victims
(\cite{nathan91}). In her bestselling account of her own alleged
abuse at the hands of Satanists, Johanna Michaelsen hypothesizes on
the pervasiveness of Satanist child-gathering, wondering
\begin{quote}
\ldots how many runaway kids are never heard from again? What about
the throwaways that no-one bothers to report missing at all? Some of
the kids are taken from transient families who can no longer afford to
support their little ones and believe they are giving them away to
``good homes,'' or from unwed mothers who innocently give their little
ones over to ``agencies'' and ``reputable'' doctors and lawyers who
promise to find them a loving family. (\cite{michaelsen89}: 251)
\end{quote}
Once in the hands of Satanists, victims claimed to have been
molested by clowns and people in costumes, forced to touch and eat
urine and feces, photographed naked, and forced to take part in ritual
acts. The allegations ran to the absurd, with children
claiming to have been tortured by such improbables as television news
anchormen, or actor Chuck Norris (\cite{nathan95}).

The apogee of the Satanic ritual abuse scare, and the story that broke
Satanic abuse into the mainstream press, started in 1983, and became
the longest court trial the United States has ever seen. In that year,
parents of children who attended the McMartin Preschool in affluent,
suburban Los Angeles began lodging complaints of sexual abuse at the
school. Reports of inappropriate touching quickly expanded into
accounts of sadistic animal killings, sex acts in churches, and
exposure to corpses. Parents claimed that their children had had their
mouths taped, had air tubes placed in their rectums, were jabbed with
scissors and staples, and were forced to drink the blood of murdered
babies. The Satanist explanation for the alleged
abuses, first introduced by McMartin parent Bob Currie only weeks
after the airing of \emph{Something About Amelia}, was
quickly adopted. Michelle Smith and other celebrated victims of
Satanic abuse met with parents and investigators (\cite{nathan91}).

No evidence of abuse was found. Extensive searches of residences,
businesses, and cars, laboratory tests for blood and semen on
everything at the preschool, and archaeological digs at the site of
the school for the underground chambers in which the abuse was alleged
to have occurred turned up nothing. A \$25,000 reward, no questions
asked, for one piece of child pornography originating at McMartin was
never claimed. At the end of the longest trial ever, all defendants
were exonerated.

McMartin was not the only Satanic ritual abuse which did not occur;
according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, none did
(\cite{lanning89}). In his report, Supervisory Special Agent
Kenneth Lanning noted that
\begin{quote}
Not only are there no bodies found, but also, more important, there is
no physical evidence that a murder took place. Many of those not in
law enforcement do not understand that, while it is possible to get
rid of a body, it is much more difficult to get rid of the physical
evidence that a murder took place, especially a human sacrifice
involving sex, blood, and mutilation. (\cite{lanning89}: 20)
\end{quote}
By the mid-1990s, many ``victims'' had been discredited or had
recanted their allegations, many of which were found to have
originated from leading therapy or investigative techniques based on
the original Smith account of Satanic abuse and early copy-cat
accounts (\cite{bottoms97}).

Despite being, according to American folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand, a
``witch-hunt based on an urban-legend script'' (in \cite{victor93}:
{\it i\/}) American opinion found the Satanic scare to be very
real. As late as 1992, 63\% of respondents in a Texas poll considered
Satanic ritual abuse to be a ``very serious'' problem, with a further
23\% found it ``somewhat serious;'' in Jordan, Michighan, where a
preschool staff had been charged with ritual abuse, 80\% of residents
believed in Satanic ritual abuse even after all charges had been
dropped (\cite{victor93}). Despite having never occurred, Satanic
ritual abuse remained a social problem for Americans.

% =====================================================================
%
\subsection{Claims-making activity} 

The concept of nonexistent phenomena as social problem does not fit
well with traditional sociological conceptualizations of social
problems. Traditionally, social-problems theory has centred around the
notion that social problems are a kind of condition; i.e., that a
social problem is something which exists, or has
happened. \cite{spector77} contest this approach, arguing that ``any
definition of social problems that begins `social problems are those
conditions\ldots' will lead to a conceptual and methodological impasse
that will frustrate attempts to build a specialized area of study''
(74).

The case of Satanic ritual abuse serves to illustrate the flaw in the
conventional approach. There is no question that Satanic ritual abuse
was (and, perhaps, still is) a social problem in the United States. As
we will see below, a variety of groups with very little in common
organized and mobilized themselves around it.  Legislation was enacted
to prevent it, accompanied by tax dollars. The archetypal conventional
definition of a social problem, according to Fuller and Myers, is that
of ``a condition which is defined by a \emph{considerable number of
persons} as a \emph{deviation from some norm} that they cherish''
(\cite{spector77}: 74, emphasis mine). Satanic ritual abuse clearly
matches the criteria; the entire nation was up in arms over the
deviant behavior of the alleged Satanic cults. But having identified
the social problem, the traditional approach then concentrates on the
condition---a condition which did not exist. We quickly find ourselves
at the impasse which Spector and Kitsuse predict.

Instead of concentrating on the \emph{condition} which is defined as a
social problem, Spector and Kitsuse focus on the \emph{process} by
which members of a society define a condition as a social problem;
that is, ``as \emph{the activities of individuals or groups making
assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative
conditions}'' (\cite{spector77}: 75, emphasis in
original). Here we discover the magic key by which we can examine the
Satanic ritual abuse problem: \emph{putative} conditions. The
existence of the condition is no longer relevant in and of itself. The
existence of claims and the process by which those claims are made
(and not the validity of the claims) are the social problem to be
approached. 

Claims are the means by which members of a society attempt to call
attention to situations they find repugnant in order to mobilize
institutions to do something about them:
\begin{quote}
by defining, giving a name to, and developing a theory to
account for this trouble, they make it possible for others to
experience as unsatisfactory some aspect of their environment that
previously they had been unaware of. (\cite{spector77}: 82)
\end{quote}
It is important to emphasize the distinction between the claim and the
phenomenon which led to the claim. In particular, the definition, name
and theory may be only tangentially related to the condition, and
different members or groups may define, name, and theorize a given set
of conditions in different ways. Claims will usually be framed so as
to get a response from an agency which will be able to correct the
problem to the satisfaction of the group making the claim. In the
``social-problems marketplace,'' groups compete with one another not
only to have their problem resolved, but to have their definition of
the problem used in its resolution (\cite{richardson91}). If no agency
is willing to listen to a claim, or if none are able to supply
solutions, or if none are even available to take blame, then the
claims-makers may reform the claim in order to try to better attract
attention. A group making a claim may form it
to appeal to the general public as well as to the agency capable of
acting on the problem, such that the conditions alleged by the claim
make a political issue. They may also form the
claim to ride on the success of another group, sacrificing attention
being paid to their problem, in exchange for a guarantee of
\emph{some} attention directed their way (\cite{spector77}). These
last three strategies are particularly relevant to the claims
surrounding Satanic ritual abuse.

Groups making claims can be classified by their relationship to the
claim being made. When a claim is made on a humanitarian,
``principled'' basis---that is, the group making the claim is doing so
because it is the ``right'' thing---the group making the claim is a
\emph{value} group. On the other hand, complainants who claim to be
the victims of the conditions which they allege---that is, they are
affected directly by the conditions---form an \emph{interest} group.
These paradigms are seldom found in their pure states. Value groups
may find, after making claims, that they have an interest in the issue
at hand. Interest groups may find it necessary to frame their problem
as a question of values. A group may find that they values and
interests overlap, by which interest-based claims can be justified
with values. Last, a group may find that the interests and values
involved conflict, creating a situation in which values will be
sacrificed for interests, or vice versa (\cite{spector77}).

Before examining the groups involved in claims-making activity and
their claims around the Satanic ritual abuse problem, it is worthwhile
to note one further classification of claims, regarding the
objectivity of the claims-makers. \cite{richardson97} defines three
modes of objectivism practiced by those making claims of Satanic
ritual abuse. First, \emph{strict} objectivism bases its claims on the
literal existence of the Christian personification of evil, Satan:
``Satan exists.''  Second, \emph{secular} objectivism makes no
judgment on the existence of Satan, but bases its claims on the
existence of Satanists: ``Satanists exist.'' Third, \emph{opportunist}
objectivism makes no claim regarding the existence of Satan or
Satanists, but only claims that concern about Satanic abuse is real:
``People concerned about Satanic ritual abuse exist.''

Armed with these basic theoretical tools, we can now examine the
nature of the groups which were involved in making claims about
Satanic ritual abuse, in order to determine the forces leading to the
claims-making activity in general, and the claims of Satanic ritual
abuse in particular.

% ====================================================================
%
\subsection{Fundamentalist Christians}
It seems only natural to turn to fundamentalist Christianity to
explain a Satanic problem. However, the role of fundamentalist
Christians as claims-makers in the Satanic ritual abuse problem is
complex.

Fundamentalist Christianity was, until the mid-1970s, considered to be
an anachronistic, rural culture. Based on the literal
interpretation of the Bible, Christian fundamentalism lends itself to
a traditional and extremely conservative world view, one that often
conflicts with late-twentieth-century America.

The late 1970s and early 1980s brought an unusual turn: fundamentalist
minister and politician Jerry Fallwell's Moral Majority became a
strong conservative political force in the United States. Both Jimmy
Carter and Ronald Reagan ascended to the presidency with the support
of the Moral Majority, as did a considerable number of congressmen
(\cite{nathan95}). Fundamentalist Christianity was no longer the
backwater religion of the uneducated. It had gathered a great deal of
political clout. This rise to power was a reaction to dramatic changes
in American society. Divorce was becoming commonplace; the sexual
liberation movement of the 60s had changed the sexual landscape of
society; women were leaving the home to take on jobs, often leaving
the children in the care of strangers (\cite{bottoms97}).

To the fundamentalist Christian, everything wrong with the
world---that is, everything in disagreement with traditional Christian
values---is the work of Satan. Satan is, first and foremost, a
Christian idea, the personification of all things evil, but in
fundamentalist Christianity, the phrase ``the work of Satan'' is taken
literally (\cite{bottoms97}). Unfortunately for fundamentalist
politicians, this idea was poorly accepted by more liberal minds. The
idea that Satan's literal influence on society needed addressing
would, and did, fall on deaf ears.

The fundamentalist Christians found themselves in an awkward
situation. Strict objectivism and value orientation do not mix;
claiming that Satan walks among us would alienate the general
population, but the only suitable explanation for the rampant
liberalism which they wished to remedy was that it was Satan's
work. They needed a way to sell Satan to the masses.

With the publication of \emph{Michelle Remembers} in 1980, a solution
presented itself. Smith herself was a fundamentalist Christian; in her
book, she claimed that she had been literally rescued from her
tormentors by the Virgin Mary (\cite{smith80}). But Smith's story
didn't sell because it reflected Christian values; it sold because
people believed enough of it. As other groups began to mobilize
against the Satanists who allegedly were committing these gruesome
acts, an opportunity arose for the fundamentalists: the public might
not believe in Satan, but it certainly believed in
Satanists. Moreover, the anti-Satanist movements were implying claims
against many of the things that the fundamentalists were prepared to
claim as social problems, if for different reasons: in particular, the
threat of abuse in daycare carried with it a strong sentiment that
children belong home with their mothers (\cite{bottoms97}). As
anti-Satanist support gained momentum, the fundamentalist Christians
could downplay the literal religious basis of their claims, without
getting rid of it entirely. Not only could they join in decrying
daycare and modern lifestyles which led to Satanic ritual abuse, but
they could still make the connection between evil and Satan without
alienation (\cite{best91}).

It is important to note that the fundamentalist Christians would
probably not have been able to mobilize on their own. Without the
secularization of Satan provided by other, secular anti-Satanists,
they would have remained the Moral Majority, staunch conservatives
who, despite considerable political power, did not have their beliefs
treated particularly seriously by the public at large. The original
claims made by fundamentalist Christians---that the shift to liberal
values was Satan's doing, and would lead to the breakdown of
society---attracted little positive attention, but by reframing it to
emphasize the Satan in Satanic ritual abuse, they were able to direct
it to a public who wanted to believe.

% ====================================================================
% 
\subsection{The Anti-Cult Movement} 
The secularization of Satan which helped the fundamentalists make
their claims is to a degree a result of the efforts of the American
Anti-Cult Movement. The Anti-Cult Movement rose in the early 1970s, as
a response to the increasing popularity of religious groups such as
the Moonies, Hare Krishnas, and New-Agers (\cite{victor93}). Taking a
zero-tolerance approach to religious cults, the Anti-Cult Movement
portrayed cults as manipulative and violent organizations, whose
members were often coerced to join, and brainwashed to stay. The 1978
mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana, in which Reverend Jim Jones ordered
911 of his People's Temple flock to kill themselves by drinking
cyanide, served as powerful evidence that the Anti-Cult image of
manipulative and violent cults was an accurate one; after Jonestown,
the benign meaning of ``cult'' would be all but lost to the average
citizen.

The early 1980s brought trouble for the Anti-Cult Movement; the
supposed threat of Moonies and Krishnas had not materialized, and
American concern over cults was beginning to dry up
(\cite{victor93}). Those working in the Anti-Cult Movement found their
interests at stake: with no cult threat to oppose, many would find
that their source of work would disappear. In order to continue, the
Anti-Cult Movement needed a new cult threat.

The populist concern over Satanism that resulted from \emph{Michelle
Remembers} and subsequent press attention filled that void. Here was
the new threat to America. All of the evidence that the Anti-Cult
Movement needed existed. Satanists certainly existed. Anton LaVey's
Church of Satan had some 5000 members, and offshoots such as the
Temple of Set had a few hundred (\cite{richardson91}). Satanists were
certainly a cult: a radical, minority religious group. Their ties with
Satan, from Christian mythology, reinforced the common-sense notion
that cults were manipulative and violent, and the allegations of
Satanic ritual abuse fit the cult stereotype well.

By linking the various local phenomena---everything from vandalism
by teenage dabblers in Satanism to the alleged multi-victim,
multi-offender ritual abuse---to a nationally organized,
intergenerational, hierarchic cult, the Anti-Cult Movement were able
to construct a new enemy to fight. Theories abounded as to the
``evidence'' of this nationwide organization, or, more accurately, to
excuse the lack of evidence. Their size and subversiveness made
avoiding detection easy, as they had infiltrated the law-enforcement,
judicial, governmental, and even mental-health professions; the
potential for having to participate in rituals kept out legitimate
undercover investigators; they targeted children so that their stories
would be dismissed as fantasy (\cite{bromley91}).

The idea that the Satanists were committing such horrible crimes, and
that they were manipulating and otherwise forcing people to remain
involved with the cult, was central to the Anti-Cult Movement's
position. The emphasis on civil liberties inherent to American
ideology causes problems for anti-cult activism, in that opposition to
cults goes against American guarantees of freedom of religion and
assembly (\cite{nathan95}). By portraying cults in such a way that
members are no longer acting of their own free will, the
civil-liberties hurdles can be overcome. Cult members would have to be
forcibly kept from participating until they can be ``deprogrammed.''
When the cult in question is also involved in criminal activity, the
justification is easier still: since these large, subversive cults
make it near-impossible to stop the \emph{crime}, the only prevention
is to stop people from becoming \emph{members} of the cult in the
first place (\cite{deyoung96}).

The Satanists provided a perfect new crusade for the Anti-Cult
Movement in the wake of a drop in public concern over cults, and the
allegations of Satanic ritual abuse provided the sensational evidence
of the evils of the new American menace. Again, the Anti-Cult
activists could not have raised the Satanic ritual abuse panic alone;
the ritual abuse allegations served only as support to the Movement's
claim of a need to rid America of the subversive Satanist threat.

% ====================================================================
%
\subsection{The Child Savers}
As the name might suggest, the Child Savers are a loosely-organized
group of child-welfare workers, mental health professionals, law
enforcement agents and others who actively work to prevent child abuse.
The particular forms of child abuse which they emphasize is that of
``stranger danger;'' while presented as a question of value, an
examination of the history of the group presents two means by which
their campaign against Satanism is, for them, a question of interest.

The American effort against child abuse has its contemporary origins
in the late 1960s, when studies began to link child abuse to social
problems such as joblessness, poverty, and housing. As the results of
these studies were publicized, demand for legislation to remedy the
problem increased; Washington responded with the Senate Subcommittee
on Children and Youth, chaired by Senator Walter Mondale. The
Subcommittee found itself in an awkward situation: unquestionably,
most child abuse was occurring in the home, often in the form of
neglect, but they knew that President Nixon's conservative government
would oppose it if it challenged traditional values about parental
authority, corporal punishment, and the effects of poverty and
inequality (\cite{nathan91})---opposition similar to that which
would be exerted a decade later by the fundamentalist Christians of
the Moral Majority.

As a result, the work of the Committee, the 1974 Child Protection and
Treatment Act, severely downplayed neglect and social factors in
favour of physical and sexual abuse by strangers (\cite{nathan91}),
despite empirical evidence that the majority of child abuse, from
neglect and outright physical or sexual abuse, occurs in the home,
from family members (\cite{bottoms97}). This presented an unusual
problem for Child Savers: they needed to organize around the
government position on child abuse, which did not reflect the actual
scenario. In order to preserve their interests, they had to reform their
value-based claims around the official portrayal of child abuse.

The first generation of Child Savers targetted an alleged worldwide
child pornography and prostitution ring. The means by which this ring
was alleged to exist are particularly relevant to the Satanic ritual
abuse allegations. In the mid 1970s, self-appointed spokespeople began
promoting claims of an international male prostitution and pornography
ring involving hundreds of thousands of minors. Law enforcement
officials repeated the claims; some short time later, antidrug
activist and later Child Saver Julianne Densen-Gerber arbitrarily
doubled the claims and included girls (\cite{nathan91}). After an NBC
News story claiming that over two million American youngsters were
involved in the child porn industry---some four percent of American
youth---the stranger-danger explanation of child abuse was ingrained
into popular American opinion.

By the beginning of the 1980s, the Child Savers found themselves in a
situation mirroring that of the Anti-Cult Movement: people were
beginning to doubt their claims. Despite Child Saver efforts, child
abuse was still as much of a problem as it had been ten years previous
(unsurprisingly, since the Child Savers weren't addressing the root of
the problem); the public could no longer justify the stranger-danger
approach, and would have to start directing their concern to the real
source of the problem (\cite{nathan95}).

Where the Anti-Cult Movement were able to use ritual-abuse allegations
to attack Satanists, the Child Savers did the reverse. The wave of
Satanic ritual abuse allegations in the 1980s provided an opportunity
to continue their emphasis on physical and sexual abuse over neglect,
and on abuse by strangers over familial abuse. In doing so, they could
maintain their own positions, and ride on the efforts of the other
groups involved. The Satanic element of their claims is of little
relevance; they needed a new industry of child-abuse, and the Satanic
ritual abuse panic provided one.

% ====================================================================
%
\subsection{Discussion}
By looking at the means by which claims are made by claims-makers, we
can see how claims of Satanic ritual abuse became so widely supported;
more importantly, we can see that Satanic ritual abuse, in and of
itself was seldom the original claim being made. More often, it was
discovered as a suitable claim when an original claim was not
successful in gaining attention. 

The fundamentalist Christians' basic claim is that society is entering
a stage of breakdown brought on by Satan himself, as evidenced by a
preponderance of liberal values, and that a return to traditional
values is necessary to prevent Satan from succeeding. The
literalist-Christian nature of this claim found little support; by
reframing the claim in terms of Satanic ritual abuse, they were able
to secularize Satan; to give evidence of the harm caused by liberal
values (in particular, the effects of leaving children in contractual
care instead of in the family (\cite{bromley91}); and to take
advantage of the claims-making of otherwise-unrelated groups. Unlike
other groups, the fundamentalist Christians were able to make claims
based on values throughout, but had to sacrifice their own interest
(in literal Bible interpretation) to reach their audience.

With the Anti-Cult Movement, the original claim of the inherent evils
and dangers of religious cults was losing popularity. The cult
scare had dried up, and an industry of activists was facing the
possibility of being out of work. With the rise of Satanic ritual
abuse in the popular press, anti-cult activists were able to
revitalize the evil portrayal of cults and the Anti-Cult Movement. By
reframing their claims against cults as claims against Satanic ritual
abuse, they were able to campaign against Satanists by implication, 
reestablish the manipulative, violent and subversive stereotype of
cults in America, and ride on the claims made by other
groups claiming against Satanic ritual abuse for different reasons.
This group found themselves with interests to protect---their jobs in
the Anti-Cult industry, and the popular perception of cults which kept
them there---and were able to use Satanic ritual abuse to construct
value-based claims around those interests.

Orthogonal in orientation to the Anti-Cult Movement, the Child Savers
found themselves in the same situation: the claimsmaking upon which
their movement and industry depended was beginning to become
transparent and ineffective. The Satanic ritual abuse panic
revitalized the concept of stranger danger and gave the Child Savers
movement a new enemy against whom to make claims. By making claims
against Satanic ritual abuse, the Child Savers could, by establishing
a new faceless menace out to corrupt American youth, maintain the
redirection of child-protection efforts out of the home and
socioeconomic spheres, maintain the child-protection industry, and
share in the gains of other groups making claims against Satanic
ritual abuse. Like the Anti-Cult group, what is presented as a
value-based claim, ``protecting the children,'' closely involves the
interests of the claimsmakers.

To an extent, all of these groups sacrificed their own positions
somewhat by reframing their original claims around Satanic ritual
abuse. Fundamentalists said ``Satanic ritual abuse'' when they meant
``Satan and liberals;'' the Anti-Cult Movement said ``Satanic ritual
abuse'' when they meant ``cults including Satanists;'' and the Child
Savers said ``Satanic ritual abuse'' when they meant ``physical abuse
by strangers.'' This invites the question: Why did Satanic ritual
abuse claims work so well for these groups?

The merit and effectiveness of the Satanic ritual abuse claims was not
a direct result of widespread press attention; to assume so would be
to reverse causality. The press, especially the sensationalist press,
sells stories that people want to hear. In this case, the success of
the Satanic ritual abuse claims in obtaining press attention, and the
subsequent attention of the general public, resulted from contemporary
occurrences of classic legends. Satanic ritual abuse was, after all,
the stuff of urban legend, tales which, in folklorist Bill Ellis's
words, ``are presented as `news' freshly arisen, to deal with a
situation requiring urgent attention; a fundamentally political
attempt to gain social control over an ambiguous situation''
(\cite{ellis98}: 2). Contemporary (``urban'') legend allows anxieties
to be focused on a specific, if imaginary threat, a collective
catharsis which allows social strain to be funnelled off or at least
temporarily redirected.

The effectiveness of the claims against the Satanists relied on two
classic myths. The first, the myth of blood libel, dates to antiquity:
just as the Satanists were accused of ritual cannibalism and drinking
of blood, so were Christians in ancient Rome (\cite{victor91}), Jews
by medieval Christians (\cite{stephens91}), and Witches by early
Americans (\cite{nathan95}). The blood libel myth tends to rise when a
society is undergoing a deep cultural crisis of values
(\cite{victor91}). In all of the above instances of claimsmaking, that
is exactly the case: fundamentalists opposing liberal values,
Anti-Cult activists opposing religious diversity, and Child Savers
opposing social-welfare explanations of the child abuse problem.

Moreover, the blood libel myth appeals to the general populace;
American society as a whole was dealing with the aftershocks of the
value crises originating in the 1960s and 1970s. The myth functions,
like war, to reinforce the essential goodness of a society (``us,''
\emph{ego}) against a known or unknown source of evil (``them'', the
other, \emph{alter} ), providing an externally-located scapegoat for
internal tensions (\cite{victor93}). The agencies which were
engaged in claimsmaking against Satanic ritual abuse were able to
direct the aggression and stress of a society in moral crisis towards
their own causes.

The Satanic ritual abuse claims also relied on another common
contemporary-legend theme, that of childhood innocence. Children in
Western society are regarded as priceless, as a manifestation of the
hope a generation has for the continuation of their legacy
(\cite{stephens91}). Children symbolize innocence; unable to
understand let alone give consent, they guarantee that blame will be
directed against the parties allegedly corrupting that innocence. By
combining the blood libel myth with the symbolic innocence of
children, the claims-makers construct claims which, by relying on such
universal themes, not only generate little skepticism, but generate
hostility towards skeptics in a sort of self-enforced hegemony.

In analyzing the social problem of Satanic Ritual Abuse in terms of
Spector and Kitsuse's claims-making activity model, we quickly see why
the veracity of claims of Satanic abuse are less than
relevant. Satanic ritual abuse, in relying on effective, universal
themes, was a welcome target at which to direct social tension. As
such, by reframing their claims in terms of Satanic ritual abuse,
diverse interest and value groups could support one another and ensure
that their claims gained the attention of the American people. Satanic
ritual abuse served as the vehicle by which these divergent claims
could be united and mutually reinforced.

\bibliography{lafferty_devils_advocate}

\end{document}






