I’ve been reading Boing Boing for over two years now–not long enough to consider myself a part of the community, but long enough to be familiar with its trends and how the blog conducts itself.
Initially, I loved it. It was an alternative source of news, a catchall resource for under-the-radar culture, filling the gaps that mainstream media left. I can recall constantly saying to friends in my dorm, “There was this post on Boing Boing…” I was just latching on to RSS feeds, and it was by far the most prolific and most often read of my feeds.
Over the past year, this relationship has been tempered with a slice of objectivity and a pinch of analysis. As my online reading habits have shifted to include more diverse mass media sources and more specifically focused blogs, I’ve become more critical of Boing Boing’s approach toward certain subject matter, religion being the first topic that raised my eyebrows.
Scientology has come up a lot in the past couple years–too much for my taste, to be frank. The internet-generated “protests” at different Scientology centers has brought out the worst in both the religious group and anti-religious web junkies. It’s been akin to a hipper, younger anti-cult movement. Remember when Dungeons & Dragons and hair metal was compared to Satanism? I don’t, but I’ve read about it, and the principal dissenters in those cases were extraordinarily out of the loop and ignorant. Now the term “cult” has revived, primarily aimed at the Fundmentalist Latter-Day Saints and Scientology. I would expect that from the less-reputable parts of the mass media (e.g. Oprah asking dramatically on an episode dealing with FLDS, “Is this a cult?” as if the word itself were potent enough on its own to mean something).
Yet Boing Boing consistently uses the term “cult” in referring to any number of new religious movements, particularly in California. It’s haphazard, it promotes ignorance and intolerance, and it’s bad writing. It’s particularly bad journalism, no matter the source; even if the claims of shadiness levied at Scientology are legitimate (and they are), slander and hostile attitudes will do nothing to accurately cover the story or inform any readers. A comment on one Scientology post remarked that “Boingers call ‘em like they see ‘em,” a defense which can be used to defend any claim, researched or not. In the case of this comment, the claim is clearly ill-researched, poorly founded and badly constructed.
This difference I have with the site is a matter of a personal editorial position, and I can accept that. Because their coverage of religion is midguided at times doesn’t mean the site as a whole is worthless. Their presentation of religious issues led me to read each post with a more critical eye, which isn’t a bad thing.
However, a recent controversy I’ve encountered has led me to reconsider my entire position regarding the site. Long known for championing net neutrality, a rollback of draconian intellectual property laws, and transparency in government, Boing Boing is often at the forefront of 21st century issues regarding governmental and private organizations’ duty to the public. That status has now been called into question by the bizarre removal of sometime contributor Violet Blue’s posts.
Two recent posts on her blog have raised the issue: mysterious erasure of almost all mention of her name. I personally found Violet Blue thanks to her contributions to Boing Boing, so this was somewhat alarming. The digital age allows for modification and deletion of things posted in the past, but the practice widely regarded as unethical when done in a non-transparent way. Unfortunately, all evidence points to that being the case here, as Violet Blue’s most recent post on the matter mentions.
Now I’m left with the question of what to do when a supposed leader of digital ethics has done something strangely and silently unethical. It’s their site, and theirs to run as they see fit–I allowed that on the issue of religion. This matter, however, severely tarnishes their reputation as a progressive and culturally-significant website in my eyes.
It would seem the same problems that plague old media can be found in new media, and it’s a little disheartening. Another case of when the cynic wishes he was wrong. «»
Update: See also “That Boing Boing thing.” (2008-07-02)
Just thought I’d enlighten you to the fact that a cult isn’t necessarily a negative term. It is merely a term that is hard to define. English is a language with a negative bias towards it, but it is in the minority. Typically a cult is merely a proto-, a smaller, a minor, or a splinter religion. In certain circles the term is neutral: Theologists, Sociologists, etc. (Interesting history of the term… look back at the Cult of Isis and the other Greek Cults)
Granted, Boing Boing seems against the aforementioned cults/protoreligions/small religions/minority religions/splinter religions, but not because that is what they are. It is because of some of the values that they preach. In fact Boing Boing has been critical of many religions, not just the mentioned ones. (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/30/bloody-mary-war-on-x.html, http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/13/einstein-religion-is.html, google). My understanding of their perspective is that many religions have errors, and they should be called out on them. They aren’t saying that that religion is completely off base (though in some cases, mostly), just that each religion has its goods and bads.
Nonetheless, I do support the other half of your message that asks where these posts have gone. I just wanted to enlighten (HA) you on the subject of cults a bit…
Btw, I am an Agnostic, more specifically I believe every religion is partially correct, but I will not adhere to any one creed completely. I deny that humans can comprehend whether there is a spirit and what that spirit is. I like to define my perspective as Antiobjectivist, Utilitarian, Experientialist, Antiexistentialist, Universalist. But that’s pretty generic and specific at the same time.
Nice Article.
In the religious studies circles that study “cults,” the term has largely been dropped due to its overwhelmingly negative connotation thanks to the anti-cult movement which arose in the ’80s (see the Cult Awareness Network). Since casual language has adopted that largely-biased concept and definition of what a “cult” is, the term is almost too loaded for academic use. “Cult” in this sense refers to mind control and “brainwashing,” notions that religious studies scholars and psychologists have discredited. Unfortunately, that means that the term “cult” usually carries with it the idea of brainwashing in the public consciousness.
J. Gordon Melton proposed the term “New Religious Movement” to describe the groups you mentioned–religious groups that stem from a religious tradition in a fundamental way that requires redefinition (Church of Latter-Day Saints), that seem to spring from no existing religious tradition (Scientology), or other groups that have a religious quality to them yet may not be a religious tradition in their own right (Freemasonry).
Melton describes NRMs (new religious movements) having the common quality of being at odds with the current religious landscape. The Jesus Movement, for example, was an NRM at the time of its existence because there was tension with society. Arguably, LDS isn’t an NRM now because it is generally accepted, yet in the 19th century there was definite tension with society as the group made their way westward over the years.
The term “cult” robs the concept of its meaning because, to most people, it now solely refers to a group that is harmful in some way. I hate the appropriation of the term, especially since it goes back to Latin and initially dealt with cultivation (a very apt etymology for the rites the term originally described), but it’s too radioactive to be used properly anymore. I cringe when I see it. For any publication to refer to a group as a cult is to immediately pass judgment on the group. Maybe that judgment is warranted, but just by using the word, it frames the debate in such a way that precludes any other view.
This turned into a mini-essay, but my point is that the use of the term does a disservice in writing about religion, which is unfortunate. The Boing Boing perspective is usually rationalist (e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and that perspective would put any religious movements on equal footing. Yet just by the usage of the word “cult,” certain religious expression becomes less equal.
Thanks for the comment.
Semantics.
;)
Just because popular use of the term is such does not mean that the way I use it is such.
I don’t really know where to go from here. I do see your point; Yes, I concede that the majority of people see the word cult negatively. However that doesn’t mean that I do.
Gay was considered negative, and still is by many, however many have embraced it positively. And gaily, I might add, in the other sense of the word. (Weirdly enough, the etymology of gay is more checkered than just what I say here.)
My point is that just because most people think the word cult always stands for something bad doesn’t mean that Boing Boing’s authors do. Perhaps they think it usually does, but there are exceptions to every rule, this non-existent rule included.
Just a thought.
My point is that no matter one’s intention in using a word, one must be aware of the baggage that word carries, especially when writing in a semi-journalistic capacity. Stubbornness in the face of the evolution of language won’t change anything.
You mentioned the word “gay,” which is a perfect example. Translators were apparently fond of it, and fifty years ago it was a perfectly acceptable word for happy. Same goes for the word “queer”–see Alice in Wonderland. Writers now have to think twice about using those words in that capacity, because while the literal meanings of the words have not changed, the popular meanings have, and the definition has shifted.
You using the term “cult” as you see fit is fine. In some contexts, you may have to explain what you mean by the word since there might be a disconnect between your intention and the interpretation. I don’t really care about your use; however, when a member of the media uses the term, they have the responsibility to be aware of the common perception of what that word means. To be insensitive to how a word is commonly interpreted is, again, a disservice to their writing and their audience, no matter their intention.
Maybe she should have posted pictures of nude women with monkey’s, or children smoking. That seems to be the norm for boing boing.
I stopped reading when you complained about Scientology being branded a cult.
It’s not a cult, it’s an evil cult.