|
|
|
Jim, you may be right that the opinion of ex-followers has more value for the media but that is not the case for scholars.
Who said anything about the media? I thought we were talking about the world at large, the media just being some small part of that. Very few people outside a cult who know anything about it give what followers say the same credence, let alone even more as sometimes happens with these "NRM scholars", than former followers.
I admit that there is some good reason to consider the opinion of ex-followers more reliable than that of followers e.g. cognitive dissonance and because of the implausible extraordinary claims that cult leaders make, and the organizational structures that is sometimes just waiting for abuse of power.
Wow, that's quite an admission there, Andries. Are you sure you're ready to go that far? 
I and others try to understand beyond the pejorative label cult.
And I say that once someones already decided that the pejorative label cult is a problem, they're probably barking up the wrong tree. It's not the label but the circumstances of these cults that are so obviously exploitative. People who minimize the exploitation on the grounds of "religious freedom", as is the norm in the NRM world, are already unreasonable. Getting rid of the word "cult" is just the first step in trying to obscure the real circumstances.
I fully understand that many people are unwilling to do so but please do not dismiss the works and thought of people who try to understand and explain as worthless without having studied them.
That's not fair, Andries. You're assuming I'm unfamiliar with these NRM people. Why? But listen, I've got to tell you, when the editor of that supposedly scholarly journal which published Geaves' work on Rawat refused to admit that it was problematic, to say the least, that he didn't disclose his relationship with the cult, and told me, instead, that her discipline was different than some others, I immediately realized that this whole branch of academe might be rotten. I mean, she is no small player, wouldn't you say? Editor of one of the supposedly core scholarly journals in the field. And afraid to safeguard against flawed or unscrupulous scholarship? You tell me, Andries, what's left to respect?
Modified by Jim at Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 14:45:20
|
