THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SATANIC CULT INVOLVEMENT: AN ...

80
those advocating this have no statistical proof. The fact that statistical proof is impossible
to obtain, given the secrecy of the movement, makes it equally impossible for the
constructionists to prove that the incidence of Satanism has not changed over time.
However, the sociological theories advanced to explain the recent social anxiety about the
'satanic threat' are compelling, and certainly account for the discrepancy between the
apparent low incidence of satanic criminal activity, and the paranoid claims that an
insidious, international satanic movement, with tentacles in all social institutions, is
secretly working toward the aim of world-domination. The strongest evidence supporting
the existence of underground satanic organisations has been the recent revelations of
individuals who claim to have participated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in
organised satanic activity. If these claims are valid, then the constructionist argument is
obviously undermined. Constructionists, typically social theorists, appeal to
psychological discourses of the unconscious in order to discredit alleged eye-witness
testimony.
5.4 Accounting for survivor narratives
Constructionist accounts attempt to explain how the extraordinary impact of satanic
narratives is in no way related to the reality of satanic phenomena but, rather, to a
society's suspension of critical reason in response to an ideologically constructed threat
which serves as a scape-goat for that society's collective anxiety. The success of the
satanic subversion myth derives from the fact that it is not simply promoted by fringe
religious figures, but by a broad coalition of law enforcement officials, mental health
professionals, mass media, and alleged satanic cult survivors. It is the highly detailed,
personal, and heart-felt survivor accounts, narrated in the context of psychotherapeutic
disclosure, that have convinced many mental health professionals oftheir authenticity. If,
as the constructionists believe, most of these accounts are fictitious, what plausible
alternative interpretations ofthese accounts are available?
The first is the 'incorporation hypothesis' (Greaves, 1992). Incorporation is defined here
as "the unconscious internalisation of information (knowledge, material) that one later