From Bad to Worse

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
Edward Graham-Hyde
{"title":"From Bad to Worse","authors":"Edward Graham-Hyde","doi":"10.1558/imre.23330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rhetoric “cult wars,” which began in the 1970s and 1980s, has stagnated in recent decades. Having empirically undermined the “brainwashing” hypothesis, academic research has progressed beyond the classic typologies and discussion of “dangerous cults.” Terms such as “New Religious Movement” became academized in a bid to recalibrate the discussion of religious phenomenon around the individual. However, “cult” rhetoric is still prevalent in popular vernacular, incipient in multiple discourses that redefine the terminology beyond an historic understanding of “religious.” In this article, I outline my initial intention to revisit the terminology currently used in the academy as a result of reflections from participants in my doctoral research. I designed a survey that sought out the thoughts of everyday people in how they perceive the key terms: “cult,” “brainwashing,” “new religious movement” and “minority religion.” Having used the Facebook Advert Centre to widen the reach of the survey, I quickly found that those commenting on the survey were engaging in a battle that is synonymous with the “cult wars” of old. I found that the discourse was predicated upon COVID-19 and a general distrust of “the establishment.” This article analyses the comments engaging with the advert and explores the usage of “cult” rhetoric in contemporary society.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.23330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rhetoric “cult wars,” which began in the 1970s and 1980s, has stagnated in recent decades. Having empirically undermined the “brainwashing” hypothesis, academic research has progressed beyond the classic typologies and discussion of “dangerous cults.” Terms such as “New Religious Movement” became academized in a bid to recalibrate the discussion of religious phenomenon around the individual. However, “cult” rhetoric is still prevalent in popular vernacular, incipient in multiple discourses that redefine the terminology beyond an historic understanding of “religious.” In this article, I outline my initial intention to revisit the terminology currently used in the academy as a result of reflections from participants in my doctoral research. I designed a survey that sought out the thoughts of everyday people in how they perceive the key terms: “cult,” “brainwashing,” “new religious movement” and “minority religion.” Having used the Facebook Advert Centre to widen the reach of the survey, I quickly found that those commenting on the survey were engaging in a battle that is synonymous with the “cult wars” of old. I found that the discourse was predicated upon COVID-19 and a general distrust of “the establishment.” This article analyses the comments engaging with the advert and explores the usage of “cult” rhetoric in contemporary society.
从糟糕到更糟
始于20世纪70年代和80年代的“邪教战争”言论在近几十年来停滞不前。在经验上破坏了“洗脑”假说后,学术研究已经超越了“危险邪教”的经典类型学和讨论。“新宗教运动”等术语被学术化,以重新校准对个人宗教现象的讨论。然而,“邪教”修辞在通俗白话中仍然普遍存在,最初出现在多个话语中,这些话语在对“宗教”的历史理解之外重新定义了术语。在这篇文章中,我概述了我最初的意图,即根据我的博士研究参与者的反思,重新审视学院目前使用的术语。我设计了一项调查,调查普通人对“邪教”、“洗脑”、“新宗教运动”和“少数民族宗教”等关键术语的看法。在使用Facebook广告中心扩大调查范围后,我很快发现,那些对调查发表评论的人正在进行一场与过去“邪教战争”同义的战斗。我发现,这篇文章是基于新冠肺炎和对“建制派”的普遍不信任。本文分析了广告中的评论,并探讨了“邪教”修辞在当代社会中的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信