Ph.D. Thesis: Language Appropriation in New Religious Movements: Identity, Conflict, Boundaries and Pejorative Terms. Paper first turns to Scientology

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Ph.D. Thesis: "Language Appropriation in New Religious Movements: Identity, Conflict, Boundaries, and Pejorative Terms" (2020), by Kristian Klippenstein. The thesis first turns to Scientology.

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Religious Studies at the University of Alberta.

Chapter 4, Be Clear: Scientology and Organizational Fluency, is 37 pages long.


Language Appropriation in New Religious... | ERA


Screenshot_20210508-182519_1620524444374_1620524535281.png


Screenshot_20210508-183850_1620524483127_1620524645861.png


Screenshot_20210508-183904_1620524524816_1620524659823.png





Direct link to download the entire 373 page Ph.D. thesis:


https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/279e12f0-4881-4341-bb3e-d154912ee18e/download/6e43422d-9e9a-4e47-95cb-ffeb7e768dc8


* * * * * BEGIN ABSTRACT * * * * *

Author / Creator
Klippenstein, Kristian

As a broad classificatory category, new religious movements (NRMs) refers to groups as varied as they are unorthodox. As diverse emergent agents of restoration or change, the social transformations that their doctrines promote and behaviors achieve vary in both articulation and form. To cope with this diversity, one strand of popular and academic inquiry into NRMs stretching from 1960s anti-cult literature to the present utilizes a hermeneutic of meaninglessness. This widely deployable approach to reading new religious texts argues that NRM leaders (mis)use words in their efforts to befuddle and seduce potential converts – recruitment, rather than coherence, guides vocabulary choice in new religious doctrines. Promoters of this hermeneutic point to seemingly catachrestic deployments of familiar terms as evidence of NRMs as organizations that abuse and misuse language.

While a widely applicable tool for examining new religious texts is valuable, the hermeneutic of meaninglessness fails both in its understanding of language and its depiction of NRMs as careless, incoherent language users. This thesis combines recent re-appraisals of religious studies theory with close readings of texts produced by Scientology, Peoples Temple, the Children of God, and the Jesus People to reject the hermeneutic of meaninglessness while providing an alternate analytical framework for approaching new religious texts. In particular, it identifies moments of pejorative language appropriation and adaptation in new religious texts as sites of identity and worldview construction, contestation and conflict with cultural interlocutors, and boundary maintenance. Rather than evidence of terminological paucity, language appropriation in new religious texts reveals persistent patterns for crafting communication strategies, fostering in-group fluency, and ascribing organizational functions to semantic change.

To draw out language appropriation’s functional presence in new religious discourse, and to highlight the agonistic dimension of new religious language, this thesis adapts Tim Murphy’s language-based theory of religion, particularly his definition of religion as “the structuring of asymmetrical relations between real or imagined groups or classes.” It also conceptualizes new religious texts as examples of M. A. K. Halliday’s model of “anti-languages.” Combined with sociolinguistic research on language’s relation to identity, conflict, and boundaries as well as scholarship on pejorative/slurring speech, these theories form the basis for an illuminating examination of language choices in new religions.

To demonstrate the organizational effects of fostering fluency and adapting vocabulary, the thesis first turns to L. Ron Hubbard’s writings on language in Dianetics and Scientology. It explores his conception of language change in relation to new religious discoveries, insistence on proper definition as a key aspect of effective group practice, and doctrinal/behavioral apparatus for promoting fluency amongst Scientologists. Moreover, the thesis explores his doctrine of “propaganda through the redefinition of words” as a conceptual analogue to the language appropriation and adaptation processes that takes place in other NRMs, discussing Hubbard’s adaptation of squirrel and psychiatry as examples.

Peoples Temple’s audiotapes, the Children of God’s MO Letters, and the Jesus People’s Hollywood Free Paper, in turn, each present an opportunity to trace the appropriation of particular pejorative/slurring terms in individual NRMs. Guided by Halliday’s observation that anti-languages most often adapt vocabulary that relates to major organizational concerns, the thesis traces the borrowing and altering of nigger in Peoples Temple, whore/harlot/hooker in the Children of God, and freak in the Jesus People. These terms relate to doctrinal and practical interests in race, sex, and counterculture, respectively. Analyzing each group’s corpora reveals both the persistence of language appropriation as a discursive tactic and the organizational divergences in doctrine, practice, and demographic between each NRM. As such, a language appropriation-focused approach to new religious texts is a broadly applicable framework for studying new religions. It reveals patterns across organizations while highlighting distinctive elements, encourages textual analysis of denotative and connotative change without advocating for a particular term’s definition, and matches new religious examples to religious studies theory and sociolinguistic concepts.

* * * * * END ABSTRACT * * * * *

/
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
The Religious Studies Department of the University of Alberta congratulates Kristian Klippenstein, now Dr. Klippenstein, on the successful defense of his thesis "Language Appropriation in New Religious Movements: Identity, Conflict, Boundaries, and Pejorative Terms."


Religious Studies at the University of Alberta.


Screenshot_20210509-065158_1620568703241.png

/
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
And congratulation to J. Gordon Melton, long time paid cult apologist, prevaricator, and perjurer, for successfully slipping the acronym "NRM" into the vocabulary of Departments of Religious Studies around the world.

Melton worked for Scientology Inc. for many years, and provided "expert" testimony for court cases, "Dead Agent" packs, papers, and books.

L. Ron Hubbard, and his mini-me David Miscavige, and other cult leaders, were determined that the word "cult" fall into disuse and that use of the word, itself, be stigmatized, as, amongst other things, a sign of "bigotry."

"NRM" was to be replace "cult." Psychological cults, predatory proprietary cults, psycho-political cults, etc., were to be known as "NRMs."

Of course, the core of the acronym, "NRM," is "Religious," which is essential to the well being and continued functioning of operations such as Scientology Inc., which began its "Scholar Program" during the 1970s to wine, dine, schmooze, mislead, and sometime hire, "religious scholars," to forward its religious cloaking.

Link to the Fraudulent Religious Cloaking thread and its link
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
And congratulation to J. Gordon Melton, long time paid cult apologist, prevaricator, and perjurer, for successfully slipping the acronym "NRM" into the vocabulary of Departments of Religious Studies around the world.

Melton worked for Scientology Inc. for many years, and provided "expert" testimony for court cases, "Dead Agent" packs, papers, and books.

L. Ron Hubbard, and his mini-me David Miscavige, and other cult leaders, were determined that the word "cult" fall into disuse and that use of the word, itself, be stigmatized, as, amongst other things, a sign of "bigotry."

"NRM" was to be replace "cult." Psychological cults, predatory proprietary cults, psycho-political cults, etc., were to be known as "NRMs."

Of course, the core of the acronym, "NRM," is "Religious," which is essential to the well being and continued functioning of operations such as Scientology Inc., which began its "Scholar Program" during the 1970s to wine, dine, schmooze, mislead, and sometime hire, "religious scholars," to forward its religious cloaking.

Link to the Fraudulent Religious Cloaking thread and its link
I understand. However, I find Kristian Klippenstein's analysis of the language used in Scientology to be quite good and useful. Perhaps it would be best not to disregard his entire thesis just because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movements.

/
 

Veda

Well-known member
I understand. However, I find Kristian Klippenstein's analysis of the language used in Scientology to be quite good and useful. Perhaps it would be best not to disregard his entire thesis just because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movements.

/
Not disregarding anything, but there's a certain irony to people, discussing manipulative language, themselves being manipulated (cowed? intimidated?) by language.

The genre of study ("NRM") is defined, and framed, by language provided by the cults themselves.

Do you think Miscavige really minds what's written about his for-profit psycho-political cult as long as those doing the writing are safely impaled on Scientology Inc.'s pointy religion angle?
 

Zertel

Well-known member
It's long past the point when the media, academia and others will stop referring to scn as a religion or church. Even exes continually refer to "the church" on blogs and forums.

On the bright side of things most religions think they are the "true" religion and the other religions are full of shit and wish them gone. Scn as a religion is competition.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Do you think Miscavige really minds what's written about his for-profit psycho-political cult as long as those doing the writing are safely impaled on Scientology Inc.'s pointy religion angle?
Yes, I do think that Miscavige really minds what's written about the Church of Scientology even when it is referred to as a religion.

Miscavige is famously thin-skinned and can't stand any criticism of himself or of Scientology. He views anyone, including an academic, who criticizes him or Scientology as a Suppressive Person and as an enemy. He personally is completely incapable of analyzing the situation in a sophisticated manner and coming to the the conclusion that academic criticism of Scientology is beneficial to Scientology as long as the academic refers to Scientology as a "religion." (Not that I agree with that conclusion myself; I don't.)

I believe there is recent trend in NRM academia away from apologist papers designed to maintain access towards critical papers that focus on actual church behaviour and the "scriptures" underlying such behaviour. The academic literature seems to be moving away from being generally supportive of Scientology (except for a few academics) to being more objective and thus critical. There seem to be more (perhaps younger) academics joining the critical camp. I can't imagine that Miscavige is happy about these developments. I also can't believe that Miscavige is happy about the analysis of Scientology language and resulting behaviour in the paper at issue.

Avoiding the "cult" vs. "religion" debate is not all bad. The debate tends to be all-consuming and draw attention away from where it should be -- on behavior and abuses. Moreover, given the current climate or political correctness, insisting on calling Scientology a "cult" would detract from the credibility of the academic, and make the author vulnerable to charges of religious bigotry, religious bias, or name-calling. Insisting on the use of the word "cult" would thus detract from the credibility of any critical analysis.

/
 

Veda

Well-known member
"Opposing our program would be foolish."

-snip-

calling Scientology a "cult" would detract from the credibility of the academic, and make the author vulnerable to charges of religious bigotry, religious bias, or name-calling. Insisting on the use of the word "cult" would thus detract from the credibility of any critical analysis.

/
Academia has been largely neutered by Scientology Inc. and by other cults, and not necessarily "religious" cults.

And the term is Destructive Cult. Last time I looked, the term Psycho-political cult is also used. I'd be perfectly happy with "psycho-political operation."

There's no "cult vs religion." One is wrapped in the other. Scientology Inc. is a business and system of psychology and an intelligence network, wrapped, when that's expedient, in the patina of "religion."






"Notice my giant cross."
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

I understand. However, I find Kristian Klippenstein's analysis of the language used in Scientology to be quite good and useful. Perhaps it would be best not to disregard his entire thesis just because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movements.
/
.

I can certainly see your point. However, in identifying Scientology as a "religion", I also have to consider the distinct possibility that Klippenstein may have unknowingly fallen victim to an NRM.

New Rhetorical Movement. . LOL

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
It's long past the point when the media, academia and others will stop referring to scn as a religion or church.
.

In fact, certain small portions of Scientology orgs could justifiably be called a church.

Just not any of the square footage or rooms in which cash registers and/or price lists or paid invoices are used or referenced.

That would eliminate all the rooms used for promo, regging, cramming, disseminating, training, auditing and/or other paid Bridge services are involved.

I'd estimate that in any Scientology building, the "church part" would take up approximately 20 square feet just inside the front door, before you notice the bookstore or flatscreens running 24/7 infomercials.

.
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
.


.


I can certainly see your point. However, in identifying Scientology as a "religion", I also have to consider the distinct possibility that Klippenstein may have unknowingly fallen victim to an NRM.

New Rhetorical Movement. . LOL

.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the section "Compartmentalizing Failure, Relinquishing Truth" beginning at page 122, and the section "Insanity and Opposition -- Squirrels and Propaganda" at page 130, in particular, show that Klippenstein gets it. I believe his analysis is both good and useful. But because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movement, all of the discussion is about that, there appears to be an assumption that he is just another NRM scholar dupe (without reading what he actually wrote), and people therefore assume nothing he wrote is worth reading.

For Xenu's sake, I don't expect that anyone will read the entire 373 page thesis. The chapter on Scientology, however, is only 37 pages long. I thought that someone would be interested in that -- even if he uses the dteaded terms NRM and New Religious Movement.

/
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
What I find a bit frustrating is that the section "Compartmentalizing Failure, Relinquishing Truth" beginning at page 122, and the section "Insanity and Opposition -- Squirrels and Propaganda" at page 130, in particular, show that Klippenstein gets it. I believe his analysis is both good and useful. But because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movement, all of the discussion is about that, there appears to be an assumption that he is just another NRM scholar dupe (without reading what he actually wrote), and people therefore assume nothing he wrote is worth reading.

For Xenu's sake, I don't expect that anyone will read the entire 373 page thesis. The chapter on Scientology, however, is only 37 pages long. I thought that someone would be interested in that -- even if he uses the dteaded terms NRM and New Religious Movement.

/
I'm sure there's worthwhile information, but it remains that he allows himself to be framed in the NRM lie.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
What I find a bit frustrating is that the section "Compartmentalizing Failure, Relinquishing Truth" beginning at page 122, and the section "Insanity and Opposition -- Squirrels and Propaganda" at page 130, in particular, show that Klippenstein gets it. I believe his analysis is both good and useful. But because he uses the terms NRM and New Religious Movement, all of the discussion is about that, there appears to be an assumption that he is just another NRM scholar dupe (without reading what he actually wrote), and people therefore assume nothing he wrote is worth reading.

For Xenu's sake, I don't expect that anyone will read the entire 373 page thesis. The chapter on Scientology, however, is only 37 pages long. I thought that someone would be interested in that -- even if he uses the dteaded terms NRM and New Religious Movement.

/

The problem in my view is one that was 100% caused by Scientology's duplicity and chronic lying. Let me analogize it for the sake of deconstruction:

example: A massive three story shopping mall that contains 275 individual stores also has a tiny kiosk at one of it's entry doors that gives away free maps/directories of the vast shopping complex. The owners of the shopping mall file for and somehow get a 501-3c non-profit designation for their mall. Because the 3-fold mall maps are free as a "public service". The 275 retail outlets generate over a billion dollars a year in sale, yet they pay no tax---because all the sales clerks are wearing mall badges that contain an icon in the shape of a lower-case letter "t" which is the exterior configuration (shape) of the mall. This is significant because the mall owners claim that it's not a "t" shape at all, but actually a religious cross. When challenged in court the mall owners order all the armed mall security guards to wear black uniforms, a jumbo letter "t" pendant and carry around the free "scripture" which is the 3-fold maps of the mall.

Okay, now! One customer complains that the mall is not a religion but actually a commercial business. Another customer complains that it is a religion and deserves the non-profit status. Wrong arguments because the mall owners claim they are BOTH, depending on who they are lying to.

Inside any Church of Scientology there are actually a few square feet that are dedicated to "spiritual beliefs", but the other 97.5% is all dedicated to "make money, make more money...".

So which is it?

ANSWER: Both.

SOLUTION: The IRS simply has to rule what percentage is engaged in pure religious practice that does not require a price-list, paid invoice or selling/regging. Since the course and auditing rooms all require paid invoices to use, they cannot retain a religious usage exception. The "church" part doesn't have to pay taxes. The other 98% then needs to be taxed to death exactly like all other businesses and commercial enterprise, including minimum wage mandates and other regulatory benefits packages, consumer protections, et al.

COMMENT: It's actually quite simple. Scientology is 98% a self-improvement system, just like yoga, fitness centers, Tony Robins/Deepak Chopra seminars or plastic surgery clinics offering "the modern science of skin health" with bulk sales discounts for customers who buy a year or more of Botox treatments.

.
 

Harold#1

A VERY STABLE SUPER GENIUS!!
Not disregarding anything, but there's a certain irony to people, discussing manipulative language, themselves being manipulated (cowed? intimidated?) by language.

The genre of study ("NRM") is defined, and framed, by language provided by the cults themselves.

Do you think Miscavige really minds what's written about his for-profit psycho-political cult as long as those doing the writing are safely impaled on Scientology Inc.'s pointy religion angle?
Miscavige seems to be just be just a little bit annoyed with what Tony Ortega writes about Scientology and he calls it a church, and doesn't refer to them as a cult.

from Tony Ortega:

Is Scientology a cult?

We find “cult” to be a completely meaningless word. At other websites, discussions about Scientology end up devolving into endless argument about words like “cult” or “religion.” At the Bunker, we call Scientology a church because that’s what Scientologists call it and because we’re more interested in what Scientology does than what it says about itself. Here’s how we answered this question in March 2015 when it was asked by Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani on HuffPost Live…


 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
As I stated, I sometimes use psycho-political operation (Scientology Inc. is more of an operation than an actual group), but some governments use psycho-political cult.

Over fifty years ago, William Burroughs wrote "so called church" rather than simply "church." His article for the Los Angeles Free Press later appeared in his book, Naked Scientology.

Burroughs: "In view of the fact that my articles on Scientology may have influenced young people to associate themselves with the so called 'church' of Scientology..."

There are many variations of presentation. And even Ortega used "religion" in quotes on his book Battlefield Scientology:




Miscavige seems to be just be just a little bit annoyed with what Tony Ortega writes about Scientology and he calls it a church, and doesn't refer to them as a cult.

-snip-
The milieu in which Tony Ortega works is atheistic and that of the Left. That is the current zeitgeist. As far as I know, Ortega has not yet bowed deep at the waist to Scientology and used its prefered term "NRM."

Scientology Inc.'s most important fraudulent assertion - vital to its survival - is its religion angle.

As for the word "cult," it's still being used. Do you have a problem with its use below?

 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Miscavige seems to be just be just a little bit annoyed with what Tony Ortega writes about Scientology and he calls it a church, and doesn't refer to them as a cult.

from Tony Ortega:

Is Scientology a cult?

We find “cult” to be a completely meaningless word. At other websites, discussions about Scientology end up devolving into endless argument about words like “cult” or “religion.” At the Bunker, we call Scientology a church because that’s what Scientologists call it and because we’re more interested in what Scientology does than what it says about itself. Here’s how we answered this question in March 2015 when it was asked by Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani on HuffPost Live…


That is what I was trying to get at when I wrote, "The debate tends to be all-consuming and draw attention away from where it should be -- on behavior and abuses."

So far, it appears that Tony Ortega and I have been proved right. So far, all of the discussion in this thread had been about the nomenclature of "religion" vs. "cult" vs. "so-called religion" vs. "NRM" -- "New Religious Movement" vs. using or not using quotation marks around the word religion.

None of the discussion had been about the actual substance of the thesis.

/
 
Top