Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

2/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein  

[continued]

I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader context of ISKCON's development as a religious organisation.  The expansion of marriage and family life has defined ISKCON's transition from a communally-organised sectarian movement, to one characterised by a loosely organised congregation of financially independent householders and their children (Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997).  As the number of marriages and children began to grow in the mid-1970s, householder life was redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as a symbol of spiritual weakness.  As a stigmatised and politically marginal group, householders were left powerless to assert their parental authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very often, by their own parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children.  

In recent years, child abuse has played an influential role in the ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of ISKCON's leadership.  For many ISKCON members, and devotees marginal to or outside of the organisation, child abuse stands as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's traditionalist, communal, hierarchical (that is, sectarian) form of social organisation.  Child abuse has come to represent a fundamental betrayal of trust, not only for abused children and their parents but also for the membership more generally.  (Also, see Rochford 1998a on leader misconduct and changing sources of religious authority within ISKCON.)  

It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows how many of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula.  It is also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas did not uniformly experience problems of child abuse.  Finally, the virtual collapse of these institutions in North America and world-wide in favour of community day-schools, has all but eliminated the context of abuse considered here.3     

Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first want to build a broader context for my discussion.  One only has to pick up the local newspaper to realise that child abuse occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.  Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest otherwise.  Various religious groups conventional and unconventional alike have been shaken by allegations of child abuse, especially sexual misconduct on the part of church authorities (Jenkins 1996:50 52; Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

2/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein  

[continued]

I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader context of ISKCON's development as a religious organisation.  The expansion of marriage and family life has defined ISKCON's transition from a communally-organised sectarian movement, to one characterised by a loosely organised congregation of financially independent householders and their children (Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997).  As the number of marriages and children began to grow in the mid-1970s, householder life was redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as a symbol of spiritual weakness.  As a stigmatised and politically marginal group, householders were left powerless to assert their parental authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very often, by their own parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children.  

In recent years, child abuse has played an influential role in the ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of ISKCON's leadership.  For many ISKCON members, and devotees marginal to or outside of the organisation, child abuse stands as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's traditionalist, communal, hierarchical (that is, sectarian) form of social organisation.  Child abuse has come to represent a fundamental betrayal of trust, not only for abused children and their parents but also for the membership more generally.  (Also, see Rochford 1998a on leader misconduct and changing sources of religious authority within ISKCON.)  

It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows how many of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula.  It is also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas did not uniformly experience problems of child abuse.  Finally, the virtual collapse of these institutions in North America and world-wide in favour of community day-schools, has all but eliminated the context of abuse considered here.3     

Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first want to build a broader context for my discussion.  One only has to pick up the local newspaper to realise that child abuse occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.  Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest otherwise.  Various religious groups conventional and unconventional alike have been shaken by allegations of child abuse, especially sexual misconduct on the part of church authorities (Jenkins 1996:50 52; Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

2/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein  

[continued]

I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader context of ISKCON's development as a religious organisation.  The expansion of marriage and family life has defined ISKCON's transition from a communally-organised sectarian movement, to one characterised by a loosely organised congregation of financially independent householders and their children (Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997).  As the number of marriages and children began to grow in the mid-1970s, householder life was redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as a symbol of spiritual weakness.  As a stigmatised and politically marginal group, householders were left powerless to assert their parental authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very often, by their own parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children.  

In recent years, child abuse has played an influential role in the ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of ISKCON's leadership.  For many ISKCON members, and devotees marginal to or outside of the organisation, child abuse stands as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's traditionalist, communal, hierarchical (that is, sectarian) form of social organisation.  Child abuse has come to represent a fundamental betrayal of trust, not only for abused children and their parents but also for the membership more generally.  (Also, see Rochford 1998a on leader misconduct and changing sources of religious authority within ISKCON.)  

It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows how many of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula.  It is also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas did not uniformly experience problems of child abuse.  Finally, the virtual collapse of these institutions in North America and world-wide in favour of community day-schools, has all but eliminated the context of abuse considered here.3     

Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first want to build a broader context for my discussion.  One only has to pick up the local newspaper to realise that child abuse occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.  Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest otherwise.  Various religious groups conventional and unconventional alike have been shaken by allegations of child abuse, especially sexual misconduct on the part of church authorities (Jenkins 1996:50 52; Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^