The Family Children of God by insidersChildren of God Family International
Home Chat Boards Articles COG History COG Publications People Resources Search site map
exFamily.org > chatboards > genX > archives > post #21614

Re: Bad Social Science & TF

Posted by Perry on June 20, 2005 at 17:56:50

In Reply to: Bad Social Science & TF posted by Emile Durkheim on June 20, 2005 at 15:54:42:

You said: "Leaving former members out of their surveys and interviews is one of the biggest methodological errors made by cult apologists. In the world of peer-reviewed science--particularly anthropology and qualitative research methodology--these sociologists of religion look like bozos."

That accounts by apostates are generally considered to be distorted, untruthful and therefore unreliable really puzzles me. I recently submitted an article on TF to a journal whose editors and editorial advisors like to think of it as being completely objective on the subject of "new religious movements." In rejecting my article for publication, one of the editorial advisors made this comment: "...the author uses the classic ex-member tactic that his personal experience-or, rather, the way he remembers his personal experience now-trumps virtually anything that an author writes and with which he disagrees."

Although on some issues I do recount my personal experiences or the experiences of others, for the greater part of the article I point to TF's own publications to refute claims and conclusions made by James Chancellor in his book on TF. This particular reviewer discounts all the evidence I provide from TF's publications, seemingly on the basis of my apostasy. The suggestion is that what I experienced and what I remember experiencing are two different things, and therefore my account should be rejected.

Though I could easily address and rectify all the criticisms that the three reviewers had, the editors did not give me that option but instead rejected it outright. I was warned beforehand that they would probably take that approach, so I wasn't surprised, but I'm still puzzled why certain academics have a disparaging attitude towards apostates.

Can anyone point me to any articles that deal with this subject of apostasy, and why some take the position that former member accounts are inherently more unreliable than current member accounts?

Btw, I've submitted the article to another journal and will keep you all posted.