Notes 1 Introduction 1. At this stage I drop the quotation marks around ‘cult’. They should be under- stood, however. 2. Though it should be noted that the groups do not necessarily conceive of conversion as recruitment. 3. The work of Kenneth Burke, I.A. Richards, Richard Weaver, Stephen Toulmin, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Thomas Farrell to name but a few, are unfortunately only mentioned in passing. Burke especially would have been an excellent inclusion, however his work was for many reasons incredibly hard for me to source. 4. For an excellent example, see Keane (1997). 5. In many ways, I think that the unquestioned capitalist ideology is more dangerous than any dangers attributed to ‘cults’. 6. It appears that Italy has recently passed similar legislation, making a crime of ‘mental manipulation’, ‘personality conditioning or suggestion techniques, capable of excluding or greatly limiting the capacity to make free choices’ and ‘practicing or sponsoring activities aimed at creating or exploiting the physical or psychological dependence of members’ (see www.cesnur.org). 7. For comment see Rowe (2001): 531. 8. We see this dilemma played out in Bush’s speech of 22nd September 2001. 2 The ‘Cults’ and the Canons 1. Allan, Markham, Barrett and Gallanter all mention the Jehovah’s Witnesses either as dangerous or different. Discussion of the Witnesses as a ‘cult’ is not new. 2. See for example http//:factnet.org/cults/jw/ [accessed 5th August 2004]. 3. These movements often have a hierarchy of restricted texts. Certain texts are not available to members until they have expressed a pre-defined level of commitment to the movement. 4. In particular, the first commandment, ‘You shall have no other gods before me’ (Ex. 20: 3). 5. See Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (1981). 6. For some excellent work on rhetoric see, for example Brown and Steinmann (1979); Crowley (1990); Herndl and Brown (1996); Mailloux (1995); Nelson et al. (1987); Paine (1981); Roberts and Good (1993); Sarat and Kearns (1996); Taylor (1996). 7. For a good overview of rhetoric see Barilli (1989). 8. See Aristotle De Anima and Cicero De Oratore. Some contemporary rhetorics understand memory in connection with computer memory. See Terms of Cultural Rhetorics, www.engl.uic.edu/%7Esosnoski/cr/TERMS [accessed 4th May 1998]. 182 Notes 183 9. Though Corder (1993) sees reader response theory as linked to invention. 10. Henderson writes, ‘All rhetoric is tendentious; not all rhetoric, however, is equally, or predictably, or consistently effective’, p. 14. See also James Berlin (1993). 11. See, for example, Todd (1972); Tsui (1987); Marcu (2000); van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1982); Davis (1979); Cohen (1973). 12. See, for example, Fetzer (2002). 13. See also Myers (1990). 14. Those who campaign against cults, usually on secular grounds. 15. Those against cults on theological (usually Christian) grounds. 16. Chatman contrasts narrative with description and argument. Chatman (1990). 17. See also Stephen Edelston Toulmin, ‘Rationality and Reasonableness: From Propositions to Utterances’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 50 (2) (1996) 297–305, p. 303. ‘But by the 1990s, few philosophers regard deductive systems as self–validating; the question of their “soundness” is recognized as having as much to do less with their internal consistency than with their relevance to specific contexts. Issues about the circumstances in which arguments are presented, or about the audience to whom they are addressed – in a word “rhetorical” issues – have now displaced issues of formal validity as the prime concern of philosophy, even the philosophy of science.’ 18. Though assertion can also be seen as kind of argument, the epideictic in particular. It seeks to ‘please and affirm the beliefs of a group already sure of its position[ ]’ at p. 225 in Brown and Herndl. 19. However, see Dillard and Peck (2000); Vangelisti et al. (1991); Giesen and Hendrick (1974) and Cantor et al. (1974). 20. See also Meyer (1987): 10. ‘It is … not sufficient for a description of dis- course structure to state the relevant items and their relationships. What is indispensable is a functional interpretation of the formal side of discourse structure.’ 21. Lilian remarks that ‘one need not be a socialist or take a socialist stance in order to employ the methods of Critical Discourse Analysis’, p. 111. But the politics of the method does seem to be intrinsic to it. Widdowson writes, ‘It [CDA] carries conviction because it espouses just causes and this is disarming, of course: it conditions the reader into acceptance’ (1998: 150). 22. Ideology seems to be treated as always a negative thing. Van Dijk writes, ‘each social group or formation that exercises a form of power or domination over other groups could be associated with an ideology that would specifically function as a means to legitimate or conceal such power’ and yet ‘also those groups who resist such domination should have an ideology in order to organize their social practices’ as though ideologies are always consciously constructed (1998): 182. See also Corder. ‘Often as not we don’t see our own rhetoric; it is already normality, already truth, already the way to see existence. When we remark, as we have become accustomed to remark, that all discourse is ideological, we probably exclude our own. It is the truth, against which ideological discourses can be detected and measured’ (1993: 98). 184 Notes 3 The Church of Scientology 1. See, for example, Harper (1982: 31). 2. See Charity Commission of England and Wales, ‘Decision of the Charity Comissioners for England and Wales Made on 17th November 1999: Application for Registration as a Charity by The Church of Scientology (England and Wales)’, Charity Commission website, www.charity-commission.gov.uk 3. Church of the New Faith v. the Commissioner for Payroll Tax (1982–83) 154 CLR 120. 4. This is because copyright permission was denied. I thus rely on ‘fair dealing’. 5. For other works on Scientology see Cooper (1971), Corydon (1987), van Gorden (1997), Garrison (1974), Kaufman (1972), Lamont (1986), Malko (1970), Miller (1987), Kin (1991), Lewis (1991), Littler (1995), Meldal- Johnsen (1981). 6. Wallis’s 1976 work gives an excellent account of the movement’s history and structure. 7. This can perhaps be understood as part of Weberian routinization of charisma. 8. In the broad transcription, pauses are marked with (.) laughter by [laughter] with numbers indicating approximate length in seconds, inaudible material is marked [inaudible] and vocal emphasis marked by underlining. 9. Hubbard seems to use ‘psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ interchangeably. Unless quoted in context, I will use ‘psychology’ to include the antagonism towards both. 10. See Holiday (1988): 149. ‘In imagining a language, we are imagining speakers of that language, and the more fine-grained our imaginings becomes, the more they will take account of the changing cultural, religious, economic and political institutions which belong to the speakers.’ 11. www.scientology.org 12. There are about 3,000 taped lectures available from Scientology according to www.scientology.org 13. See Barrett (1996): 255. ‘More, perhaps, than any other religious or semi- religious organization, there is a spiritual career path in Scientology.’ 14. Edwards was not even referring to Moon’s speaking, but to a transcribed speech! 15. Despite Aristotle stating that this character has to be created in the text, character can be negotiated over longer periods and different situations. Certainly it has to be sustained and supported in speech events, especially those which rely on character, but good character is sometimes established prior to a particular speech or text. 16. The subject – counter-subject interaction can also be related to the notion that argument is dialogic in Ducrot and Anscombre’s understanding, for example. 17. The repair can also be understood as ‘bracketing’ in Goffman’s sense. See Goffman, pp. 178–9. 18. For an excellent account of anecdotes and modes of story telling used as justification for legal judgments see Jackson (1990). 19. A ‘Clear’ in Scientology is someone who through auditing has cleared all engrams in the reactive mind. An engram is a kind of repressed experience, Notes 185 the reactive mind the uncritical part of the mind, analogous to Freud’s subconscious. 20. Though the use of ‘Those of you’ suggests an exclusive ‘you’, as opposed to ‘those of us’. 21. Montgomery writes that ‘Applause is at face value an obvious and very public way for an audience to show their approval’ (1999): 21. 22. Moon adopts a similar strategy of implying that he is the Messiah but never actually stating it. 23. See Hubbard (1992): 157. ‘In short and in brief, psychosomatic ills can now be cured. All of them.’ 24. Halliday and Hasan remark that lexical cohesion ‘regularly leaps over a number of sentences to pick up an element that has not figured in the intervening text’ (1976): 16. 25. Though many understand this as a fundamental part of Darwin’s work. 26. See Wallis, 1976, p. 231. ‘Hubbard has invented several hundred neologisms, for example: “Randomity”, “itsa”, “opterm”, “midruds”, “expanded gita”, “disenturbulate” and “as-isness”. In his writings and those of his followers, verbs and adjectives are often employed as nouns (“a withhold”, “a static”) and nouns transformed into verbs (“squirrelling”, “short sessioning”). Prepositions are used in unfamiliar ways (“at cause”), and numerous contrac- tions and acronyms are employed (“MEST”, “D of P”, “Exec Sec”, “Qual”, “Org”). The net effect of this extensive reorganization of the English language is to render Scientological conversation and internal documenta- tion all but unintelligible to the uninitiated.’ 27. Further, in Dianetics we find that Hubbard disapproves of polysyllabic words; (1992): 3. 28. Dianetics tells us that ‘its end is always laughter’ (1992): 2. 4 The Jehovah’s Witnesses 1.