How prophecy never fails: interpretive reason in a flying-saucer group

Sociology of Religion, Summer, 1998 by Diana Tumminia

Third, Melton (1985) faults Festinger, et al. for missing the point. He (1985: 20) states that "within religious groups, prophecy seldom fails." Festinger, et al. took the stance of objective outsiders, imposing a standard for logical action and reasonable behavior, based upon their definitions of the group. The researchers' standard for logic was not necessarily consistent with the internal definitions of the group being studied. After all, suspension of disbelief is de rigueur in religious groups, if not all groups for that matter. Committed, as well as peripheral members, have a range of unfalsifiable beliefs they can draw upon in the maintenance of group reality.

In lieu of Festinger, et al., Melton (1985) suggests that scholars of religion adopt Joseph F. Zygmunt's (1972) model of three reactions to prophetic failure: adaptation, reaffirmation, and reappraisal. Zygmunt proposes that a group may admit an error in the date of the fulfillment of its prophecy, then determine a new date, or an ambiguous time frame. Also, a group may transfer the responsibility for nonconfirmation to some agency, either internal or external to the group. Another alternative, which Zygmunt believes most likely, is that the group will dispute the failure of the prophecy, and declare its partial or complete fulfillment.

Elaborating on Zygmunt's ideas, Melton (1985:21) adds that "the denial of failure of prophecy is not just another option, but the common mode of adaptation of millennial groups following a failed prophecy . . . ." He suggests two additional modes of adaptation which he labels cultural (spiritualization) and social (reaffirmation). The cultural, or spiritualization, mode means that groups tend to reinterpret the promise of a visible verifiable event into the acceptance of a nonverifiable, invisible event. Members will come to believe that the prophecy took place on a unseen spiritual level. This is not to say that members do not experience dissonance and a variety of disquieting emotions. Sadness, fear, doubt, anger, bewilderment, disappointment, or shock can surface. It is exactly for this reason that the prophecy must be reinterpreted. The social, or reaffirmation, mode addresses emotional distress by placing an emphasis on renewing group ties after disconfirmation. The group may turn inward placing emphasis on attendance at meetings, and encouraging discussions of experiences, as members struggle to interpret what is going on.

As the following will explain, the Zygmunt/Melton model better explains the events that took place in Unarius. Unarians would come to explain away multiple prophecies by adaptive storytelling and continuous narrative invention. They also determined a new date for their spacefleet landing. The group transferred the responsibility for the landing onto the students and the "progress" of their fellow earthlings. All together, Unarians continue to this day to deny the failure of their prophecy, declaring and experiencing its fulfillment. Initially, I will discuss the growth of the Unarian prophecy, followed by a description of the reinterpretation and reaffirmation stages in the wake of disconfirmation. Afterward, I will show how the prophecy is interpreted in the everyday life of the group as a success, not a failure.