Intro//the origins of this idea
The idea for this project on social formations was born out of my interest for one social formation in particular — Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple which is generally known for the dramatic facts that occurred in Jonestown, Guyana where 909 Americans died on 18 November 1978 after ingesting a cyanide-laced drink. (1)
The term “social formation” was coined in an article by Maria Daskalaki and Oli Mould as a synonym for subculture. (2) I borrow the term and use it as a synonym for a radical subgroup.
Though this project does not feature any treatment of Jonestown, this social formation served as the spark to initiate an exploration of other social formations and specifically of how they inhabit space in ways that differ from the mainstream. It is precisely this that my project aims to explain — how social formations informed by different ideologies manifest in urban space, and how they create spaces that are meaningful in ways that deviate from the majority.
Three social formations in focus are:
The term “social formation” was coined in an article by Maria Daskalaki and Oli Mould as a synonym for subculture. (2) I borrow the term and use it as a synonym for a radical subgroup.
Though this project does not feature any treatment of Jonestown, this social formation served as the spark to initiate an exploration of other social formations and specifically of how they inhabit space in ways that differ from the mainstream. It is precisely this that my project aims to explain — how social formations informed by different ideologies manifest in urban space, and how they create spaces that are meaningful in ways that deviate from the majority.
Three social formations in focus are:
1. Heaven's Gate
2. MOVE
3. Christiania
After exploring how these three subgroups inhabited urban space in ways significant to them, in other words, by creating spaces that reflected their ideologies, I will show that at the boundaries between social formations and the mainstream violence often ensues with the result that the social formation comes undone.
why look at social formations in relation to space?
The relationship between social formations and space is interesting because of re-socialization. This is a process undergone by groups that do not fall within normative structures of society.
The process sees subgroups detaching from the mainstream and its values so that they can engage in alternative communities that seek to escape forms of dominance. Detachment allows these communities to think and operate according to the new value systems they endorse.
The adoption of a new value system includes the development of specific practices and rituals that are meaningful to the groups and that also contribute to the creation of space and identity. Of course, different social formations are characterized by significant variations in ideology, message, and mission, but there is a common feature: usually they endorse practices aimed at binding the members together around the group’s cause while simultaneously distancing the group from the rest of society.
Their practices often aim at regulating and limiting contact with the outside world, from which the group has withdrawn.
One practice commonly used by social formations is ‘naming.’ Naming occurs when members of social formations assume a new name upon entering the group. The new name is usually somehow meaningful in relation to the subgroup’s ideology and is a way of creating attachment to the new community while simultaneously causing detachment from the old one, the mainstream. Other practices of social formations might have to do with eating or living arrangements. (3)
Essentially, these groups construct new, alternative yet plausible community structures based on ideology. The creation of meaningful space is possible through the use of specific practices and rituals.
Paradoxically, we will see that the ideological and spatial detachment from the majority sought by these groups is their strength yet also their weakness.
The process sees subgroups detaching from the mainstream and its values so that they can engage in alternative communities that seek to escape forms of dominance. Detachment allows these communities to think and operate according to the new value systems they endorse.
The adoption of a new value system includes the development of specific practices and rituals that are meaningful to the groups and that also contribute to the creation of space and identity. Of course, different social formations are characterized by significant variations in ideology, message, and mission, but there is a common feature: usually they endorse practices aimed at binding the members together around the group’s cause while simultaneously distancing the group from the rest of society.
Their practices often aim at regulating and limiting contact with the outside world, from which the group has withdrawn.
One practice commonly used by social formations is ‘naming.’ Naming occurs when members of social formations assume a new name upon entering the group. The new name is usually somehow meaningful in relation to the subgroup’s ideology and is a way of creating attachment to the new community while simultaneously causing detachment from the old one, the mainstream. Other practices of social formations might have to do with eating or living arrangements. (3)
Essentially, these groups construct new, alternative yet plausible community structures based on ideology. The creation of meaningful space is possible through the use of specific practices and rituals.
Paradoxically, we will see that the ideological and spatial detachment from the majority sought by these groups is their strength yet also their weakness.
Heaven's gate
The social formation of Heaven’s Gate was founded in the mid 1970s by Marshall Applewhite. The group’s principal mission was to achieve self-transformation into perfect alien creatures. Based on this ideology, all acts were meant to enable members to transform from human to superhuman. Heaven’s Gate members rejected the value of the physical human body and its experiences. To pursue their overall goal, members of Heaven’s Gate endorsed specific practices.
The group’s relationship to space reflected its ideology and core mission. Construction of their dwelling habits, for instance, was dictated by high mobility. The group constantly moved from campground to campground or house to house. This quasi-religious practice of wandering was fixed in the group’s belief that a permanent home was inherently human. The group made homes that would enable the pursuit of the kind of identities they strived to achieve.
Members of Heaven’s Gate aimed to transform human space into an ideal “Next Level” space by specific practices. One practice for creating Next Level dwelling was rhetorical repositioning. This meant that members of Heaven’s Gate created space meaningful to them through rhetoric and language. Spaces that are referred to with certain set labels by most of society (i.e. kitchen or living room, for example) were referred to differently by members of the Heaven’s Gate community. They called their homes “spacecrafts,” their bedrooms “rest chambers,” kitchens were “nutri labs,” laundry rooms “fiber labs,” offices “compu labs.” Excursions outside of the house were referred to as “out of craft tasks” and the bodies of Heaven’s Gate members were “vehicles.” These seemingly superficial practices allowed the group to construct and understand space in a way that reflected its ideology and enforced its goals. In sum, rhetorical repositioning allowed for the creation of identity and for meaningful place-making, it gave Heaven’s Gate members the sense that they were not occupying an ordinary human dwelling, replacing it with the sense that they were actively pursuing their aim of superseding the human condition.
Another example indicative of the group’s method of space construction was the naming of the camp they occupied in Manzano, Mexico in 1995. This camp was called the “Launch Pad.” The name identifies a sort of “non-place.” Like airports or trains stations, launch pads are a specific type of place that is non-relational — not concerned with identity but simply used for ferrying people from a departure point to a destination. Again, through naming, the group aimed to attribute a fleeting nature to the space it inhabited in line with its belief that human life was only a stage in the process of achieving alien life.
On this campground Heaven's Gate members attempted to build a multi-building community using recycled tires so that they would avoid the need for other resources. The group was able to successfully build walls for their buildings, but not roofs. After ten months, in keeping with their pattern of mobility, the group abandoned the site and moved elsewhere.
The group’s efforts to reach Next Level dwelling were not only reflected in practices that related to the creation of physical space, but also in rituals aimed to be projected on their own selves. These determined the ways in which group members acted and interacted with space.
Members of Heaven’s Gate took new names that identified them as a part of the group. Every individual’s name started with a single syllable of three letters followed by the suffix “ody.” Another practice was an identical diet for all, but one that changed from, for example, fruitarianism to vegetarianism. They also had the same clothing and grooming, which was supposed to be typical of Next Level beings. Standard garments were a simple grey, oxford-style shirt buttoned up all the way, similar to those that a sci-fi character might wear.
Members of Heaven’s Gate aimed to transform human space into an ideal “Next Level” space by specific practices. One practice for creating Next Level dwelling was rhetorical repositioning. This meant that members of Heaven’s Gate created space meaningful to them through rhetoric and language. Spaces that are referred to with certain set labels by most of society (i.e. kitchen or living room, for example) were referred to differently by members of the Heaven’s Gate community. They called their homes “spacecrafts,” their bedrooms “rest chambers,” kitchens were “nutri labs,” laundry rooms “fiber labs,” offices “compu labs.” Excursions outside of the house were referred to as “out of craft tasks” and the bodies of Heaven’s Gate members were “vehicles.” These seemingly superficial practices allowed the group to construct and understand space in a way that reflected its ideology and enforced its goals. In sum, rhetorical repositioning allowed for the creation of identity and for meaningful place-making, it gave Heaven’s Gate members the sense that they were not occupying an ordinary human dwelling, replacing it with the sense that they were actively pursuing their aim of superseding the human condition.
Another example indicative of the group’s method of space construction was the naming of the camp they occupied in Manzano, Mexico in 1995. This camp was called the “Launch Pad.” The name identifies a sort of “non-place.” Like airports or trains stations, launch pads are a specific type of place that is non-relational — not concerned with identity but simply used for ferrying people from a departure point to a destination. Again, through naming, the group aimed to attribute a fleeting nature to the space it inhabited in line with its belief that human life was only a stage in the process of achieving alien life.
On this campground Heaven's Gate members attempted to build a multi-building community using recycled tires so that they would avoid the need for other resources. The group was able to successfully build walls for their buildings, but not roofs. After ten months, in keeping with their pattern of mobility, the group abandoned the site and moved elsewhere.
The group’s efforts to reach Next Level dwelling were not only reflected in practices that related to the creation of physical space, but also in rituals aimed to be projected on their own selves. These determined the ways in which group members acted and interacted with space.
Members of Heaven’s Gate took new names that identified them as a part of the group. Every individual’s name started with a single syllable of three letters followed by the suffix “ody.” Another practice was an identical diet for all, but one that changed from, for example, fruitarianism to vegetarianism. They also had the same clothing and grooming, which was supposed to be typical of Next Level beings. Standard garments were a simple grey, oxford-style shirt buttoned up all the way, similar to those that a sci-fi character might wear.
Other practices were aimed at self-control to allow members to focus on reaching the Next Level. The transformation into extraterrestrial creatures was believed to require extreme discipline. Therefore, Heaven’s Gate members would abstain from activities thought to characterize the human condition. These included actions rooted in the human social system that caused forms of attachment to human life, such as having a regular job, a family or sexual relationships. Actions thought to distract from the group’s main objective were also banned. Examples are drinking, taking drugs, and indulgent eating. Furthermore, members of the group gave up all their possessions and lived communally sharing resources. (4) (5)
In sum, practices endorsed by members of Heaven’s Gate aimed at furthering their mission and ideology and evidently played a fundamental role in how the group created an identity and inhabited meaningful space. Meaning to them was lodged in what they perceived to fall outside normative conceptions of the use of space.
In sum, practices endorsed by members of Heaven’s Gate aimed at furthering their mission and ideology and evidently played a fundamental role in how the group created an identity and inhabited meaningful space. Meaning to them was lodged in what they perceived to fall outside normative conceptions of the use of space.
move
Vincent Leaphart was the founder of what was first called the Christian Movement for Life, later known as MOVE. Upon founding the group in 1972, Leaphart changed his name to John Africa. The group included people from many backgrounds, though they were predominantly black, some of them ex members of the Black Panther movement.
MOVE’s ideology was based on the notion that mainstream society was unnatural and distorted. Precisely for this reason, MOVE members sought to take distance from the majority. The group rejected all impositions from the external world, from other human beings, science, technology, and the government reasoning that everything other than MOVE was corrupt. Members of the group professed to be for “life” and not “life-style,” the term they used to indicate corrupt, technological society. Like Heaven’s Gate, MOVE sought to escape forms of dominance.
Throughout its existence MOVE operated from two houses in western Philadelphia. Both spaces were inhabited in a similar fashion, with dwelling patterns reflecting the group’s ideology.
The houses consisted of common rooms where people could congregate to perform tasks in a communal fashion. The Exercise Room, for instance, which was one of the focal points in the house, was a large area where people came together to eat, rap and exercise. Group members gave away their furniture to the poor and slept in sleeping bags laid out on the floor.
In addition to these practices in line with their simple and uncorrupt approach to life, members of MOVE also removed the paint from the interior of their house so the rooms were barren as well as unfurnished. Members’ belief in natural law induced them to live without any running water, heating or electricity. They ate uncooked foods while lighting, for instance, was provided through alternative means conforming to the group’s ideals, namely from candles hanging from the ceiling. They composted in their front yard, which caused many complaints from neighbors.
MOVE members allowed animals (including rats and cockroaches) to roam the house freely as they were against pest control. It is said that 50 to 60 dogs lived with the members who also allowed the children of the house to run naked and stay home from school.
To isolate themselves from the corrupt mainstream, the group removed windows from the building and replaced them with wooden slats. They were averse to feedback by the surrounding community. MOVE members essentially barricaded the residence, also creating a bunker on the roof. While devising mechanisms to distance themselves from mainstream society, they installed a loudspeaker system on the exterior of the house so that they could promote their ideas among the surrounding community.
MOVE’s ideology was based on the notion that mainstream society was unnatural and distorted. Precisely for this reason, MOVE members sought to take distance from the majority. The group rejected all impositions from the external world, from other human beings, science, technology, and the government reasoning that everything other than MOVE was corrupt. Members of the group professed to be for “life” and not “life-style,” the term they used to indicate corrupt, technological society. Like Heaven’s Gate, MOVE sought to escape forms of dominance.
Throughout its existence MOVE operated from two houses in western Philadelphia. Both spaces were inhabited in a similar fashion, with dwelling patterns reflecting the group’s ideology.
The houses consisted of common rooms where people could congregate to perform tasks in a communal fashion. The Exercise Room, for instance, which was one of the focal points in the house, was a large area where people came together to eat, rap and exercise. Group members gave away their furniture to the poor and slept in sleeping bags laid out on the floor.
In addition to these practices in line with their simple and uncorrupt approach to life, members of MOVE also removed the paint from the interior of their house so the rooms were barren as well as unfurnished. Members’ belief in natural law induced them to live without any running water, heating or electricity. They ate uncooked foods while lighting, for instance, was provided through alternative means conforming to the group’s ideals, namely from candles hanging from the ceiling. They composted in their front yard, which caused many complaints from neighbors.
MOVE members allowed animals (including rats and cockroaches) to roam the house freely as they were against pest control. It is said that 50 to 60 dogs lived with the members who also allowed the children of the house to run naked and stay home from school.
To isolate themselves from the corrupt mainstream, the group removed windows from the building and replaced them with wooden slats. They were averse to feedback by the surrounding community. MOVE members essentially barricaded the residence, also creating a bunker on the roof. While devising mechanisms to distance themselves from mainstream society, they installed a loudspeaker system on the exterior of the house so that they could promote their ideas among the surrounding community.
Following a traditional naming ritual, all MOVE members changed their last name to Africa and like members of Heaven’s Gate, they groomed in a common way, all with long hair in dreadlocks.
Members’ value for personal discipline was reflected in their heavy work schedule and regular engagement in hard manual labor. In the group’s early days, before political action became more time-consuming, MOVE members would rise before dawn to go to a park to exercise and build endurance.
To raise money they set up a carwash with just a hose and bucket on the street in front of the house. They had regular meetings, generally at nighttime, to discuss issues relative to the group and reinforce their beliefs. They often engaged in protests on problems like animal rights, police harassment, and city policies. Often they came into confrontations with police, and several members were arrested. (6) (7) (8)
To raise money they set up a carwash with just a hose and bucket on the street in front of the house. They had regular meetings, generally at nighttime, to discuss issues relative to the group and reinforce their beliefs. They often engaged in protests on problems like animal rights, police harassment, and city policies. Often they came into confrontations with police, and several members were arrested. (6) (7) (8)
All MOVE practices, like those endorsed by members of Heaven’s Gate, were expressions of MOVE’s ideology and helped form a group identity which was expressed in the space they created and inhabited. That space was an enabler, allowing them to exist in accord with their beliefs.
(Click to view images)
(Click to view images)
|
|
Christiania is a “free zone” in Copenhagen, Denmark that was founded in 1971 when a group of squatters or “slum stormers” took over an abandoned military base in the heart of the city. They proclaimed the area to be an autonomous neighborhood. The impetus for taking over the area came from a housing crisis in Copenhagen during which many young people were unable to find a place to live.
Currently Christiania occupies 84 acres and is inhabited by roughly 900 residents, most of whom are artisans, though the population includes people of different types. The founding residents were vey much alternative or hippy types. Many had long hair and went barefoot.
Currently Christiania occupies 84 acres and is inhabited by roughly 900 residents, most of whom are artisans, though the population includes people of different types. The founding residents were vey much alternative or hippy types. Many had long hair and went barefoot.
The residents of Christiania profess to be an anti-authority, anarchic community independent of the government. Like the other groups analyzed in this project, they aim to be independent from the mainstream. Following this ideology, the residents instituted the society as self-governing, with an economy based on recycling and sustainability. Through practices of self-government and direct democracy, the community makes decisions by reaching consensus after meeting in a general assembly of all residents to discuss and negotiate.
As in the case of the other groups, Christiania’s residents created spaces in line with their ideology. Indeed, in spirit of independence, many residents designed and constructed their homes from scratch. These buildings are examples of “architecture without architects” that do not follow any of the rigid planning rules often enforced in urban environments. Hence, much of Christiania is characterized by a singular architecture of free-form, experimental, and colorful buildings.
A hardware store inside the community sells recycled materials, including wood, windows, and appliances, among other things. The shop encourages members in their construction habits. Even trees and greenery are allowed to grow freely in Christiania. The juxtaposition between the “unregulated urbanism” of Christiania and the regulated plan of the rest of Copenhagen is emblematic of the distinct approaches to place-making that the two communities represent.
Graffiti, one of the most prominent manifestations of bottom-up urbanism, is abundant throughout the neighborhood. Historically, the community has tolerated the free trade and consumption of cannabis and hashish. On “Pusher Street,” one of Christiania’s main attractions, hashish and cannabis are sold openly. This of course has led to much controversy and high levels of discontent among Copenhagen politicians. Nonetheless, the consumption of soft drugs is still tolerated in the community. This is an evident example that the community sets its own laws. Christiania is car-free and has its own flag and currency, which are concrete indications of its detachment from the mainstream. (9) (10) (11)
As in the case of the other groups, Christiania’s residents created spaces in line with their ideology. Indeed, in spirit of independence, many residents designed and constructed their homes from scratch. These buildings are examples of “architecture without architects” that do not follow any of the rigid planning rules often enforced in urban environments. Hence, much of Christiania is characterized by a singular architecture of free-form, experimental, and colorful buildings.
A hardware store inside the community sells recycled materials, including wood, windows, and appliances, among other things. The shop encourages members in their construction habits. Even trees and greenery are allowed to grow freely in Christiania. The juxtaposition between the “unregulated urbanism” of Christiania and the regulated plan of the rest of Copenhagen is emblematic of the distinct approaches to place-making that the two communities represent.
Graffiti, one of the most prominent manifestations of bottom-up urbanism, is abundant throughout the neighborhood. Historically, the community has tolerated the free trade and consumption of cannabis and hashish. On “Pusher Street,” one of Christiania’s main attractions, hashish and cannabis are sold openly. This of course has led to much controversy and high levels of discontent among Copenhagen politicians. Nonetheless, the consumption of soft drugs is still tolerated in the community. This is an evident example that the community sets its own laws. Christiania is car-free and has its own flag and currency, which are concrete indications of its detachment from the mainstream. (9) (10) (11)
comment, boundaries, and violence
In Christiania as in Heaven’s Gate and MOVE we can see that founding ideology was fundamental in determining the way the social formations inhabited space. The groups’ practices and rituals transferred ideology onto space, with the end result that all their spaces were manifestations of ideology. Naturally, because we are dealing with social formations outside of the mainstream, the corresponding spatial manifestations appeared deviant in the eyes of the majority. At the point when deviant manifestations of ideology in space challenge mainstream forms of dominance confrontations ensue. We see this in the case of all three of our social formations.
Discourse on boundaries is fundamental in any discussion on social formations, because it is precisely at the boundaries that violence often occurs. Confrontations between social formations and the surrounding community arise because subgroups have an outsider status that may be perceived as threatening. When protective reactions on both sides of the boundary intensify, the consequences can be grave and result in violence. Indeed, as much occurred in each social formation studied here, though the violence was of different types, and can be defined as “inside,” “outside,” and “normalization.”
Heaven’s Gate reacted to the threat of mainstream society by taking action through suicide, an example of self-inflicted violence, or “inside" violence. The group’s collective suicide represented a revolutionary act, a radical break from society. The bodies of thirty-nine members of Heaven’s Gate, including Marshall Applewhite’s, were found in a ranch in San Diego in 1997 after they had poisoned themselves. Even in the act of death, the group maintained its usual practices. All members were found wearing the same black pants and shirts of track suit style and Nike shoes. Draped over their bodies were identical purple shrouds. (12)
Discourse on boundaries is fundamental in any discussion on social formations, because it is precisely at the boundaries that violence often occurs. Confrontations between social formations and the surrounding community arise because subgroups have an outsider status that may be perceived as threatening. When protective reactions on both sides of the boundary intensify, the consequences can be grave and result in violence. Indeed, as much occurred in each social formation studied here, though the violence was of different types, and can be defined as “inside,” “outside,” and “normalization.”
Heaven’s Gate reacted to the threat of mainstream society by taking action through suicide, an example of self-inflicted violence, or “inside" violence. The group’s collective suicide represented a revolutionary act, a radical break from society. The bodies of thirty-nine members of Heaven’s Gate, including Marshall Applewhite’s, were found in a ranch in San Diego in 1997 after they had poisoned themselves. Even in the act of death, the group maintained its usual practices. All members were found wearing the same black pants and shirts of track suit style and Nike shoes. Draped over their bodies were identical purple shrouds. (12)
When threats from the outside directed towards MOVE increased, confrontations between the group and local authorities escalated and resulted in disastrous events. A tragic example of "outside" violence involving MOVE and the Philadelphia Police affected the entire city and nearly annihilated the group in May of 1985. After MOVE members refused to negotiate with the police, authorities dropped a bomb on the group house to force MOVE members outside the building. While the community resisted, authorities allowed fire to burn for 40 minutes before intervening. By the time the fire department reacted, the conflagration had spiraled out of control. Nine of the eleven MOVE members in the house at the time were killed and over sixty homes in the surrounding area burned. The episode was seen as a failure by the city in managing the situation. (13) (14)
Efforts by politicians to force Christiania to integrate with the state represent a third type of violence, namely co-option, or “normalization.” In 2012 the state forced an agreement upon the community by which it had to relinquish some of its liberties. The government established that Christiania would be sold to the people who lived there despite the fact that residents of the community have historically contested the idea of private property and have championed collectivist and anarchic ideals. Though coerced to succumb to a degree of subordination through a kind of financial violence, Christiania has managed to maintain many of its original rules. (15)
From these considerations on the fate of the social formations examined here, we can see that because of their outsider status, regularly the mainstream has sought to neutralize them. Detachment therefore is both the strength and the weakness of social formations. Social formations are born and thrive through detachment, but it is this same detachment from the mainstream which positions them as a threat, and that ultimately causes violent reactions by the surrounding community and often leads to the social formations' fatal end.
From these considerations on the fate of the social formations examined here, we can see that because of their outsider status, regularly the mainstream has sought to neutralize them. Detachment therefore is both the strength and the weakness of social formations. Social formations are born and thrive through detachment, but it is this same detachment from the mainstream which positions them as a threat, and that ultimately causes violent reactions by the surrounding community and often leads to the social formations' fatal end.
works cited
(1) Weightman, Judith R. (1983). Making Sense of the Jonestown Suicides: A Sociological History of Peoples Temple.
(2) Daskalaki, Maria and Oli Mould. (2013). "Beyond Urban Subcultures: Urban Subversions as Rhizomatic Social Formations." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1).
(3) Levi, Ken. (1982). Violence and Religious Commitment.
(4) Zeller, Benjamin E. (2014). Heaven’s Gate: America’s UFO Religion.
(5) Galanter, Marc. (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion.
(6) Boyette, Michael. (1989). Let it Burn: The Philadelphia Tragedy.
(7) Bowser, Charles W. (1989). Let the Bunker Burn: The Final Battle with MOVE.
(8) Galanter, Marc. (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion.
(9) http://mic.com/articles/92521/inside-denmark-s-anarchist-paradise-where-almost-anything-goes
(10) Coppola, Alessandro and Alberto Vanolo. (2014). "Normalizing Autonomous Spaces: Ongoing Transformations in Christiania, Copenhagen." Urban Studies, 51(1).
(11) http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/09/christiana-forty-years-copenhagen
(12) Zeller, Benjamin E. (2014). Heaven’s Gate: America’s UFO Religion.
(13) Boyette, Michael. (1989). Let it Burn: The Philadelphia Tragedy.
(14) Bowser, Charles W. (1989). Let the Bunker Burn: The Final Battle with MOVE.
(15) http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/09/christiana-forty-years-copenhagen
(2) Daskalaki, Maria and Oli Mould. (2013). "Beyond Urban Subcultures: Urban Subversions as Rhizomatic Social Formations." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1).
(3) Levi, Ken. (1982). Violence and Religious Commitment.
(4) Zeller, Benjamin E. (2014). Heaven’s Gate: America’s UFO Religion.
(5) Galanter, Marc. (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion.
(6) Boyette, Michael. (1989). Let it Burn: The Philadelphia Tragedy.
(7) Bowser, Charles W. (1989). Let the Bunker Burn: The Final Battle with MOVE.
(8) Galanter, Marc. (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion.
(9) http://mic.com/articles/92521/inside-denmark-s-anarchist-paradise-where-almost-anything-goes
(10) Coppola, Alessandro and Alberto Vanolo. (2014). "Normalizing Autonomous Spaces: Ongoing Transformations in Christiania, Copenhagen." Urban Studies, 51(1).
(11) http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/09/christiana-forty-years-copenhagen
(12) Zeller, Benjamin E. (2014). Heaven’s Gate: America’s UFO Religion.
(13) Boyette, Michael. (1989). Let it Burn: The Philadelphia Tragedy.
(14) Bowser, Charles W. (1989). Let the Bunker Burn: The Final Battle with MOVE.
(15) http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/09/christiana-forty-years-copenhagen