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

Sociology of Religion, Summer, 1998 by Diana Tumminia

CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION AS MUNDANE REASON

Years after the grand prediction, Unarians remembered few of the chronological events of the prophecy; they instead referred me to the books on the subject, simultaneously telling me that I misunderstood what had "really happened." Students who had joined after the spring of 1977 said it really did not matter to them that the spaceships had not arrived as predicted. In their view, publicity surrounding the event was preparing Earth to accept the spacefleet when it actually did arrive. Moreover, all students gave strong accounts of the public misconceptions of the event and of the planetary errors that caused the saucers to stay away.

Melvin Pollner's concept of mundane reason (Pollner 1987; Mehan and Wood 1975) looks at maintenance of intersubjective reality as reflexive activity based upon socially constructed beliefs. Mundane reason, as an ethnomethodological concept, examines the interpretive process involved in unfalisiable belief. It addresses Melton's concern for the disparate definitions of the situation held by insiders, as opposed to outsiders. A disconfirmed prophecy comes close to Pollner's (1975, 1987) concept of a reality disjuncture, or a puzzle. What appears to be seemingly irrefutable evidence of irreconcilable contradictions to outsiders, like Festinger, can instead become evidence of the truth of the prophecy to insiders, like the students of Unarius.

Accounting for Errors in Outsiders' Understanding

On the subject of Unarian prophecy, Unarians are similarly sure of what really happened, although they may not recall the exact details of the events. When confronted about discrepancies about the prophecy, Unarians find evidence of error on the part of critics or the questioners, rather than in the "Science" itself or the actions of Uriel. Unarians find errors in others' reasoning and not their own. Thus the separation of reality from non-reality is maintained through clearly delineated interpretive boundaries based on socially verifiable understandings.

According to Unarius, errors in an outsiders' understanding stem from their lack of competence in the Unarian Science. Competent Unarians see no trouble with this puzzle of the prophecy, while incompetent questioners, such as myself, flounder in interpretive errors. By identifying the source of interpretive errors with logical incompetence, they explained away the charges of false prophecy. First of all, it was explained to me that there was no prophecy. The media called the event prophecy, not Unarius. Prophecy implies a prediction that could fail, and that is not what transpired, say Unarians. Uriel had a "reliving," not a prophecy. She relived the time when she was Isis. Furthermore, it was pointed out to me that Unarians do not say "prophecy" if they can help it; they say "future viewing" or "seeing the future." Anyone using the term "prophecy" was suspect as lacking the capacity for logical discourse.

For members, the correct solution to the Unarian puzzle of the purportedly disconfirmed prophecy is found in the intersubjective understanding of the sensibility of Uriel's actions. In a 1989 interview, I asked a student about Uriel, the time of the prophecy, and the problems connected with seeing the future. According to the student, legitimate interpretation of that or any event depends on one's competence in the "Science." Errors of interpretation can also spring from past-life karma. As a redemptive act, said the student, Uriel set the example on how to handle past-life information, further evidence to Unarians that she had not erred.