El Mercado español de servicios de telecomunicación

Asbjørn Dyrendal

Department of Archaeology and Religious Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

[email protected]

Abstract

Conservative Evangelical polemics against popular culture has often argued that it is a recruiting ground for Satanism. Popular culture, especially horror film and horror- inspired heavy metal music, has often been singled out as being the most explicit expres- sions of this recruiting strategy. Although the premises (and most of the conclusions) of the argument are untenable, they are not all wrong. Popular culture does play a role in how satanic identities are constructed. Th e cultural marketplace constitutes a “scene” that religious networks may draw on more heavily when traditional arenas for socializa- tion are absent, thus making these networks stronger. Th is is an important point that applies to many kinds of late modern, privatized religion. Th e article addresses these broader issues by way of Satanism as a more specific example. It takes a look at which elements of and how popular culture plays a role in satanic socialization through a focus on the strategies for guiding consumption and production.

Keywords

Satanism, popular culture, media, socialization, consumption.

Introduction

Society and social identities are constructed through the continual activ- ity of society’s members in groups and as separate individuals acting with the internalized audience of “the Other(s)” in mind (e.g. Berger and Luckmann 1967). Th e activities involved in the construction of social identities need a scene, or several scenes, to take place, especially if they are to take form in a disciplined way that makes specific versions of soci- ety and social identity more likely. Churches, we know, socialize their

adherents through attendance in church, and, fairly often, schools. Th us, a certain amount of orthodoxy and -praxis are made possible. But if there are very few chances for disciplina, or, indeed, few organized activities to

speak of at all — how do more marginal “subcultures” and their social identities come to be constructed and reconstructed?

With regard to Satanism, few learn their satanic identities during pri- mary socialization. Satanists are few and far between. Th ere are now and have historically been few arenas to meet, and common activities have been rare. Learning how to “walk the walk and talk the talk” thus needs to be supported by other modes of socialization. If media plays a role in socialization — wherein I include social learning theory (McQuail 2005:493–94; cf. Bandura 2002) — we may suspect that the mass media and mass mediated popular culture play an even larger role in the case of “the cultic milieu” (Campbell 2002 [1972]) or the “occulture” (Partridge 2004) to which we may assign contemporary Satanism.

How may practices of consumption play a role in teaching (and learn- ing) values, attitudes, appropriate role behavior and other aspects of identity? A theoretical starting point is a rather common observation on consumer society, which sociologist Adam Possamai has formulated briefly thus: “. . . texts are consumed by the reader, construct who the reader is, and (re)define the reader’s self in his or her involvement in this culture of desire” (Possamai 2005:66). In the active construction of who one is, or want to be, the “text” may serve up models for behavior. Th is, obviously, also works from the standpoint of an “institution,” however rudimentary, which wants to teach what they and the identity they offer are about. Th e ubiquity of popular culture “texts” may thus be of vital importance for constructing particular versions of identity, especially when these versions are marginal and have a small social base.

Historically, the texts that “construct who the [Satanist] reader is” have rarely been made by self-identified Satanists. Th e discourse on “the satanic” originated before Satanism, and most of the ideas about Satan and models for Satanism have been generated by sources outside of it. Christian institutions and teachings have lent stability in motifs and motives with regard to Satan, but although Christian demonology has played an important role as inspiration, it has rarely functioned as a direct model. Th e satanic discourse has instead been constructed through oppositional readings in poetry, plays, art and folklore (e.g. Schock 2003;

Muchembled 2003; Russell 1986). Anti- and post-Christian philosophies of vitalists, decadents, nihilists and assorted esotericists from Blavatsky and Crowley to Gurdjieff have certainly also played their part, but con- temporary Satanism is probably unthinkable without the romantic poets’ readings of Milton’s Satan.

Th is paper is not, however, about these historical sources and their application.1 _{We need to keep the pre-Satanism and non-Satanist dis-}

course on “the satanic” in mind, but the central focus in this article is on more contemporary texts. I shall use Satanism as an example of how popular culture may be used as resource for showing how to perform a marginal identity. Th is will at the same time address and shed light on a few elements of Satanism and satanic ideology. More particularly, a central aim of this paper is to show how ideological spokespersons of Satanism use popular culture to construct Satanism by explaining to what may loosely be termed “adherents” — prospective or more estab- lished — what is likely to be judged as in “good taste” to consume and/

or how to consume. Correspondingly, this also involves an ideology of

what and why to produce. Th is is not a simple issue, and, partially due to the individualistic nature of Satanism, involves showing positions and topics with regard to strategies of consumption and production.

I will show the positions spokespersons take through what Olav Hammer terms “movements texts” (Hammer 2001:37 ff.) and “insider” media, both monologic and interactive. Monologic insider media are important for studying how the positions from movement texts are adopted or adapted by what in effect becomes a chain of spokespersons. In the interactive, dialogic arenas, exemplified here by discussion boards, we also encounter direct debates. “Newbies” and veterans fur- ther down the formal and/or informal chain of authority present their ideas in these arenas, and we may observe how newcomers drop out, adapt and/or adopt the discourse.2 _{Th ese three types of sources are each}

examined with regard to the ideology of consumption and production

1) _{I have covered parts of this topics elsewhere (e.g. Dyrendal 2007; Dyrendal forth-} coming c).

2) _{I have worked on this myself, but discussion boards as data and as arenas of satanic} socialization have been treated more thoroughly in a fine conference paper by my col- league Jesper Petersen (Petersen 2007).

of popular culture presented in them, stressing how each of them serves to school the prospective Satanist. Th is is one of the ways popular cul- ture is enlisted in satanic socialization.

Popular culture may also serve as an arena of learning independent of direct attempts at teaching. One observed pathway is through the way fandom inspires some fans into emulating their hero (e.g. Dyren- dal 2005:49). Popular culture may also work, as media theorist Denis McQuail (2005:494) notes, through showing up models for thought and behavior, which may be deemed worthy of emulation.3 _{As one}

might surmise from this, I use the term socialization to cover a broad range of social learning relating to processes of learning to navigate a subculture. Over time and through different media, this may include learning its symbols and values, its roles and modes of behavior, the range of worldviews and the limits of its discourse.4 _{Mediated socializa-}

tion is far from robust. What I present here is a form of socialization that is secondary, individual, and informal, and in the particulars of satanic organizations’ presentation of content, mainly random and variable.5 _{Th e}

article addresses the “satanic” content of consumption as well as the processes of attempting some degree of control over learning through consumption.

Since most readers are unlikely to have much advance knowledge of Satanism, I need to begin by sketching it briefly. As we shall see, it may be useful to draw some distinctions between different “types” for

3) _{Th e primary example of this in this article regards adolescent Satanism. I should} note that I am not arguing that this “audience” is being passively affected by the medium of popular culture, but that they make up a small segment that take an active interest in employing deviant role-narratives and images for themselves. Th ey are thus closer to the view of audience as “gratification set” than as “the public” (e.g. McQuail 2005:408 ff.) .

4) _{A similarly broad view on socialization was expressed by John Clausen in Socializtion}

and Society (Clausen 1968), where he argues broadly that socialization “encompasses

the learning of motives and feelings as well as skills and cognitive sets” (ibid. 6). 5) _{Th e axes formal-informal, collective-individual for context of socialization and for-} mal-informal, sequential-random for introduction to content are all taken from a paper on socialization by management theorist Gareth Jones (1986). Th ese are interesting lenses through which to look. However, many of Jones’ specific theoretical predictions seem mainly of interest for business management, and will not be addressed here.

analytical purposes. Th ese different types have overlapping but partially contrasting relations and attitudes towards popular culture (cf. Dyren- dal, forthcoming b). Although I shall concentrate mainly on one par- ticular type of Satanism, it is essential to include the others to show relations and contrasts within the “scene” of Satanism. First, however, I need to introduce some other aspects of the satanic scene salient both for understanding Satanism and Satanists’ uses of popular culture.

Satanism in the Cultic Milieu

Satanism may most usefully be seen as a self-sacralizing, world-affirming, network-oriented philosophy or “religion of life” (cf. Dyrendal 2005:50). Alternatively, one might adopt the terminology of several Satanists and call it an “unreligion” or “anti-religion,” but to the degree that one ought to use the term “religion” for Satanism, most contemporary versions of Satanism may be characterized as forms of “self-religion” along the lines described above (Harvey 2002; Dyrendal, forthcoming a; cf. Heelas 1996). Th e degree of organization is low, and ideological or doctrinal stringency likewise. Th ese characteristics are also typical for the “location” where Satanism is mostly placed — as one of the “organized“ expressions of the cultic milieu.

Colin Campbell (2002 [1972]; 1978) constructed the concept of the cultic milieu as a theoretical updating of Ernst Troeltsch’s notes on mys- tical religion. Some Satanists protest this relation, as they disavow and are uninterested in most aspects of the idea of spiritual seekership found in this milieu.6 _{Since most Satanists seem to be secularist and atheist, it}

is quite understandable that they protest being lumped in with a cate- gory where unio mystica historically is the goal. Where the cultic milieu

in general might insist that all religions ultimately express the same truth,

philosophia perennis, Satanists might tend to agree only that “white light”

religions are all alike — in that they are all bunk (e.g. LaVey 1971). Other aspects of the cultic milieu concept fit better: First, the strongly individualist bent in ideology that biases against strong organizations

6) _{E.g. High Priest of the Church of Satan, Peter Gilmore, a life-long skeptical atheist} who insists (personal correspondence) that not only the leadership, but most members of Church of Satan have no such background or interests.

and clear-cut ideology seems to be similar. Organization in both cases seems rudimentary (cf. Campbell 2002 [1972]). Secondly, there also seems to be a partially overlapping, common interest in “proscribed and/or forbidden knowledge” (Kaplan and Lööw 2002:3). Th e interest in “occult” topics varies to a relatively high degree among Satanists, but there is an esoteric/occult strand within Satanism that ties more clearly into the cultic milieu. Indeed, the dominance of topics concerning “the occult” in the cultic milieu is one of the factors leading Christopher Partridge to suggest the term “occulture” as a better fit (e.g. Partridge 2004:67). 7

It is primarily the relation between the sociological elements of Satan- ism and the dissemination of their ideas that is of interest for my pur- poses. Popular culture seems to play an important role in Satanism, in keeping with occulture being “a milieu that resources and is resourced by popular culture” (Partridge 2005:2). Popular culture “feeds ideas into the occultural reservoir and also develops, mixes, and disseminates those ideas” (ibid.). In this way, popular culture, drawing on elements present in occulture, re-package and re-present them for a wider audience, serv- ing up once marginal models for selfhood and behavior, goals, attitudes and values that the consumer might emulate. For Satanism, popular culture may serve up examples of how to be satanic and what being a Satanist means. Conversely, once organized Satanism came into being, it could use different elements of popular (and high) culture to answer questions of where and how to look for inspiration.

We may see this at work among several different categories of Satanists, for Satanism does not cohere around a single model more than one should expect from an individualistic philosophy in the cultic milieu. Th us it is rarely useful to treat Satanism as one, coherent entity. Ideas about Satan and Satanism vary among those who call themselves by the name. One common theme seems to be Satan as a misunderstood rebel and the odd guy out, often in combination with a semi-traditional role as accuser. “Satan” seems rarely to be thought of as a symbol of “evil,” nor as symbol of “good.” Th ere are, however, instances of both. For ana- lytical purposes, it may be useful to look at particular divisions, of which there can be several. None should, it seems to me, be reified.

Simplistically and pedagogically, I often divide contemporary Satan- ism into three more or less interrelated categories. First, we have what German historian of religions Joachim Schmidt (1992) dubbed the “reactive, paradigmatically conform” Satanists.8 _{Th e second and third}

were dubbed rationalist and esoteric Satanism by Danish historian of religion Jesper Petersen (cf. Petersen 2005). Th e focus in most of this paper is on the “rationalist” type, but we cannot overlook the others completely. Th ere are both important similarities between them and some vital differences with regard to the topic of popular culture. Th e main difference seems to be between Schmidt’s “reactive” Satanists and the other types (cf. Dyrendal, forthcoming b; Søderlind and Dyrendal, forthcoming). It is, however, easy to exaggerate these differences. Th ere is a partial continuity that is important to note, and the “reactive” Satanists are important both as background and as example of how mediated learning may assist peer group socialization.

Adolescent Satanism and Popular Culture

Th e reactive, paradigmatically conform Satanism has tended to coincide with what is elsewhere often called “adolescent Satanism,” “devil-worship” or “pseudo-Satanism.” Schmidt’s term stresses that the paradigmatic ideas in such Satanism is taken from the dominant Christian narratives and sym- bols. Th ey relate to mainstream religion by adopting the stories but invert- ing their value. Th us, the “Satan” of paradigmatically conform Satanism is an evil god, the devil as seen in the Christian religion.

Th is ideal type is useful for focussing on different trends, but reality on the ground is, of course, more complex. Although there are people who come close to the type — “inverso-Christians” as they are sometimes sarcastically dubbed by other Satanists — many adolescent Satanists today combine elements of inverted Christianity with romantic, “Gnos- tic” elements — and anything else from a wide range of available sources that takes their fancy. Th is is also what we should expect. Post-modern, eclectic bricolage has taken hold even among members of mainstream

religions, so why should we expect those outside organized religion to be different?

Coherence and systematic thinking come at a cost. Although rela- tively “cost free” arenas such as organized Christianity and popular cul- ture supply a sort of coherence to this kind of Satanism, any kind of totality is still constructed from a variety of elements. Th e available ele- ments have changed. At the time Schmidt wrote, Christian pamphlets warning against the dangers of Satanism had long worked together with cheesy horror films in constructing a congruent set of narratives about Satanists. Th ese construe Satanists as dangerous deviants, committed to evil, crime, and drugs, and demonic powers lurk in the background. Th is could be a heady brew, especially for alienated adolescents looking for a source of power. For those who encounter feelings of powerless- ness and alienation, instilling fear rather than merely rejection can be attractive, and some psychological research (e.g. Steck et al. 1992) seems to support the common observation that this has played a role (e.g. Victor 1993).

Another part of the inspiration came (and still comes) through rock music. Particularly after the advent of heavy metal during the early 1970s, there was a musical style, lyrics, and aesthetics that looked at hor- ror films and “the demonic” as inspirational, and which often combined them with an ethos of “sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll” (e.g. Baddeley 1999; Moynihan and Søderlind 1998) that was attractive to teenage “rebels.” Th at these products were feared, scorned or demonized by mainstream society and Christian ministers — information often provided in detail by both mainstream and Evangelical media — only made them more attractive. If you wanted to learn how to be a feared member of “the satanic underground”, there were media who told you where to look for inspiration and which goods to buy to fit.

From the early history of organized Satanism, writes Michael Aquino, the existence of such adolescent gangs of reactive, paradigmatically con- form Satanists made it even more difficult to present an image of respect- able Satanism (2002:111 ff .). Th e gangs would engage in small time criminal acts, desecrate graveyards, kill small animals and commit acts that served to bolster the unsavory image of Satanists that the name — with only slight help from popular culture — already conjured. For such adolescents or more mature, but still alienated audiences, the mass mediated construct of “the Satanist” could serve as a “ready-made” role to put on, and often legitimated already held attitudes and values about

deviance and delinquency. Th is may seem to be at its most clear-cut with the 1990’s black metal scene (e.g. Kahn-Harris 2007; Moynihan and Søderlind 1998).

Now best known for the spate of church arson and several well- publicized murders in the mid-1990s, black metal constructed Satan- ism and its satanic image from, among other things “Christian scare propaganda, horror comics and the shock lyrics of heavy metal” (Søder- lind and Dyrendal, forthcoming). Christian scare propaganda, role- playing games, previous metal bands and the fantasy and horror imagery reproduced through several generations of bands all played a role in constructing a “‘Satanism’ [that] was more of a strange inversion of fundamentalist Christianity than anything Anton LaVey would recog- nize” (ibid.). Whether we start this history with Black Sabbath, and the Catholic demonology, Hammer horrors and Dennis Wheatley novels