International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 85
do not comment on its effectiveness (e.g., “L.
Ron Hubbard established Narconon, a program
that has considerable success in curing
addiction” [Cusack, p. 401]). These authors
neglect an entire array of criticisms against the
program, concerning ineffectiveness (if not
medical danger), cost, blurred secular versus
religious boundaries, and licensing problems.
Surprisingly, the authors of this book focus on
the external regulation of Scientology and pay
little attention to some of Scientology’s most
contested social-control practices that the
organization often turns against its own
members. For instance, Lewis (pp. 9–10)
mentions the term Suppressive Person (“a
negative, dysfunctional individual”), but he
provides only one sentence describing the term.
This term is tightly connected to the practice of
disconnection (“severing a connection line”
between a Scientologist and a suppressive
person or organization [Hubbard 1983, p.
1042]), but Lewis does not talk about the
negative effects of disconnection when it
involves (as it often does) members of a
Scientologist’s family. Gerald Willms links
suppressive persons to disconnection, but he
pays these issues little critical attention while
arguing that Scientology’s claims to religious
status deserve recognition (pp. 245, 256).
Religion or not, however, some of these
practices can be damaging to adherents and
others when the organization applies the labels
or practices to people with whom it comes into
contact (see Kent, 1999 Straus, 1986 Urban,
2006).
Rather than examining whether any harmful
practices or policies were systemic to
Scientology itself, some authors avoid this kind
of examination by blaming them on the
Guardian’s Office, which was a body within
Scientology designed to prevent or respond to
actions against the organization, and which
Scientology formally abolished in the early
1980s. “It is significant that the majority of
accusations against the church refer (sic) to
actions taken by the Guardian’s Office in the
1970s” (Melton, p. 25 see also Lewis, p. 7).
Some highly contested issues that Scientology
conducted during the Guardian’s Office period
include: fair game, security checking,
disconnection from “suppressive” family
members, internal punishments and
rehabilitations called “ethics” (Straus, 1986),
and recording people’s (nonconfidential)
confessions. All of these practices, however,
have continued long after the Guardian Office’s
dissolution, with many observers concluding
that the Office of Special Affairs continues some
of the Guardian Office’s clandestine and
aggressive activities against perceived
opponents (see Raine, 2009, p. 47 Urban, 2006,
p. 374).
The attention to critical scholarship about
Scientology is erratic at best and neglectful at
most. For example, Lewis includes Frank K.
Flinn’s article in the volume without responding
to Stephen Kent’s (1996) published criticism of
it, even though others cite Kent (1996) in their
own chapters (Cowan, p. 77 Grünschloss, p.
241 Willms, 253, 264). Carole M. Cusack’s
chapter on celebrity Scientologists omits
reference to another Kent publication, this one
on Scientology’s celebrity lobbyists during the
Clinton administration (Kent, 2002). More
importantly, it does not cite Andrew Morton’s
biography (2008) of Tom Cruise. James R.
Richardson’s brief discussion of Scientology
court cases in Germany neglects to cite Greg
Taylor’s definitive analysis of “Scientology in
the German Courts,” which covers cases up to
2003 (Taylor, 2003–2004), and no one cites J.P.
Kumar’s study of Scientology’s use of “fair
game” in the American legal system (Kumar,
1997). Not mentioned anywhere is the debate
involving Stephen Kent, Lorne Dawson, Gordon
Melton, and Scientologist Leisa Goodman about
Scientology’s alleged forced labour and
reindoctrination program, the Rehabilitation
Project Force or RPF (Dawson, 2001 Goodman,
2001 Kent, 2001a 2001b 2003). Neither
Melton (writing on “The Birth of a Religion”)
nor William Sims Bainbridge (writing on “The
Cultural Context of Scientology”) cites Hugh
Urban’s 2006 study of “Fair Game: Secrecy,
Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold
War America.”
Beyond the issue of omitted sources, many of
Scientology’s contributors do not critically
evaluate the information that they gathered from
Scientology and current Scientologists. This lack
do not comment on its effectiveness (e.g., “L.
Ron Hubbard established Narconon, a program
that has considerable success in curing
addiction” [Cusack, p. 401]). These authors
neglect an entire array of criticisms against the
program, concerning ineffectiveness (if not
medical danger), cost, blurred secular versus
religious boundaries, and licensing problems.
Surprisingly, the authors of this book focus on
the external regulation of Scientology and pay
little attention to some of Scientology’s most
contested social-control practices that the
organization often turns against its own
members. For instance, Lewis (pp. 9–10)
mentions the term Suppressive Person (“a
negative, dysfunctional individual”), but he
provides only one sentence describing the term.
This term is tightly connected to the practice of
disconnection (“severing a connection line”
between a Scientologist and a suppressive
person or organization [Hubbard 1983, p.
1042]), but Lewis does not talk about the
negative effects of disconnection when it
involves (as it often does) members of a
Scientologist’s family. Gerald Willms links
suppressive persons to disconnection, but he
pays these issues little critical attention while
arguing that Scientology’s claims to religious
status deserve recognition (pp. 245, 256).
Religion or not, however, some of these
practices can be damaging to adherents and
others when the organization applies the labels
or practices to people with whom it comes into
contact (see Kent, 1999 Straus, 1986 Urban,
2006).
Rather than examining whether any harmful
practices or policies were systemic to
Scientology itself, some authors avoid this kind
of examination by blaming them on the
Guardian’s Office, which was a body within
Scientology designed to prevent or respond to
actions against the organization, and which
Scientology formally abolished in the early
1980s. “It is significant that the majority of
accusations against the church refer (sic) to
actions taken by the Guardian’s Office in the
1970s” (Melton, p. 25 see also Lewis, p. 7).
Some highly contested issues that Scientology
conducted during the Guardian’s Office period
include: fair game, security checking,
disconnection from “suppressive” family
members, internal punishments and
rehabilitations called “ethics” (Straus, 1986),
and recording people’s (nonconfidential)
confessions. All of these practices, however,
have continued long after the Guardian Office’s
dissolution, with many observers concluding
that the Office of Special Affairs continues some
of the Guardian Office’s clandestine and
aggressive activities against perceived
opponents (see Raine, 2009, p. 47 Urban, 2006,
p. 374).
The attention to critical scholarship about
Scientology is erratic at best and neglectful at
most. For example, Lewis includes Frank K.
Flinn’s article in the volume without responding
to Stephen Kent’s (1996) published criticism of
it, even though others cite Kent (1996) in their
own chapters (Cowan, p. 77 Grünschloss, p.
241 Willms, 253, 264). Carole M. Cusack’s
chapter on celebrity Scientologists omits
reference to another Kent publication, this one
on Scientology’s celebrity lobbyists during the
Clinton administration (Kent, 2002). More
importantly, it does not cite Andrew Morton’s
biography (2008) of Tom Cruise. James R.
Richardson’s brief discussion of Scientology
court cases in Germany neglects to cite Greg
Taylor’s definitive analysis of “Scientology in
the German Courts,” which covers cases up to
2003 (Taylor, 2003–2004), and no one cites J.P.
Kumar’s study of Scientology’s use of “fair
game” in the American legal system (Kumar,
1997). Not mentioned anywhere is the debate
involving Stephen Kent, Lorne Dawson, Gordon
Melton, and Scientologist Leisa Goodman about
Scientology’s alleged forced labour and
reindoctrination program, the Rehabilitation
Project Force or RPF (Dawson, 2001 Goodman,
2001 Kent, 2001a 2001b 2003). Neither
Melton (writing on “The Birth of a Religion”)
nor William Sims Bainbridge (writing on “The
Cultural Context of Scientology”) cites Hugh
Urban’s 2006 study of “Fair Game: Secrecy,
Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold
War America.”
Beyond the issue of omitted sources, many of
Scientology’s contributors do not critically
evaluate the information that they gathered from
Scientology and current Scientologists. This lack
