Romans 16:17-18
King James Version
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Shunning is the act of social rejection, or emotional distancing.
Social rejection occurs when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group.
This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity.
It is a sanction against association, often associated with tightly knit organizations and communities.
Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict.
Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture or punishment.
Shunning can be broken down into behaviors and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
- To modify the behavior of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviors from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviors.
Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviors (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
- To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviors or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership.
Shunning is usually approved of by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views.
Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals’ psychological and relational health.
In many “civil” societies, kinds of shunning are practiced de facto or de jure, to coerce or avert behaviors or associations deemed unhealthy.
This can include:
*restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)
*court injunctions to disassociate (to avoid criminal association or temptation)
*medical or psychological instructing to avoid associating (mask wearing, “social distancing”, quasi-legal orders resulting in penalties and fines or restrictions on access to public facilities)
Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.
Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behavior were clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, if the group membership is seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules is inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or certain tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.
A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member’s closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.
Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.
Shunning is also a mechanism in family estrangement.
Since early this year there has been a concerted effort through social pressures by “experts” and questionable restrictions of personal freedom by local officials, to, in effect, shun those who either can not or will not succumb to the mandate to wear masks, socially distance or coerce others to do so in public places. There has been
a palpable and distinctive split in the citizenry between those who believe the ever changing explanations justifying these somewhat Draconian measure, resorting to virtue signalling and attempts at public shaming of others and those who believe that the decision should be an individual one.
There can be no argument from either side, however, that there has been real and, most likely permanent harm to businesses, family incomes,and public trust resulting in major damage to the very fabric of our society. It is unlikely that even should this official overreach and social shunning of “non-maskers” cease tomorrow that the damage will be repaired soon, if ever.
There is no easy answer or magic action that can undo the damage. Those who have been shunned have little recourse except to band together and return the shunning. Refuse to patronize businesses that enforce the shunning of non-maskers. Work to replace those politicians who have exercised a power they had no right to exercise.Attempts to dispassionately reason with unreasonable people has proven to be a non-starter. The time has come to fight fire with fire and fight shunning by shunning those who have excluded us in return.
The argument will be made that innocent people will be hurt. I say there are no innocent people in this. There are either those who have promoted and enforced the shunning or those who have passively accepted it. In this case, you are either with us or you are against us. There is no middle ground here, there is no compromise…and the other side drew first blood.