September 27, 2004

After a short period of reflection I have decided to respond to the website placed by anonymous individuals, in spite of its illegal infringement of copyright laws and statements meant to intimidate. The contents accuse me of ‘fraudulent research’ and threaten to contact my employer. (The latter is an empty threat as my employer is fully supportive of me.) In addition, another anonymous website has been launched by a hate group, entitled ‘Geaves must go’.

There are three concerns of the author(s) of the websites:

1. I published a ‘positive’ article on Elan Vital, defined by the authors as a new religious movement, whilst not admitting to be associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the last thirty years
2. False information’ has been published in the paper in order to provide credibility to the movement through the use of my academic credentials
3. I am employed in a ‘conspiracy with the organisation’ to provide it with intellectual respectability.

I will respond to these ‘accusations’ in turn.

That I published a ‘positive’ article on Elan Vital, defined by the authors as a new religious movement, whilst not admitting to be associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the past thirty years

It is not an aspect of the academic study of religion that one has to disclose one’s faith position. The religious studies approach to the study of religion allows for people of any religion or none to be involved, as long as their scholarship is sound. Some of my colleagues know of my background, others do not. My spiritual journey belongs in the realm of religious freedom of choice. Almost everybody I know amongst my academic colleagues has a personal faith journey that is not declared in their writings.

I agree that anyone should be free to study any religion academically irrespective of their own personal beliefs.  I also agree that often it might not be necessary for an academic to disclose his or her faith in their work.  However, there are occasions where a conflict of interest can arise and which must be disclosed for ethical scholarship.  For instance, if an academic wrote a paper about the history of Sun Myung Moon's efforts in the west, one which argued a controversial thesis, for example, that Moon was often misunderstood and unfairly maligned by the government and popular press, the author would be remiss if he failed to disclose that he was an active follower of Moon and, as such, committed to promoting a positive public image of the man. 

Your work on Rawat is just like that.  You are advancing a controversial thesis about Rawat's representations in the West which just so happens to align perfectly with Rawat's own public relations campaign.  You knew perfectly well that your readers should have been advised, far from being a disinterested academic observer, as a decades-long premie, you are committed to helping Rawat in his public relations efforts.  It's almost "academic" whether you got your thesis from Rawat and EV or they got theirs from you.  The point is that if you had properly disclosed your relationship with Rawat, your readers would have naturally appreciated that they should perhaps take a look at how Rawat and his organization itself deal with his past divinity claims, etc.  They would then have seen that your thesis and Rawat's and EV's explanations essentially parrot one another.  Obviously, this would have affected their reception of your work and the extent to which they'd feel comfortable accepting your scholarship.

You say that some of your colleagues know of your background.  I would suggest that the next time you decide to write about Rawat, you ensure that they all do.  The editor of the journal you published in certainly didn't know you were a premie and she expressed some surprise at the fact when I asked her.  One would expect that, as a responsible and ethical academic, you'd want to ensure there were no such "surprises" in the future. 

That ‘false information’ has been published in the paper in order to provide credibility to the movement through the use of my academic credentials.

The ‘offending’ article was neither proclaiming the truths of Prem Rawat’s message nor denying them. I document the transformations of contemporary spiritualities and I am not concerned with the truth claims of the movements I study. Elan Vital was used as an example of where ‘crude reductionism’ has provided a simplistic view of religious transformation. My argument is that one needs to take into account believers’ self-perceptions in order to deepen understanding of motivation. As such I am not concerned with the truth of the religious experience but the impact of the power of religious experience for those who feel it. In addition, the history of Prem Rawat is significant in understanding contemporary Western spirituality.
Religious Studies scholars are looking at the observable phenomena of religion and drawing critical inferences from those; they would not be taken seriously by their peers if they merely sought to promote a particular religion or worldview. It was David Barrett, working for INFORM, who first suggested that I combine my unique ‘insider’ position with my academic training to provide insights into a little studied movement.

YOU might claim that you are not concerned with the truth claims of the movements you study and that, presumably, you're including Elan Vital in that group, but that's the whole point of disclosure.  Frankly, I find your claim absurd.  It's either outrageously disingenuous or naive for you to say you're indifferent to the truth claims of the very organization you're affiliated with, and which you're even actively involved in promoting (i.e. your participation in the "Passages" video).  But that's okay.  You can say that.  All you have to do is let others know the full story, that you're a premie, and then they can decide for themselves if you're bringing the level of professional objectivity to the work you claim to. 

Moreover, with this particular thesis of yours, as dependent as it is on the "believer's self-perceptions", as you put it, you are even more obliged to disclose your involvement as you are, necessarily, a subject in your own study or thought experiment or whatever it is. 

That I am employed in a ‘conspiracy with the organisation’ to provide it with intellectual respectability.

I value my academic freedom as highly as my liberty to follow my own spiritual truths. To every organisation or religious movement that I investigate, I offer the same conditions. I am prepared to allow the official representatives to read the final content before publication. They may raise objections that I will consider with regard to accuracy, but the final decision on the content is mine. That is non-negotiable.

Are you willing to disclose the history of your communications with Rawat and / or Elan Vital before and after you wrote your article?  Anyone can see that your article and EV's FAQs assert the same explanations for Rawat's prior divinity claims and related practices as well as offer the same "interesting" (i.e. controversial) revisionistic account of his history.  Did you help EV prepare its articles at all?  Did they give you some suggestions?  Are you willing to disclose any of this?  You can appreciate, I'm sure, how suspicious your claim of academic objectivity and independence is in the circumstances. 

I do have a personal position. I am an ‘experiential essentialist’ in the line of Professor Ninian Smart, Professsor Geoffrey Parrinder and other eminent pioneers of my discipline. I am very proud and honoured to follow in their footsteps, especially after being awarded my Chair in Religious Studies this year. My ethics are simple – the study of religion is a critical valuation that is combined with a sensitive grasp of world views. There is nothing in the article that contradicts this position.

Whether or not the "study of religion is a critical valuation that is combined with a sensitive grasp of world views" (whatever that means) is hardly a statement of ethics.  The issue here is whether you have a conflict of interest or even a perceived conflict of interest with respect to the article you wrote on Rawat.  As I've explained, the answer's obviously yes.

To the authors of the website, I say that my worldview may be different to theirs, but critical debate does not involve personal intimidation or attempts to assassinate character. The way to deal with articles that express a different viewpoint is refinement or correction. Creating websites displaying ambiguous headings like ‘Geaves must go’ has caused considerable distress to my family, whilst hiding behind anonymity is universally deemed to be cowardly.

I agree that saying that "Geaves must go" is a bit much as, for one thing, even if you've behaved less than ethically here, as I feel you have, it hardly means that you should lose your position or anything so harsh.  However, I wonder if you yourself don't bear some responsibility for provoking this reaction.  You aren't just some regular Joe writing or posting your opinions somewhere.  You are a professional academic and as such your studied opinion on a subject within your field presumably carries more weight than the average person's.  You have an extra responsibility, as a result, to be accurate, fair and honest.  Many ex-premies, myself included, feel that you have been anything but accurate, fair and honest in your writings on Rawat and it concerns us greatly that your authority as an academic has, in certain quarters, given your writings more credence than they deserve. 

 Now you say that "refinement or correction" are the proper ways to deal with these concerns but how exactly would you suggest we engage in that process?  I believe that several ex-premies have tried to discuss your article with you but have all been ignored.  And clearly there's no public forum for a proper reply, is there?  The journal you wrote in doesn't have a letters column, at least not one available to us laymen.  So I'd be most interested in hearing where you thought this dialogue could occur.  And, looking forward here, may I infer from what you're saying that you are now prepared to have that discussion?

I have always been open about my allegiances as the website author’s choice of ‘evidence’ clearly indicates. That the website authors are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them.

How do you know what really motivates the website authors?  Fact is, you don't.  But you see, this is just a perfect example of how mistaken you were to not disclose your relationship with Rawat.  You can't help but entangle your own concern for your own, presumably private right to enjoy religious tolerance with criticism of your article.  Your comment only makes sense because you ARE a premie.  Now, where, when and how should we have that discussion?

Sincerely,

Jim Heller

Finally, I would like to thank the Principal of my College and my colleagues in the British Association of the Study of Religion for their full support in the last week.

--Dr. Ron Geaves