Erklärungsnot

Erklärungsnot (pronounced air-klair-oongs-noht)

Difficulty in explaining oneself; being at a loss for an explanation when one is in an awkward position, especially if one of one’s own making.

1980s: The construct was Erklärung (explanation, declaration, account) + not (distress, need, predicament, difficulty), thus literally “explanation distress”, best translated as “difficulty in explaining oneself” or “being at a loss for an explanation” but more graphically so as “explanation poverty”.  The construct of the verb erklären (to explain, to declare) was er- (a productive German verbal prefix (often indicating bringing something to completion or making something explicit)) + klären – (to clarify, to make clear).  Klären was from klar (clear), ultimately from the Latin clārus (clear, bright, famous); it was cognate with the English clear (gained via French influence from the same Latin root) and declare (from the Latin declarare).  Not (need, hardship, distress, emergency) was an old Germanic word that was cognate with the Old English nēad (necessity, compulsion), the English need, the Dutch nood and the Swedish nöd.  It was seen in many German compounds, two of late appearing increasingly in German news reports being Wohnungsnot (housing shortage) and Geldnot (financial distress).  The most common use in German appears to be in the phrase Erklärungsnot geraten (to get into Erklärungsnot), the charm of which is it can be as a lament (if of oneself) or said gleefully (in an act of schadenfreude) if of others.  Erklärungsnot is a noun; the noun plural is Erklärungsnöte.

The standard plural is Erklärungsnöte and not Erklärungsnots but if ever the word is assimilated and if the usual practice followed (English conventions used in plural formations) erklärungsnots will become an “alternative plural”.  As a general principle, German nouns ending in “-not” generally form their plural by taking an umlaut (a diacritical mark (¨) placed over a vowel (specifically in German “ä”, “ö” & “ü”) to indicate a shifted or fronted sound) and an “-e”; while appending an “-s” is one of the regular patterns in German plural formation, it’s used mostly for foreign loanwords, abbreviations or acronyms, most surnames and certain nouns ending in vowels.  When used in English, the formal rules can be “bent” and even if one is referring to several Erklärungsnöte, the singular Erklärungsnot will “do the job”.  For English-speakers, the pronunciation of Erklärungsnot is not intuitive is best written as air-klair-oongs-noht with stresses on the second (klair) and the final syllables (noht).  German language guides break it down as: (1) air (short and sharp), klair with the German “ä” spoken “ai” as in “hair”, (3) oongs assimilating the “r” in “hair” and thus pronounced like “roongs” (lightly rolling the “r” or dropping it slightly into an “ng” and (4) noht rhymes with “boat”.

Much fun is made of long German compound nouns, the classic example the 42-letter Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän (Danube steamship company captain) although linguistically adventurous Germans fashioned constructions as long as 80 letters that authorities rejected that as phoney, ruling the 63-letter Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz (beef labelling regulation and delegation of supervision law) the languages longest “real” word although use was rare, most preferring the more manageable abbreviation ReÜAÜG but it was rendered obsolete by changes to EU regulations meaning the 36-letter Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherung (automobile liability insurance) gained the prized distinction.  More digestible forms have been embraced by English-speakers because they say in a few syllables what otherwise would demand a phrase or even a sentence, common examples including zeitgeist (spirit of the age) and schadenfreude (the feeling of joy or pleasure when something bad happens to another person, ideally an acquaintance).  Others offer little phonetic economy such as scheisskopf (shithead) but it’s used because it (1) is a “fun” word” and (2) is semi-euphemistic in that it avoids explicit use of the vulgar “shit”.  By convention, when German nouns are absorbed into English as “loan words” (subtlety different from being assimilated as with “etcetera”), they’re not spelled with an initial capital as in the German.  Erklärungsnot always is used with an initial capital because it remains a non-assimilated “foreign word”, a quality vesting it with an additional quality.  By convention, (ie this is not an absolute rule), in text, loan and assimilated words are not printed in italics, unlike most foreign forms.

Case study in Erklärungsnot: Chelsea Clinton (b 1980; FDOTUS 1993-2001)) & Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) watching crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) on stage with Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) second presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 9 October, 2016.  Mr Clinton was a serial offender or, as he may have put it, a “serial victim”. 

For students of political mendacity & obfuscation (a well-documented field), examples of course abound and, to succeed in the business, the art of “handling Erklärungsnöte” must be mastered to the point it’s a politician’s stock-in-trade.  Of course, a politician might (at least briefly) succeed by being truthful but it seems doubtful that’s ever been tried so empirical data is lacking.  While the behavioural phenomenon of Erklärungsnot would have pre-dated the Stone Age, the word, although constructed with old elements, is not ancient, the first use thought to be by journalists during the early 1990s (ie shortly after German re-unification although perhaps no significance should be attached to that, German politicians having long before often been “at a loss to explain something”).  Quickly it became a staple of German political commentary and from there spread to wider use, it’s popularity artificially exaggerated in the statistics because the internet encouraged a proliferation of lists of rare words or those thought fun, interesting, weird and such.  In English, it has never caught on to the same extent as the loan words zeitgeist, schadenfreude or scheisskopf, probably because the pronunciation is “challenging”.  So, with no one-word equivalent in English, speakers of that language stuck with phrases like “I’m not absolutely certain (ie “don’t know”) or “it's hard to explain” (ie “if I tell the truth it will be bad for me”), neither of which so elegantly capture the moment.

It can’t with statistical certainty be said politicians more than most suffer Erklärungsnot but generally that perception exists because so many instances of them falling victim are recorded and in some form broadcast (most of us enduring the pain before a smaller audience, often WAGs (wives & girlfriends)).  Some politicians have of course so honed their techniques of avoidance or obfuscation that viewers, long since mentally bludgeoned into an acquiescent insensibility, have “tuned-out” to the extent even lies slur effortlessly into the waffle.  Markers of a politician being in a state of Erklärungsnot include (1) being asked a question and responding with something like “I think it's incredibly important...” before going on to talk about something else, (2) frequent use of the word “obviously” (whether or not things seem “obvious”), (3) rambling off-topic for a while and then saying “what was the question?” and (4) blaming the media.

Barnaby Joyce interviewed by Sarah Ferguson (b 1965) on the ABC’s (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 7:30 Report, July 2026.

One who tried a tactic more novel than the usual clichéd subtleties of evasion was Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022), a man who more than most has come to be confronted with questions he’d rather not answer.  In many cases, he’d be better off displaying his Erklärungsnot (usually otherwise a kiss of political death) than trying to answer because in his latter-day position, being “lost for words” would be better than “trying to come up with something” or (the Lord forbid), “tell the truth” but his commendable tactic was to turn away from his interviewer and “shout at the dog”.  While performative, theatrically, it was great television and while the interviewer doggedly pursued her line, the clever diversion did give Mr Joyce a few moments to “come up with something” and ensured national coverage would be all about “Barnaby’s dog”.  Nobody will remember the questions or the issues raised and, as was the case when he was filmed one midnight, lying drunk beside a planter box in a Canberra street while having an expletive-laden conversation with his (second) wife, the public’s reaction generally was positive.  That's because shouting at their dog or being seen sprawled drunk in the street makes a politician (in the parlance) “authentic”, a valued commodity in an age when so much is (or is assumed to be) “fake”.  It is of course not impossible there really was a misbehaving dog requiring Mr Joyce shout at it (animal behavior experts were quick to comment on whether that's a good idea) and it may be the convenient interruptions to the interview were not just a politician's trick to gain time.  Those of a generous spirit can extend him the benefit of the doubt.    

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.  Ms Lohan named her first dog “Gucci” after he chewed-up her new pair of Gucci boots but never commented on whether that was crisis enough for her to shout at the playful puppy.  Barnaby would have shouted.

Erklärungsnot has for generations been well-known to school students asked by the teacher why their homework wasn’t handed in for marking.  The classic “the dog ate my homework” might at the time, briefly, seem a good “work-around” for one’s instant, sinking feeling of Erklärungsnot but telling the truth probably is preferable.  Adults of course (usually) get better at the techniques, the most prevalent one in politics being “plausible deniability” but that can work (at least in the short term) only if the “plausibility” really is to one’s interlocutor(s) truly “plausible”.  Case studies include the lives and times of Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) and Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001), two gifted but flawed characters who, when in the depths of an Erklärungsnot, were inclined to “keep digging”.  This illustrious brace illustrate the word Erklärungsnot is at its most potent when applied to someone embarrassed by circumstances of their own making.  It has been used more generally (such as in cases where someone is the victim of unfortunate events) but that's a different flavor of pathos.

Microaggression

Microaggression (pronounced mahy-kroh-uh-gresh-uhn)

(1) A casual comment or action directed at a marginalized, minority or other non-dominant group that (often) unintentionally but unconsciously reinforces a stereotype and can be construed as offensive.

(2) The act of discriminating against a non-dominant group by means of such comments or actions.

1970: The construct was micro- + aggression.  The word was coined by African-American Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016), a former Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  Micro (small, microscopic; magnifying; one millionth) was a word-forming element from the New Latin micro- (small), from the Ancient Greek μικρός (mikrós) (small).  The origin is disputed between etymologists, the traditional view being it was from the primitive Indo-European (s)meyg- & (s)mēyg- (small, thin, delicate) and was cognate with the Old English smicor (beauteous, beautiful, elegant, fair, fine, tasteful), source also of the Modern English smicker and related to the German mickrig.   However, there’s a highly technical discussion within the profession, hinged around the unexplained “k” in the Greek and there’s the suggestion of pre-Greek origin on the basis of variation between initial /m/ and /sm/, as well as the variant forms μικός (mikós) and μικκός (mikkós).  Aggression, dating from 1605–1615, was from the French aggression, from the Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio (a going to, an attack)), a noun of action from past participle stem of aggredi (to approach; attack) the construct being ad (to) + gradi (past participle gressus (to step)) from gradus (a step).  The Classical Latin aggressiōn (stem of aggressiō), was equivalent to aggress(us) + iōn derived from aggrēdi (to attack).  The psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" had its origin in early psychiatry, first noted in English in 1912 in a translation of work by the Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).  While not exactly synonymous, microassault and microinequity are similar concepts, the most closely related verb being microinvalidate (to engage in microinvalidation, to make a relatively small statement or action (microaggression) that negates another person's experience, thoughts or feelings).  Microaggression, microaggressiveness, microaggressor & microaggressee are nouns, microaggress, microaggressed & microaggressing are verbs, microaggressive is an adjective and microaggressively is an adverb; the noun plural is microaggressions. 

Dr Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016).

Microaggression is an adaptable and possibly infinitely variable concept that probably most belongs in sociology; typically, it's defined as any of the small-scale verbal or physical interactions between those of different races, cultures, beliefs, or genders that are (perhaps sometimes generously) assumed to carry no malicious intent but which can be interpreted as revealing an underlying (and often unconscious) bias.  The criteria can be both objective and subjective and it’s noted compliments or comments intended to be positive can be defined as microaggressions if interpreted as patronizing or perpetuating stereotypes (racial, gender, sexual orientation, class, occupational, geographical etc).  Probably, the only "safe" identity-based categorizations are now those purely statistical: average heights by nationality and such although such is the sensitivity, the recommendation of many is now wholly to avoid anything that possibly could be construed as a microaggression, the only exceptions being those directed at groups defined as "privileged" (white people, Christians, cisgender, heterosexual males etc).  Very much a "spectrum" word, microaggression began life as a defensive shield but has in recent years attracted criticism (from both left and right) because it was able to be weaponized in "cancellation culture".  The standard psychology texts suggest the behavior manifests in three forms:

Microassault: An explicit racial derogation which can be verbal or nonverbal which can include labelling, avoidant behavior and purposeful discriminatory actions.

Microinsult: Communications that convey rudeness or insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs which may be unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting messages to the recipient of color.

Microinvalidation: Communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.

The concept emerged to address the underlying racism that endured even after overt, deliberate expressions of racism (at least against defined minorities) had become unacceptable in polite society.  It held that microaggressions generally happened below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture and were different from acts of intentional bigotry (such as the use of racist epithets) because the those committing microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm.  That wasn't exactly a Golgothaesque "forgive them for they know not what they do" but in the abstract did position the dominant (and not of necessity majority) culture as normal with minorities treated as aberrant or pathological.

Although the word’s origin lay in the politics of race and ethnicity, it proved readily adaptable to other areas such as gender, sexual orientation, mental illness, disability and age.  Within academic sociology, there’s a (typically) highly technical debate about the nature of microaggression and intersectionality at the cross-cutting cleavages of non-dominant groups.  As regards the media, the discipline had a well-refined model to describe how microaggressions were either reinforced or encouraged by a news and entertainment industry that both reflected and was controlled by the hegemony of the dominant culture.  The sudden shock of the emergence of social media has changed things (diversity of source and content) but the main effect has been to balkanize: While there are places where microaggressions will not be tolerated, there are others where such things are routine and some where microaggressions are about the mildest forms of racism and such.  To date, much work in exploring this area has been impressionistic and it’s not clear if the analytical metrics, where they exist, are sufficiently robust for theories to be coherent beyond the sense of constant "mission creep".  In a sense, social media and the development of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) are synergistic with the maintenance and critique of microaggressions one of many elements in the culture wars.

As an indication of the how things have changed, in 1939 the terms “paleface” and “redskin” were in 1939 appropriated for use in literary criticism by Russian-born (in modern-day Ukraine) Jewish-American literary critic and essayist Philip Rahv (1908–1973).  What in retrospect makes that most interesting was Rahv was not a kind of “proto-MAGA” (Make America Great Again) figure from the Republican Party’s far-right (a faction that definitely existed in 1939 although different labels were applied) but was of the “left”, emphasizing the virtues of cosmopolitanism and Marxist analysis, one irony in his casual use of “paleface” and “redskin” being his advocacy of “breaking down” ethnic and racial barriers.  He was in the early 1930s a member of the ACP (American Communist Party) but, trans-nationally, long-suppressed fissiparous forces had been unleashed by comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and Rahv in 1937 was expelled from the ACP by the dominant Stalinist Popular Front faction, condemned as a “Trotskyite” (a follower the exiled Russian comrade Leon Trotsky (1879-1940; founder in 1938 of the Fourth International).  His political activities in the US for a while continued but by the 1950s he’d become one of “The God that Failed” ex-communists and, after a brief flirtation with the “New Left” (or rather what he thought the New Left should have been), he retreated to literature to wage a low-intensity campaign against structuralism.

Allen's "Red Skins" and "Chicos": On supermarket shelves in Australia until 2020.

It is of course now unthinkable a figure of the left (liberals, progressives etc), Trotskyites or otherwise, would be so casually microaggressive as to take terms so vested with racism as “paleface” and “redskin” so they could, with no acknowledgment of the history, be re-purposed as devices in literary criticism.  In the US in 1939, to do such a thing was unremarkable, an indication of the cultural currents underpinning society with the use of language both a product and part of the construct.  Paleface (the construct being pale +‎ face) came from US English and appeared in the anthropological record as early as 1797 (the origin uncertain) but seems not to have entered general use until the early 1920s.  The origin is uncertain but it was supposedly a calque from a Native American language; the form presumably coined when those of the first nations encountered Europeans.  The earliest verified use of the word redskin (the construct being red + skin) dates from 1769 although despite documents from the 1580s referring to the skin-tone of indigenous Americans as “red”, that use by European explorers and settlers was not consistent and in some instances may have been a reference to the use of red “paint” used to adorn the face and upper-body.  “Paleface” has been used as an intended slur against white people (with little apparent effect) but “redskin” definitely is an ethnic slur offensive to Native Americans although the record suggest than until around the mid-nineteenth century it was neutral and merely descriptive before ascending the “linguistic treadmill”.  Use puts it now well beyond being a microaggression.

Allen's "Red Skins" and "Chicos" were in 2020 re-named "Red Rippers" and "Cheekies" respectively.  The recipes were said to be unchanged and thus far the "Gaytime" ice cream has survived.

In 1939, Rahv used “paleface” and “redskin” to distinguish between what he called “two poles”; his sense was of the diametrically opposed “north & south” but his model was stylistic and thematic rather than geographic (and really not quite an antinomy as some have suggested).  The polarization as defined by Rahv had him group writers according to their attitude, style, subject matter and such, Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–1864), Herman Melville (1819–1891) and Henry James (1843-1916) classified as “palefaces” while Walt Whitman (1819–1892), and Mark Twain (1835-1910) were “redskins”.  In Rahv’s literary world view, palefaces had cultured and patrician attitudes, wrote in a mannered style using symbolism and explored “lofty” themes with great complexity.  The redskins wrote works of the rugged men of frontier life or the working class, criminals and “low lifes” in the unpleasant parts of towns and cities.  He didn’t seem to suggest writing in a colloquial and naturalistic way couldn’t be interpolated into thematically complex literary texts, just that it was inevitable a “down market” cast of characters and places they frequented would shape the work.  So Rahv saw palefaces as “civilized” and redskins as “barbarians”; presumably he’d have thought “savages” to be “non-literary” and thus “beyond the pale” as it were.  Of those Americans who came later, categorization must be speculative but can be fun.

Use of "Eskimo" definitely can be deemed microaggressive. While ice-cream lovers can still buy "Gaytimes", they had to adjust to the "Eskimo Pie" being renamed (variously "Edy's Pie" or "Polar Pie").  It remains to be seen if the use of polar bears in some of the new packaging triggers controversy.  The creatures do appear in aspects of Inuit culture and religion and it's not clear if permission for use has been sought.

William Faulkner (1897–1962) and Kurt Vonnegut (1922–2007) both seemed redskins and Norman Mailer (1923–2007) clearly was no paleface though he might have thought being filed with the barbarians an effete slight on his savagery.  Gore Vidal (1925–2012) was a redskin who really wanted to be a paleface (and never stopped trying) while Philip Roth (1933–2018) was such a paleface he never quite mastered the “redskin mode” despite the occasional heroic attempt.  John Updike (1932–2009) was a paleface but the problem inherent in assigning writers with a hefty oeuvre to polarized categories is that at the margins their writing can “straddle” and sometimes those margins are wide.  That’s why plausible cases can be made arguing both Bernard Malamud (1914–1986) and Saul Bellow (1915–2005) at times at least “tended” to either pole.  What Rahv would have made of Faulkner in 1949 and Bellow in 1976 being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature while Updike and Roth were ignored (despite the latter engaging in self-promotion not far short of Donald Trump’s (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) auto-advocacy to be the Peace Prize laureate) would be interesting to know but safely can it be imagined he’d have thought the entire Nobel Committee redskins after in 2016 they conferred the honor in literature on musician Bob Dylan (b 1941).  Maybe it was women of the Swedish Academy (the body that chooses the Literature laureates) who vetoed Roth; in all he wrote of women (and it was a lot), Roth revealed much about himself but little about them, despite the usually elegant internal logic.  Rahv was anyway appalled literature appeared to exist in such a dichotomy and, being an old Trotskyite who never quite stopped taking seriously Karl Marx’s (1818-1883) politics, longed for a world where folk wrote like Marcel Proust (1871-1922) or Thomas Mann (1875–1955), the latter at least acknowledged in 1929 by the Nobel Committee.

1958 Studebaker Scotsman advertisement.

There was in 1957 nothing unusual or offensive in Studebaker naming a car “Scotsman” and it would have been well-understood as a reference to the car’s low purchase price and (alleged) TCO (total cost of ownership).  Scotsman buyers could even save a little more were they prepared to forgo the extravagance of chrome bumpers and choose the "delete option" of painted units; Mercedes-Benz also once offered that on taxi versions of a number of utilitarian sedans, the most produced the W115s (1968-1976). Other manufacturers used the same concept as Studebaker: Citroën ID vs DS, Cadillac Calais vs de Ville etc, some including fewer features and simpler trim, some also changing the mechanical specification but the principle was always: same size, lower price.  The name "Scotsman" was picking up on the reputation of the Scots for frugality and it would have been thought something neutral at worst and more likely positive, thriftiness in the early post-war US still generally thought a virtue despite the best attempts of capitalism to encourage consumer gluttony; as the fat overtook the land, things would change.  Technically, such use would now fulfil the criteria of a “microaggression” even if deployed in a way which makes clear it’s being intended in a way which is complimentary.  Scots can of course use the trope of themselves and even if used by others, as race-based microaggressions go, it’s probably at the "lower range" of offenceivenss, those applied to what are considered “white people”, rarely noticed and certainly not grounds for a cancellation.  Still, by the 2020s, it’s highly unlikely a car company would now name a car a “Scotsman” and certainly not if it was a “stripper” (ie a low-cost model with minimal standard equipment).

The “Scotsman’s supercar”: 1968 Plymouth Road Runner, Car Life magazine, May 1968.

Quite when the term "stripper" (in that context) vanished from commercial use can’t be certain but it would have occurred later in the twentieth century and certainly after 1968 when Car Life magazine, reviewing the new Plymouth Road Runner, called the stripped-down, low-priced muscle car: “a sort of Scotsman’s supercar”.  As well as a relic of linguistic use, Car Life’s test was interesting because unlike many of its contemporaries that often conducted tests using vehicles tweaked by manufacturers or dealers for optimal performance, they used the genuine, stock-standard articles, bought from the showroom floor, that being a more realistic path to discovering if thing did "what it said on the tin".  What Car Life revealed was the Road Runner (when equipped with the standard 383 cubic inch (6.3 litre) V8)) was quicker than a typical 383 powered car using the same body (as would be expected given the lower weight and modifications to the 383 used in the model) but was unable to match the sub-15 second ¼-mile (402 metre) runs reported by many.  The basic Road Runner was actually representative of the performance of most of the era’s “muscle car ecosystem” while the storied cars that “out of the box” were able consistently to log ¼-mile ETs (elapsed time) in the 13 or 14 second bracket were relatively rare and a tiny sliver of of what came to be classified as "muscle cars", some of which just "looked the part" although that did prove a lucrative market.  Of course, to solve any perception of inadequacy, a buyer could tick the box for the optional 426 (7.0) Street Hemi V8 and while that was expensive, as well a fixing any performance deficit, putting one in a Road Runner was the cheapest path to Hemi ownership, a compelling case at a time when a thousand dollars was a lot of money.

Channeling her inner Scotsperson: Lindsay Lohan in Royal Stewart tartan, Freaky Friday (2003), costume test photo (Walt Disney Pictures).

Despite the perception of many (encouraged bydepictions in popular culture), tartan in the sense of specific color & pattern combinations attached to specific clans is something of recent origin.  Tartan (breacan (pɾʲɛxkən) in Scots Gaelic) is a patterned cloth consisting of criss-crossed, horizontal and vertical bands in multiple colours.  The word plaid is now often used interchangeably with tartan (particularly in North America and when not associated with anything Scottish (especially kilts)), but technically (and always in Scotland), a plaid is a large piece of tartan cloth, worn as a type of kilt or large shawl although it’s used also to describe a blanket.  During the disputes between England and Scotland, the wearing of tartan became a political expression and the Dress Act (1746) was part of the campaign to suppress the warrior clans north of the border; it banned tartan and other aspects of Gaelic culture. The law was repealed in 1782 and tartan was soon adopted as both the symbolic national dress of Scotland and in imagery more generally.

The Royal Stewart was the personal tartan of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) and although historically associated with the royal house of Stewart (or Stuart), it has become one of the most widely used in commercial fashion and in that sense appears in parallel with the clan affiliation.  Commonly worn to formal events such as weddings, ceilidhs (social gatherings, the nature of which casts a wide net) or Burns Night (celebrating the life of Robert "Rabbie" Burns (1759–1796 and still in popular imagination Scotland's "national poet")), the modern trend is to pair a kilt with a Prince Charlie or Argyll jacket, traditionalists adding a Sporran (pouch), Hose (kilt socks) & flashes, Ghillie brogues (traditional shoes) and even a Sgian dubh (a small dagger tucked in the sock) although carrying the last item may be unlawful in some jurisdictions.  Lindsay Lohan in her screen test wore the dress in something of the way in the 1970s it became part of the punk sub-culture but for more conventional types there are also scarves, ties, sashes and such.  Remarkably, in the age of identity politics and sensitivity to cultural appropriation, the etiquette guides note there is no objection to non-Scots folk wearing their tartan of choice except when an event is clan-specific in which case only those in the lineage should don the fabric.  That said, even then, the consequence of a tartan faux pas will likely be less severe than wearing a Rangers shirt in a Glasgow pub filled with Celtic’s hoops.  Still, deployed with sufficient cultural insensitivity, improper use of tartan could be a microaggression.

Microaggression in Progress: Mean Girls (2004).

Mean Girls was replete with instances of microaggressiveness.  We’re still (mostly) allowed (quietly) to be amused by some of these, but, a quarter-century on, there’s now a more hostile critique of subtle verbal or behavioural slights that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to marginalized groups, even if genuinely often unintentional and what seems subtle to some may to others be blatant insensitivity.  In satire, there is still some tolerance for such depictions although audiences are now expected to be as appalled as they are amused and, of course, as a satire of the gut-wrenching ecosystem that is high school social dynamics, subtle forms of relational aggression and passive-aggressive exclusion were not hard to find and can be categorized:

(1) Racial and Geographic Microaggressions: The line: “If you're from Africa, why are you white?” was an invalidation of an individual’s cultural identity on the basis of not according with another’s geographic & racial assumptions & expectations.  The school map of “the cafeteria cliques” includes “Cool Asians”, the labelling reducing individuals to their ethnicity and when paired with what is nominally a most positive teen modifier (cool), that operates as a racial micro-insult implying (1) most individuals of that ethnicity are “not cool” and (2) non-white students are in a sense monolithic and acknowledged as “acceptable sub-groups” only if they in some way adhere to “white people constructs” of “white normative standards”.  “Black hotties” operates at the same level, although “hot” (a type of “coolness”!) usually is positive, the implication here is that “hotness” inherently is a quality of certain white girls and a black girl can be deemed “hot” only compared to other black girls; she cannot, in the absolute sense, merely be a “hottie”, that descriptor operating only on white girls.  The surprised response “Oh you speak English?” when someone is introduced to a black student thought to be from Africa reveals the cultural assumption such an individual would likely lack proficiency in the language; it’s a classic micro-invalidation.

Microaggression weaponized ironically.

(2) Gender and Academic Microaggressions: When Cady expresses interest in joining the school math team, she’s told it’s “social suicide”, a pushback reinforcing gendered and social stereotypes that young women cannot be simultaneously be popular, attractive and intellectually gifted, thus the trope of intentionally failing math to gain a boy's attention.  The “I’m too pretty to do math” Tee-shirt plays with this and works best if worn by a pretty math nerd.

(3) Backhanded compliments disguised as “niceness”: Such things can be the least objectionable of all microaggressions especially if there’s some equivalency in the power-relationship and the quip is witty, subtle and (ideally retrospectively) understood.  It can also be done “by proxy” such as when saying to one student “I love your skirt, where did you get it?”, only to wait until she’s out of earshot before turning to another and saying “That is the ugliest effing skirt I've ever seen.”  What this does is make an individual realize they may not be able to find sincere or truthful anything they’re told.

Aggression rather then microaggression: “Fetch” anyway likely never would have “happened”.  Although a convenient clipping of “fetching” (often in the form “quite fetching” or “most fetching” and meaning “charming; captivating; compelling” etc), by the early twenty-first century “fetching” in those senses had long since descended into the category of “dated”; it was an “old people” word, use thus “social suicide”.

(4) Image and fat-shaming: Because the social identity of the “Plastics” was so tied to rigid “beauty standards” (some group-imposed, some the prevailing norms), by use of the “Kalteen Bars manipulation” it was possible to induce weight-gain in Regina, an act of sabotage opening the possibility of subjecting her to micro-insults and non-verbal cues (staring at her body or pointing out strict dress-code rules that really can’t be adopted by someone gaining weight) to signal there’s been a violation of group standards, requiring exclusion.  In that, the techniques are different from something like: “Gretchen, stop trying to make 'fetch' happen.”; that is pure aggression: A group’s hegemon maintaining control by suppressing another member’s attempt to assert their personal identity through something as seemingly innocuous as the introduction of a new slang term.  It was a type of linguistic imperialism, similar to the attitude of the Spanish nationalist troops who occupied Catalonia and the Basque country after their victory in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939).  Harshly they would tell those they heard speaking regional dialects: “Speak the language of the Empire, don’t bark like dogs!”  

Exorcise

Exorcise (pronounced ek-sawr-sahyz)

To seek to expel from a person or place an evil spirit by means of adjuration or solemn religious ceremonies.

1350-1400: The verb may have been in oral use as early as the twelfth century but use in Middle English is documented from the later, the form from the fourteenth century Old French exorciser, from the Late Latin exorcizāre, from the Ancient Greek exorkízein (bind by oath; banish an evil spirit) and the sense "call up evil spirits to drive them out" was dominant by the sixteenth century.  In England, exorcize was actually an alternative spelling but this is now one the rare instances in English where the US adopted -ise rather than -ize which some etymologists suggest may have been because of the influence of "exercise" although why that would be compellingly persuasive (this was the country which discarded "cheque" and used "check" for all purposes) seems never discussed.  What is more likely is the appearance of "exorcise" in so many church documents brought to the American colonies led to some reluctance to edit "sacred" works.  Some US academic sources do suggest exorcize is "a rare but correct" alternative, a concession not extended to exercize.  A number of the derived forms (exorcismal, exorcisory, exorcistical, exorcistic) are rare and appear only in specialist publications (or lists or the rare and obscure).  Exorcise is a verb, exorcism, exorcisation & exorcist are nouns, exorcistical, exorcismal, exorcisory & exorcistic are adjectives; the noun plural is exorcisms.

The noun exorcism (a calling up or driving out of evil spirits) was a fifteenth century creation formation from the Late Latin exorcismus, from the Ancient Greek exorkismos (administration of an oath) which, in Ecclesiastical Greek existed as exorkizein (exorcise, bind by oath), the construct being ex- (out of) + horkizein (cause to swear), from horkos (oath) of uncertain origin although some have suggested there's a link to  herkos (fence), the idea being of a oath with boundaries one accepts as "restrictions, ties & obligations" or "a magical power that fences in the swearer".  It's speculative and one etymologist noted dryly that the discipline's enthusiasm to adopt the view "was restrained".  A fourteenth century form describing the ritual was spelled exorcization.

Exorcism: Vade retro satana (Step back, Satan)

Saint Francis and the Dying Impenitent (1788) by Francisco Goya (1746-1828)

Exorcism in Christianity is the practice of casting out demons from a person or place possessed by the Devil.  Although the biblical origins are dubious (some translations to some extent support the notion), by early in the second century of Christianity the word was in general use and paintings of exorcists and their ceremonies are among the darker and more dramatic in medieval and later sacred art.  Whether or not the biblical foundations were solid, priests have always been good at spotting a gap in the market and the drama of a well-scripted exorcism was likely a lucrative venture, supply of which may well have stimulated demand.  In the Roman Catholic Church, the rituals were formalized in 1614 because of Rome’s concerns about clandestine, underground exorcisms performed without their consent and the guidelines remained substantially unchanged until the Vatican’s revisions in 1999, a process necessitated by a late twentieth-century spike in demand, the reasons for which are speculative but involve usually blaming the internet, an explanation at least plausible.  Interestingly, for more than a decade after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II (1962-65)), it was really not done for clergy to speak of Satan as if "he" really existed, the modernizing church preferring the language of psychology and psychiatry for those displaying symptoms for centuries attributed to the Devil's demonic possession.

Exorcism of Nicole Aubry (1563), etching by an unknown artist.

Popular culture (especially cinema) revived interest in the ritual, with both churches and the medical profession reporting an upsurge in claims of demonic possession and most significantly, Saint John Paul II (1920–2005, pope 1978-2005) had a more robust attitude to the Devil’s role upon earth than any of his twentieth century predecessors.  In 2004, JPII again warned that occult and new age practices were raging out of control in Europe, providing gateways for evil that could result in demonic attachment and possession.  JPII's warning was effective and for the Holy See, it's been good business ever since; a recent Course on Exorcism and Prayer of Liberatio, hosted by the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum (an educational institute under the auspices of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ) in Rome, attracted some 250 priests from 50 countries.  Supply tends to exist only to meet demand so around the planet, the Devil must in many places be afoot.  Interrupted only by the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic (which may have been the work of the Devil), the week-long course has been held annually since 2005, attendance more than doubling over the years.  Cost per head in 2025 was €575 (US$660); bookings were essential and an entry-ticket included discounts on rooms and food & beverage in several Rome hotels.

The Exorcist’s “spider walk” scene.

Based on the William Peter Blatty (1928-2017) novel The Exorcist (1971), the film version (1973) was directed by William Friedkin (1935-2023) and that it did not win the Best Picture Academy Award is a mystery explained only by the prejudices held at the time by those members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who cast ballots for The Sting (1973) a competently-made but formulaic piece and hardly the a landmark like The Exorcist.  The “spider walk” scene was long the subject of speculation.  Not included in the original theatrical release, the director for years claimed it had never been shot and it was only when copies of takes were found in the archives he admitted it had been done but couldn’t be used because at the time the technology to "edit out" the wires securing the stunt double to a rail above (which made the performance possible) didn't exist.  Subsequently, it was revealed the scene had been shot without use of the harness because it was performed by an experienced stunt double with gymnastic training.  Apparently the director didn’t include it because he thought it appeared too early and disrupted the sequence which is interesting because, structurally, The Exorcist is far from perfect (unkind critics call the editing "a bit of a mess").  The spider walk scene was included in the “director’s cut” editions released the next century and the once genuinely shocking film has attracted parody, a demonically possessed Lindsay Lohan levitating in Scary Movie V (2013). 

The Exorcism of Charles II of Spain

Charles II of Spain (Carlos Segundo 1661–1700), was the last king of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, sovereign of the Spanish Empire which stretched from Mexico to the Philippines.  The only surviving son of his predecessor, Philip IV (1605-1665) and his second wife, Mariana of Austria (1634-1696), his birth was greeted with enthusiasm by the Spanish people because, as was the fashion of the time, had the old king died without a male heir, a war of succession (traditionally a bloody business) would have ensued.  Unfortunately, Charles was physically disabled, disfigured, mentally retarded and found later to be impotent, usually a drawback for any king but a discovery which brought relief to many courtiers.  He uttered no words until the age of four, didn’t take his first step before he was almost nine, suffering throughout childhood a range of diseases including measles, varicella, rubella, and smallpox.  Left almost uneducated because of his frailty, his mother was regent most of his reign and he came to be known to history as El Hechizado (the Bewitched), the name applied because both court and country believed his mental and physical incapacities were due to an act of witchcraft.  

Modern science suggests otherwise, the condition actually the consequence of the strong preference for endogamy (the practice of marrying or requiring to marry within one's own ethnic, religious, or social group) within the Spanish branch of the Habsburg royal family which led to its segregation within related dynasties and thus the emergence of consanguinity (inbreeding).  Inbred Charles II certainly was; his grandparents were at the same time his great-grandparents; One relative's father was married to her sister's daughter, was also her great-uncle, and her mother happened to be her cousin as well.  One could see how things might not have turned out well and the condition was well-known in Europe and not restricted to aristocracy and royalty.  The slack enforcement of marriage laws in Germanic lands was one of the reasons there were so many victims of the Nazi's original euthanasia (Aktion T4, mass-murder of the physically disabled and mentally retarded on the basis of them being "useless eaters") programme and it went back a long way: the scandal of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (circa 575–641; emperor 610-641) marrying his niece Martina (circa 590-circa 644) made still worse by the tragic condition of some of the children the union produced.  However, to speak of incest in the royal family was just not done so the feeling at the time was to blame the stae of Charles II on witches or the Devil so the court sought advice from Fray Antonio Álvarez Argüelles, vicar of the Encarnación de Cangas del Narcea convent and a noted Asturian exorcist who suggested: “…last night the demon told me that the King is evilly bewitched to rule and to beget. When he was 14 years old, he was enchanted with a chocolate in which the brains of a dead man were dissolved to take away his health, corrupt his semen and prevent his generation”.

Exorcism of Charles II of Spain, engraving by Lechard, circa 1840.

The priest's "chocolate theory" must have been convincing because soon after the king was subjected to what was, even by the standards of the age, a most macabre exorcism.  By coincidence, the remains of his ancestors were being transferred to a new pantheon at the Royal Seat of San Lorenzo de El Escorial and the exorcist ordered their coffins opened.  The rationale was a ceremony in which the corpses of his relatives (and, in an advanced state of putrefaction, that of his beloved first wife (María Luisa de Orleans (1662-1689))), were exhibited would assist, the array of the dead helping to drive off the demons so tormenting the unfortunate monarch.  It was in vain and the suffering continued.  Ill his whole life and king since the age of three, he lingered until 1700, dying at 39, the announcement one of the more eagerly awaited events in the courts and chancelleries of Europe, such was the anticipation of the struggles which would erupt to decide the succession.  Summarizing a sad life in Carlos, the Bewitched (1962, published in the US as Carlos: The King who would Not Die), his English biographer John Langdon-Davies (1897–1971) wrote: "Of no man is it more true to say that in his beginning was his end; from the day of his birth, they were waiting for his death".  On his deathbed, his last words were: "Everything hurts".

Institutional exorcism: Pope Leo, modernity and the SSPX

Although the Holy See might find the simile appalling, in the Roman Catholic Church, the political equivalent of an exorcism is an excommunication, a legal and spiritual administrative act excluding a baptized Catholic from certain aspects of sacramental and communal life; although Rome’s most serious canonical censure, despite the common impression, it neither expels an individual from the Church or erases their baptism.  Additionally, while the very word seems to be associated with finality, the purpose of excommunication is medicinal rather than punitive.  Rather than a brute-force punishment, it’s a device the church can use as means of bringing the sinner to repentance and reconciliation; in most cases, once a transgressor confesses their offence and sincerely repents (and, in some cases, fulfils such “special conditions” as may be imposed) an excommunication can be lifted, meaning the individual is welcomed back into communal life.  In the Roman Catholic faith, "reformed sinners" are valued for the good example they set.

As a general principle, what a excommunication does is prohibit an individual so sanctioned from (1) receiving the sacraments (the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and such), (2) celebrating or administering the sacraments (if they be clergy), (3) exercising ecclesiastical offices, ministries, performing most official functions within the Church and (4) receiving most ecclesiastical privileges.  However, there’s a procedural hierarchy and because a baptism leaves on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, even the excommunicated remain Roman Catholics, their fate after death ultimately in the hands of God.  As such, they may still attend Mass (though not receive Holy Communion), pray and participate in any aspects of parish life not requiring the exercise of ecclesiastical ministry.  Interestingly, under Canon Law, there are two mechanisms of excommunication.  There is (1) Latae sententiae (sentence already passed) which means the penalty automatically is incurred upon committing certain serious offenses (apostasy, heresy, or schism; desecration of the Eucharist; physically attacking the pope; knowingly and freely participate in an act of abortion and (2) Ferendae sententiae (sentence to be imposed), that requiring a ruling by a competent Church authority after a judicial or administrative process.

Pope Leo XIV: Time will tell if Leo's pontificate will be as "modern" at that of his predecessor (Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025)), accused by some theologians of "heresy".

The Vatican’s announcement in July 2026 that certain followers of the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) had been excommunicated a day after the organization had consecrated four new bishops in defiance Leo XIV's (b 1955; pope since 2025) explicit instruction was thus, in a technical sense, merely advisory because, under the provisions Latae sententiae, by engaging in “a schismic act”, those involved were at the moment of their transgressions no longer in communion with the Church.  However, following the usual protocols, the Vatican issued a decree stating all six of the Society's “bishops” had been excommunicated but what was unexpected was the inclusion of a paragraph stating any lay members who “formally adhere” to the group “are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated”.  Reaching out to the heretics, the statement concluded that those who repented and left the SSPX would be welcomed back to the Church “with sincere affection”.  Because the multi-national SSPX is not a small organization, questions were asked about the scope of the edict and the Vatican’s press office later clarified things by saying not all members would be subject to automatic excommunication but it would be imposed on those who “habitually participate” in SSPX rituals and “formally share its doctrinal positions”.

Pope Saint Pius X who thought "the old ways are the best".

The Vatican regards the SSPX as a splinter sect which has “left the Church” although, in the usual way schismatic squabbles play out, followers of the SSPX claim the “Church has left them”.  Saint Pius X (1835–1914; pope 1903-1914) was pope at the dawn of what would come to be called “modernity” and often is referred to as an “anti-modernist” pope who opposed not only the intrusion of “liberal interpretation” into Catholic doctrine but also any variation of the traditional forms such as the Latin liturgy.  According to Pius X, the last words on Church teachings and interpretation had been written by the Italian Dominican friar, philosopher & theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274); perfection thus was achieved in the thirteenth century, the proceedings of the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) not merely an affirmation of Thomist scholastic theology but a strengthening of a pope’s legal authority to veto any challenge to doctrinal or procedural orthodoxies.  Although clearly it had long been exercised, it was in Vatical I the doctrine of "Papal Infallibility" was codified and although it has (officially) since been invoked only once, popes increasingly have issued edicts and decrees "vested with infallibility in form if not word", Vaticanologists coining the phrase "creeping infallibility" to describe the development.     

Founded in 1970, the SSPX was a reaction to the distinctly “modernising” reforms imposed on the Roman Catholic Church by Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965, published 1970) and its adherents worldwide are believed now to number more than half a million, hence the interest of the press in the extent of the Vatican’s decree of excommunication.  Although in popular discourse there has been much focus on SSPX priests conducting the mass in Latin while facing the altar rather than following the reformed procedure in which local languages are used with the priest facing his congregation, the sect’s challenge to the authority of Rome is more fundamental and the dispute is not new, a number of SSPX bishops excommunicated in 1988.  It was Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) who in 2009 rescinded the order for four of that number, explaining he hoped his “act of reconciliation” would produce a “real and final unity”.  Benedict instead got a kind of uneasy truce, something emblematic of his papacy.  That state was neither an entente cordiale nor a peaceful co-existence but more a case of Rome “turning a blind eye” as long as the SPSS kept a low profile and did not attempt to “infect the Church” with their notions.  Probably a handful of congregations enjoying the undeniable beauty of the Latin Mass, delivered to conservatively dressed souls hearing only what had for centuries been preached could have been tolerated but the SSPX not only spread but became more dogmatic in claims of correctness and more aggressive in the promotion of their ideas.

Escutcheons of the SSPX (left) and Holy See (right).

The similarity between the Holy See's symbol and the "crossed keys" of the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or is claimed by both to be wholly coincidental.  Modern in technology and media management if not theology, the SSPX have an on-line FAQ page discussing their differences with Rome.  Both sides are committed, well resourced, have skilled coaches and a good bench of reserves so this "ecclesiastical world cup" likely has some way to go and won't yet have reached the half-time break. 

Had it been just disagreements over arcane matters of form (how the communion bread was handled or whether the Mass was celebrated in Latin or the local language etc), it might have been possible for Rome to tolerate the SSPX and hope the cult would fade away as its congregants died off but not only are its numbers growing but the new adherents often are young and committed Catholics (committed certainly to what Catholicism “used to be”).  More troubling still is some of the underlying politics, one notorious SSPX bishop (among the four in 2009 reinstated by Benedict) repeatedly made anti-Semitic statements and, being not at all vague in his Holocaust denial, insisted (after his excommunication was lifted!) in a television interview: “I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, hugely against, six 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler [Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945)].  I believe there were no gas chambers”.  Curiously, the Vatican didn’t reimpose the bishops excommunication but instead ruled he’d not be permitted to “perform priestly functions” unless he “recanted his views.”  Just as intriguingly, the SSPX didn’t demand a recantation but instead issued an order forbidding the talkative bishop from making “any public statements on political or historical issues.”  In other words: “Don’t mention the war”.  When eventually the SSPX expelled its turbulent priest, it was not for his views but because he defied the sect’s hierarchy.  Still, that meant Benedict was relieved of the strain of having to make a decision; that much pleased him. 

Reacting with remarkable alacrity to the controversy, the SSPX sanitized its web pages, removing anything which might be thought “suspect”.  Afterwards, anyone new to the sect would be forgiven for thinking it was nothing but an order of the Church for those nostalgic for the Latin liturgy, banished to the archives by Vatican II.  However, in the printed record there’s an extensive collection of publications detailing the organization's long history of anti-Semitism, some of it frankly “hate literature” and it also printed or distributed older texts containing a roll-call of the usual tropes: blaming the Jews for the French Revolution, Communism, Bolshevism and accusing them of corrupt practices in their alleged control of international finance etc.  At the root of it all was said to be the Jews' collective guilt of deicide (the old chant of “Christ killers” which didn’t disappear from Roman Catholic sermons until well into the twentieth century) but, to add a new twist, the SSPX also contributes to “replacement theory”, condemning Third World immigration into Western countries as “destroying our national identity and, furthermore, the whole of Christianity”.  The SSPX also is highly suspicious about the agenda of “international Freemasonry, some of its publications quoting the works (appearing also on white supremacist sites) of an author who warned of a “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to destroy the church”.  To be fair, the SSPX probably are right to be concerned about the plotting & scheming of the Freemasons and even the pope would agree with that.  Leo has made the first decisive act of his pontificate and has drawn a line in the theocratic sand but, in creating a half million-odd schematic malcontents, he may have created more problems than he solved.

Exorcism and the Anglicans

Although the film The Exorcist and a well-publicized history of use may have led some to believe exorcism is exclusively "a Roman Catholic thing", other Christian denominations inherited the idea, some practicing the ritual more than others.  The Lambeth Conference is a (nominally) decennial assembly of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the AoC (Archbishop of Canterbury), 15 held since the first in 1867.  The Anglican Communion is an international association of autonomous national and regional churches, not a governing body and the office of AoC is in no way analogous with the Roman Catholic pope; while a pope is an absolute monarch atop a theocracy, the AoC is the "spirital head" of the Anglican community but holds no executive authority.  The conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function and are said to express “…the mind of the communion" on issues of the day; resolutions passed at a Lambeth Conference are without legal effect, but can be influential (if others are in the mood to be influenced).

Lambeth's latest.

Dame Sarah Mullally (b 1962) in the regalia of Bishop of London; in March 2026 she was installed ("enthroned" no longer preferred by modern Anglicans) as AoC.  No longer one of the world's more desirable jobs (essentially because it can't be done), all wish her the best of British luck.  In feminist theory, the phenomenon of women being appointed to suddenly undesirable jobs is known as the "glass cliff"; were it possible for the job still to be done, the Anglicans would have appointed the 106^th man rather than the first woman.  Of the previous 105 prelates, the first was Saint Augustine of Canterbury (circa 630s-circa 604) in 597 (not to be confused with the still influential Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)).

Conferences were never the pure and high-minded discussions of ethics, morality and theology some now appear to believe characterized the pre-modern (in this context those held prior to 1968 when "the troubles began") events.  Agenda and communiqués from all conferences have always included the procedural, administrative and jurisdictional although in recent years, they’ve certainly reflected an increasingly factionalized communion rent with cross-cutting cleavages, first over the ordination of women and of late, homosexual clergy.  During the 1998 conference, Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma (b 1954) of Nigeria attempted to exorcise "homosexual demons" from the soul of Nigerian-born Richard Kirker (b 1951), a British priest and general secretary of the LGCM (Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement).  Recalling perhaps Ephesians 4:32 or (less charitability) the more cautionary Matthew 6:15, Kirker forgave him.  There have since (as far as is known) been no exorcisms at Lambeth conferences but the squabbles over gay male and female clergy have never been resolved and when, early in 2026, a woman was enthroned as the 106^th AoC, the schisms began with a number of African churches announcing they were no longer in communion with Canterbury.   

Exorcism and the Ayatollah

Umberto II while Prince of Piedmont, a 1928 portrait by Anglo-Hungarian painter Philip Asexius László de Lombos (1869–1937 and known professionally as Philip de László).  Note one un-gloved hand, ruffled collar and bubble pantaloons.

Umberto Nicola Tommaso Giovanni Maria di Savoia (1904–1983) was the last king of Italy, his reign as Umberto II lasting but thirty-four days during May-June 1946; Italians nicknamed him the Re di Maggio (May king) although some better-informed Romans preferred regina di maggio (May queen).  At the instigation of the US and British political representatives of the allied military authorities, in April 1944 he was appointed regent because it was clear popular support for Victor Emmanuel III (1869-1947; King of Italy 1900-1946) had collapsed.  Despite Victor Emmanuel’s reputation suffering by association, his relationship with the fascists had often been uneasy and, seeking means to blackmail the royal house, Benito Mussolini's (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) spies compiled a dossier (reputably several inches thick), detailing the ways of his son’s private life.  Then styled Prince of Piedmont, the secret police discovered Umberto was a sincere and committed Roman Catholic but one unable to resist his "satanic homosexual urges” and his biographer agreed, noting the prince was "forever rushing between chapel and brothel, confessional and steam bath" often spending hours “praying for divine forgiveness.”  Presumably, he contented himself he'd often found forgiveness though that didn't stop him afterwards repeating his sins.

After a referendum abolished the monarchy, Umberto II lived his remaining 37 years in exile, never again setting foot on Italian soil; while his turbulent marriage to Princess Marie-José of Belgium (1906-2001) produced four children, historians consider it likely none were his.  Despite extensive documentation confirming the prince was possessed by “satanic homosexual urges”, it’s most unlikely the Duce ever contemplated contacting the Vatican to seek the intervention of an exorcist.  Although baptized by his devout Catholic mother, Mussolini when young became an atheist and was stridently anti-clerical, something more than one biographer has attributed (at least in part) to the canings ill-discipline earned him from the monks who were his school teachers.  The Duce certainly understood the Church could be useful and knew his regime likely would not long have survived had the Vatican become his enemy but, although famously he signed the Lateran Treaty (1929) making Catholicism the state religion, he never took seriously the “devotional or mystical stuff” and, after he met a messy end, he was denied a religious funeral.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (1939-2026; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran 1989-2026, Khamenei 1.0, left) with his son and successor, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei (b 1969; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran since 2026, Khamenei 2.0, right).

One unexpected announcement after it was revealed Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had been appointed supreme leader after the assassination of his father (Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) came from the White House, the claim being the US intelligence agencies had assessed the available information and concluded Ayatollah Khamenei (v2.0) “may be gay”.  Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) publicly confirmed he'd been briefed on the unconfirmed intelligence, “news” he seemed to receive with an amusement he made little attempt to supress.  The US agencies never provided anything substantive to support the claim and most analysts concluded the tale (although there may at least have been "youthful indiscretions") was likely part of a disinformation campaign intended to diminish the new supreme leader’s authority among religious elites in Tehran and destabilize the regime.  The lack of any authentication was tiresomely irrelevant to the meme-makers and response to the suggestion the man standing in the sandals of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989) might be “a bit of a homosexual” was swift, “gayatollah” memes soon circulating, generative AI (artificial intelligence) allowing intricately detailed, multi-media productions to be posted within minutes.  For whatever reason, since assuming the leadership, although written statements have in his name been issued, he’s been neither seen nor heard and while known to be recuperating from injuries sustained in the attack in which his father was among those killed, one doubtlessly mischievous suggestion was his absence being explained by a raqi (exorcist) undertaking the long and exacting task of driving from his soul the “satanic homosexual urges” alleged by US intelligence.

Exorcism is a part of Islamic theology and is known as al-'azm, ṭard al-shayṭān/al-jinn (expulsion of devils/spirits) or ruqya (spell, charm, magic, incantation).  A spiritual practice, rugya most often is deployed to heal ailments or cure sickness but practitioners can be called upon to deal with the mental distress attributed to spiritual entities like Jinn (witchcraft; supernatural entities), or the evil eye; certainly that would seem to extend to an ayatollah’s “satanic homosexual urges”.  In an authentic Islamic exorcism (Ruqyah Ash-Shar'iyyah), the core component is the recitation of Qur'anic verses (the most invoked the Surah Al-Fatihah, Ayatul Kursi, and the last surahs), augmented by prophetic prayers and supplications to seek Allah's protection and drive out malevolent entities.  For those not brought up in the Islamic tradition, the nature of Jinn sometimes is misunderstood because the supernatural creatures are forces with free will, capable of both good and evil.  In an exorcism, an exorcist, depending on what’s involved, might command the miscreant Jinn to depart or break their spell without harming them.  However, like Christianity, Islam over the centuries spread far and wide, coming into contact with many cultures with long traditions of rituals, magic, witchcraft and such; inevitably, there was “mixing & matching” meaning in some places “folk” elements can be detected in what are notionally Islamic practices, something especially prevalent in North Africa.  Islamic scholars and clerics of course tend to disapprove of departures from Qur'anic orthodoxies based on the words of the Prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632).  Because most scholars regard “folk healing” as “primitive superstition”, these methods frequently are discouraged and fatāwā have been issued, especially if the rituals involve fortune-telling, objects like amulets or the invocation of beings other than Allah; the last strictly is forbidden (Haram) and constituting the major sin of Shirk (associating partners with God).