by
Ted Daniels, Ph.D.
Electronic version copyright © Ted Daniels 1997. All rights reserved
Originally published in Millennialism: An International Bibliography
by Garland Publishing New York, 1992. Reproduced here by permission.
URL for this article is http://www.
2. Aberle, David F. "A Note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millenarian and Other Cult Phenomena." In Millennial Dreams in Action, Edited by Sylvia L. Thrupp. The Hague: Mouton, 1962: 209-14. Reprinted in Reader in Comparative Religion, Edited by W.A. Lessa and E.Z. Vogt, New York: Harper, 1965.
La Barre (1971: see item 398) finds fault with relative deprivation theory ("negative discrepancy between legitimate expectations and actuality") because "legitimate" is too stringent: [sometimes] "mere naked wish qualifies as legitimation psychologically, and [its frustration] may invite [possibly cultic] reaction. . . . A complete theory . . . ought to explain [cults] of the `haves.'"
Aberle does insist on "legitimacy" of expectation and of relative deprivation. Expectations are to be considered as standards, not prophecies. To determine such expectations, it is necessary to consider the past versus the present, present versus future and one's own versus another's circumstances. The deprivation [apparently] must stem from change. It may be of goods or of status, behavior, or worth and may be either personal or group experiences. Aberle focusses on the group type, as personal deprivation is not likely to contribute to a movement. In Aberle's Navajo example (p. 211) a loss of status grid led to a loss in group-sustaining behavior (i.e., generosity)—see Douglas, 1982, item 219. This is a deprivation in behavior. "Worth" amounts to a loss of others' esteem. These deprivations can also lead to "apathy, disorganization, despair or suicide." Deprivation doesn't predict the occurrence of movements. Millennial movements are compensation for blockage: other actions don't work or can't be tried. Religion is the only way, and its ideology should relate to the type of deprivation experienced.
Deprivation can always be found, after the fact: the theory is too flexible. Aberle rejects boredom as a cause, if it is taken to apply to most members of movements; pan-human experience theories are useless, "since constants cannot be used to explain variables." [But that's what Aberle's trying to do here: relative deprivation and the change that may cause it are constant in all societies at all times.] He admits to prejudice against allowing existential uneases without social causation as well. Removal from an unsatisfactory context (often literal) is the central theme of millenarianism, which justifies withdrawal: that is its "functional significance."
Return to Indexes