Satanism in Contemporary America: Establishment or Underground?

Abstract

Sociological discourse has generally represented Satanism as a harmless, law‐abiding alternative religion. Conversely, the antisocial and criminal aspects of Satanism have been the focus of most lay writing and media exposure. Such academic and popular portrayals are reflecting different facets of Satanism's heterogeneous nature. Through reexamining the literature, this article provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the differences between sociological and lay depictions. The term “Satanic Establishment” is used to refer to the respectable forms of Satanism, whereas the “Satanic Underground” denotes the reputed criminal elements of Satanism. With the Satanic Establishment and Underground at opposite positions, a Satanic continuum of social acceptability is proposed.

A struggle for definition: explanatory models of satanism in sociology

“…Furthermore, it cannot be said that satanism is framed positively in most sociological discourse, as Taub and Nelson (1993) claimed. In all the models, satanism is shown as both barbarous and peaceful.…”

“…In the interpretative model, the meanings that agents create around satanism are considered by sociologists, especially in the theories of moral panic and social problem construction. Taub and Nelson's (1993) continuum of discourse in such a situation should have more axes and should not juxtapose "establishment" satanism with "underground" satanism.…”

“…Considering the nonscientific origin and the wide usage of this concept by the nonscholarly public, it remains unclear whether this term is suitable as a theoretical notion in scientific discourse. Taub and Nelson (1993) state that sociology, in comparison with crime reporting in the media, mostly portrays satanism positively and creates the image of a "satanic establishment," Other researchers argue that "satanic studies" exist (Holt 2012). Furthermore, Petersen (2014) identifies three modes of discourse in scientific studies of satanism ("de-demonization, sanitization, and heterogenization"), and he argues about the constant boundary-work that occurs within "satanic studies".…”

“…Although his work provides one picture of the scholarship on satanism, it does not include an overview of "rationalist" and "reactive" satanism studies (I borrow these terms from Petersen (2009)), which belong to nonreligious types of satanic discourse. The same critique applies to Taub and Nelson (1993). Even though they investigated sociological scholarship, they viewed it as a homogeneous field characterized by a mostly positive framing of satanism.…”

One face of the devil: The satanic ritual abuse moral crusade and the law

“…The term "diabolic satanic cults" is used in this article to describe those cults which purportedly are not only organized around the worship of Satan but that also participate in criminal behavior as an expression of their beliefs. The term is analogous to Taub and Nelson's (1993) notion of the "satanic underground," and to Webb's (1974) broader concept of the "occult under-ground." This term is used to emphasize what is alleged to be the covert, secretive nature of these cults and their malevolent threat to children, and to distinguish them from those more public and, in some cases, more socially legitimated satanic groups and churches that do espouse a belief system that rejects traditional Christian principles and values, but that do not express it through criminal behavior.…”