International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017 81
economics. In sociological terms, the Kingston
organization is a sect and “a new religious
movement (or cult) in psychology-based
literature” (p. 259).
Comment
Cult theorists and researchers will find in Why
They Believe: A Case Study on Contemporary
Polygamy a wealth of possibilities. To describe
the whys and hows of this Mormon sect, Cook
describes definitions, concepts, laws, rules, and
the like of organizational identification theory (I
counted more than a hundred such variables in
Appendix A). She added depth and nuance from
observations, participants’ interviews, a brief
history of the Kinston family from Jesus to
Joseph Smith, and official documents. Her
multidisciplinary approach strengthened her
deductions and recognized diversity,
complexity, and variety.
As a psychologist and skeptical cultural
Christian, I found that her use of organizational
identification theory may have created serious
methodological problems. Her descriptions of
her sample of participants were minimal and
included no specific mention of age, marital
status, education, hierarchical rank, and so on.
The 24 interviewees were not randomly selected,
and there were too few to describe a population
of about 2,000. She presented no evidence of the
validity of the retrospective interview technique.
How were the raters selected and prepared?
What were their relevant characteristics, such as
religious background? How familiar were they
with organizational identification theory? In my
opinion, it is premature for Cook to generalize
about the Kingstons or all NRMs.
Is The Order a cult, a new religious movement?
I agree that, so far as the evidence about this
sample is concerned, yes, it does resemble a cult.
These members were brainwashed, were tightly
controlled by a charismatic leader and an
illogical belief system, and were expected to
donate their property and earnings to the group.
Evidence of harmfulness or goodness is
incomplete.
In my experience as an academic, most
dissertations are hard to write and hard to read.
They are not usually written to teach or to
entertain, but rather first to please a committee
of specialists within a particular university
department and then to impress the members of
a particular academic discipline—members who
are professionals, future employers. and
colleagues. In this instance, sociology applied to
communications in business organizations is
possibly a temporary fad. Perhaps also it reflects
a popular political struggle: Advocates of
privatization vie with supporters of government
for control of schools, prisons, health care
providers, and so on.
For cult researchers and theorists, the challenge
in reading Why They Believe. ..is to separate the
important from the jargon. For example, as a
further test of deductive approaches, let’s
encourage lawyers, political scientists, linguists,
and hypnotists to submit case studies of new
religions. What about encouraging experimental
social psychologists to compare new religions
on the effectiveness of hierarchical versus
bottom-up democratic problem solving? These
finding invite a well-designed quantitative study
that might correlate variables and compare
members with former members.
Finally, I hope to read a briefer and clearer
version by Cook of what this new religion does,
and why. I am sure that those interested in
Mormonism and polygamy, along with former
Kingstons and feminists, will find it especially
informative.
economics. In sociological terms, the Kingston
organization is a sect and “a new religious
movement (or cult) in psychology-based
literature” (p. 259).
Comment
Cult theorists and researchers will find in Why
They Believe: A Case Study on Contemporary
Polygamy a wealth of possibilities. To describe
the whys and hows of this Mormon sect, Cook
describes definitions, concepts, laws, rules, and
the like of organizational identification theory (I
counted more than a hundred such variables in
Appendix A). She added depth and nuance from
observations, participants’ interviews, a brief
history of the Kinston family from Jesus to
Joseph Smith, and official documents. Her
multidisciplinary approach strengthened her
deductions and recognized diversity,
complexity, and variety.
As a psychologist and skeptical cultural
Christian, I found that her use of organizational
identification theory may have created serious
methodological problems. Her descriptions of
her sample of participants were minimal and
included no specific mention of age, marital
status, education, hierarchical rank, and so on.
The 24 interviewees were not randomly selected,
and there were too few to describe a population
of about 2,000. She presented no evidence of the
validity of the retrospective interview technique.
How were the raters selected and prepared?
What were their relevant characteristics, such as
religious background? How familiar were they
with organizational identification theory? In my
opinion, it is premature for Cook to generalize
about the Kingstons or all NRMs.
Is The Order a cult, a new religious movement?
I agree that, so far as the evidence about this
sample is concerned, yes, it does resemble a cult.
These members were brainwashed, were tightly
controlled by a charismatic leader and an
illogical belief system, and were expected to
donate their property and earnings to the group.
Evidence of harmfulness or goodness is
incomplete.
In my experience as an academic, most
dissertations are hard to write and hard to read.
They are not usually written to teach or to
entertain, but rather first to please a committee
of specialists within a particular university
department and then to impress the members of
a particular academic discipline—members who
are professionals, future employers. and
colleagues. In this instance, sociology applied to
communications in business organizations is
possibly a temporary fad. Perhaps also it reflects
a popular political struggle: Advocates of
privatization vie with supporters of government
for control of schools, prisons, health care
providers, and so on.
For cult researchers and theorists, the challenge
in reading Why They Believe. ..is to separate the
important from the jargon. For example, as a
further test of deductive approaches, let’s
encourage lawyers, political scientists, linguists,
and hypnotists to submit case studies of new
religions. What about encouraging experimental
social psychologists to compare new religions
on the effectiveness of hierarchical versus
bottom-up democratic problem solving? These
finding invite a well-designed quantitative study
that might correlate variables and compare
members with former members.
Finally, I hope to read a briefer and clearer
version by Cook of what this new religion does,
and why. I am sure that those interested in
Mormonism and polygamy, along with former
Kingstons and feminists, will find it especially
informative.
