From: rnewman@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
Subject: Roy Wallis - "Religious sects and the fear of publicity"
Date: 1998/02/18
Message-ID: <rnewman-ya02408000R1802981100500001@enews.newsguy.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
This hasn't been posted in a while. A few years after writing this,
Roy Wallis published an excellent full-length book on Scientology, entitled
_The Road to Total Freedom_ (Columbia University Press, 1977).
The first half of this essay is about Christian Science; the second half,
about Scientology.
----------------
"Religious sects and the fear of publicity"
by Roy Wallis
published in _New Society_ magazine, 7 June 1973.
(Roy Wallis is identified as "Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling")
subhead:
Few religious sects go to the lengths of the Scientologists to maintain
secrecy. But Christian Science was once a comparable example.
While some religious and quasi-religious sects, in their eagerness to broadcast
the word as widely as possible and bring new sheep into the fold, welcome
investigation by outsiders and the publication of books by former members about
their beliefs and practices, this is typically not always the case. Many seek
to discourage publicity and deny access to their activities to those who are
only casually or impartially interested. They feel that only the committed have
any right to observe or discuss the work of the sect.
The reason, I feel, is not far to seek. The members of a sect see themselves as
having a unique and privileged access to the truth not possessed by outsiders,
who are therefore likely to contaminate, misunderstand, or misrepresent the
doctrine and ritual. In some cases their scepticism on the objectivity of
observers is not unwarranted. The popular press seems, on occasion, to project
some of the more obvious Freudian fantasies onto new sectarian groups whose
beliefs and rituals they find incomprehensible. Many editors appear to have a
sneaking suspicion that something underhand is always going on in new sects that
do not welcome reporters, even if it is not always sexual immorality.
However, while some sects do not view investigators or even writers in their
own ranks favourably, not all have gone to the lengths of Christian Science
and Scientology to maintain secrecy.
One would hardly believe that the elderly gentlemen and middle-aged, middle
class
ladies who attend the services of Christian Science churches could be
mobilised into actively suppressing serious literary works discussing their
Church -- but at times in its history, such a belief would have been profoundly
misplaced. A pamphlet issued by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1930, _The Blight
that Failed_, gives an account of the difficulties faced by this publisher over
the appearance of a biography of the founder of Christian Science,
_Mrs. Eddy: the biography of a virginal mind_, by Edwin Franden Dakin.
Dakin had not been a Christian Scientist, but his interest in Mrs Eddy led him
to write the biography, which Scribners accepted for publication. After the
appearance of a public announcement for the book, Scribners were immediately
approached by the Christian Science Committee on Publication for New York
who made reference during a conversation with the publishers to a confidential
memorandum issued to Scribners' sales staff. The one-man Committee suggested
that the book be submitted to its office for a check on accuracy and
reliability -- an offer regarded by the publishers as censorship, which
they declined.
The pressure brought to bear then took a different form. Personal approaches
were made to Scribners executives by former schoolfriends in the Church.
When the book appeared, bookshops and libraries were visited as part of a
concerted campaign to persuade them not to take it. The bookshops were
threatened with boycott if they offered it for sale. Abusive letters
were sent to Scribners from all parts of the United States, many having
a highly stereotyped content and phraseology. So effective was the
campaign that, at one point, 70% of Scribners' normal retail outlets had
stopped selling the book and refused to display it. The campaign backfired,
however, since Scribners could advertise how important the work must be,
if so much effort was being expended to suppress it, and the book
eventually became a bestseller.
What is especially disconcerting is that this was not an isolated case.
An early biography of Mrs Eddy, originally published in article form in
_McLures Magazine_, later appeared as a full-length biography --
Georgine Milmine's _The Life of Mary Baker Eddy and the History of
Christian Science__ -- by Doubleday. The board of Mother Church was
able to purchase the copyright and plates of this book, effectively
preventing republication.
Adam H. Dickey's _Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy_, published in 1927, was
based on his observations of several years in which he acted as
Mrs. Eddy's secretary, and her specific instruction to him not long
before her death that he write a history of his experiences during
his time with her -- although the book was not published until after
his own death. On publication, the board of directors of the Church
wrote to every member of his Association of Students, requiring them
to return their copies, and reimbursed Mrs Dickey for the costs of
publication -- thereby acquiring the copyright. The book never saw
the light of day again.
In another case, after all other attempts at obstruction failed,
considerable pressure was brought to bear on Putman & Co., sufficient
to persuade them to make sweeping revisions in the manuscript of
High Studdert Kennedy's _Mrs. Eddy: her life, her work, her place
in history_. These revisions mutilated the book to such an extent that
his widow regarded it as bearing no relation to the original, and
she eventually established her own publishing trust to produce the book.
Finally, Arthur Corey, at one time a prominent Christian Science
practitioner, produced a volume based on materials employed by many
prominent teachers of Christian Science in their class instruction.
Although there was no formal prohibition against publishing materials
used in teaching the normal classes (passage through which is a
prerequisite to practitioner status), an informal taboo had emerged
against making public what took place in class or passing details
on to the uninitiated. Although Putnams expressed an initial interest
in Corey's book, _Class Instruction_, they eventually decided that
they were unwilling to face the campaign which would inevitably ensue
on publication.
Many of the teachers or their heirs, on orders from the Church,
protested against inclusion of their class materials in the book
_before_ its appearance, or even announcement, and threatened legal
action. Corey discovered that his financial position had been
investigated to discover whether he could stand the costs of a lawsuit.
Threats from a law firm representing the board of directors were
received, and a professional process server served a bogus injunction
on Corey to prohibit publication. When it did appear, editors of
periodicals which reviewed the book were subjected to an organised letter-
writing campaign. Furthermore, immense pressure was brought to bear
by Christian Science advertisers to prevent publicity in the press
and on radio. Many editors declined to give the book coverage
on the grounds that they could thereby escape the considerable nuisance
which had been caused them in the past when they had published materials
deemed objectionable by the Church. Bookshops again received threats
of boycott unless they ceased selling the volume. Charles Braden, from
whose book, _Christian Science Today_ , these details are taken, recounts
that many libraries refused to accept copies, and that copies disappeared
from libraries which did take the book. In one case even the index
card was stolen. Other copies were mutilated.
Braden himself, although an historian of contemporary religion of
undoubted eminence and integrity, found himself greatly obstructed
by the Church in his preparation of _Christian Science Today_. The
board of the Mother Church refused access to archival materials and
made several attempts, directly and indirectly, to secure the right
to censorship. Braden also recounts that he had evidence of Christian
Scientists organising themselves into groups which would arrange to
borrow in continuous rotation, from libraries which stocked them,
materials deemed by the Church to be objectionable. This was in order
to prevent other readers gaining access to such works.
Scientology, while a movement very different in style, bears many
similarities to Christian Science, and the Church of Scientology
and its leadership have also often taken objection to publications
regarding the movement. The policy of the Church with regard to
the press has been unequivocally stated by the movement's founder,
L. Ron Hubbard: "We are not interested in sensationalism,
personalities, or the complexity of Scientological methodology
being discussed by the general public. As a subdivision of this, we
do not want Scientology to be reported in the press, anywhere else
than on the religious page of newspapers... we should be very alert
to sue for slander at the slightest chance, so as to discourage the
public presses from mentioning Scientology" (Hubbard Communication
Office, 1965).
This policy has been followed assiduously. Indeed, so litigious
did Scientology become that Peter Horden MP was not far off the
mark when he claimed in the House of Commons on 6 March 1967 that
"every newspaper which so much as mentions Scientology is served
with a writ for libel." One source reports that at one point around
38 writs for libel were outstanding against individuals and
newspapers which had published statements on Scientology, although
some 36 of these were later withdrawn.
Scientologists appear to have followed the lead of Christian
Science in organising mass mailings of correspondence on at least
one occasion. Sir John Foster, when conducting the _Inquiry into
the Practices and Effects of Scientology_, received during the
first four to five weeks of his appointment some 1,178 testimonials
about Scientology. His report states, "over three quarters of them
included the statement `Scientology is my religion', and expanded
this assertion in a fairly standardised paragraph." Many arrived
in batches from the same place, and very few were received later.
A large proportion of those books which have so far appeared on
Scientology by outsiders or defectors have been the subject of
litigation. An Anglican minister, Maurice Burrell, wrote a book
called _Scientology: what it is and what it does_, which appeared
briefly in 1970. The publishers were taken to court on the
grounds that the book might prejudice the fair trial of cases in
which Scientology was then involved. The publishers, a small
company, did not appeal the decision although legal opinion had
been offered to the effect that such an appeal would most likely be
won.
Cyril Vosper's _The Mind Benders_ was to be published in September
1971. The day before publication, the Scientologists secured an
injunction delaying publication. The movement lost an appeal by
the publishers against the injunction and their own appeal to the
House of Lords was also rejected. The action against the book
having failed, an action against its writer and publisher for
contempt of court was brought and again lost. An appeal was
initiated, but the Scientologists withdrew before its hearing. An
action for libel remains to be pursued by the movement.
At one stage in this litigation, a High Court judge was reported
(in the _Daily Telegraph_) to have said of applications by the
Church of Scientology to have Vosper and a newspaper editor
committed to jail for contempt of court, that these were
deliberately made "to try to stifle any criticism or inquiry into
their affairs."
Three American works, George Malko's volume, _Scientology The Now
Religion_, published in 1970, Paulette Cooper's _The Scandal of
Scientology_, which appeared in 1971, and Robert Kaufman's _Inside
Scientology_, have also been the subject of extensive litigation.
An injunction preventing the publication of Kaufman's book in
Britain was recently lifted by the High Court.
Extensive litigation is only one of the hazards to which writers
on Scientology are subject. They appear to be disproportionately
subject to mysterious and unpleasant happenings. On one
occasion, a manuscript and, on another, a master galley proof of
books on Scientology mysteriously disappeared. One author on holiday
in Spain was questioned by the police when they opened a parcel
addressed to his lodgings containing obscene caricatures of
General Franco. Notices were put in trade journals declaring that
one publisher of a work on Scientology had gone bankrupt and retailers
were circulated with false notices to the effect that their stocks
of this work should be returned for cash. A bogus injunction was
served on one writer who had entered a suit for harassment against
Scientology in the United States. The complaint issued by her lawyers
includes making visits to the author's apartment late at night,
spying on her apartment, tapping her phone, employing a photographer
to follow her for three days, and numerous other attempts at
harassment and intimidation. The suit claims damages of several
million dollars.
My own experiences, while less dramatic, follow a similar pattern.
As a product of research for a doctoral thesis on Scientology, I wrote
a paper called "The sectarianism of Scientology," which I sent
to the leaders of the movement in East Grinstead for comments,
before publication. The comments I received clearly indicated that
they did not view the paper favourably, and a very useful body
of documentation was supplied to support their views, resulting in
slight modifications to the paper.
Shortly after this, a young man arrived at the University of Stirling
representing himself as a graduate of Bristol and claiming an
interest in Scottish religion. On being sent to see me he asked
if he might attend my lectures and tutorials, and also if I could
put him up for a few days. This I declined to do, having realised
that I had last seen him wearing a staff member's uniform at the
Scientology headquarters. I did not reveal my suspicions, being
unsure how to react, until the following day, when I learned that
he had visited my home in my absence, seeking to gain entry.
On being confronted, he agreed that he had been a Scientologist,
but claimed to be a defector, having come to Stirling to sell me
information. He gave as referees a professor at Bristol and
another prominent defector. The defector did not know the man,
while the Bristol professor recognised the description as belonging
to a former student who was apparently using an assumed name.
Before leaving Stirling rather hurriedly, the young man visited
students, claiming to be a friend of mine, asking about me,
my course and the "drug scene" at Stirling. It appears he then
visited another northern university seeking information.
A day or two later I received a telephone call from this young man
of an inconsequential kind, the tone of which could best be
described as "threatening to be threatening." I also received
a telephone call from someone claiming to be a policeman, which
was too garbled to make any sense at all. The net significant event
was the receipt of two letters, by a sociologist at the northern
university. The first was a covering letter, claiming the second
letter was circulating at Stirling. The signature was indecipherable.
The letter enclosed with it purported to be a reply to me, thanking
me for information concerning a drug scandal at the northern
university, implicating the sociologist, and indicating that
this information had been passed to the Drug Squad at Scotland Yard.
It was addressed from the Monday Club in London and bore a fair
facsimile of the director's signature. The letter was a forgery.
A later batch of letters was addressed to "The Chancellor" of
Stirling University. The covering letter this time was purportedly
from a disgusted landlady. Contained with it were two homosexual
love letters of an obscene kind, written on Stirling Department
of Sociology notepaper -- or more probably a photograph copy of the
letter-head -- typed on a machine with a distinctive type-face very
similar to my personal portable, and signed with my name. On investigation
by the police the landlady was found not to exist.
During the student troubles at Stirling, letters similar to those
received by the northern sociologist were also received by
Digby Jacks, President of the National Union of Students. These
letters indicated that I was one of those responsible for reporting
students for disciplinary proceedings, and that I was "working for
a right-wing organisation." Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am not usually prone to this kind of correspondence and the
implication is strong that, whether with or without the connivance
of the leadership of the Scientology movement, I was the subject of
a concerted attempt at harassment designed to "frighten me off"
Scientology, to undermine my credibility as a commentator on their
activities, or to keep my so busy handling these matters that I had
little time for research.
While these events are disturbing, as they have been for myself and
other writers on this movement, their motivation is not hard to
understand. If a group regards itself as embodying the absolute truth,
as did Christian Science in earlier years and Scientology today, then
only those fully versed in and committed to the beliefs and practices
in question will be seen as legitimate commentators upon them. Since
both are highly authoritarian sects, to permit commentary by outsiders
threatens to undermine the authority of the leadership as the sole
legitimate interpreters of the doctrine. Moreover, in the development
of most social movements, events will occur at one stage or another
that may contrast uncomfortably with a later, more sophisticated
rhetoric. We all have skeletons we would prefer left unexposed,
Christian Science and Scientology and their founders no less than the
rest of us. The misfortune of Mrs. Eddy and Ron Hubbard was that
in an age of instant communication, no respectable period has been
permitted to elapse during which such skeletons could be effectively
buried, or passed off as a youthful aberration of their movements.
Vilification of the enemy is therefore a natural recourse. The enemies
of Christian Science are vilified as practitioners of "malicious
animal magnetism" and the Catholic Church is seen as the chief repository
of this maleficent force. The enemies of Scientology are seen as
engaged in a world conspiracy fostered by the "psycho-politicians"
to deny man the "total freedom" available through Scientology. Psychiatrists
and mental health organisations are those principally seen as engaged
in this "suppressive" activity.
But sectarian movements draw their boundaries rather sharply. Their world is
black and white. Those who are not for them are against them, and
the observer on the sidelines is liable to be tarred with the same brush
as their most rabid opponent.
[Citations listed in the right margin:
Charles S. Braden, _Christian Science Today_ (Dallas: Methodist
University Press, 1969
Roy Wallis, "The sectarianism of Scientology" in Michael Hill (ed),
_A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain_ (SCM Press, 1973)
Sir John G. Foster, "Scientology and its enemies" (_Inquiry into
the Practice and Effects of Scientology_, HMSO, 1971
]
[Credit line in right margin:
Roy Wallis is Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling
]
--
Ron Newman rnewman@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/