Introduction
A report commissioned by the Anglican Church in the UK into exorcism concludes that since 1960 there has been an ‘explosion’ of incidents of demonic possession (Malia Reference Malia2001). The UK is home to one of the largest Nigerian diaspora populations and London has a greater population of Nigerians than any other part of the UK (International Office for Migration 2007). Between the years 2005–2010, over 650 new evangelical/charismatic churches have opened in the UK with most of these being unaffiliated to any overseeing body such as the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance UK (EAUK n.d.), with 61% of all London churches being defined as ‘evangelical’ (Brierley Reference Brierley2011). According to Martin (Reference Martin2002:145) ‘charismatic Christianity is the portable identity of people in the diaspora’ and the enlargement of diasporic populations is proportionate with the increase in these churches, which within the African community of London, has also seen a rise in claims of spirit/demon possession. This study presents a qualitative examination of the language of the evangelists conducting and the participants undergoing a demonic deliverance ceremony of a Nigerian-based Pentecostal church event, which took place in London, UK.
Pentecostalism is a movement that emerged from an amalgamation of different traditions (Hollenweger Reference Hollenweger1997), and can be looked at as ‘a type of Christianity that doesn't depend upon liturgies, prayer books, creeds and a highly educated clergy but rather on the testimony of lay people communicating their intense relationship with a personal God’ (Kay Reference Kay2009:7). Pentecostals place a great emphasis on the importance of the Holy Spirit above biblical doctrines (Meyer Reference Meyer2004), and central to their belief is the experiential nature of their faith. Charismatic gifts such as glossolalia, prophecy, prayer healing, and deliverance from demonic possession are all manifestations of the Holy Spirit during worship. Deliverance from demonic possession is a major Pentecostalism practice, particularly so in West Africa (Gifford Reference Gifford1998), as evil spirits or demons are held as responsible for negatively affecting all aspects of individuals' lives. Excluding psychopathological reasons, claims of spirit possession are commonly proposed as being symptomatic of socioeconomic factors or marginalised status (Lewis Reference Lewis1989), although studies of African Pentecostalism claim that demonic possession can be considered as also allowing an enactment of otherwise forbidden aspects of the self (Meyer Reference Meyer1995), the deliverance of which can provide relief from psychological distress (Anderson Reference Anderson2006). A further curative aspect of deliverance can result in social transformations in issues related to modernity (van Dijk Reference van Dijk, Corten and Marshall-Fratani2001).
While research on language in religion is extensive (Keane Reference Keane1997), the particular role that language plays in the discourse of demon possession and deliverance within Pentecostal/evangelical/charismatic churches has received perhaps more limited attention (Csordas Reference Csordas and Gaines1992, 1994; Versteeg & Droogers Reference Versteeg and Droogers2007; Bialecki Reference Bialecki2011a; Luhrmann Reference Luhrmann2012). Notably, the analysis of detailed recorded dialogue between evangelists and possessed individuals undergoing exorcism/deliverance appears somewhat neglected. It is through analysing the recorded dialogue of a deliverance ceremony at a Pentecostal church event that the present study asks and seeks to answer why it is common in deliverance/exorcism practice that ‘the demons must first be identified’ (Gifford Reference Gifford1998:98).
Transcribed using conversation analysis conventions, the content, structure, and process in the deliverance of seventeen participants reveals that the demons must first be identified, because when the evangelists' questioning of the participant departs from this ‘explicit performative formulae’ (Hanks Reference Hanks, Silverstein and Urban1996:172), it causes a distinct albeit temporary disruption to the deliverance. In particular, it is the correspondingly relatedness of two questions that seek information on the identity of the possessing demon and the actions/affects the demon has had on the life of the participant that are highly relevant for the deliverance to satisfactorily proceed, allowing the participants to competently engage with the exorcism as an effective ‘performance’ (Versteeg Reference Versteeg, Kay and Parry2011).
In this regard, the possession and deliverance ceremony can be captured using Tomlinson's ‘performative path’ (2014). In his study of Pentecostal ceremonies in Fiji, Tomlinson specifies the performative path as ‘a sequence whose interconnections are designed to make rituals effective’ (2014:6). Tomlinson illustrates how ritual performances achieve their effects through his analyses of a Pentecostal rally in comparison with alter calls, and he demonstrates that these performances follow a cyclical pattern from declaration to promise to action. This path is identified as inciting the audience to ecstatically engage with the performance. Tomlinson uses the term performative following Austin (Reference Austin1962), although he departs from a focus on the performativity of single utterances to the performativity of articulation, that is, the connections of the sequences in these ceremonies. This study proposes that it is also the interconnectedness of the questions in the content of this possession and deliverance ceremony that is integral to the ritual's efficacy.
Path to deliverance
An analysis of the evangelists' questioning and its sequencing permits an identification of the performative path for the demonic deliverance ceremony. These questions have a mainly quadripartite structure, and as a performative path they are ‘patterned sequences meant to generate ritual efficacy’ (Tomlinson Reference Tomlinson2014:38). These sequences are: (i) to identify the spirit/demon; (ii) to determine the actions or effects that the spirit/demon has had on the life of the participant; (iii) to calculate the duration that the spirit/demon has been in possession of the individual; and (iv) to establish how the spirit/demon was able to take possession. The sequencing of particular questions is important; specifically it is (i), the identification question of the spirit/demon, which must be asked initially. It is proposed that if this question is not asked as the primary question then the performative path becomes disrupted. This is due to the loss in connection between the actions/effects question corresponding with characterising the possessing demon. The other questions, however, can be asked in various orders, and this does not disrupt the performative path. In some cases, the evangelist can omit one of the questions that requires information on the length of time of possession or on how the spirit/demon was able to take possession, again without disruption. Within these questions, the evangelists at times reiterate the identity being addressed (e.g. “demon”, “wicked spirit”), which could be classified as instances of identity-shaping performativity (Butler Reference Butler1993), and once the questioning is complete, explicit performatives (Austin Reference Austin1962) are commanded for the deliverance to take place as a social reality (e.g. “you are declared free”). The performative path of deliverance in this Pentecostal ceremony is: identification (of demon) to determination (of actions) to either duration (of possession) and/or to ingression (of possession), and finally to either declaration and/or command.
The ceremony displays question and answer adjacency pairs (Schegloff & Sacks Reference Schegloff and Sacks1973) whereby the evangelist has the ‘reserved right’ to take the floor immediately following the participant's answer. This right is exercised by the evangelists throughout, such that a ‘chaining’ (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson Reference Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson1995) may result until the path reaches the declaration/command. As recursion of question-answer adjacency pairs is ordinarily observed in consultations or client/patient-based settings, such as in interview-type interactions in psychoanalysis (Gale Reference Gale1991), these deliverances could be looked on as a similar institutional context (Heritage & Clayman Reference Heritage and Clayman2010). Distinguishing between question types used, it is specifying questions that seek particular pieces of information that are asked rather than telling questions that require an extended response (Fox & Thomson Reference Fox and Thompson2010:135).
The setting and attendees
This Pentecostal church is based in Nigeria and reaches participants from the African diaspora and others by sporadically organising major services in rented spaces in the UK and Europe. The infrequency of this church's services in the UK means that the congregants have not built up any prior relationship with one another or with those administering the services. The service, which is free to attend, takes place in a privately rented theatre in the East End of London with a capacity for 1,200 congregants and is near-to-full. The whole service is professionally filmed and live-streamed on the web, and large video screens project the live filming of the event to the congregants. As appears normal Pentecostal practice, no reference is made to the inclusion of an exorcism/deliverance ceremony of demonic possession in the service or in any promotional materials (Hunt Reference Hunt1998:218).
Congregants ages range from very young children to the over sixties and comprise family groups, couples, friends, and individuals with a forty/sixty male/female ratio. The congregation are multi-ethnic being predominantly from an African or black British background, with a small proportion who are white European or Asian (ninety/ten). The event is staffed by five evangelists, four of whom are white British, two men and two women, and another woman who is black British; their ages range between thirty and sixty years. The evangelists are attended by a number of male and female staff who facilitate the event's programme and assist the congregants.
Late in the afternoon, once sermons, talks, music, singing, and prayers have been performed and conducted, the London church is addressed from Nigeria by the ‘prophet’ of this church by a live televised link that is also streamed on the web. The ‘prophet’ informs the audience that he has specially sent blessed water to be sprayed on the congregants by the evangelists in London. It is after this address and the ‘prophet's’ prayer that many members of the audience start to exhibit agitated forms of behaviour, which can be categorised as indexes of possession (Haustein Reference Haustein2011), such as vomiting, crying, falling to the floor, shaking, and convulsing. The evangelists' attendants bring these individuals to the front of the theatre, but not onto the stage, and position them in a horizontal line. Other congregants who did not display this behaviour are invited to also join the ‘prayer line’ to receive the blessed water.
Starting at the beginning of the prayer line, the five evangelists take turns in dispensing the blessed water by spraying the participants in the face. The evangelists all have microphones and proceed to question one-by-one only those participants of the prayer line who recoil or react to being sprayed with the water. The attendants act as minders to assist with the physical safety of participants and the evangelists.
The evangelists confirm the possession and perform the deliverance within a couple of minutes. Given the number of participants who join the deliverance prayer line, the evangelists must precipitate this ritual to allow all demon-possessed participants to be delivered within a prescribed timeframe.
Data
The following data is taken from a freely available online recording of a deliverance ceremony that took place in London during November 2013, and at which the author was also present. The data consists of a video recording, totalling seventy-seven minutes, of seventeen participants in a state of spirit/demonic possession who are undergoing deliverance. The possessed individuals are both male (one) and female (sixteen) with ages ranging between twenty and sixty years approximately. These participants are of mainly African and black British backgrounds. All congregants had been made aware by the church that the session was being recorded for broadcasting with open access; no formal consent was required from participants whose transcriptions are used in this study. However, in line with standard ethical procedures, names have been changed so that no participant can be identified.
Full possession transcript
The following full transcript in (1) of Ines' deliverance shows how the performative path of deliverance is structured. The deliverance is performed by a white British male evangelist (E) on a young African female participant (P) who resides in the UK.
(1) Ines
1 P: ↑.hhhh ↑hee:::
2 E: speakout ↑WHO:: ARE ↑YOU: [IN THIS BODY?]
3 P: [↑a:::::::::::::::::::h] (0.6) ↑huh ↑huh ↑huh
4 ↑huh ↑huh ↑huh (0.4) .hhhhh (↑I ↑↑want↑destroy her)
5 E: HOW HAVE YOU DESTROYED HER LIFE [you demon]
6 P: [↑a::h ↑ha]
7 P: .hhh ↑↑u:::::h I para↑lysed ↑he:r I don't want her to
8 su↑ccee::d, ↑eh ↑.hh[hhhhhhh hu:::h hu:::h ]
9 E: [speak louder (.) HOW HAVE] YOU DES↑TROYED
10 HER LIFE,
11 P: .hhh I ↑have ↑para↑↑lysed ↑he:r not to a↑chieve anything, .hhh
12 ↑HHHH ↑.hhhhh HH
13 E: HOW did you enter her body
14 P: ↑u:h ↑hu::h huh (0.4) ↑family curses, (0.4) °from the family° .hhh
15 [hhhhh]
16 E: [right] now it's your time to ↑leave this body, we
17 declare her ↑↑free, (0.4) in the mighty name of Jesus Christ ↑↑CO:ME
18 ↑OU:::T,
19 (5.0)
20 E: with this a↑nointing ↑wa↑↑ter you have been declared free ↑rise to
21 your feet (7.6) Jesus, (.) has set you ↑free ↑sister congratulations
22 P:hhh °thank you God bless° (0.4) .hhhhh °Jesus° thank you Jesu:(h)s
The evangelist sprays the water in Ines' face, and Ines is repelled by this (line 1). Ines' strong reaction to being sprayed in the face is the cue for the evangelist to start the questioning; it is the signal that identifies the participant as being in a state of possession. The evangelist's initial question (line 2) asks the spirit/demon to identify itself. The evangelist's question is not answered by specifying the identity of the spirit/demon, but with what the demon intends to do “I want destroy her” (lines 3–4). Therefore the evangelist replies to this statement (line 5) with the question of defining the actions/effects of the possessing spirit with “how have you destroyed her life?” and determines the addressee's identity as a demon with “you demon”, thereby providing the answer and identity to his question. Of note is the change in tense between the response in the present tense (line 4) and the evangelist's use of the past tense of already actioned (line 5). The change in tense could indicate how the evangelist adheres to the performative path at a microlevel.
As the evangelist has asked the questions of identity (line 2) and actions (lines 5, 9–10), he now moves to the question of establishing how the demon was able to take possession (line 13). The question of the length of time of possession is omitted by the evangelist in this deliverance, which indicates that its absence does not appear to disrupt the process. The evangelist completes his questioning as the questions have been answered satisfactorily, and so now proceeds to exorcise the demon with the command that it is to leave the body (lines 16–18); the spraying of the water is used to complete this. At this point, the participant collapses to the floor. The evangelist confirms that deliverance has successfully been performed (lines 20–21) and as the participant is lifted back up to her feet, she offers her gratitude (line 22).
An analysis of the content of these ceremonies is enhanced through transcriptions using conversation analysis conventions as this permits finer details of the content, such as prosody, to be considered (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting Reference Couper-Kuhlen and Selting1996), and accordingly allows a comment to be made on the intonation of the evangelist's questioning. In (1), the initial question (line 2) has a very strongly articulated rising intonation whereas the evangelist's further questioning (lines 5, 9–10, and 13), even though articulated with strengthened pitch, is not as heightened with rising intonation as the initial question. I claim that this intonation is not only indicative of projecting turn-taking or signalling a completion point (Couper-Kuhlen & Ford Reference Couper-Kuhlen and Ford2004), but is used as an alert signal to the audience that a demon has been identified. It further emphasises the use of this question as the primary interrogative sentence necessary for the performative path of deliverance to be confirmed and conducted. Subsequently, the evangelist's turns lessen in pitch throughout the interaction.
Before presenting the analysis of an atypical interaction in which the performative path is disrupted, the following sections present extracts from the transcripts to illustrate the structure of the performative path.
Identification
The question that seeks to identify the spirit/demon is ‘one of the basic principles of deliverance in its classical Pentecostal form’ (Csordas Reference Csordas1994:168). It could be considered as a diagnostic framing device (Goffman Reference Goffman1974; Tannen Reference Tannen1993), as it is asked as the initial question by the evangelists (E) to the participants (P). It is used in all interactions (bar one) and connects with the actions/effects question that follows on the performative path. In (2) below, the evangelist initiates the path with the identity question, utilising the strongly rising intonation (line 1) and a phrasal response is given in answer with the claim that the spirit/demon is a ‘spiritual husband’ (line 3).
(2) Doreen
1 E: WHO ARE YOU::?
2 (1.0)
3 P: spiritual ↑hu:sband,
The evangelist's primary question of determining the identity of the spirit/demon is asked initially in (3). The theme of the spirit/demon as being some type of spouse is given in the second pair (line 2) in (3) below.
(3) Kim
1 E: who are ↑you: in this body
2 P: .hhh ↑I'm ↑the ↑husband, t- huh huh huh
The same spousal identity of the spirit/demon occurs in Beth's transcript in (4). In the adjacency pair's second (line 2–4) to the evangelist's identity question (line 1), the turn states “I am married to her”. The evangelist's next question asks the method of entry (line 5), and he also names the identity as “you demon”.
(4) Beth
1 E: WHO are YOU:?
2 P: ↑I am ah ah ah ah'm (.) married to he:r (0.4) ↑you (.)
3 ↑you (0.6) take (.) her (.) from (.) ↑me (.) no, (0.4)
4 you ca:n't do that, (0.4) no
5 E: ↑HO:W DID YOU ENTER HER BODY YOU DEMO:N
In the initial part of the next interaction in (5) the evangelist again immediately demands to know the identity of the spirit/demon (line 1). The change in pitch is notable in this pair whereby the framing question has a much stronger pitch compared to the preceding pronouncement “in Jesus mighty name”. The participant responds by defining the spirit/demon as “hardship” (line 3).
(5) Fiona
1 E: i:n Jesus mighty name ↑WHO ↑ARE you::,
2 (0.4)
3 P: ↑↑↑↑HARDSHIP
The evangelist will sometimes demand to know the number of spirits/demons in possession of the participant. This question is asked at times even when the initial identity has been defined and when this does not refer to anything other than a singular identity. In excerpt (5) from Fiona, the identity is referred to as “hardship” (line 3), although in excerpt (6) from this same interaction, the response to the question of number (line 13) is given as “very many” (line 14).
(6) Fiona
13 E: how many are you in this body?
14 P: ↑.HHHHH ↑↑very ↑many:::,
15 E: who is number [o:ne,]
16 P: [a::::::]::::::::::::h
17 E: name them in Jesus na:me
18 P: ↑↑↑↑↑DEA::TH u::h huh hu:::h huh
Following this, the evangelist now seeks to know the identity of one of the number of possessing spirits/demons (line 15). As the evangelist receives no response to this question, she demands that they are named (line 17). She is answered that one of the spirits/demons is now “death” (line 18).
In certain interactions, as in (7) below, the initial question of identity is asked (line 1), and in subsequent turns the possessing spirit/demon is not defined as a specific singular entity but a multitude of entities (line 4). The evangelist repeats the answer (line 5) and this is reasserted by the participant (line 6).
(7) Christine
1 E: ↑WHO (.) ARE >↑YOU IN< ↑THI:S?
2 P: (?)
3 E: you said [ (?) ]
4 P: [↑SO]:::: many of u:::s
5 E: so [many of you,]
6 P: [a::::::::::::::::::]::::h (.) ↓so many of ↓us
The initial question of demanding the identity is the first adjacency pair again in the excerpt below from Heather's transcript (line 1), although no response is given to the question (line 2).
(8) Heather
1 E: ↑who are you >in this< body
2 P: ↑leave (0.4) get ou:t,
3 E: what have you done to this woman, (0.6) how have you
4 destroyed her li::fe?
5 (0.6)
6 P: she's mi::ne,
7 E: she belongs to Jesu:s, (0.6) evil ↑spirit (0.4) what have
8 you done to her ↑li:fe?
9 P: I put her do::wn
As the participant does not respond to the evangelist's initial question on identity, the evangelist turns instead at some point to define the identity of the possessing spirit/demon. Excerpt (8) shows how the evangelist names the identity as “evil spirit” (line 7). The absence of the adjacency pair's second, means that it is the evangelist who supplies this rather than offering the first pair again.
Alternatively, in another interaction, given in (9), if there is an absence of the adjacency pair's second (lines 2 and 4), the evangelist repeats the first (line 1) with more force (line 5) signalled by the rise in pitch. This corresponds with Sacks and colleagues' (1995:191) proposal that if an adjacency pair's second is not given it is identified as absent and therefore a repeat of the first pair will be offered.
(9) Lisa
1 E: WHO are YOU::
2 P: ↑↑↑a::::::gh:::
3 E: ↑SPEAK in Jesus na:me
4 P: ↑↑↑↑ A::GH::::::::::
5 E: ↑WHO are ↑YOU::
6 (0.4)
7 P: I AM HA:::::::::TE,
8 E: you are ha:te
9 P: I AM HA::::::::::::::::[::::::::TE]
A repeat of the first pair (line 1) is also given in this next encounter with Grace in (10) (lines 7 and 17). The evangelist's third repeat (line 17) strongly requires that there is a determination of a specific identity of the spirit/demon since the participant had answered that there are multiple identities with “so many” (lines 6, 8–9). Finally, the identity is confirmed as “idol, spiritual husband” (line 18).
(10) Grace
1 E: ↑WHO are you in this body, (0.8) in Jesus na:me (0.6)
2 SPEAK OU:T,
3 P: °mm°
4 (0.6)
5 E: ↑what have you done to her,
6 P: °↑he:::r so many::°::UH::::::A:::GH
7 E: ↑WHO ARE YOU in Jesus na:me, (0.4) ↑speak ↑ou:t,
8 P: mm:::: mm (0.6) ↑who am I::? (0.4) o::::::::h. °so::°
9 ma↑ny::::, ↑EE:::::
10 E: what have you done to he:r,
11 P: hm (0.6) destroyed her li:::fe
12 E: ↑HO:W did you destroy her life?
13 P: hm:: she's not ↑MOVING ↑FOR↑WA::RD,
14 (0.6)
15 E: why do you want to destroy her life?
16 P: hm (0.6) she belongs to ME::::::,
17 E: WHO are you in this body
18 P: I↑↑DO:::L, (0.4) spiritual ↑hus↑ba:nd,
The possessing “spiritual husband” is encountered again in Evelyn's interaction in (11) below. This interaction is distinct in that the initial question's adjacency pair's second is given by the participant (line 1) before the evangelist has asked the pair's first, that is, the identity question. Due to this, the evangelist does not need to ask this question and moves straight on to the question of the length of possession instead (line 3). Aside from the atypical interaction (with Anna in (21)) that is discussed further on, it is only in Evelyn's deliverance that the identity question is not asked. It could be the case, however, that as she is the fifth participant to be delivered, she does not wait to be asked the identity question as she can supply this immediately for the evangelist as she has identified the performative path from the prior deliverances, or from a familiarity with deliverance services, and thus pre-empts the initial question.
(11) Evelyn
1 P: ↑spiritual ↑husband (.) .hhh ↑↑spiritual ↑↑husba:nd, ↑ee
2 ↑ee[:::::::::::::]
3 E: [how long] have you been in her body,
The responses to this question of identity range from a married partner, such as the common “spiritual husband”, or “hardship”, “destroyer”, “hate”, “death”, “idol”, and “spirit of death”. The theme of spiritual husband and other demonic identities in Pentecostalism is discussed in Gifford (Reference Gifford and Clarke2014) who details the characteristics of possessing demons as symptomatic of deliverees' lives. Occasionally, some responses state there are “many of us”, which recalls the most familiar exorcism that appears in the Bible. The well-known response to Jesus' demand for the demon to identify itself is given as “legion, for we are many”. In a similar way, the responses in these interactions do not name the identity explicitly as a “demon”, although it is the evangelists who define the possessing spirit throughout the interactions as “evil spirit(s)”, “demon”, “idol”, “wicked spiritual husband”, “demonic entity”, and “wicked unclean spirit”.
Aside from Evelyn's response, whereby the identity of the spirit/demon is supplied before the evangelist's initial question, the evangelists' question of determining the identity is used in all the deliverances within the data, besides one interaction. It is this exceptional interaction (Anna's transcript in (21)) in which the opening question is omitted and the identity is not supplied, that I claim instances how this question is of integral importance for the connection between actions and effects to allow the deliverance to proceed in its performative path. Prior to the presentation and analysis of that transcription, the following sections discuss the further performative path connections used by the evangelists for the ritual's efficacy.
Determination
In every interaction the evangelists interrogate the participants as to the nature of the actions or the effects that the possession has taken on their lives. This question is always addressed by the evangelists to the spirit/demon with the second person pronoun to disambiguate the spirit/demon from the addressee; the participant is referred to through the use of a third person pronoun or a deictic to indicate the intended referent as in “this lady”, “this woman”, or “this body”.
Excerpt (12) illustrates this question from the evangelist (line 8), which is sequenced after the identity question has been satisfactorily answered.
(12) Beth
8 E: ↑WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO HER LIFE?
9 P: oh ye::::s, (.) ↑↑dest↑↑ro::yed he::r li::fe, (.) look at
10 her .hhh ↑↑I've ↑↑destroyed h::: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
11 .hhhh nothing (.) ↑nothing (.) no::↑thi:::ng to sho:w
12 (0.4) .hhh ↑a::::::::::::::::::::h ha [ha,]
In this specific questioning, the evangelists demand to know what the spirit/demon has done to the lives of the participants, their families, their marriages, and their bodies. The next excerpt from Lisa's deliverance shows that further ‘chaining’ questions can be used by the evangelist in order to obtain a fuller explanation of the effects on the participant's life.
(13) Lisa
10 E: [↑what h've] you ↑done to her
11 life,
12 P: DESTRO::::Y,
13 E: how have you destroyed her,
14 P: ↓I HATE ↑HE::::::::::R
15 E: HOW HAVE you destroyed her family (.) and her marriage,
16 (0.6)
17 P: ↑NO MARRIA:GE,
18 (0.4)
19 E: ↑what have you done to her family?
20 P: ↑↑↑DIE::::S (0.4) ↑↑DIE:::S (0.4) and ↑↑DIE:::S
This ‘chaining’ effect is also used in excerpt (14), whereby the evangelist makes the demand “what have you done to her life” (line 4). The response pair to this question (line 5) “destroying her life” leads the evangelist to then ask for elaboration: “how have you destroyed her life” (line 7). When the second pair to this chained question refers to “no marriage” (line 8), the evangelist then proceeds to ask what actions/effects the possession has had on her family (line 9) and then to demand “what else have you done to her” (line 12), although the responses do not embellish further and the topics of destruction (lines 5 and 13) and marriage (lines 8, 10, and 13) are reiterated.
(14) Doreen
4 E: what have you done to her life?
5 P: de↑stroying her li:fe,
6 (0.4)
7 E: ↑how have you destroyed her life?
8 P: no marria:ge, (0.4) °huh huh huh huh°
9 E: what have you done to her family,
10 P: no marriage family, .hhh (0.6) ↑°proble:ms° (0.4) .hhh
11 her bondage, (0.4) limitations (0.6) ↑o:h,
12 E: what else have you done to her,
13 P: de↑stroyed her marria:ge, .hhhhh ↑↑HHHH
In excerpt (15) below, the evangelist departs from the more standard grammatical form of the present perfect used in the question of “what have you done” to the present perfect continuous “what have you been doing in her body” (line 7). This question is also atypical in that the conjunction “and” is sentence initial in line 7 rather than the wh-question.
(15) Christine
7 E: and (.) what have you been doing in her body::
8 P: so:: many things
9 E: like what,
10 P: di↑sea:::::se, (0.4) we give her di↑sea::::se,
11 (0.4)
Even though the structure of this question in (15) above, which seeks to define the actions or effects that the spirit/demon has had on the participant, departs from the consistent structure in all other interactions (“what have you done to…”), the construction still differentiates the addressee as the complement of a preposition. Throughout the data the complement of the preposition takes alternant forms: “her life”, “her body”, “this lady”, “this body”, “her”, “him”, or “this woman”. This change in tense does not appear to disrupt the performative path. In the majority of these deliverances, this question chains with further questions that the evangelists ask in order to elicit elaboration on the reasons, cause, or motivation of the effects, such as “why have you…?” or “how have you…?”.
From the analysis of this question and the answers given in all of the deliverances (bar Anna's in (21)), it is striking that the content of the answers matches the request for this specific piece of information. As in the preceding excerpts from the transcripts, Neil's response to this question below in (16) instances how a relevant answer is given (line 21) to specify the actions/effects.
(16) Neil
19 E: [↑what have you done to this] bo↑dy,
20 P: [ hh .hh hh .hh hh .hh hh .hh ]
21 ↑↑A::::H ↑I KILLED HI::::::::::M
This question is evidently an integral component of the performative path of the deliverance ritual, and is always answered effectively because of the prior declaration of demonic identity in response to the identity question. This permits a coherent connection between the possessing demon and the actions/effects it has had on the participants' lives. This connection is most apparent in the demon being a “spiritual husband” or spouse that has negatively affected the participants' relationships, ranging from marriages being destroyed to having no marriage. A demon of “hardship” or “hate” occurs and affects participants' lives through “affliction, suffering” and destruction. A “spirit of death” that is trying to kill the participant also appears, and in a few accounts a multitude of demons are present (“so many”), which cause disease, destruction, and suffering. This thematic mapping of adversity in the lives of the participants to the character or identity of the possessing demon supports the proposal for the connections of these aspects of the performative path as being highly relevant to the ritual's effectiveness. Two other questions are identified in the content of some interactions, which do not appear as integral to the path; the question that seeks to define the length of time that the demon has been possessing the participant and how the demon was able to enter the participant.
Duration
The evangelists' question that seeks to ascertain how long the participants have been possessed can be omitted in the performative path without disruption. Once asked, the duration is always answered as being of a long time, such as from birth or from being a young child. The following excerpts illustrate this nonessential component of the performative path. In Lisa's transcript in (17) below, the evangelist asks the duration question (line 21), after which there is a clear and loud response (line 22). The evangelist then repeats the participant's answer (line 23) and includes the adverb “since” to clarify the temporal reference as relating to a time previous to now. This is an instance whereby the evangelist repairs the participant's response syntactically, as the structure of a question should be followed in the answer as a ‘correspondence effect’ (Levelt & Kelter Reference Levelt and Kelter1982).
(17) Lisa
21 E: how long have you been in this body,
22 P: ↑BI::::RTH
23 E: since ↑birth,
In excerpt (18), the evangelist does not repeat or rephrase the participant's responses as the answers given are satisfactory ‘correspondence effects’. In Grace's transcript, even though the response (line 30) is vague and unspecific, the evangelist is satisfied to move on towards the deliverance declaration (line 31).
(18) Grace
29 E: how long have you been in this body
30 P: mm::↑:::::::: (0.6) for lo::ng,
31 E: toda:y is your last day in this body
These questions can take the form of “when did you enter…?” or “how long have you been in…?” with the complement of the preposition being a pronoun “her” or “this body”, “this lady” or “her body”. These constructions allow the evangelists to disambiguate the addressee (“you”) as the identified spirit/demon. The ultimate question in the performative path is that of method of entry.
Ingression
The evangelists also pursue how the possessing spirit/demon was able to enter or take possession of the participants. Excerpt (19) reveals that the evangelist turns straight to determining the method of entry after the identity of the spirit/demon is given as “the husband”, showing that the sequencing of these questions is variable. The evangelist restates “the husband” as “wicked spiritual husband” (line 3) and is replied to in line 4.
(19) Kim
3 E: ↑how did you enter her life you wicked spiritual husband
4 P: from (↑her ↑parents) °huh huh°
The theme of possession coming from the family emerges again in (20), where the response (line 15) refers to “family curses” and “from the family” (line 16).
(20) Ines
14 E: HOW did you enter her body
15 P: ↑u:h ↑hu::h huh (0.4) ↑family curses, (0.4) °from the
16 family° .hhh [hhhhh]
Demonic possession entering through or inherited from the family is a recognisable theme in West-African Pentecostalism (Meyer Reference Meyer1999) and occurs in all responses to the question of entry in this ceremony. In addition to the question about the length of time of possession, the question that seeks the method by which possession is able to enter is not crucial to the performative path and is omitted in some of the interactions without leading to any disruption.
The presented instances of detailed transcriptions of the four questions types form the performative path of this deliverance ritual, with the identity question asked as the initial turn by the evangelists to allow the possession to be framed and characterised. As explained, the other questions can sequentially vary without disruption, and, with the exception of the actions/effects question, do not appear integral to the performative path.
The analysis presented in the next section examines an atypical interaction (Anna in (21)). The claim is advanced that the ritual's efficacy becomes destabilised due to the performative path being temporarily disrupted on account of the absence of the identity question. More specifically, this destabilisation arises because there is a lack of connection between the identity and action/effect questions. This lack of connectedness causes the participant to be unable to characterise the possessing demon in terms of how it has affected her life; the demonic identity is undetermined and this could explain why the demons must first be identified.
Disruption to deliverance
The following transcript in (21) is taken from Anna's deliverance. She is the initial participant in the prayer line who reacts to being sprayed in the face by the evangelist, who subsequently proceeds to conduct the first deliverance.
(21) Anna
1 P: ↑STOP IT,
2 E: ↑what have you done to this body,
3 P: LEAVE I::T
4 E: ↑what have you [done to]
5 P: [STAY AW]A:::Y (0.6) ↑STOP I:T (0.6) LEAVE
6 ME A↑LONE
7 E: what have you done to this lady
8 P: ↓I: DON'T LIKE YOU GO A↑WAY,
9 E: how long have you been in this [body]
10 P: [SHUT] UP (0.4)SHUT ↑U:P,
11 E: ho::w lo:ng [have you been in this body]
12 P: [DIE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::] (0.8) I ↓HATE
13 ↓HE:::::::::::R
14 (0.4)
15 E: why do you hate her
16 P: SHE ↑A (.) DIRTY WHO::::RE, (0.6) o↑ka::y? (0.6)
17 WA::::::H (0.4) you don't kno::w
18 E: what have you done [to her body]
19 P: [LEAVE ME AL]O:::NE (0.4) I DON'T LIKE
20 YOU:::, (0.8) get away from me
21 E: what have you do[ne]
22 P: [st]op ↑it (1.4) I ↑need to go (oh) Im
22 AFRAID, (0.8) I NEED TO GO HO:ME OKAY, (0.6) gurrh .hhh
23 hhh (0.6) hhh (0.4) look can I just go ho:me, (0.4) ↑.hhh
24 (0.4) ↑.hhhh
25 E: (?) [ (?) ]
26 P: [leave] me alone,
27 P: .HHHH hh
28 (1.0)
29 E: be: free (.) in Jesus name (0.4) you evil spirit you will
30 ↑lea::ve in Jesus name,
31 P: .hhh I ↑di(h)dn't [ (?) ↑a:::::h a::h a:::h ]
32 E: [you will ↑leave in Jesus name,]
33 P: .hhhh u:::h hu:::h .hhhhh hu::::::h huh huh hu:::h (4.2)
34 .hhhh hu::h
35 (3.0)
36 E: madam in Jesus ↑na:me, (.) you are declared ↑free in
37 Jesus name
38 P: thank y[ou so (much) ]
39 E: [amen alleluia]
Anna is sprayed in the face with the water, winces, and demands the evangelist to “stop it” (line 1). However, the evangelist sprays her again and asks his initial question (line 2), which, importantly, is not the identity of the spirit/demon but the action/effect question. It is seen here that this question is unanswered but instead an order is given for the evangelist to “leave it” (line 3). The evangelist repeats the same topic question (line 4) but is cut off in his turn by the participant (lines 5–6) who now orders the evangelist to “stay away” and “stop it” and to leave her alone. The evangelist asks the question for a third time (line 7) but now uses the address term “this lady” instead of “this body” perhaps as a tactic to elicit the specific response to the question. The answer is still not forthcoming as the participant instead states her dislike of him and affirms that she still wants him to “go away” (line 8).
As this line of questioning is still not eliciting a relevant response, the evangelist proceeds to ask another question of length of possession (line 9), and switches back to referring to “this body” rather than “this lady”. Again, his question is unanswered, but she overlaps him in her response with the order for him to “shut up” (line 10). The evangelist repeats this question (line 11), but he lengthens “how” and “long” with an intonation that is suggestive of tedium or fatigue. Here again she overlaps the evangelist's still-in-progress turn with shouting and lengthening “die” (line 12). These overlaps are important to note as she does this previously (lines 5 and 10), and further on (lines 19 and 22).
She now states “I hate her” (lines 12–13). This statement is a repeated incidence of disalignment as it does not answer the question, nor do any of the preceding turns by the participant. However, with this statement, she has introduced another identity in her use of the first person as the subject and a third person feminine object pronoun, allowing the evangelist a line of inquiry. Accordingly, it is confirmed for the evangelist that he is engaging with a spirit/demon in his next question (line 15), although his question of “why” departs from the standard fact-based questioning. Her response here (lines 16–17) is highly unusual as she now uses derogatory and explicit language in her answer, that is, “dirty whore”. There is an apparent social constraint in the language used, as in no other participant turns is explicit language used. This could be indicative of the fact that she is new to this religious community and has not learnt the specific norms of interaction (Boxer Reference Boxer2002). A pause follows and then she says “ok” with rising pitch as a question response to indicate “is that what you want?”. The evangelist ignores this question response and returns to one of the standard specifying questions of action/effect (line 18). This question is ignored as she returns to her rejection of the evangelist (lines 19–20), again with overlap of his turn.
The next section in this transcription is highly revealing. Here the evangelist asks the question (line 21) with simply “what have you done?”, without the use of the referring expression used in all previous questions, such as “this body” (lines 2, 9, and 11), “this lady” (line 7), “her body” (line 18), and “her” (line 15). These referring expressions are a confirmation for the participants that the evangelist is directly addressing a spirit/demon inhabiting the participant and the referring expressions relate to the actual participant. Accordingly, the referring expressions are crucial as indicators that the evangelist is only in dialogue with the spirit/demon. The evangelist's omission of the referring expression explicitly causes confusion for Anna as the evangelist's sole pronominal use (2nd person) does not specify who he is addressing. This could compound the lack of demonic identity. Consequently, it is at this point that she tries to extricate herself from the prayer line, although she is stopped from doing so by the attendants who physically restrict her from leaving.
It is at this section that the ceremony becomes temporarily disrupted. Barred from leaving, Anna then states “I need to go” and she then makes an appeal with “I'm afraid” (line 22–23). As she is still unreleased, however, she now shouts “I need to go home okay” (line 23), whereby she is becoming visibly and audibly distressed. She tags “okay” to signal she is seeking agreement for her request. Regardless of her appeals, she is still being restrained, and makes one further appeal with “look can I just go home” (line 24). This is the first and only time that a discourse marker (Schiffrin Reference Schiffrin1987) is used during this (or any) transcription, and is a signal that attention is needed to a following request (Brinton Reference Brinton1996). Her request is ignored and she starts to cry whilst the evangelist sprays her with more water, who is also lost for words (lines 25). She requests again for the evangelist to leave her alone (line 26), and it is at this point that the evangelist salvages the ceremony by proceeding to command deliverance “be free in Jesus name” (line 29), and continues to spray her. It is only during the command throughout the interaction that the evangelist finally specifies the identity of the addressee as “you evil spirit”.
As soon as the evangelist has identified the spirit/demon as possessing her and commands deliverance, Anna collapses to the floor crying. The evangelist commands the spirit/demon to leave again (line 32) and the audience confirms deliverance has been successful by applauding loudly and as such act as an authority in the deliverance (Duranti & Brenneis Reference Duranti and Brenneis1986). The interaction ends with the evangelist declaring the successful deliverance (line 36–37) and, once assisted back to her feet by the attendants, Anna responds by expressing her thanks (line 38).
What is striking from this interaction is that as the evangelist has omitted identification from the performative path, it reveals a loss of connection with the determination question. The importance of the connection between identification and determination is that negative life events or psychological states are given characterisation or personification; the events are caused by a distinct and separate agency from the participant. The loss of this causal connection means that the participant is hindered from progressing through the ritual as her negative experiences (determination) have not been initially personified (identification).
The importance of this causal connection is discussed in Csordas (Reference Csordas1994). In its historical perspective during the Renaissance, ‘each demon characteristically had both a personal name and a principal attribute, a sin to which it had the power to tempt people’, although these names and their corresponding attributes have been lost over the centuries. Csordas then explains that with the introduction of deliverance among Catholics in the 1970s, some of these recondite personal names for demons persisted; since they had become detached from ‘any attribute that could serve as a psychological referent, however, these names offered only empty performativity’ (1994:181). This has since invariably led to a change in the demonology of deliverance as evil spirits became ‘named for how they act on a person. Thus there are spirits named Anger, Depression, Lust etc. … this fusion of the personal name and the mode of action of demons has implications for what we might call their ethno-ontological status' (1994:181). The case of ‘empty performativity’ could be extended to include the non-naming of a possessing demon, such as in Anna's deliverance. This would situate her possession at the extreme end of Csordas' continuum of ‘the degree of concreteness and/or personification attributed to evil’ (1994:199), in that there is no personification to which the ‘evil’ in her life can be attributed. Thus the degree to which deliverance performativity is necessitated is dependent upon the causal connection being established.
However, it is not only the participant whose performativity or progress through the ritual is hindered, as the evangelist also becomes stuck by repeating the same question. In fact, out of a total of eight questions asked, he repeats the determination question five times. This number of repetitions is not instanced in any of the other transcriptions, and neither are irrelevant answers given to the questions.
The lack of relevance of this participant's responses is also revealing, as she is consistently unable to supply the actions or effects the demon has had on her. When she does answer only one of his eight questions (“why do you hate her?”, line 15), her response is exceptional in its use of explicit language (“she a dirty whore”, line 16). It appears that when the evangelist presses her on this by returning to the determination question, but uses the referring expression of “her body” (line 18), she struggles with maintaining her role in the ritual. Consequently, she says she is afraid and makes an appeal to be allowed to go home (lines 22–23). This is a major disruption to the ritual's efficacy, which is further indicated by the evangelist's loss of control as his questioning ceases (line 25). He quickly repairs this disruption by proceeding straight to the command and declaration. It is only at this point that the participant returns to her role by falling to the floor and then offering her gratitude.
A close examination of this particular interaction permits further insight into how Anna's deliverance stands out in comparison with the others. One way that this is evidenced is in Anna's overlaps with the evangelist's turns (lines 10, 12, 19, 22, and 26). Aside from some purely metalinguistic moans, other participants do not overlap the evangelist. Anna's overlaps could be indicative of an unfamiliarity with the conduct of deliverance participants; Lynn (Reference Lynn2013:223–24) reports that in Pentecostalism ‘many aspects of “proper” decorum are not expressly taught’, and Anna could therefore lack the necessary ‘cultural expertise’ (Halloy & Naumescu Reference Halloy and Naumescu2012). Accordingly, it is possible that as Anna's is the first deliverance in the prayer line, and along with the infrequency of this church's deliverance events, she has had no prior opportunity in which to become familiar with either how deliverance is conducted or how possession is performed, leading to her slight transgressions in conduct such as overlapping the evangelist and using explicit language.
However, even if she had full familiarisation of the ritual from exposure to prior participants' deliverances (and televised performances) where the identity question is consistently asked, it would be expected that its absence in her deliverance would disturb the performative path in some way. Hence, Anna's ritual is disrupted by not being given the opportunity to make the causal connection between who it is that has done what to her. In effect, the agency that has affected Anna's life is absent. This approach would correlate with studies into an underlying cognitive basis in possession, as causal agency is more commonly assigned to discarnate entities as an explanation for negative life events (Pfeiffer Reference Pfeiffer1999; Boyer Reference Boyer2001).
Mention must be made as to the reason for the evangelist's omission of the identity question being asked in Anna's deliverance. Without further ethnographic detail, this can only be speculative, but what stands out, again, is that Anna's is the first deliverance performed, and this, together with the infrequency of this church's deliverance event, would perhaps also affect this evangelist's customary questioning. A lack of preparedness may have given rise to his omission of the identity question, as this evangelist does indeed return to the performative path of deliverance by including this question in subsequent deliverances.
Conclusion
This account has analysed the content of demon possession and deliverance as conducted in a UK Pentecostal church. This study has considered why the identity of the demon during deliverance must be established. The findings suggest that the identity question must be established as it is integral to the construction of the deliverance formula that functions as a performative path. The absence of this question prohibits participants from ascribing agency to that which has caused their negative life events; consequently the connection between the identity and determination paths is lost. This results in a temporary loss of efficacy in the deliverance, revealed by one participant not being able to supply relevant answers and reconsidering her role in the ceremony. The questions on identity and determination are noted as being the core components of the ritual, with the questions on the duration of possession and how the possession was able to enter appearing only as additional questions and thus not crucial to the deliverance path.
The original impetus for the identity question may be found in the religious context with the familiarity with the most well-known Biblical account of Jesus' performance of an exorcism. Knowledge of a possessing demon's identity is considered an accepted form of achieving more complete control for the exorcist (Bonner Reference Bonner1943; Frieden Reference Frieden1990) or, from an anthropological perspective, it ‘grants power over the person named because the name participates in the essence of a person’ (Csordas Reference Csordas1994:168). However, this may be reinterpreted in the light of the present study in that it is not control or power that is achieved by knowing the demonic identity. Instead, the knowledge assists all those present in the deliverance to be able to differentiate the participant from the agency that has caused the relevant adversity to them and their life. Accordingly, pragmatic logic demands that there also has to be thematic mapping of this adversity to the characteristics of the possessing demon. Except Anna's deliverance, this thematic mapping of the causal connection is evidenced throughout the deliverances in this ceremony.
Further detailed analysis of language use in these settings would not only enhance an interdisciplinary approach (Boyer Reference Boyer2001; Klass Reference Klass2003), in particular the role of agency in possession and its connection to the language of deliverance, but also contribute to the ethnography of Christianity. For instance, Bialecki's (2011a) study of a US charismatic renewal ministry finds that their language practice is colloquial rather than religiously charged, and he observes that even during a deliverance ceremony, the use of informal patterns of speech are evident. Further, self-deliverance can also be performed through quiet prayer (Bialecki Reference Bialecki and Lindhardt2011b). The contrast between Bialecki's studies and the study presented here highlights the evangelists' apparent lack of ‘domestication’ (Csordas Reference Csordas1994:168) of language use in this Nigerian-based Pentecostal church.
Additionally, analysing the contrast in language use within these settings would augment studies into demonic possession and deliverance. A close analysis of the interactions would be enhanced by applying conversation analysis conventions. In this way, prosody, syntactic repairs, pronominal use, and overlaps are just some of the features that are revealed and worth considering in the variation of ‘domestication’ in exorcism practices, and in the wider study of the content in non-Pentecostal spirit possession (Lambek Reference Lambek and Ward1989; Placido Reference Placido2001).
Overall, a comparison of the individual presentations of demonic possession and deliverance in this church reveals that effective performativity is achieved through the thematic mapping of the adverse effects to the demonic identity. Thus the ritual's efficacy is facilitated by the question “who are you (in this body)?”.
Appendix: Transcription conventions
The conversation-analysis transcription conventions used in this study are those most commonly used and based on Jefferson (Reference Jefferson, Roger and Bull1989, Reference Jefferson and Lerner2004) and Heritage & Atkinson (Reference Heritage, Atkinson, Atkinson and Heritage1984).
: lengthening
[ point of overlap onset
] termination of an overlap point
(0.0) elapsed time in silence by tenths of seconds
(.) tiny pause between utterances
underline stretch of talk with added stress, pitch, and/or amplitude
CAP an specially loud sound relative to the surrounding talk
°word° sounds are relatively quieter than the surrounding talk
hhh outbreath
.hhh inbreath
? rising intonation
, noncomplete phrase
↑ marked shift in higher or lower pitch in the utterance part immediately following the arrow
> < speeding up or slowing down of the utterance
