I

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

POPULAR CULTURE AND RELIGIOUS
VOCABULARIES OF MOTIVE

By RONNY E. TURNER
and
CHARLES K. EDGLEY

sons monologue satirizes pointedly the communications conduct of some segments of American society. The
Devil (Satan, Lucifer, etc.) remains for many a legitimate justification for certain questioned behavior.
A sociological theory of motivation is adopted in this paper
which avoids such concepts as drives, needs, instincts, etc., as
forces which propel human action. Instead, motives are conceptualized rhetorically as communications through which a social
actor interprets his conduct to others. Deriving primarily from
John Deweys action philosoph which needs no forces to
motivate already existing action, the most systematic statement
of motives as communication is t o be found in the much
neglected work of Kenneth Burke.
In 1940, C. Wright Mills3 interpreted Burkes work in a
sociological context, suggesting that motives are organized into
vocabularies which vary historically and culturally, forming a
basis for social organization by rendering action understandable
to both the actor pronouncing the motive and the audience reviewing it. As Brissett has recently put it, motives d o not compel
us to act, they enable us to act, and an understanding of these
rhetorics necessarily involves not only motives which begin action,
but also those which sustain and terminate interactional episode^.^
This point of view on motives has been amplified in recent
literature by Peters, Blum and McHugh,6 McCall and S i m m ~ n s , ~

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

29

and Scott and Lyman,8 among others.

Motives therefore, are defined as communicated justifications whereby a
person rationalizes his conduct t o those who question the appropriateness o r
legitimacy of his actions. Motives are accepted justifications f o r past, present,
and future behavior and are considered efficacious if they are acted upon by
questioning audiences. Thus, the successfully presented motive answers the
challenge which interrupted the presentations and allows the actor t o continue
his program of action. The process of presenting selves t o others, mapped so
brilliantly by Erving Goffman involves a persuasive rhetoric outlining reasons
for why a person acts as he does, describes w h o he is, and offers cues t o his
future action.
Motives, furthermore, vary in their usefulness in explaining behavior from
one situation t o another; a motive considered efficacious in one situation may
be absurd and embarrassing when articulated in another. Gerth and Mills
indicate that pronounced motives have differed from situation t o situation,
group to group, society t o society, and from one historical era t o another within the same society. In short, motives vary according t o different universes of
discourse, and Mills notion of motive vocabularies suggests that motives are
organized into sets or repertoires. As well as the typically sociological categories
of age, sex; socio-economic status, etc., the vocabulary of motives of various
social groups, as used, needs t o be ma ped a n d analyzed in order t o understand
reality as interactants construct it.
This article reports on the vocabulary of motives used by members of a
religious group to rationalize their conduct t o others.12 A. A. Allen Revival
Incorporated is n o t unlike other theologically fundamental groups which are
prevalent in the South and Southwest, as well as more isolated sections of
the United States. Allen Incorporated, located in Miracle Valley, Arizona, has
converts from around the world, is apparently a financially enriching enterprise,
and offers a repertorie of tent preaching, teaching, physical and spiritual healing,
glossolalia experiences, and other religious activities. Our primary research
methodology involved participant observation during a 12-day revival conducted
by Allen Incorporated in Buffalo, New York, in August 1968,13 and a content
analysis of motives in Allens Miracle Magazine, a house organ with world-wide
circulation. A three-year collection of magazines, published between 1968-70
( 3 6 issues) were analyzed in order to establish the vocabulary of motives utilized
to explain social behavior. In addition, other books by the Allen organization
written during this three year span were studied and several personal interviews
were conducted with A. A. Allen and several of his associates.
Our data repeatedly indicate that the statement The Devil Made Me D o
It is a serious attempt by members of this group t o assess casual connections
between their social situation and metaphysical assumptions. Who Motivates?
Allens motive assumtpions are established in his view of man. By announcing the identity of believer, converts t o this set of religious tenets assume an implicit stance toward the nature of man. Man is regarded as a passive
agent in a world of t w o antithetical forces: God and anti-God. I f man has faith
in God, God motivates his behavior. If, however, man lacks faith (or enough

30

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

faith) the forces of the Devil motivate mans behavior.

The two most universally articulated motives among Allen converts revolve
around two statements: God did it through me, and The Devil, or devils who
infested me made me do it. When these motives are given in answer to a challenge (Why did you behave this way?) one of these two reasons is effective in
satisfying the query. It is important to note here that whereas vocabularies of
motive are generally used in a context where behavior is being challenged and
not merely questioned or commented on, religious vocabularies of motive are
often used to explain behavior which is being evaluated positively. A contrite
believer accepts neither blame for morally disapproved behavior (the devil was
responsible), nor praise for socially approved conduct (I was an instrument of
God).
Among Allens converts, three different categories of activities are believed
to be motivated by the directives of either God o r Satan: financial, physical,
and spiritual (see figure one). A man is sick with cancer, blindness, or backaches
because Satan sent them. If he is healed, God is the cause. Another man drinks,
smokes, takes drugs, has bad luck and/or fornicates (spiritual degeneracy) because the Devil is living inside him and is causing him t o act accordingly.
Miracle Mugmine persistently presents biological drives, especially sex, as
explanations for evil behavior controlled by the Devil. The invocation of these
fleshly desires, which are sensitized and manipulated by the Devil, provide an
effective justification for various behaviors labeled immoral. It might be noted
in passing that the process by which such moral valuations are made, does not
seem to be open to scrutiny. They are assumed to be nonproblematic in their
meaning and the only question is the identification of the nature of the force
operating to produce them.
As Scott and Lyman have pointed out, the fact that the body and its
biological apparatus are always present but not always accounted for, means
that the body is always available to be established as a motive for behavior to
audiences who presumably have been seduced by the flesh on occasions themselves.
FIGURE ONE
FINANCIAL
Money to give to God
Satisfactory work conditions
Promotion
Raise in pay
Pay off debts
Dependable transportation
A better home, furnishings
Funds for Education
Wisdom to manage income
Power to get wealth
Sale of my property
Receive my inheritance

PHYSICAL
SPIRITUAL
Healing for my body
Salvation
Healing for broken heart
Baptism of Holy Ghost
Deliverance from demon spirits Gifts of the Spirit
Peace for my mind
Wisdom for soul-winning
Overcome addiction of
Understand Gods Word
Restful sleep
Boldness to witness
Marital happiness
Fruits of Spirit
Normal sex response
Strength over weakness
Answer to youth problems
Overcome temptation
Solution to old age problems
Know Gods will
Vitality and zeal
Greater anointing
Nourishing food
Open door to minister
-taken from Miracle Magazine14
NOTE: Motives are given which specify that God gives the above mentioned things. Satan

31

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

gives their opposites.

Furthermore, God can spiritually heal any man of his degeneracy by driving out the devil(s) and when a man acts afterward in a Christian manner (i.e.,
gives up smoking, women, etc.), it is God who is responsible. Deliverance from
these devils is evidenced by such God-given gifts as speaking in unknown tongues,
peace of mind, gifts of prophecy, holy dancing, singing, etc.
Superficially, at least, there seems t o be a great deal of similarity here between Allens theological and moral vocabulary of motives and Freuds traditional view of the relationship between individual and society. We might express the
similarity in the following manner:
Theological Vocabulary of Motives
God

&

Man (behavior)

Satan

Freudian Vocabulary of Motives

Superego

Ego (behavior).
A

Id

If a man is in debt, without a house, unemployed, in need of a car, or in

other such financial straits, he explains his predicament by saying that Satan
placed him in such a condition. God, with his storehouse of blessings can send
money, cars, jobs, etc. Each issue of Miracle Magazine contains a multitude of
illustrated stories, in which a Cadillac, a thousand dollar bill, a house, or a job
was sent by God to a believer who asked in faith for a specific material blessing.
Even more prolific are the accounts of people who have had the evils of drugs,
drinking, promiscuity, cancer, epilepsy, etc., divined from their souls.
On the broader level of national and international events, once more, the
Allen follower explains events by reference to a moral vocabulary of motives.
Such phenomena as war is sent by either God or Satan, depending on the believers conception of the purposes of the specific war. God sends wars to
destroy enemies whereas Satan sends war to destroy Christians. History is not
made by men but is the outcome of a cosmic struggle between God and Satan.
Motives given for behavior may be apparent, that is, communicated via
appearances, as well as discursively presented through verbal language.
Glosslalia, ecstatic dancing, violent shaking, and falling to the floor are interpreted
and accepted by the audience as meaning the person is acting in this manner because God is cleansing and stirring the body and soul. Allen often indicates that
appearances reveal either God or Satans power over the person. On several occasions in the course of our observations, Allen singled out members of the audience t o say that he could see in their eyes, face and body, that the devil had
control over them.I6
In the interactional setting of this religious group, the two motives of
God or Satan did it are overwhelmingly effective in satisfying questions of

32

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

~

conduct and justifying the behavior as appropriate because man is powerless in

the hands of God and Satan. If Satan made him act in a bad or unacceptable
way (missed church, told a lie, etc.) his behavior is justified via the motive because Satan has more power than man, and thus can overcome him. The audience forgives the actor because he is not at fault-the Devil made him do it.
Given the theological ideology of the religious group, this motive is continuously
used because it is continuously accepted to explain the evil in the world around
them. As a rhetoric, this verbal scapegoating is efficacious because it says t o
those who accept this vocabulary of motives: What I did was wrong or inappropriate, but I am not wholly responsible-blame the Devil because he causes
evil. The actor is saying he was under the influence of the Devil and therefore
should not be held accountable. This tack is somewhat similar to courts declaring a person temporarily insane and therefore unaccountable for challenged
conduct.
On the other hand, when a person replies to a question of his actions by
saying, It was Gods will for my life that I do thus and so, the challenger
ceases to challenge. To say God made me do it is t o give an unassailable response, who is to question God? When Allen healed, preached, or asked for
financial support, it was because God was motivating his behavior via visions,
the Holy Spirit, angels, or other supernatural means. The followers never question motives which claim Gods directives. Interactionally, n o motive could be
more effective in this social situation in legitimating behavior. If there is a
challenge within this universe of discourse, it is couched i n terms of mans
possible incorrect interpretations of Gods directives.
This research has attempted t o map and analyze the vocabulary of motives
that members of one universe of discourse use in assessing their behavior. The
intent was to view social reality from the symbolic eyes of those studied-how
they explained and made meaningful their behavior and the behavior of others.
This study revealed that the vocabulary of motives given by leaders and
followers of a fundamental religious group, A. A. Allen Revival Incorporated,
are subsumed under general explanations of behavior which specify that people
act by the direction of God or Satan. ,411 behavior is explained as being under
the control of the god or anti-god, the individual being a malleable element with
limited choice and little power. Individuals explain their past, present, and
future behavior t o others by appealing t o either Gods or Satans control over
them. Thereby, individual responsibility is mitigated by shifting blame to a
supernatural whom they all believe controls destiny. Ironically, all of this
ideology takes place in a group which also holds the doctrine of free-will as a
fundamental tenet.
In the social reality of these individuals there are three areas of life in
which God and Satan effect their control: the physical, spiritual, and the
material. Financial security or poverty, peace of mind or demon spirit infestation, and a healthy body or a dreaded disease are lifes ups and downs that are
rendered meaningful by a repertoire of motives that picture a passive individual
in the clutch of God or Satan. In explaining the history of nations or an
individuals everyday behavior, the supernatural is casually active. Thus with-

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

33

in the symbolic boundaries of this group a motive which specifies God or Satan
as the reason for ones behavior is legitimate and interactionally effective in
nullifying the challenge which calls that behavior into question.
Given their belief that either God or Satan controls mans behavior, no
one within this group will blame the individual or hold him interactionally accountable for behavior in which the Devil made him d o it.

NOTES
John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (New York: Henry Holt,
1922).
2Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, A Grammar of Motives, and
A Rhetoric of Motives (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1954).
3C. Wright Mills, Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive, American Sociological Review, Vol. 5 (December, 1940), pp. 904-913.
4See the excellent commentary by Dennis Brisset on The Myriad Motives
for Sex in Sexual Behavior, July, 1972, p. 55.
R. S. Peters, The Concept ofMotiuation (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1960).
Peter McHugh and Alan F. Blum, The Socid Ascription of Motives,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 36 (February, 1971), pp. 98-109.
7George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, Identities and Interactions (New
York: The Free Press, 1966).
Stanford M. Lyman and Marvin Scott, A Sociology of the Absurd
(New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, 1970).
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York:
Anchor Books, 1956).
Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Character and Social Structure (New
York: Anchor Books, 1956).
The question of how people construct reality while at the same time
considering their constructions t o be independent of themselves is to be found
in Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
(New York: Anchor Books, 1967).
The term rationalization has taken a pejorative twist following the
marked assimilation of Freudian thought into American popular culture. Our
view of rationalization follows that of Burke:
The term rationalization, as distinct from reasoning, seems to have come
from psycho-analysis. As soon as the Freudians had developed their
special terminology of motives, they felt the need of a term to characterize
non-Freudian terminologies of motives. Thus, if a man who had been
trained, implicity and explicitly, in the psychological nomenclature
fostered by the Church were to explain his actions by the use of this
Church vocabulary, the Freudians signified a difference between his
terms and their terms by calling theirs analysis and his rationalization. In general, he was thought to be concealing something from him-

34

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

self, especially if he put forward a noble or self-sacrificing set of terms t o

account for an act of his which the Freudian orientation could explain by
a directly selfish motive.
His real motives were, by the Freudians interpretation, hidden behind
a whole panoply of distinguished and pleasurable virtues. They did not
have in mind the deliberate deceptions of the crook, who tries to sell a
bad bond as a good one. They referred rather t o a process of self-deception, a rationalized account of his conduct whereby a man could shut his
eyes to the harsh realities of the case. He offered a highly presentable account of his conduct, whereas the Freudians detected at the roots of it
precisely such interests and motives as his version so appealingly transformed. Why this man should have been suspected of self-deception when
using the only vocabulary of motives he had ever been taught, will remain
one of the mysteries of psycho-analytic rationalization. It would seem
somewhat like accusing a savage of self-deception who, never having
heard of Pasteur, attempted t o cure his diseases without the orientation
of bacteriology .
13Shortly after the Buffdo rally, Allen died, reportedly of a liver ailment
produced by a devil he preached against: drinking. Scholars interested i n the
processes involved in an organization routinizing the charisma of a dead leader
might own attention to Allens organization, for it was built almost entirely
around his magnetic personality.
I4Taken from A. A. Allen, Miracle Magazine, Miracle Valley Incorporated
(October, 1970), p. 13.
Charles Edgley, Vocabularies of Motive and the Social Definition of
Schizophrenia: A n Exploratory Study, an unpublished dissertation (Buffalo,
New York: Department of Sociology, State University of New York, 1970).
l 6 0 n e might wonder at this point just how it is that these people fail to
be labelled mentally ill when their conduct could so obviously be interpreted as
symptomatic of mental disorder given present psychiatric nosology. The
answer obviously involves the nature of social meanings attached to the conduct
and not the conduct itself. Such behavior is motivated at an Allen revival,
whereas it would be quite unmotivated if presented in the course of a psychiatric
examination. On this point, see Charles Edgley, Vocabularies of Motive and the
SociaZ Definition of Schizophrenia, unpublished dissertation (Buffalo, New York:
Department of Sociology, State University of New York, 1970), and Ernest
Becker, Socialization, Command of Performance, and Mental Illness, American
Journa of Sociology, Vol. 67 (March, 1962), pp. 494-501.

Ronny E. Turner is at Colorado State University.

Charles K. Edgley is at Oklahoma Baptist University.