Why does the world hate PETA?

Known for their aggressive and often outrageous advertising strategies, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is the largest animal rights organization in the world with over three million members and supporters worldwide. PETA was founded in 1980 with the goal to stop animal suffering by generating public awareness and encouraging people to take the appropriate actions towards ending unnecessary abuse.  The organization’s fundamental belief is that animals, like humans deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration and that all beings have the right to be free from harm where it can be avoided. PETA has four major areas in which it focuses its attention. These comprise of factory farming, laboratories, the clothing trade and the entertainment industry. PETA is against animal testing, the use of fur in clothing and animals being used for entertainment purposes. They value better education on animal cruelty and eating a vegetarian or vegan diet.

To achieve their goal of animal liberation, PETA’s strategies include public education, cruelty investigations, animal rescue, legislation, research, celebrity backings and protest campaigns. PETA is a non-profit organization that earns its revenue through donations; for this reason they heavily rely on free ‘advertising’ through media coverage to spread their message. Many of PETA’s methods for getting around this have been described as controversial and aggressive, however, many of their campaigns have also been incredibly successful in generating awareness and action. It would seem that in general, PETA’s communication strategies, though controversial, are exceptional at achieving the goals of the organization. Although they are successful in achieving their goals, PETA as an organization has had difficulty upholding a positive image to their target audience, the ordinary people of America. Although most people are supportive of animal liberation, many people have a strong dislike towards PETA and this could potentially impact their support in the long term. This audit will explore how PETA’s successful communication strategies have helped them achieve their goals and also, how their less successful communication strategies with ordinary American citizens, primarily non-vegetarians, have made them come off as hateful and exclusive.

In order to evoke action and disseminate their message among ordinary citizens, PETA focuses on shock tactics to get noticed.  One example of this is in their distribution of disturbing images depicting animal cruelty. This is a type of violent action because it is going against what society wants to see. Our society lives comfortably by blocking out these types of images and issues from our everyday thought. Therefore, when people are exposed to images of animals suffering in laboratories and in factory farming they feel extremely uncomfortable and do not want to believe what they see. By disrupting the status quo in this way, PETA is successfully able to elicit emotions from their audience and create an effect on them by which they feel the need to take action.  One emotion felt is guilt, but more importantly, the main purpose of showing these images is to make people so angry that they feel the need to act.  On their website, PETA acknowledges this idea by stating, “[a]nger plays an important role in motivating people to sit down and write letters to their lawmakers, newspapers, or local authorities demanding an end to animal abuse.”[1] PETA seems to believe strongly that anger plays an important role in driving change.

PETA also aims to disrupt the status quo by using various forms of conventions of contention. Due to having a limited budget for advertising and a message that is so often overlooked, PETA relies on controversial and often outrageous tactics to gain free media coverage. When PETA comes to mind, one may associate them with throwing blood on celebrities as they walked the red carpet, throwing tofu pies at fishery workers and publically displaying nude females locked up in cages. These forms of protest are so outrageous that they were able to gain significant attention towards their message.  Once heads are turned in the direction of the abusers, there becomes a pressing urge for some sort of response from them. Also, the public remembers them.  Each of the above examples is symbolic to PETA’s claim; the blood represents the animals that were killed for use of their fur, the pies represent veganism, and the nude females represent caged animals with no sense of dignity. Due to the media attention that these disruptions cause and the symbolic reminders they offer to their target audience, PETA’s use of controversial tactics is successful in advancing their cause. Although these tactics are not ethically sound to many critics (especially feminists), they are excellent examples of direct action, which PETA’s president Ingrid Newkirk is a strong advocate for. The direction she has taken the organization echo the views of Saul Alinsky who believed that organizers should take whatever means necessary to reach their goals.

Having employed these tactics, PETA has been able to secure countless victories for animal welfare. As an organization with a history of successes and a purpose that most reasonable people agree with, PETA is still faced with intense scrutiny and dislike from a large proportion of their target audience. Critics describe PETA as a cult-like, hateful and exclusive organization with the attitude “you either agree with us 100% or you are out.” Based on this, it would appear that PETA’s tactics have become problematic because they have failed to establish shared meaning with their audience. PETA’s tactics reflect interest-based organizing, where their fundamental concern is pushing their opinions upon an audience of meat-eaters and people who are unaware of the current state of animal welfare. In addition to pushing their own beliefs, they claim that their members are vegetarian or vegan and are strong advocates of veganism, which is especially evident in their rejection of factory farming. By putting emphasis on this value within their organization, they have constructed a wall between PETA members and meat eaters, who they have often referred to as ‘murderers’. This is a problem because as a result, non-vegans find it very difficult to feel that the ways in which animal rights is meaningful to them is the same way it is meaningful to PETA (in the eyes of PETA, they are the cause of the problem in the first place).  Therefore, rather than being pulled towards the community of PETA members, meat-eaters feel excluded from the cause, unwelcomed and feel the need to distance themselves as far as possible from the organization.  This is intensely problematic for PETA because meat eaters make up the majority of the population and they also make up the main target audience of PETA’s advertising.

If PETA wishes to be successful in gaining support from this portion of the public and increase their membership, an interest-based approach alone will not be enough. Pushing their beliefs upon outsiders will not gain their support, instead they must aim to reduce the gap they have created between insiders and outsiders of the organization and make these people feel like they can contribute and support the organization, even if they are not vegan. In order to reduce this gap, PETA must begin by creating mutual understanding between them and outsiders. This process should be easy for PETA because most people agree that animals should have rights and should not be subject to undue suffering; going about this in a sensitive manner is the challenge. PETA should stop using campaign messages such as “Meat is Murder” and “Your Mommy Kills Animals” as these immediately shut down opportunities for building relationships with the outsiders; they need to start with what they can agree on, which is basic animal rights. If potential PETA members can feel a connection to the organization while also feeling that they are not being judged for eating meat, they are more likely to become inquisitive about the cause and not feel like they are being excluded in any way.

To ensure this connection is effectively established, PETA should seek out prominent figures that support animal rights across different regions to act as representatives for PETA. This would provide a contact point for ordinary people to speak with someone they trust, thus they are not forced to depend on PETA’s website or what they see in the media for information. PETA also needs to pledge that they will be considerate of those who support animal welfare, but are not at a stage of their lives to consider veganism. Since meat eaters are such a large proportion of the population, PETA needs to recognize that these people can still be passionate and make a difference in improving the lives on animals and they must articulate this to their audience. For this reason, the representatives that they seek out should not necessarily be vegans or vegetarians, there should be a mixture of both insiders and so-called outsiders. This will eliminate the climate of exclusivity that PETA currently fosters as meat eaters will no longer feel like distant outsiders. Everyone will be able to rally around the same basic shared value, and this will lead to improved social cohesion. Once a certain level of cohesion is felt among members or interested parties, a sense of community will begin to emerge. This sense of community will make members satisfied and passionate about the organizational goals. The representative should focus on being able to create open communication with the public and constantly reinforce the value that everyone agrees on. They should not delve into the promotion of veganism unless a person expresses an interest in the idea and asks questions. Only once the representative has made contact and communication possible and established shared meaning with a potential member can PETA attempt to advance their deeper beliefs.

If PETA were to follow these recommendations, they would become closer to eliminating the negativity that people feel towards their organization. They would reduce the gap between insiders and outsiders, making outsiders more likely to consider taking action towards PETA’s goals. Furthermore, having community representatives would help foster an inclusive environment for members, encourage face-to-face communication and enforce the fundamental value that is shared by all. Members would feel more bound to the organization this way and would therefore, become more passionate and active in their involvement. On the other hand, PETA may not feel the need to improve their public image at this point. The tactics they have utilized to generate awareness are impactful and successful in terms of their animal welfare victories. PETA might claim that they are able to effectively achieve their goals without having to foster an inclusive member community and without having to go against their values by accepting non-vegetarians into their movement.   

---

[1] "FAQ: I Can't Bear to Look at Some of the Graphic Photos You Use. Can't You Tone It down a Little?" PETA.ORG. n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

How would you define religion?

"Religions are mechanisms to explain the unexplainable by looking outside of our natural world for answers. They help humans cope with doubt, and therefore bring comfort and relief. Religions provide relief and comfort through their symbol systems. These symbols direct people to act and think in certain ways that make the world seem like a less difficult place to understand." - My definition

This definition, I feel best represents how I have been influenced to see religion. I think however, that this is a very general definition, but I’m afraid that by being more specific, the risk is posed that I will say something that is true to some religions but not others. I think it is important that a definition of religion is all encompassing to every religious group and if it is not, it should be discarded. I have been influenced by Thomas Tweed’s theory, where he makes a clear distinction between the term religion and it’s plural counterpart, religions. He argues: “interpreters never approach religion-in-general” and rather “only encounter particular practices and particular people in particular contexts”. Therefore, I feel that following in his footsteps will further add to the inclusiveness of the above definition.

The first sentence of my definition has a strong connection to the concept of myths. All religions seem to have some sort of belief in supernatural or higher beings that are used to explain fundamental questions of life, such as how the earth came to be and what happens to us when we die. While the field of philosophy focuses on the natural world and reason to find answers, religion takes a different perspective and looks outside of nature. The only way to do this, without science, is through the creation of myths. These myths are passed down through centuries of storytelling and they come to be accepted by religious people as truths to explain the answers to the questions that seem impossible to answer. People have a very difficult time handling doubts about their lives, so they readily accept these myths as explanations for their doubts. People want to rid their lives of doubt as immediately as possible, and therefore, religion is a very convenient means for them to do so.

The reason it is so important for people to eliminate doubt, is because it causes so much frustration, confusion and vulnerability. For instance, when someone dies, people seek comfort. Not knowing what happened to a loved one after they die can leave a grieving person without closure. Religion provides comfort and relief to people in the sense that it these provides answers and gives people closure.  Myths and rituals make confusing or challenging events in life easier for people to handle. Science does not tell us that our loved ones live eternally in an afterlife, but religions typically explain this. This is a major characteristic of religions that make them desirable to people. I’ve drawn this from Bronislaw Malinowski’s theory, where he claims that religion gives people feelings of control and confidence in situations where they otherwise feel powerless. He believes religion serves as a way for people to control their fate and gives society a certain sense of stability and community, in particular through religious rituals.

Lastly, I draw upon Clifford Geertz’s definition of religion: “Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence…" I agree with his idea that religious systems act as models, which depict a vision of the world and tell us how we ought to act and behave in accordance with that vision. This worldview is communicated through religious symbols such as myths, artifacts and rituals. Religions commonly create conceptions of “good and evil” or “us and them” and these create moral guidelines for how people should act in order to control their fate.

My definition of religion will exclude certain belief systems such as environmentalism. I don’t think environmentalism should come under the title of religion because through environmentalism, we do not have to aspire to outside of our natural world, instead, it believes the meaning of life is found within nature itself. More over, environmentalism does not seek to answer the fundamental questions about our existence like we find in religions. A baseball would not constitute as a religion either under my definition, for such an object does not play an influential role in our lives. If we were told that the baseball originated from another world and all answers about life were retained within the core of the baseball, only then might it be a worthwhile consideration. 

A limitation to my definition is that nowhere do I mention that religions include the presence of a deity or deities. To some, this may be a fundamental component of religions, but I’m personally not sure to what extent deities exist in all religions. For now, I will just say that the existence of supernatural deities can fall under the first part of my definition, “…looking outside the natural world for answers.”

Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves

 “Va, Pensiero” is a religious aria, Italian for “Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves”. This chorus is part of the third act in Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Nabucco, which was first performed in 1842. I was exposed to this piece of music while studying opera in my Italian culture class. Our professor made us listen to this song over and over, even though it was in Italian and I didn’t really understand what it meant. I know this song has religious meaning as it is based on a biblical story. I also know that it played a very important role in the eventual unification of Italy in 1861. I know nothing more than this, so I am definitely interested to learn more about its significance.

Psalm 137 of the Bible was the inspiration behind Verdi’s Va Pensiero. This psalm is particularly important to Jews because it expresses their discontent and yearning for their homeland after being exiled from Jerusalem and held captive in Babylonia. This all happened as part of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon’s, plans to siege Jerusalem in 597 BC. A quote from the Psalm reads, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, we wept, when we remembered Zion... They carried us away in captivity requiring of us a song... Now how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" From this passage, it is evident that the storyteller is one of the many Jewish exiles, reflecting on the journey away from their homeland while in the hands of their captors.

Verdi’s opera Nabucco is based on this biblical story and this particular chorus has a very similar tone and message to the original psalm that inspired it. It is implied that the singers of the chorus are the Jewish exiles and similar to Psalm 137, they are longing for their homeland, Jerusalem. In the opera Nabbucco, actors and actresses are typically represented singing this chorus while gathered together, looking sombre, surrounded by Babylonian guards. The meaning of the song can be encapsulated within the lyrics from the second stanza, “Oh, my country, so beautiful and lost!” Here it is clear that the Jews are in mourning over the land they are so proud to call their native land. They believe Jerusalem has met its fate and feel they must keep its legacy alive by reminiscing of past times and memories. I can imagine that this song would provoke much patriotism among contemporary Jews towards their homeland. The only strong religious reference in this song is in the last verse, “…or may the Lord inspire you a harmony of voices which may instill virtue to suffering.” I’m not entirely sure what this means, but my guess is that they believe good may eventually come from their tears and suffering as a result of their faith in God.

This song is used in a religious setting in the sense that it is part of an opera that draws upon a biblical story. It is not, however, used as part of any actual religious ceremony or ritual. The opera Nabucco was primarily intended for an Italian audience, which means the majority would be Roman Catholic, however, the opera itself is in no way limited to any particular religious group. The song is meant to draw more so on political motifs rather than religious and it is used in a kind of metaphorical way to draw on the political issues in Italy at that time. Italy had been constantly under foreign yolk over the centuries by other nationalities such as the Spanish and Austrian. The emotions of sadness and longing that the Jewish experienced during their exile were intended to resonate with the Italian audience and stir similar emotions towards their own country.  Being constantly under the power of others, Italians felt defeated and a lost sense national identity, which is comparable to the Jews of 597 BC. Therefore, the religious significance of this chorus is not meant to be spiritual or evoke deep religious feelings, its primary goal was to induce Italian national pride. It was successful in doing this and Verdi’s opera played a major role leading up to the eventual unification of Italy.

Verdi himself was world famous composer but not a religious figure. In a letter by his wife, she writes of her husband, “For some virtuous people a belief in God is necessary. Others, equally perfect, while observing every precept of the highest moral code, are happier believing in nothing.” Based on this, it is widely believed that Verdi was not a devout Catholic. Upon his death he was also given a secular funeral. Ironically though, many of his other works have also drawn upon Christian motifs. For example, one of his most famous symphonies was his Requie, which was based on the hymns of a Roman Catholic funeral Mass. I think it would be interesting to look into the effect that this had on the audience of Roman Catholics. Being described as a freethinker, was Verdi less entitled to compose music based on Christian motifs? Did Christians have any objections to Verdi or his music for this reason?

Exorcism of the Demons at Arezzo

I'd have to say my favourite painting is Giotto’s Exorcism of the Demons at Arezzo. I first came across this painting last year in my Italian Studies class while we were learning about the origins of renaissance art. I took a particular liking to Giotto’s art and used this painting as my desktop background for quite a few months. I am drawn to artwork with interesting architecture and that is why this image stood out to me. This painting is one of the earliest attempts at showing depth and backgrounds and although it is a fairly poor attempt in doing so, the piece is still considered transformational. I realized, however, that I actually know very little about the story behind this painting, so I thought I would take the opportunity to learn more about what exactly is going on in this piece of art and why Giotto felt it was important.

After researching the fresco to find out further information, I realized that this painting is actually the tenth out of twenty-eight scenes in a series by Giotto called the Legend of St. Francis, which he painted in the Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi, Italy. Apparently during the lifetime of St. Francis, Arezzo was constantly experiencing conflict and civil unrest due to an “infestation” of demons that created fire and hatred within the hearts of the citizens. According to The Web Gallery of Art, during a civil war in the town of Arezzo, he arrived only to witness demons flying and dancing over and around the city. He summoned Brother Sylvester to drive them out, saying to him, "Go to the gate of the city, and in the name of Almighty God command the devils, in virtue of holy obedience, to depart immediately." In the painting, we can see St. Francis of Assisi kneeling on the ground in prayer, seemingly passing his strength to Brother Sylvester who has his arms extended in the direction of the demons as they flee away over the rooftops. We can also see anxious citizens of Arezzo peering through the city gates, watching as the exorcism takes place. According to the Manual of the Third Order of St. Francis, after Brother Sylvester performed this exorcism, the demons quickly moved on and the anger within the city was calmed.

St. Francis of Assisi is considered one of the most respected figures in Christian history. He lived between 1181 and 1226 in Italy and was named the patron saint of animals and the environment by Pope Gregory IX. In the Legend of St. Francis series, Giotto also depicts St. Francis amongst mountains and performing a sermon to the birds. In another portrait, St. Francis is pictured receiving the stigmata. He is allegedly the fist person to bear the wounds of Christ’s passion. With that in mind, in this 28 painting series, it appears that Giotto is trying to recreate prominent moments of St. Francis’ life in honour of his legacy and to educate Christians on his saintliness. Giotto painted these frescos between 1297 and 1300, a time where most people were illiterate and depended on paintings as a form of storytelling. Therefore, to understand the life and achievements of St. Francis, people would look to the meaning and story behind each painting.

The time period here is interesting to note. In the early 14^th century, the culture in Italy was still heavily dominated by religion. The renaissance would not fully begin until 1330, but we can still begin to see in Giotto’s painting the transitioning between the very traditional Byzantine art to the more realistic and dimensional art that characterized the renaissance. I remember reading that in Byzantine art, paintings had to be very one-dimensional and were intended to look abstract because it was looked down upon to try and reproduce the creations of God. Also, all art produced during this period, within the empire, was required to be religious. I would say that Giotto is following the Byzantine style by staying within the religious boundaries, however, he experiments with depth and spatial realism, which had never been done before. This new style of art is what Giotto is most celebrated for. 

What Exactly is the Maypole Dance?

Today I want to discuss the maypole dance, a traditional pagan ritual.  After seeing it in movies, particularly the 1973 version of The Wicker Man (watch it here), I have always found it to be rather eerie and interesting. I searched it on YouTube and found that the ritual is still practiced today in some European May Day festivals, but its original pagan roots have been somewhat forgotten (similar to Halloween). Traditional pagans, however, have been recently trying to reconstruct May Day celebrations as a religious tradition. 

I decided to do some research on the maypole dance. I found that it originates back to the 12^th century and it was a pagan celebration of fertility.[1] The pagan belief is that the Maypole represents the sacred tree, (Yggdrasil, the tree upon which the god Odin sacrificed himself) which separates the human and divine worlds.[2] This ritual is linked to ancient cultures of northern Europe, specifically Germanic, Nordic and Gaelic. The maypole dance ritual is one of many rituals that takes place during the celebration of May Day/Beltane (May 1^st), where people gather to welcome the new spring. The rituals performed during the festival, including the maypole dance are meant to celebrate nature’s fertility and aide it in securing the town with good harvests and crops for the season.

Each participant holds a string that is attached to the top of the maypole, when the music begins, half of them walk clockwise around the pole, while the other half walk anti-clockwise and each person alternates between weaving over or under the person who is coming towards them. As the tempo picks up, they begin to skip and jog in time to the music. This continues as their strings become more tightly woven around the maypole. Eventually, the pole is completely covered by the strings and the participants have nothing left to hold on to. At this point they tie up the ends of the strings and everyone, including the observers, gather around the pole in celebration.

The two main objects in the ritual appear to be the strings and the maypole. As I previously mentioned, the maypole is said to represent the sacred tree, but it was more difficult to understand the intended purpose of the strings. When I visited a website run by the Dracona Witchery Network, their explanation of the maypole dance was quite different and it turns out that the maypole dance also has another meaning. According to this source, the maypole represents the male principle and the ribbons symbolize the female principle wrapping around the male phallus. They claim that the dance around the maypole is meant to symbolize the Divine Marriage, the sexual union between God and Goddess.[3] In this perspective, the maypole does not only represent the awakening of nature’s fertility, but also the fertility between a man and woman. It appears that the maypole has two symbolic meanings rather than one, but the overarching concept behind this ritual is fertility.

Maypoles were commonly placed in the centre square of villages across Britain because they were seen as a binding force of the village where everyone would gather and take part in the ritual together. In later years, maypoles were viewed more negatively because of their pagan roots. When Queen Elizabeth I took the throne in Britain, she demanded that all maypoles be removed from villages because they undermined the Protestant faith. 

---

[1] "Dancing Around The Meaning of The May Day Maypole." BlogHer. N.p., 30 Apr. 2008. Web. 04 Mar. 2014

[2] "Dancing the Maypole – A History of Beltane/May Day." Deaf Pagan Crossroads. Wordpress.com, 1 May 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2014.

[3] Genetti, Alexandra. "The Maypole." Earth Witchery. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2014.

The Judith Story, where did it come from?

In my Italian class we have been studying the artistic works of Italian proto-feminists. One of these artists was Artemisia Gentileschi who is famous for her paintings of the Judith Story, her most celebrated painting being “Judith Beheading Holofernes”. I thought it would be interesting to find and read the story that inspired Artemisia and learn more about this particular section of the Bible. Here I will be discussing the Book of Judith, from the Christian Old Testament, particularly chapters 10 and 11.

The author of this text cannot be confirmed. When doing background research, a high priest by the name of Eliachim is sometimes said to be behind it, however, this appears to only be speculation and not fact. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, it can be confirmed that the author lived and wrote in Palestine and that he was a Jew. They claim that it is very likely that the text was originally written in Hebrew, due to certain difficulties that arose when translating particular words to any language other than Hebrew. Scholars believe the author was a Jew not only because the text allegedly written in Hebrew, but they also believe that his knowledge and interests and knowledge of the law (as is presented throughout the text) allows us to make an intelligent judgement that he belonged to the Hasidean (chacidhim) party[1]. Scholars have also made an assumption that due to his knowledge of the neighbourhood, he comes from or lived in the ancient Israeli settlement called Dothan.

Researchers can also make an informed guess on the time period that this text and author come from. They date the Book of Judith to “probably during the Maccabean Age” (approximately 167 – 160 BC) (Orr, 1915). They base much of this assumption by comparing it to the Book of Daniel, which was almost certainly written during the Maccabean period. Both the Book of Judith and the Book of Daniel appear to be prompted by a severe prosecution and aim to encourage the reader to turn to the divine during their darkest hour. I’m not a religious scholar or historian myself, so I will not go into further details, but based on this, scholars seem to see a clear connection between the text and the persecutions that were happening during this particular period of time.

Personally, I find the story of Judith interesting because of how it approaches women and power. The Bible is traditionally said to position women as secondary creatures to men, but in this story, in as far as I was able to read, Judith seems to possess power over her male rival and the guards at the Assyrian camp (Chapter 10 and 11).  For example, one passage reads, “Holofernes and his personal servants were pleased with what Judith had said, and they admired her wisdom. She must be the wisest and most beautiful woman in the world, they commented one to another.” I had previously thought that women of this time were generally seen as irrational beings and so therefore, it’s interesting to see men acknowledging Judith’s wisdom and listening to the military advice she is offering the emperor. 

---

[1] Orr, James. "Entry for 'JUDITH, BOOK OF'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915. Web. Jan 27 2014

.

Book Review: The Church of Scientology by Hugh Urban

Hugh B. Urban’s The Church of Scientology: a History of a New Religion offers a non-judgemental look into the controversial new religious movement, Scientology for those who have little to no previous knowledge of the religion. Urban is aiming to fill the void in scholarly studies on Scientology, which he claims many scholars have avoided due to the repercussions they may encounter from Scientologists for being critical towards their organization. For this reason, Urban is also targeting other religious scholars like himself by expanding the availability of academic research on the subject. Urban’s book provides a historical account of the beginnings of Scientology, from the first publication of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics, to the founding of Scientology as a ‘religion’, and continues in a fairly chronological manner, ending with where Scientology presently stands in society. Furthermore, he looks at Scientology in light of a few main themes. These themes include, how the movement was shaped through the time period and culture that existed in the 1950’s, the idea of secrecy in Scientology and the issues they have faced regarding religious freedom. In addition to these, the major underlying theme of the book is the question, “is Scientology a religion or a profit-orientated organization?” This is explored carefully and without judgement by Urban, who leaves the reader to come to his or her own decision.

Hugh Urban explains that he has chosen to approach this topic because he is not only a historian of religions (teaching a Comparative Region course at Ohio State University), but because he is primarily interested in the question “what is religion?” and wishes to use this book as a means to explore the idea of “which groups do we privilege with the label “religion” and which do we exclude?” and more important, “What are the stakes – legal, financial and political – in laying claim to the status of religion?” furthermore, “What is at risk when government agencies, media, or academics deny a given group such status?”(6).  Urban considers each of these societal concerns by examining the controversial implications surrounding the major theme, “is Scientology a religion or an profit-orientated organization?”

The first two chapters are mainly intended to educate the reader on the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard and how he crafted his invention of Dianetics into one of the most successful NRM’s in the twentieth century. Urban is sure to give Hubbard credit for his successful career, describing him as a charismatic leader and an excellent businessman and entrepreneur. He claims, “Hubbard is perhaps best understood neither as a romantic philosopher-hero nor as a cynical con man; rather, he was an extremely savvy entrepreneur and bricoleur[1] with an unusually keen sense of the spiritual marketplace of 1950's America" (55). In regards to the genuineness of his ‘religion’, this quote also encapsulates much of Urban’s critical discussion throughout the first and second chapters, in which he advances the notion that Hubbard constructed his religion solely based on what the market wanted, the same way that a businessman would craft a company; to perfectly suit the needs of the marketplace by filling a market niche and in order to maximize profit. By describing Hubbard using the term bricoleur, Urban appeals to Hubbard’s own words, in which he claimed to explore and use “anything that worked” in order to create a following behind his movement and “make profit” (55).  Furthermore, he explains how Hubbard had harsh feelings towards religion, especially Christianity, until he realized that he could use it to his own advantage as a means to keep his movement alive. According to Urban, this is what prompted him to take on the “religious angle”, creating the Church of Scientology.  

The first two chapters help the reader consider the major theme, “Is Scientology a religion or a profit-orientated organization?” and precondition the readers’ expectations for the preceding chapters from the idea that Scientology is a strategically crafted religious movement. In the third and fourth chapters, Urban explores the culture of the 1950’s and 1960’s and explains how they also played a role in the crafting of Scientology and the popularity that followed. It is interesting how Urban describes Scientology as “not just a reflection, but the very epitome of American religion during the cold war” (89) and claims that the historical overlap between the two is “hardly accidental.” Urban argues that Scientology is an embodiment of the cold war spirit in terms of its beliefs, practices, organizational structure, and in its obsession with secrecy. Urban see’s a clear parallel between the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union and Scientology’s relationship with the FBI; they were very much afraid of each other. Hubbard became so paranoid that the FBI, CIA and the IRA were spying on his organization that he implemented a new series of intensive audits called “security checks” to ensure there was no disloyalty or criticism towards the church from inside members who could potentially leak information. Urban successfully reasons that this mirrors the sense of secrecy and security that was experienced in the United States during the cold war era.

Hubbard also claimed that Scientology, most specifically, Dianetics was the solution to communism, claiming, “Dianetics was born as a response to the threat of nuclear war” (95). Urban uses this as evidence to show how Hubbard crafted his religion to attend to the needs and interests of his audience, who were, at the time, living in fear of communist threats. These cold war anxieties were also met with the fascination of UFO’s and aliens due to the amount of unidentified phenomena flying around during the 1950’s. Hubbard’s “space opera” stories about the origins of Scientology, such as the Xenu and Xemu story, Urban argues, were crafted to fit perfectly with this UFO fascination and thus, made the organization much more appealing to outsiders at the time. These among other examples given by Urban demonstrate his argument that Scientology was modelled off the cold war and perfectly embodied the post world war II consumer market. Urban does an excellent job of arguing this, especially with the numerous examples he provides that show a clear parallel between Scientology and the cold war. This type of argument that Urban presents is similar to theories discussed in class that answer the question “why do NRM’s emerge?” Specifically, the idea that a number of NRM’s rose in the 1960’s and 1970’s in response to the counterculture movement and sexual revolution that occurred in that time period. It can be observed, for instance, that the Children of God grew in membership by appealing to the corruption of society and the acceptance of hard drugs and sexual liberation in the same way that Scientology appealed to the threat of communism and fascination with UFO’s. Both of these NRM’s were crafted to suit the interests of the market during each respective time periods. 

Urban briefly touches on the theme of secrecy in NRM’s during his discussion of the cold war, however, he looks at secrecy within Scientology at a much deeper level in chapter six. In this chapter, Urban explores the numerous legal battles and aggressive approaches taken by Scientologists against people or organizations that have distributed Scientology’s highly secretive OT materials. There are two sides to the argument of whether or not these publications should be freely available. Scientology argues that based on their freedom of religion and copyrighted material, their secret documents should be left alone. On the opposing side, it is argued that based on the freedom of information act, anyone should have the right to learn and to know what is in these documents. Urban presents both sides of the argument fairly without showing any bias towards either side. However, when discussing the monetary costs that a member must put into the organization before being allowed to see the secretive OT documents, Urban presents an interesting argument in which he claims “this goes against the idea of copyright law, since one must literally buy into the doctrine before one has had a chance to actually read it” (197). This correlates nicely with his earlier arguments where he claims Hubbard was an excellent businessman, motivated by making profit. This type of secrecy within an NRM also can contribute to the insiders and outsiders’ mentality that has been discussed in class. By keeping information highly confidential within an organization that only they can see, members will feel bound to that organization and committed to protecting these secrets from any ‘outsiders’.

The theme of religious freedom, in which chapter five deals with, also brings the reader to Urban’s major theme/question, “is scientology a religion? And if it is, what does that entail?” This chapter deals primarily with Scientology’s struggle to become recognized as a true religion and the advantages that were gained as a result of successfully winning this battle. As mentioned in previous chapters, Urban is highly critical of Hubbard’s reasons for wanting to be recognized as a religion, and although giving a fair representation of both sides, it is apparent that most evidence in his discussion leans to the notion that Hubbard’s “religious angle” approach was primarily profit orientated. His argument is based on the large amounts of money being taken in by the church and Hubbard’s determination to become a tax-exempt organization. Furthermore, Urban states that initially, Hubbard said the religious angle was purely for “legal reasons and church services were minimal to non existent” (163).  However, after the IRS made the decision to revoke their religious status and tax-exemption, Hubbard began to demand “all staff to make certain to display religious paraphernalia of crosses, clerical collars, and Scientology Creed” and made it mandatory to display these visual evidences that Scientology is a religion. This aligns with and supports Urban’s earlier claim that Hubbard would do “whatever worked” to make money.

Upon finally winning the battle to gain religious status, Hubbard used it as a means to avoid government intervention and tax collectors and to attain tax and housing allowances (161). Hubbard also gloated that parliaments do not attack religions and Urban offers many examples within the chapter to demonstrate how Hubbard used his new found ‘religious freedom’ as a means of combating critics by claiming they were bigots and intolerant. Urban uses an example that followed the FBI raids on the church, where Scientologists used their religious status in their defence, claiming the raids to be a “frightening, abusive, and unnecessarily violent intrusion into a spiritual community” (168). Furthermore, they compared the FBI raids to a type of “Nazi Mentality” (168). Urban made a good choice to use this example, because it demonstrates the severity to which Scientologists took advantage of their religious status. Based on the information presented by Urban, it seems very evident that Hubbard was more interested in using his religious status as a means towards different ends, primarily profit, rather than truly wanting the religious title as its own end.

            Overall, Urban’s The Church of Scientology: a History of a New Religion is highly informative to someone like me who is new to Scientology and the depth of research, in particular, primary research is excellent, which makes Urban’s advancements highly persuasive. The main themes that are addressed in this book are interesting and useful in the sense that they can be taken and applied to other NRM’s as well. I do believe that although Urban tried to be very non-judgemental and fair towards Scientology, there is still an obvious bias throughout the book hinting that Hubbard was in fact a profit-orientated businessman and his religion was crafted solely as a means to maximize profit. With that said, it appears to be the case that one argument is just stronger than the other, making this type of bias unavoidable. In all cases, Urban was sure to fairly present both opposing sides, which allowed the reader to see each differing perspective. This was successful because rather than enforcing his own personal beliefs on the reader, we were able to read the facts and from there, come to our own conclusions.

Upon reading this book, I have a much greater understanding of Scientology, its history and where it stands in our society today. I am also much more clear on the different advantages of being defined as a religion as opposed to a secular entity. The advantages are plentiful and it seems as though religious status is something that could easily become exploited by groups, like the Scientologists, who wish to be granted this title. As Urban makes clear, whether or not to grant a group religious status is clearly an impossible decision to make, especially considering there is no set definition of what exactly counts as a religion and what does not. Based on the strong research and evidence presented in this book, I have been persuaded that Hubbard did not believe in his religion and was deep down, a con man that wanted to live the life of the rich and famous. It seemed that he enjoyed the immense success and popularity of his Dianetics publication so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep it in the spotlight and secure his followers, even if this meant lying to and misleading them. This book has also motivated me to investigate further into Urban’s question “How is religion defined and who get’s to define it?”

---

[1]  Bricolage: something constructed or created from a diverse range of available things (Oxford Dictionary, 2013)