About Mandated Shunning

What is mandated shunning?

Mandated shunning occurs when an organisation forces its members to ignore and isolate a former member, due to ideological or theological differences. Mandated shunning even prohibits simple social gestures, such as saying "hello" or sharing a meal with an ex-member. This practice is commonly used by high-control groups to deter members from leaving the group or challenging its practices.

Some groups who practice mandated shunning are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Exclusive Brethren, Amish, Bahá'í Faith, and Scientologists. Membership in just these six organizations numbers in the tens of millions worldwide.

Mandated shunning is a fundamental violation of the principles found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, it escapes prosecution because legal professionals are deceived into thinking that shunning is a personal decision instead of an enforced organisational practice.

Why does it matter?

Mandated shunning is an inhumane practice and the ultimate form of "organised bullying". It can result in total isolation of an individual emotionally, financially, and physically. Those who are shunned face the impossible choice between their continued loss of personal liberty and the eradication of everything they know and love.

The impact of mandated shunning is particularly severe on people’s mental health and can lead to self-harm and suicide. It is especially harmful to minors, who may not know life outside the group. In addition to the horrible human suffering, mandated shunning also puts a financial burden on society. When just one person suffers long-term damage, the health care and loss of revenue can reach into the millions of dollars during that person’s lifetime, and tens of thousands are suffering.

How does it work?

High-control groups maintain a lot of their control by erecting high barriers between those who are in the group and those who are shunned. Stipulated behaviours and rituals serve as a boundary between group members and non-members. They may not be a physical barrier, but they are just as enforceable, encouraging members to detach themselves from those who don't conform.

Mandated shunning is one threat that is used to keep people in line. Faced with the reality of a total loss of connection and support from family and friends, it serves as a chilling preventer of dissent, disruption, and ultimately departure from the group.

For the group, those that are shunned are often viewed as, at best, insignificant, and, at worst, as an infidel or even heathen. Either way, they are considered not worthy of attention or support and are typically ignored. When an existing member of the group fails to comply with group expectations, either by flouting the rules or by choosing to leave, the same lack of worth is applied and the individual is shunned or ostracised. For the group, the person is now ‘out’ and in many ways has totally ceased to exist. The problem is, the group is likely fully entrenched in the life of the individual, and the practice of totally ignoring the individual, or even actively dismissing them, can have devastating or irreparable consequences.

How to spot mandated shunning

There is a marked difference between removing one from the group, and actively having all remaining members ostracise the person who was removed.

When we consider the difference between shunning and mandated shunning, we look for:

• Avoidance/ignoring. deliberate or habitual avoidance or ignoring of an individual when ostracised. In the event of shunning, we expect most or all of the remaining members to shun the individual in question. The action is widespread within the group.
• Majority action. in the event of mandated shunning, all of the remaining members are required to shun the individual in question.
• Pre-determined. mandated shunning is not a reactive trait arising from disappointment or disgust. It is a premeditated, expected behaviour in response to a member breaking the rules. i.e. group members expect to be shunned in response to certain behaviours. It is typically highlighted in the group manifesto.
• Corrective. when describing the act of mandated shunning, it will often be viewed positively by the group as a means of corrective or protective action.
• Fear. mandated shunning is often viewed with fear by the group membership, seen as a disincentive to leaving or changing their membership.
• Trauma. typically, mandated shunning will result in significant damage to the individual. This can include psychological and relational health and wellbeing, financial stability, loss of confidence, extreme pain, and in extreme cases suicide. In many cases, the effects are so bad that an individual will seek to return to the group as the only viable alternative to the pain they are suffering.
• Shame. former group members often feel a deep sense of shame, despite choosing to leave, having contravened the ingrained ‘laws’ of the group.
• Formal denunciation. it is not uncommon for groups to specifically isolate former members by circulating communications about their indiscretions and failings. This ultimately results in the group members shunning the shamed individual.

Manipulation and control

One of the many issues for people leaving high-control groups is the impact of mandated shunning on their mental well-being. While we cannot recommend a particular process for recovery or healing, there is support available. Many who leave high-control groups need professional help, and that may support ongoing recovery.

Relationships and family connections sometimes require healthy boundaries. Mandated shunning of family and friends is not just setting boundaries. It is an extreme act. It is a violation of human rights when an organisation intervenes in the healthy connections between spouses, partners, children, parents, and friends.

Humans need mutually trusting relationships and social connections to maintain mental well-being. Mandated shunning creates a disconnect. It is abuse and a punishment for people who have the right to change their minds. The wounds are deep and lasting. Researchers have highlighted and observed a high incidence of post-traumatic stress among people who have been ostracised and shunned.

It is worth noting Dr. Savin Bapir-Tardy's comment and article The Practice of Shunning and its Consequences. Although it focuses on Muslim women, the issue of mandated shunning is similar: "Working therapeutically with people who have been shunned is very challenging. All of the negative beliefs that they hold about themselves are often, in the eyes of the victim, reinforced by the act of being shunned." Dr. Savin Bapir-Tardy is a counselling psychologist at the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO) and a lecturer in psychology at the University of West London.

When does shunning become mandatory shunning?

The key difference between shunning and mandated shunning comes down to whether the shunning is organised. As highlighted in our glossary, shunning is the practice of isolating an individual through exclusionary practices. It is unpleasant and recognised as an extreme form of bullying. Mandated shunning, on the other hand, refers to shunning being specifically prescribed by the group as a required behaviour of its members. If a current member refuses to shun a marked person, she or he will be shunned as well.

What are we doing about it?

The Stop Mandated Shunning initiative draws together global experts, legal professionals, survivors, victims, and activists. Our goal is to convince the world, one country at a time, about the scope and magnitude of the harm caused by mandated shunning. Using data-driven evidence, we aim to convince judges, government officials, and attorneys of the harm and distress caused by this inhumane practice, and to get mandated shunning enshrined into international law as an illegal practice.