I’m pleased to share a guest blog post from Graeme Docherty. Recently Graeme emailed me with thoughts about a subject I’d been writing about, which led to us exchanging several messages. When he asked if I’d be interested in a post he’d like to write about Scientology, I said “sure.” After all, I have no direct experience of Scientology.
Here’s what Graeme wrote. Below it I’ll share my reaction to his essay.
Why asking ‘Is it a cult?’ may not be the best approach
When investigating the topic of cults, sects, and religious groups that are deemed to be separate from the ‘traditional’ religions, the media, and most journalists in particular, approach with a certain hypothesis, which is largely based on public perceptions and the self-reported experiences of ex-members who have left who hold some animosity towards the group. The reporters then begin with the premise that these experiences suggest the group/organisation is a cult, so they set out to find out if indeed this is the case. So, they form a working hypothesis and their investigations aim to ‘prove’ their hypothesis.
An example of this is a documentary produced several years ago by the usually very good Panorama programme broadcast by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). This programme shows a certain journalist trying to uncover a story of varying importance. One edition of the programme, screened several years ago, was led by a journalist called John Sweeney. I started watching this programme with interest, having had some experience of Scientology from being involved in the group for a short period of time (I might write more on this in another post) and I wanted to find out more about the organisation and the teachings.
However, I was a bit shocked and disappointed to see Sweeney’s confrontation attitude, and he seemed to start, as mentioned above, with the initial premise of ‘Scientology is a cult’, and he simply wanted to collect evidence that backed up that assertion. In one part of the programme, he interviewed Anne Archer, the actor. Sweeney asked her, ‘what would you say to people who called Scientology a cult’. To this, Archer got quite angry, and said how dare you ask such a question about a philosophy I hold dear (or words to this effect).
Archer’s response was clearly defensive but Sweeney did not help the case by asking such an emotion ridden question as that. There was no attempt to find out more about Scientology’s teachings, which for me contained interesting and useful aspects and it seemed to me that Sweeney had already made up his mind about the organisation so any attempt to try and understand it was superfluous. His approach also created a barrier between him and the organisation’s hierarchy, which clearly created tension and bad feeling, very evident in the programme. To his credit, Sweeney did apologise for his manner and has written a follow up article.
This is not to say that all documentaries about Scientology are below par. I haven’t seen Alex Dibney’s Going Clear documentary yet, but I hear it is worth watching and professionally made. I don’t want to be an apologist for Scientology, as some of the stories I’ve heard are unfavourable or rather strange, and I don’t follow the philosophy myself, but often these are stories relayed by ex-members that correspond to their own experience and we can never know exactly about an organization on basis of one person’s experiences and perceptions of that group.
Would a better approach be to find out about a group’s teachings and activities for oneself, then make an informed decision? On the question of ‘cult’ and ‘sect’, no group would admit to being one of these (certainly the former term), and there is some ambiguity for how the term cult should be defined (INFORM- is it a cult?), hence another reason to try to be as objective as we can when seeking information about groups whose aims are religious or spiritual in nature.
I enjoyed this kinder and gentler approach to the admittedly divisive word, “cult.” Fairly frequently I use that term to disparage a religious or political entity that I heartily disagree with. But as Graeme points out, one person’s cult is another person’s meaningful group identity.
After all, for 35 years I belonged to an Eastern religion headed up by a guru considered to be God in Human Form that many would have termed a cult. Yet during the time I embraced the group’s teachings, I viewed the organization as a purveyor of truth — both about the human condition and supernatural realms of the cosmos.
If I’d been accosted by someone who asserted that I was a mindless cult member, I would have reacted defensively. The last link Graeme included in his essay speaks of a more productive way of critiquing a group.
For this reason, Inform prefers not to label a particular group or movement as a ‘cult’, but instead, to use more neutral terms such as ‘minority religion’ or ‘movement’ as a starting point, and then to describe what it is that the movement believes and does.
This does not mean that Inform denies that religions can be harmful. But, rather than saying ‘this is an evil cult’, Inform prefers to report factual information, such as ‘the founder of movement A has been convicted of murder’; ‘group B indulges in unprotected group sex, while all members of movement C are expected to remain celibate’; or ‘religion D has amassed a large fortune for its leader while his followers live in poverty’.
When people call Scientology a cult, one reason is the well-publicized cases of Scientology going after people who leave the group and talk about the dangers of Scientology. In that case, Scientology is indeed acting like a cult that attempts to control its members in harsh ways. However, a while back I had a friend who spent time in Scientology who, like Graeme, benefitted from it.
The philosophy of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, is decidedly weird. But is it any weirder than many other religions? Maybe not. Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there’s no demonstrable evidence that the teachings of Scientology are true. That’s the case for all religions, though.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Everything we don’t believe in becomes a cult when we are unhappy and an alternative lifestyle in the brief moments we are not.
Human beings are complainers, even wrapped in a false intellectual objectivity, which itself is just a belief, but dare I say cult?
Is a cult an organization whose leader imposes upon their subjects? Or is it really a cult when we laud ourselves some false notions of intellectual objectivity and freedom of thought, and deny these to those who think and live otherwise?
I humbly suggest that everyone who believes their own thinking is the answer is being kept blind and drugged, and abused physically and mentally daily in a prison cell within their own brain.
Intellectualism and the unlimited ego or fosters most certainly is the cult within each of us from which all others emerge. Maybe our challenge is to figure out and acknowldge the cult we are already in.
Insightful comments from Brian and Spencer. It’s easy to assume that what we believe is the whole truth. When I was in Scientology, I listened to a talk by Mr Hubbard, and heard him say that he was not saying Scientology was the truth, but that it ‘worked’. There were (and probably still are) lots of lectures by him on many aspects of the philosophy.
Jim Jones and the People’s Temple was the one who constantly needed a loyalty test . Now he was a lot like Gurinder Singh. Some got away without drinking the Kool-Aid.
Please don’t forget Brian that you are God in human form. And so is anyone else reading this.
When I started out on my particular search or inquiry into the age-old question ‘Who am I’, I was quite wary of avoiding what appeared to me as a cult. I remember reading in the 60’s a book that I recall as being about the cults around at that time. Perhaps some of the warnings stuck with me as I was very wary of any group that seemed to have characteristics of control in its varied forms. In that respect, some of the mainstream religions could be described as exhibiting cult-like behaviour – as can some political leaders and their followers.
Yes, I agree that the term cult can be a ‘cover-all’ term that may not be appropriate; after all, many members of what we call a cult, can be perfectly happy with their group and leader(s). My personal criteria of a cult would be a group – or leader of a group – that elicits control over its members – but there again, some may be happy in having someone make all the decisions for them.
Spencer mentions that believing in our own thinking can be a drug. Being a slave to one’s thinking is a reasonable way of describing one’s own personal, inner cult. Whether it’s an external or an internal cult, best perhaps to keep a watchful eye out for subjugations of all types.
“Would a better approach be to find out about a group’s teachings and activities for oneself, then make an informed decision?”
……….Absolutely. Always. I find myself agreeing with this sentiment, and this attitude.
On the other hand, there’s some other stuff in this piece that I’m less in agreement with. I’d like to point them out, if I may.
———-
“The philosophy of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, is decidedly weird. But is it any weirder than many other religions? Maybe not. Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there’s no demonstrable evidence that the teachings of Scientology are true. That’s the case for all religions, though.”
……….Agreed 100% with this. However, I disagree completely with the conclusion that is being implied here.
Scientology is batshit crazy. No two ways about it. Agreed, it is no weirder than many other religions, like you rightly point out. That does not make Scientology less than batshit crazy. That simply points to the fact that those other more mainstream religions also are complete utter bilge.
———-
“However, a while back I had a friend who spent time in Scientology who, like Graeme, benefitted from it.”
“When I was in Scientology, I listened to a talk by Mr Hubbard, and heard him say that he was not saying Scientology was the truth, but that it ‘worked’.”
……….Sorry, no, the Dianetics nonsense doesn’t work. There’s simply no evidence bearing that out. It is pseudoscientific claptrap, is all.
(If you’ve any objective evidence at all that any of it works, then by all means let’s examine it. All reasonable-minded folks will then be happy to acknowledge that, and agree that the methods of Scientology do work, even if its backstory and doctrine don’t — provided such evidence holds up to scrutiny. As far as I’m aware there’s no such evidence: but I could be mistaken, and I’m happy to update my understanding if that’s the case.)
Hey, Graeme.
Agreed, it is good to be respectful of people. However, it is absurd to be respectful of nonsensical beliefs. There’s a difference.
We have this weird convention that when it comes to batshit crazy beliefs, then religion somehow stands apart and commands respect. Any delusional, any crazy person, any charlatan, as long as they make a religion of their nonsense, then somehow we have this weird convention that that nonsense somehow becomes more worthy of respect. It doesn’t.
Again, outright rejection of batshit crazy ideas, and referring to batshit crazy as batshit crazy, is not in and of itself disrespectful, not unless such is viewed through the weird prism that dictates that religious nonsense must somehow command a respect that other types of nonsense don’t. That prism is flawed. Numbers of believers do not make for truth. Only evidence does.
By all means respect the individual. But that does not translate into respect for insane belief systems. There is a difference, that we would do well never to blur.
———-
“However, I was a bit shocked and disappointed to see Sweeney’s confrontation attitude”
……….Following from the above, Graeme, may I suggest a more nuanced attitude towards this? The end result of such nuance might still be shock and disappointment at Sweeney, after all apparently the man thought fit to apologize himself; but, on the other hand, maybe not, just maybe? Here’s what I mean:
Let’s thought-experiment up a bunch of some twenty-odd people who hold that the earth is flat, and further that there’s Bigoots (Bigfeet?) that live in the portion underneath that stays hidden from us, and further that some of them came up to our side and smashed the Twin Towers with their bare hands to punish humanity for …something, and to send us a message that we need to mend our ways, or else. And that us humans can correct many illnesses, physical and mental, by affixing faux tails to our backside and jumping around with cries of “Oop!” in the prescribed format.
So your Sweeney goes to interview these folks. And he speaks to them in exactly the same terms and the same tone that he’d used when he went to interview the Scientologists. …Would you be just as shocked, then, at Sweeney’s discourtesy to these people, and his general closed-mindedness? Or would you then view his attitude differently? …I suggest to you that your answer to that question might suggest to us whether it was Sweeney who was at fault here; or whether your shock might point at your own assumptions that you take for granted and might perhaps do well to question; or maybe whether it is some combination of both these (as opposed to solely the first).
(Again, I’m not suggesting that Sweeney was right, or that your being shocked was misplaced, at least not necessarily. I’ve not even seen his work myself, or heard what he’d said. …I’m only suggesting that, should your reaction have been exactly the same if Sweeney had said the exact same things in a non-religious context and involving far fewer numbers of adherents, then sure, you’re right that Sweeney should have been more circumspect and sensitive. At least basis your own standards of how to interact with people harboring weird belief systems. On the other hand, should you find yourself less shocked at Sweeney’s attitude were it directed at a small bunch of flat-earth-Bigfooters, then, to the extent of that difference in your attitude, I suggest that some looking back at the assumptions underpinning that sense of shock might be called for.)
Good points Appreciative reader, thank you. Yes, I get your point about if I would react the same way to a group who held clearly outlandish beliefs, I probably wouldn’t, but I just felt when I was watching Sweeney was that he wasn’t interested in finding out more about Scientology, and as far as I can remember, it wasn’t evident how much he actually knew. So I was disappointed by 1) not finding out more about Scientology (that I already knew), and 2) the bad feeling he helped generate. Scientologists are very suspicious of the media however. They label people who disagree with the beliefs and practices as ‘suppressive’, (SP – suppressive person), and (as you may imagine) a lot of these hold senior positions in society – ‘the elite’ they could be called, I remember one tape where Hubbard labelled the Governor of the Bank of England (at the time Hubbard spoke) as ‘extremely suppressive’. Anyway, yes, my blog was no doubt influenced by my perceptions of the organisation, I accept that, but think it is good to not just assume what you hear from others is correct and ‘truth as it is’.
Hey, Graeme.
Glad you took my comments, and my somewhat blunt criticism of Scientology, in the spirit in which I intended them! 👍
And I’m glad you see why it is reasonable if we don’t take seriously outrageous claims absent evidence . …Heh, I thought up that Flat Earth Bigfoot thingy to try to make the point to you; but thing is, Scientology is pretty much extravagant itself, and in fact in making the point to others in context of more mainstream religions like RCC (or Christianity generally), and Islam and Hinduism etc, it is Scientology that I sometimes bring up as the crazy example (like I brought up Bigfoot with you). Like: If you think Scientology is crazy, if you think LDS is crazy, if you think Polynesian Cargo Cults are crazy, well then apply those same criteria and those same standards to your own particular superstition (aka religion), and you’ll find that Christianity say is just as crazy, just as ridiculous, just as laughable.
Also: Agreed completely, in general it is good not to, as you say, just assume what you hear from others is correct and ‘truth as it is’. Not very sure, though, what the context of your saying that is! I mean, like I said, in general that’s a sound principle. However, if you meant that in context of Scientology specifically, well then where the burden of proof lies is crystal clear. There’s two big claims of Scientology: one, all of that extravagant Xenu business, and those aliens, and the …well, you know, all of that; and two, the whole Dianetics business, and the claim that all of that does people any good. Well, in applying your own standard, we don’t just accept Ron Hubbard’s claims that “it works”, or of other Scientologists. For both claims, we need objective evidence in order to take those extravagant claims seriously: and given that there’s no such evidence there, it is reasonable to reject those claims completely. (Or did you mean something else? If that was just a general observation, not linking back to what we were talking about, then sure, like I said I agree.)
Leaving aside all of that: the criticism et cetera I mean to say: in general if you’d like to discuss Scientology, to generally acquaint us all with what it’s about, then that might make for an interesting discussion. I’m somewhat familiar with Scientology, actually. Back when young, and exploring different spiritual/religious possibilities, I’d looked up some fringe avenues like Freemasonry and Scientology as well. As far as Scientology, I’d attended some …those things they organize, where they talk about the Dianetics stuff (at that stage they don’t bring up the sci fi backstory). And, later on, much later, I’d read up some about their actual doctrinal stuff, the whole sci fi stuff. So yeah, while I do know a bit about it, but an insider’s description of what it was like for them, that might be interesting to read, if you’d care to outline such here in further comments.
Either way, it was good talking with you, cheers!
Hello! Yes, I meant it more as a general principle when we hear people talk about things that they may or may not understand, and especially if whatever they say doesn’t correspondent to how we feel or think, we should be wary about assuming since they said it, it ‘must be true’. I say this because I’m guilty of not having done this at times previously, and not questioned certain things (when I really should have). Hopefully I’m starting to question a bit more now though 🙂
Thank you also for your interest in my Scientology experiences, but that’s best left to a separate post. I’ve always been keen to document this time as considering they occurred in 1989, the memories have stuck around, and I can only assume it’s because it made a big impression on me, particularly at the young and tender age of 20.
Just a couple of things about the two points you mention.
1) Xenu – I only found out about Xenu after I left Scientology. This information isn’t (at least at that time) not imparted to newcomers, which corresponds to your experience. I did find the story like something one would read in a sci-fi novel and I didn’t take it seriously, aside from not really understanding it anyway.
2) The main information I learned was about dianetics, which ‘auditing’ is a main part. I had a few sessions, with a couple of insights but overall not much success, but the concepts of the analytical mind and the reactive mind made sense to me, and it was presented in such a way that fitted into the modern world (perhaps unlike the teachings of some religious/spiritual movements). I also quite liked Hubbard’s approach to study, and the emphasis on exercise and (to a lesser extent) ridding the body of excess chemicals. I was however surprised at their very negative attitude towards psychiatry.
Anyway, that’s all on this for now. Thanks also to you appreciative reader – good to discuss these things.
(My two comments above were addressed to Graeme. This one’s to you, Brian.)
“I enjoyed this kinder and gentler approach to the admittedly divisive word, “cult.” Fairly frequently I use that term to disparage a religious or political entity that I heartily disagree with. But as Graeme points out, one person’s cult is another person’s meaningful group identity.”
Agreed, Brian, that it is always better to be kind than not. That said, I finding myself disagreeing with this larger sentiment, expressed in your words that I’ve quoted above
It seems to me that the word “cult” is a bit like the word “woo”. Those who object to the word aren’t so much objecting to the word per se, as objecting to your calling them out on what they are and what they do.
Without a shadow of a doubt, MAGA’s cult-like. Without a shadow of a doubt, Scientology’s cult-like. Without a shadow of a doubt, LDS/Mormon is cult-like. …Now you may prefer to be kind, and choose not to confront them over it. Sure, that’s one way of being kind, and again, being kind is better than not being kind, other things being the same. But the issue here is not the word “cult” per se, the issue is your calling the cultists out on their cultlike beliefs and behavior.
Sure, instead of using the word “cult”, you may still confront them using other words. You’d only end up using far more words in that case (like referring to a cult as a “minority religion” or “movement” instead, and then using more words to add in all of those other features of it that make it a cult); but if you did not in the process dilute the actual content of your criticism, the cultists and cult-sympathizers would then object to that more verbose formulation of your criticism as well.
There’s a third way, I suppose. That’s to use even more words, and even more effort, and in effect couch your criticism in as circumspect phrasing as possible, in an effort to make it sound inoffensive, and in the process probably watering down some of the actual content of the criticism instead. That might sometimes work, although sometimes even that much might attract outrage. …But do we really want to keep on bending over backwards like this all the time, in order to enable the purveyors of nonsense to pretend that they’re speaking sense, in order to enable cultists to pretend they’re not a cult? Much better, I personally feel, to simply and clearly refer to a spade as a shovel, rather than pussyfooting around like this. (Generally speaking, that is, and exceptional circumstances apart.)
———-
Again, not suggesting one should not be kind. Sure one should, other things being equal. Just, pointing out that the “kindness” in question here is not so much in abjuring the word “cult” per se, as in refraining from confrontation, and in refraining from criticizing what deserves criticism (or at least, in watering down the content of that criticism).
Much like with the word “woo”. Exactly like the word “woo”.
Do we want to refrain from confrontation, or at least water down our confrontation, in the interests of kindness, and/or of getting on with others? That’s up to us. If we’re that way inclined, sure, let’s do that. Let’s stop saying “cult” when we mean cult, let’s stop saying “woo” when we mean woo, let’s stop saying “charlatan” when we mean charlatan, let’s stop saying “nonsense” when we mean nonsense, let’s stop saying “hypocrite” when we mean hypocrite; and let’s start pussyfooting our way around the purveyors of such. But let’s be clear just what it is we’re proposing doing here. It’s in effect way different, and way more, than just the rephrasing of one single word.
———-
(Agreed, incidentally, that it probably would have been better for the journalist Sweeney to tone down that criticism at the investigation-and-interview stage, in order not to antagonize his subjects. And reserve his actual full-on criticism for when he finally prepared his report/documentary, of course always assuming that the criticism were valid. …But note again, that here as well, even within this specific context, what is being abjured is not just the word, but the actual full-on criticism.)
Pingback: Truth is so important, it must be defended with zeal (but not zealotry)