Abstract
Spiritual leaders achieve power over their followers through various means. Often overlooked is what happens in the interaction between spiritual leaders and their followers in the creation and legitimation of the leader’s power. In this study, we examined the discursive construction of leader–follower relationship in consultation interactions between a spiritual leader and his followers. Fifteen consultation sessions were analyzed using the discourse analytical approach. The analysis focused on legitimation and discursive strategies used by the leader to legitimize his power over his followers. The findings show that a set of strategies are relied on as standard procedure by the leader to reinforce his authority, used when interacting with a compliant followership. However, a different set of strategies are deployed in situations when the leader’s authority is challenged. The results reveal that the authority of the leader is not a natural given, but needs to be actively negotiated and defended in the ongoing process of interaction.
Keywords
Introduction
The relationship between spiritual leaders and their followers is one that is often regarded as sacred, as leaders provide spiritual guidance to their congregation of followers toward salvation. Such a relationship invariably involves asymmetry of power where leaders seek to control the hearts and minds of their followers within a system of belief. However, history has shown that control in the name of faith could sometimes lead to conflict and exploitation, and that leaders are able to maintain their influence among their followers despite the existence of opposing discourses questioning their legitimacy. 1
How spiritual leaders keep their hold on their followers, and why followers remain loyal to them despite attempts to “neutralise” the group’s influence have been the interest of much social psychological research. Among the explanations provided is social drift theory that suggests people sometimes join cult groups unintentionally due to the influence of social relationships and become committed to groups in a step-by-step pattern (Coates, 2012). Another is the brainwashing model, which suggests that “cult members use coercive means and deprivation to exercise mind control over new converts—stripping their previous identities, neutralizing their powers of will, creating dependence on the cult, and programming them with cult beliefs. . . ” (Long & Hadden, 1983, p. 1). In a qualitative study on cult membership using in-depth interviews with former cult followers, Coates (2012) discovered that the participants’ commitment to the group was influenced by the “direct rewards of membership” (e.g., gaining friendship and happiness) and “dependency inducing practices” (e.g., controlling behavior and emotions, limiting personal thought, and social relationships). Lalich (2004) and Lalich and McLaren’s (2017) bounded choice theory explains that cults are not made up of zombie-like members who can be easily identified as cult victims. The control structures in cults are similar to those present in any other human social groups, and are not specific to groups that are labeled “cults.” Control structures, which include a transcendent belief system and charismatic authority, are exploited by these groups to influence members.
Explanations of how social groups exercise power on their members point to coercive–persuasive practices where particular role identities, relationships, and behaviors are forged to induce reverence toward the leader and feelings of dependency in members. Yet, how this is achieved at the level of communication between the leader and the follower is not entirely clear. The analysis of discourse, 2 the site in which social actions are performed, holds much promise as a method to examine how power is produced and reinforced in the leader–follower relationship. In this article, we attempt to uncover the means by which leaders achieve their revered position using resources afforded by elements in talk, the fundamental mode through which actions and negotiations of meaning take place.
The analysis of talk for the purpose of describing how discourse participants employ linguistic and contextual resources in performing discursive actions to accomplish their interactional and social goals is well-developed in the field of discourse analysis (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Fairclough, 2013; Georgaca & Avdi, 2012; Sacks, 1995; Schegloff, 2007; Van Dijk, 1989, 2006). Discourse theory regards language as not merely a tool that conveys messages, but as a means to perform actions such as constructing social objects (for example, identity, groups, authority) and establishing social relationships (for example, leader–follower, parent–child, counselor–client, online friendships, etc.). Actions in talk are consequential in influencing further discourse actions to be performed in particular sequences within particular social contexts, and thus produce the social practices that we recognize, such as member recruiting practices, disciplining practices, and so forth. Furthermore, discourse analysis is sensitive to the operation and enactment of power in communication that serves to constrain thoughts and actions of discourse participants. Examining the interaction between leaders and their followers can provide an understanding of what discursive actions are being performed in the microprocesses of talk and ultimately lead to insight about the bigger question of how control is effected through strategic use of discourse.
In this study, we examine the processes by which a spiritual leader, who has courted controversy within the religious regime he professes to represent, maintains the leader–follower relationship that is crucial for exercising power over the followers. Taking the discourse analytical perspective that views social actions as performed in discourse, we analyze sequences of talk between the leader and his followers in public one-on-one consultations to describe the discursive strategies used by the leader to construct and legitimize his spiritual leader status.
Discourse, Legitimation, and the Leader–Follower Relationship
Leaders have been shown to utilize strategies of various kinds to maintain control over their followers or target followers. Much of the literature concerned with power relations, control, and manipulation in leader–follower relationships can be found in studies on the cult leadership phenomenon, particularly on how members are recruited to join and are motivated to remain in cult groups from the psychological and social–psychological lens (e.g., cognitive dissonance, Festinger, 1957; social drift, Long and Hadden, 1983; coercive persuasion, Snow and Machalek, 1984; and bounded choice, Lalich and Maclaren, 2017). However, knowledge about how these actions are performed through talk-in-interaction remains underexplored.
Can knowledge about what happens in the interaction between a leader and a follower, that is, what transpires through talk, shed light on how power is created and maintained? To examine how leader–follower relationships are created and sustained at the level of speech, we consult the theories and methods developed in discourse analysis, a field of study that provides the conceptualizations and tools to analyze how social actions anchored in discourse are performed through the use of particular words, strategically arranged in particular manner, repeated at particular points in time, and ordered to produce particular rhetorical patterns to influence the hearer’s thought and emotions. Parties that seek to control are adept at exploiting these discursive resources to achieve their goals.
Although leaders may take for themselves a position to exert control over their followers, they may not be successful if that claim is denied or resisted by those whom they seek to control. The act of legitimation, specifically discursively established legitimation, is required to forge acceptance of the leader’s power. Strategies of legitimation identified as authorization, moralization, normalization, rationalization (Van Leeuwen, 2007), mythopoesis (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999), and antagonism and co-optation (Luyckx & Janssens, 2016) are ways in which discursive resources are mobilized to create a sense of legitimacy and delegitimacy (Fairclough, 2003; Van Dijk, 1989). Authorization is used when the leader claims authority to actions through reference to personal ability, custom, law, or authority vested by an external source; moralization is legitimation through reference to some moral value system as support; rationalization is when reference to knowledge claims that are deemed accepted and relevant is used to legitimize actions and positions; normalization is the construction of actions as right because they are widely practiced and wrong or undesirable if otherwise; mythopoesis is legitimation through the use of stories to construct actions and consequences in the past as lessons to be learned, or in the future as cautionary warning. Antagonism is used when dissent is silenced through positioning dissenters in an unfavorable light or threatening punitive action, and co-optation happens when previous opponents or rivals are framed as partners who agree to the speaker’s actions and propositions. All of these legitimation strategies are aimed at steering hearers toward consensus and agreement with the speaker and, hence, legitimates the speaker’s position, views, and actions.
The leader–follower relationship is created when leaders claim for themselves the position of authority in a dyadic interaction and in so doing, makes available a subordinate subject position to be occupied by the follower (e.g., Fairclough, 2013; Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999). This can be done through various discursive means. A common way to achieve this is to use forms of speech that identify the speaker as a figure of authority. For example, speakers who frequently give unmitigated commands cast themselves into a position of authority (Fairclough, 2013). When an open show of authority is regarded as, or comes to be regarded as natural or acceptable (most usually achieved through the deployment of various normalization strategies), the naturalized position allocated to the hearer must be a subordinate role that receives the command. The use of modals of obligation such as “should,” “ought,” “must,” “have to” are often used to convey authority, as they give rise to a sense of scolding, criticizing, and instructing (see Lillian, 2008, on modality and manipulation in texts). In the context of religion, proclamation of authority legitimized by a divine source is a common strategy by which leaders maintain their powerful position (Campbell, 2007). The authority to interpret and reinterpret religious texts is also claimed by leaders particularly when they wish to revise interpretation of the written texts or impose new obligations, rules, and judgments on their followers. This is often presented as divine decision by charismatic leaders who claim to chart revolutionary paths with their actions unfettered by traditions, rules, and existing societal norms (Weber, 1947). Hence, it is unsurprising that ideas that are irrational or bizarre to nonfollowers may be embraced as completely acceptable by followers.
A leader’s authority is also legitimized if they are perceived as possessing some ability that is revered by the followers. In the context of spiritual identities, having supernatural ability is often claimed by spiritual leaders, and the ability to communicate directly with higher spirits is known as “charisma” (Sandberg & Moreman, 2015) or “the gift of grace,” if it is claimed to be of divine origin (Weber, 1947, p. 328). In Lalich and McLaren’s (2017) description of cult control, adulation of a charismatic leader is an important pull factor for recruits. This “gift” needs to be communicated to followers through language. In studies on a spiritual medium’s conversation with her clients, the medium reinforces the belief that she is able to communicate with spirits, using reported speech forms (Wooffitt, 2001) and quoted speech (Wooffitt & Clark, 1998), and by regularly tagging her speech with expressions that construct herself as the recipient of information from unseen beings: “they tell me,” “she’s telling me,” and “because I’m getting. . . ,” where “he” and “she” refer to beings from “the spirit side” (Wooffitt & Clark, 1998, p. 114). Apart from the strategy of reporting other-worldly information, other speech strategies employed by the medium were making soft predictions, use of overlapping speech, and reformulation of speech to achieve an authentic medium identity (Wooffitt & Clark, 1998).
The Study
In this study, the discourse of a controversial leader of a religious movement, 3 claimed to belong to an existing religious denomination 4 is focused on. The movement is a highly influential one, claiming to have followers worldwide, its website having successfully attracted millions of visitors. It has its presence in North America, Europe, and many countries in Asia and the Asia-Pacific. The leader’s recorded talks in various countries are available on the movement’s official website and can be freely accessed by the public.
The leader is described as one who possesses transcendental power that allows him to know an individual’s past, present, and future lives and to help believers solve their spiritual and worldly problems. The leader is a controversial figure insofar as he has been criticized by several mainstream organizations 5 in several countries for purportedly propagating teachings that are not in accordance with the faith. Despite negative discourses surrounding the leader’s legitimacy, his status as a spiritual leader is secure, and he is able to successfully command a huge congregation of followers worldwide.
The study adopts discourse analysis as the method to examine the microprocesses of talk through which the leader constructs the leader–follower relationship in public one-on-one consultation interactions. Attention is paid to how discourse actions within the discourse context are implemented to claim power and authority, deflect challenges, and secure a compliant or silenced followership as displayed in the talk.
Discourse analysis is fundamentally a method used for investigating language, talk, and text and their social consequences, as well as how they are used to achieve social actions within individual talk, group interactions, and the wider society. Hence, it is not within the scope of this study to determine the authenticity or validity of the leader’s claim to truth and supernatural powers; rather, this work is an attempt to raise awareness and invite reflection on a social phenomenon that has important implications to society.
Method
Data for the study consist of public one-on-one consultation sessions between the spiritual leader and his followers, which are found in videos of the leader’s public talks. These videos are on YouTube, linked to an official chapter website of the movement. In every public talk, the first part would be a talk on the teachings of the religion, followed by the second part which is the leader’s consultation session with individuals (“clients,” henceforth) who wish to consult him about their problems. These consultations, although in one-on-one mode, are in public view of the attendees of the religious talk in the earlier session. Hence, the consultations include an audience as part of the participation structure. The language used in most of the consultations is Chinese, as the majority of the people in the audience appear to understand Chinese.
Purposive sampling method is used to select the data for the study. Sixteen YouTube videos of the consultation sessions held in different countries between 2013 and 2017 were first downloaded. A brief survey of the themes was conducted to reveal five major themes talked about in the consultations. They are health, spirits, relationship, career, and the deceased. Finally, for the data set, five consultations each from the themes of health and spirits (the most prominent themes found), two each from the themes of relationship and the deceased and one from career were used. The interactions were transcribed and then translated from Chinese to English.
Both inductive and deductive approaches were used to locate discursive actions performed in the talk that are relevant to the interest of the study. The deductive approach in analyzing qualitative data allows identification of specific structures in the data that is informed by predetermined frames, whereas the inductive approach allows for description of patterns that emerge from the data. In the deductive approach, legitimation strategies and their labels gleaned from the literature and past studies were adopted as a priori codes to identify sequences of talk that made up a coherent communication event surrounding the legitimation strategies. These sequences were then marked off to be further analyzed using the inductive approach to identify emerging patterns of discourse strategies that constitute the larger legitimation categories. In the inductive approach, the conversations were closely read and reread to determine the discourse strategies performed by the leader. Attention was paid to linguistic and paralinguistic features such as choice of words for describing self and other, evaluation of persons and actions, and interruptions, hesitations and repair for their possible contribution to meaning and interpretation. Strategies were identified, labeled, and relabeled to ensure clarity and mutual exclusivity as the analysis proceeded.
Results and Discussion
Six main strategies that performed legitimation functions and 12 discourse strategies that constitute them (Table 1) were identified. Although it is acknowledged that an utterance in interaction can and do perform many functions concurrently, we seek to highlight those functions that are clearly corresponded to explicit linguistic and rhetorical signals in speech. Table 1 presents the strategies used and their proportion of use found in the data set (frequency and percentage).
Legitimation Strategies and Their Constitutive Discourse Strategies.
Two categories of strategies are identified. The first set of strategies appears in interactions that exhibit smooth exercise of power where both the interlocutors were observed to adopt and play out their respective roles as leader and follower. These are the strategies that have a high frequency of occurrence (Table 1). The second set consists of strategies that are deployed in conflictual situations when a client resists the subordinate role carved out for them in the unfolding interaction. In the situational context where the interaction takes place in the presence of a group of cheering believers in the audience, the incidence of a client mounting a challenge to the leader’s authority is lower than that where the leader’s charisma is unquestioningly accepted. This accounts for the lower frequencies of the strategies used for deflecting challenges.
Preferred Strategies: When There Is Smooth Coconstruction of Leader–Follower Relationship
Four hundred eighty instances of discourse strategy used in leader legitimation were found in the data set, spread across the 12 strategy types identified. The most frequently used strategy is making unmitigated predictions and knowledge claims about things that are unknown (LS-3/DS-a, Table 1), followed by giving instructions or directives (LS-1/DS-b), eliciting applause, agreement or approval from the audience using a rhetorical question or direct instruction (LS-4/DS-b), and claiming the ability to perform supernatural actions such as to heal the sick, to know things that are unknown or to see things that are unseen (LS-2/DS-a).
These high-frequency strategies point to two basic legitimation strategies under the umbrella of authorization and normalization, identified as exercising authority, demonstrating transcendental power, asserting possession of transcendental power, and creating an environment where acceptance is the norm. At a glance, it seems rather intuitive that these would be strategies used to enact and sustain a leader–follower relationship: by establishing authority through repeated use of powerful self-labels and frequent giving of instructions in an overt claim to authority, employing the twin acts of asserting possession of transcendental power and demonstrating ability to perform supernatural acts, and finishing with elicitation of agreement and approval from followers as part of the ongoing process of normalization. Normalization accords the authority of the leader a status seen as naturally accepted by the majority of the people, and is thus beyond questioning. When normalization is successfully implemented (or has taken root in the group), any individual who stands out to question the leader’s authority would be regarded as deviant. Hence, normalization as a legitimation strategy is a powerful means by which ideologies are covertly inculcated (Fairclough, 2013), in this instance, by repeatedly eliciting explicit agreement and approval from followers, to silence disagreements and preempt challenges.
It might be noted that this sequence of strategies could be comfortably used as long as the claim to authority by the leader is unchallenged. The strategies, thus, may be regarded as the preferred procedure for legitimizing a spiritual leader identity in the general sense, and represent the dominant strategies used in leader–client interactions. We illustrate these strategies by looking at the details of the talk. To accomplish authorization, the leader employs three main legitimation strategies that are exercising authority, asserting possession of transcendental power, and demonstrating transcendental power.
Exercising authority
To exercise his authority, the leader uses the simplest of strategies that is to adopt self-mentions and self-descriptions that confer authority. Although the personal pronoun “I” is the default/unmarked pronominal self-mention, it is found that the names President 6 and Sifu 7 are often used in place of “I” in specific contexts. In the 15 consultation sessions, the personal pronoun “I” and the names President and Sifu used by the leader in self-reference are 96 times (69.67%) and 42 times (30.43%), respectively. Table 2 shows examples of the contexts in which the powerful names occurred.
Power Self-Mentions and the Context of Their Occurrence.
By electing to repeatedly associate himself with powerful social positions, the leader reinforces his authority and at the same time, conveys an implicit request to the client to address him by these names instead of using the neutral pronoun “you.” In the same way that social relationships are produced through the use of complementary social identity label pairings such as husband–wife or teacher–student, compelling clients to address the leader as President or Sifu effectively casts them into the complementary subordinate social role. This is evident as all the clients adopt the term President or Sifu in addressing the leader (e.g., Excerpt 1).
Excerpt 1
She has a problem. This little child, ah, before she was born ah, a spirit had gone inside. That is, when she was in your womb, there was already a ghost inside.
Yes,
Other than self-mentions, the leader also derives his authority through self-descriptions that directly ascribe him a powerful identity (see Excerpt 2). In this utterance, the leader makes the claim that he will be able to save the client’s baby if the client fails to get a deity to appear and do the rescuing. The leader is thus construed as someone having powers comparable with a deity, even though some humility is expressed (a lower level, less powerful someone).
Excerpt 2
If . . . if she cannot implore [name of deity, omitted] to come, go implore
The next strategy in authorization is the act of giving instructions. Instructions or directives are issued as expressions of epistemic modality (you need to; you have to; don’t), where dire consequences would befall the client if the instructions are ignored. As the premise of the consultation is based on the client’s seeking of spiritual advice and help from the leader, it is not surprising that the act of giving instructions would be a frequent feature in the interactions (it is the second most frequent strategy, see Table 1). Excerpts 3 and 4 are examples of the leader’s instructions to clients.
Excerpt 3
If you want your husband to come back,
Excerpt 4
correct your faults,
Ok ok ok ok ok ok ok.
Giving instructions without allowing any option for disagreement creates a powerful discourse position for the leader. When the client accepts the instruction by verbally agreeing (as in Excerpt 4) or nonverbally by nodding his head, it is a signal that the client has moved in to occupy the instruction-taker discourse position and the leader–follower relationship is discursively created at that point in time. When this sequence of discourse is repeated often in the interaction, the relationship is continually reproduced and reinforced.
Transcendental power
In most communication contexts associated with spiritual or religious ideologies, the notion of transcendental power is often evoked. Transcendental power is either demonstrated or performed, or is asserted to be possessed by an individual. Both these strategies are fully utilized to legitimize the leader’s authority. The discourse strategies that constitute legitimation are identified as claiming the ability to perform supernatural acts and to communicate with supernatural beings, and demonstrating the ability to perform supernatural acts through various discursive means.
It is the interest of this study to examine how these acts are performed discursively, within the boundaries of the leader–client verbal interaction. It would not be insightful to merely claim that the leader asserts he has transcendental power or that the leader demonstrates his power; it is important to show the various ways this is done through talk. Of the two legitimation strategies, claiming to possess transcendental ability is the easier one to execute. The proclamation of having transcendental power is not conducted in a monolog or lecture, but is embedded in the interaction between the leader and the client as they go about their business of problem consultation. Excerpts 5 and 6 illustrate how the strategy of claiming the ability to perform supernatural acts is used.
Excerpt 5
President
Excerpt 6
You see! See! See! She [client] said she [the spirit of the deceased] didn’t know how to do business, you. . . now
In Excerpt 5, the leader asserts that he has the ability to appear in dreams, and by doing this, he is able to cure illnesses of people. Language forms such as the present and future forms of dynamic verbs (comes; will come; will help) are used to express certainty in making the claim. In Excerpt 6, the verb in the simple present form (is) is used to give the assertion that he is able to see spirit beings the status of factual information.
In Excerpt 7, the leader is laying claim to the ability to communicate with unseen beings. Use of reported speech forms is the most common in performing this strategy (he said; your father told me). Words implying communication with unseen beings are also used, for example, pleading to and asking a deity to do something (see Excerpt 15 and Excerpt 19, respectively).
Excerpt 7
In demonstrating transcendental power, three discourse strategies are identified. Unlike the previous legitimation strategy of asserting possession of power, demonstrating power relates to a direct show of power by making predictions and assertions about states of affairs, and ideally with an ensuing confirmation from the client. When confirmation is obtained, the leader’s power is duly demonstrated. However, sometimes confirmation from the client is not forthcoming; this, then, leads to the deployment of further other strategies to save the day. Although demonstrating power appears to be more “risky” to execute, it is the most frequently used one (the strategy with the highest frequency, see Table 1). This may not be very surprising, because in such contexts as consultation for spiritual advice from a spiritual leader, the majority of the clients and members of the audience would be believers or believer-hopefuls, hoping to be convinced of the leader’s spiritual powers; hence, they are unlikely to express disbelief. Demonstrating supernatural powers may well be the most important strategy for spiritual leadership authorization.
We now look at the first of the discourse strategies, that is making unmitigated predictions or knowledge claims about things that are unknown which is the most often used. It is important to note that any act that is to be presented as a genuine show of transcendental power must involve an offer of information believed to be obtained supernaturally, that is, the information is not revealed by the client or any mortal person. Hence, we look for sequences in the interaction where the leader demonstrates that he possesses information that the client has not revealed, and awaits confirmation from the client to complete the act.
In Excerpt 8, the client provides the information that her husband had left her, which could be interpreted as either the client and her husband were separated, or the husband had died. The leader assumed the latter, and added the new information that the husband had died in an emergency (of some kind). This additional information serves to construct the leader’s identity as a “knowing recipient” of information (Wooffitt & Clark, 1998) from paranormal sources, because the information was not revealed by the client. The client is expected to confirm the leader’s assertion of the facts of the matter relating to her life, and if this confirmation were to take place, the episode of legitimizing the leader’s authority would be complete. It is noted that a confirmation is highly likely, as any event involving death is bound to be construed as an emergency. However, as it turns out, the client refuted the leader’s assertion simply because he had made the wrong assumption that the client’s husband had died, when in fact he left their marriage. What ensues after this will be discussed in a later section relating to the third strategy in this cluster.
Excerpt 8
When I was 30 years old,
Oh,
In Excerpt 9 (extended version of Excerpt 1), a client approaches the leader appealing for help for her child. She is carrying a little child who appears to be a special child. The leader begins the consultation offering a “diagnosis” of the problem by demonstrating his ability to know the unknown, that is, a spirit (ghost) had entered the womb of the woman during her pregnancy and is the cause of the child being born abnormal. When the client has confirmed that the child is abnormal and accepts the leader’s explanation of the cause of the abnormality, the leader goes on to claim the knowledge that the client had nearly died in childbirth. This is confirmed by the client as well. In this conversation, there is no conflict observed and the leader–follower relationship is unproblematically produced, with the leader having demonstrated his power to know the unknown.
Excerpt 9
She has a problem. This little child, ah, before she was born ah,
Yes, President. You’re right.
Because [. . .
[So when she was born, she was abnormal.
Very abnormal, when she was born, only four hundred and forty-five
[grammes.
[
Yes. Yes, that’s right.
Apart from making an unmitigated knowledge claim, the strategy of using information supplied by the client in making this knowledge claim is also found. This is done by reformulating the client’s speech, such that the information thus presented as novel would appear different from the information revealed by the client. The new information is derived from that provided by the client (see Excerpt 10).
Excerpt 10
Your mother. . . your mother is now free [from suffering]. When she first passed on, she could not let go of her worries for
My younger brother.
Yes. A man.
[Note: The client is a woman]
In Excerpt 10, the leader claims that he has been told by the client’s departed mother that she was worried about one of her children. When the client stated that would be her brother, the leader confirms the client’s answer by reformulating the term “younger brother” to “a man.” This act of confirming through reformulation serves to create the assumption that the leader had prior knowledge that it was a son and not a daughter indicated by the spirit of the deceased.
We now revisit the event presented in Excerpt 8 with the ensuing interaction shown in Excerpt 11. A repair strategy is deployed when the information offered by the leader is established to be inaccurate. We analyze this strategy as repairing errors in predictions and knowledge claims, which is when the leader modifies his statements to correct errors made during a demonstration of transcendental ability.
Excerpt 11 (extended from Excerpt 8)
Oh,
He hasn’t gone yet.
He hasn’t gone?
[After a few turns, the leader concludes.]
Hey,
In a bid to repair the erroneous claim that the client’s husband had died, the leader launched a new interpretation of what is meant by “dying,” that is, someone whose soul has departed the physical body. It is clarified that there is a traditional belief held among the Chinese that human beings metaphorically possess three strands of soul. If any one of the three strands departs the body, the person will become mentally unsound, but will not physically die until all three strands have departed. Hence, by reinterpreting the meaning of death, the leader reconciles his assertion with the information supplied by the client and redeems his authority. The final line in the excerpt (Did he often say something weird) serves as a request for confirmation by the client so as to complete the act of demonstrating transcendental power.
In Excerpt 12, the leader claims to know that the client has had many abortions. However, the client denied this accusation, and finally the assertion of “abortion” is amended to “miscarriage” (aborted accidentally).
Excerpt 12
I told you,
[After a series of denials from the client, the leader repairs his assertion.]
Then, it’s that kind of,
Normalizing acceptance
Normalization is a process of ideological inculcation whereby discourse participants are persuaded through reflection of the responses of the majority in a society or group, and hence, an important process in legitimation. This can be achieved using elaborate argumentation schemes and media setups. However, at the level of dyadic or small group interpersonal interactions, the most common strategy is simply getting the target member and people around them, in this case, the audience or spectators to express their support, agreement or approval explicitly. Excerpts 13 and 14 illustrate how the leader elicits agreement from the client and approval from the audience, respectively. This is simply achieved by asking a yes–no question (Right or not?; Understand?), giving a direct instruction (Applause!), and asking a rhetorical question (Did you see that?).
[The leader describes some physical structures located near the client’s house. The client confirms his assertions.]
[The leader asks the audience to give applause, and then elicits confirmation from the client a second time.]
(extended from Excerpt 9)
She almost caused you to die.
Yes. Yes, that’s right.
Leader:
Moral justification
Moral justification lends strength to legitimation. It is difficult to delegitimize actions that are seen to be supported by moral motives. The discourse strategy used in moralization is just one, that is, where the leader asserts his altruistic motive of helping people using his transcendental powers. Words that connote an altruistic moral stance (help; rescue; save) are used to provide moral legitimacy.
Excerpt 15
to the deity [name of deity, omitted] just now, and then [name of another deity, omitted] came.
Excerpt 16
I rely on dreams
Deflecting Challenges and Damage Control: When Resistance Surfaces
Not all followers are naturally compliant, and there are those who exercise the option to deny the leader’s claim to authority through the use of linguistic and paralinguistic resources. In these instances, it is found that two strategies, under the function of antagonism (deflecting challenges, LS-6, Table 1), are deployed to counter these challenges. The strategies have a lower frequency count compared with the earlier preferred strategies, indicating that followers’ overt opposition to the leader’s authority is much more limited compared with their outward show of approval and acceptance. It is interesting to note that the antagonistic strategies used to contain the damage to the leader’s image are launched mainly as attacks on the self of the noncompliant follower, such as devaluing the self of the client (LS-6/DS-a), and threatening or warning the client of negative consequences for disagreeing with or questioning the leader (LS-6/DS-b).
Devaluing the self of the client
Antagonism strategies are used metaphorically in battle with the enemy, where the client is now seen as the opposing party whose noncompliant act in public view (of an audience) would result in reduced trust in the leader. The stakes are high as any challenge to the leader’s authority could threaten to neutralize the positive normalization efforts of the leader in the overall communication event. The basic strategy used to regain credibility is to discredit the client by assigning them negative traits. Excerpts 17 and 18 illustrate this.
[The leader asserts that the client has a medical problem and has undergone surgery. The client refutes this claim as many times as the leader repeats his assertion. The leader concludes.]
Leader: So behave properly.
Excerpt 18
Client: [The client refutes the leader’s assertion that she has had an abortion.]
No.
You still remember ah? Can you remember ah?
[The client laughs]
In Excerpt 17, the client is construed as weak-minded or someone with low intelligence. The direct term for this, “stupid” is uttered with the intensifier “so” to augment the strength of the description. A further insult is dealt when the client’s ability to keep her marriage together if her husband were to become unfaithful (lie to you) is called into question. All this negative construal of the client serves to imply that the client’s denial of the leader’s power is simply due to her poor intelligence and hence vindicates the leader.
In Excerpt 18, the same strategy of devaluing the client is used. The leader told the client to “be honest,” and thereby creates the assumption that she is dishonest. This negative construal of the client is further reinforced by asserting, as fact, that the client is trembling (don’t tremble) as a result of her lying being called out. The client’s reaction was to laugh, whether out of nervousness or embarrassment; however, the leader views the laughter as the client taking lightly his admonishment (I am not joking) and, therefore, an affront to his authority. He further reiterates the truth of his assertion and his transcendental ability to know the unknown (What I see is never wrong). Through these discursive acts to devalue the self of the client, the noncompliant acts of the clients are similarly devalued, and hence, the legitimacy of the leader is protected.
Threats of negative consequences
Another strategy used by the leader to protect his legitimacy is to issue threats or warnings of negative consequences at certain points in the interaction when the client refutes the leader’s claims. In both Excerpts 19 and 20, the clients refute the leader’s assertion about actions they had purportedly committed. In both cases, the clients are accused of being dishonest, or attempting to hide the truth. In Excerpt 19, the leader threatens to call upon the guardians of hell to visit upon the client as punishment for lying. In Excerpt 20, the warning of withholding of help is issued. This strategy appears to be regularly employed to compel clients to confirm assertions made by the leader in his attempt to demonstrate his ability to know things that are unknown (such as the client’s past actions and life events).
[The client refutes the leader’s assertion that the client’s action had caused distress to an old person and due to that, contributed to his dying. The leader issues a threat.]
At night, definitely
omitted]
No, no, no.
If they come tonight,
Excerpt 20
You [Client 1: wife] ask him [Client 2: husband] whether he has killed
[animals] before?
[Client 2 shakes his head]
This type of person really. . . President is here, [names of deities, omitted] are
also here. He still wants to deny it. I can tell you,
In utilizing antagonism, elements of moralization may be used to justify the leader’s apparent unethical action of issuing threats/warnings. Within his threat to withhold assistance to the client is embedded the moral reasoning that it is the client’s own wayward action (this type of person really; if you continue like this) that is bringing on the negative consequences.
Conclusion
In this article, we have shown that exercise of power through the creation and legitimation of leader–follower relationship is an ongoing process embedded in talk, and can be uncovered through analysis of talk. The workings of discourse in the creation of social power as executed through the acts performed at the level of utterances (Van Dijk, 1989) reveal that the spiritual leader’s legitimacy is not obtained by performing miraculous actions divorced from talk, but is constituted, maintained, and reproduced in the details of talk. The role of talk is crucial in the communication event such that the participation of the audience is fully utilized to reinforce the leader’s acts as legitimate practice. The leader’s claim to authority and transcendental power gains legitimacy only when it is successfully and continually promoted and defended in the turn-by-turn interaction. Through discourse actions, the roles of leader and follower as social identities and their relations of asymmetrical power are enacted as the social consequence of discourse (Fairclough, 2013).
We see the smooth coconstruction of power relations between the leader, audience, and clients in the interactions, with strategies such as the use of self-mentions and descriptions that are associated with powerful social identities, claiming of possession of transcendental power, demonstration of transcendental power, and moralization taking place without observable resistance or conflict. This state of affairs is an indication that the asymmetrical power relations and legitimacy of the leader have been successfully implemented such that they are taken as natural (Fairclough, 2013). This is similar to Wooffitt’s (2001, 2006) observation that in a public medium consultation event, the medium, the sitters (clients), and the audience collaboratively create and sustain the authenticity of the medium’s paranormal claims and jointly construct the communicative event as legitimate clairvoyant practice. These are the standard strategies with which the leader’s legitimacy is accomplished.
When normalization has set in, the facility to think critically of what is happening is surrendered to align with the “normal” majority. At the same time, the likelihood of challenging what is normal is drastically reduced, as individuals who do so would be cast as abnormal or a social deviant within the group. However, not all the clients in the consultations have accepted the leader’s legitimacy as given. These are mostly new or potential recruits brought to the meeting by seasoned members to seek help from the leader. Resistance to the leader’s inaccurate or vague assertions about events in their personal lives is expressed through a direct negation “no,” indirect negation “really?,” “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember,” or paralinguistic signals such as silence, hesitations, discourse markers such as “er,” “ah,” and nonverbal reactions such as shaking the head or looking puzzled (not all of these examples are presented in this article due to space constraints). The response from the leader to this perceived affront to his legitimacy is to repair his assertions to fit the new information supplied by the client, or to deploy antagonistic strategies such as to devalue the client and issue threats or warnings of negative consequences, all of which inevitably result in the client expressing agreement or giving in to silence.
That resistance does occur in the interaction signals the possibility for followers in a subordinate position to challenge a leader in a powerful subject position, despite the overwhelmingly prohibitive discourse setup. Talk-in-interaction, the site where negotiation of meaning, roles, and relationships takes place, and where resistance is formulated or suppressed, may well hold the key to further understanding about how individuals capable of conscious evaluation of a leader’s actions move along the slope toward uncritical acceptance. Future research may address the question of how descriptions of the characteristics of religio-spiritual leader–follower interactions can contribute to efforts to raise awareness among followers and potential followers, reject manipulative communication and cultivate the right to expect a more democratic mode of communication with their leaders.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
