山达基研究2.0:乌托邦还是机遇?

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Implicit Religion Pub Date : 2021-01-28 DOI:10.1558/IMRE.42092
M. Introvigne
{"title":"山达基研究2.0:乌托邦还是机遇?","authors":"M. Introvigne","doi":"10.1558/IMRE.42092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To explain why my experience of studying Scientology both parallels, and differs from, what other scholars reported in this discussion, I first offer some autobiographical notes on my career as a scholar of new religious movements. Second, I elaborate on the notion of ‘Scientology Studies 2.0;’ i.e., an approach discussing L. Ron Hubbard’s writings on their own merits, rather than focusing on his controversial biography only, and how they inspire the daily life of ordinary Scientologists, quite apart from court cases and sensational media coverage. Third, I mention how a possible dialogue between scholars of different opinions about Scientology is torpedoed by a gatekeeping activity by professional anti-cultists who strive to make this dialogue impossible. In conclusion, I integrate the suggestions offered in this issue by Bernard Doherty with some of my own.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientology Studies 2.0, Utopia or Opportunity?\",\"authors\":\"M. Introvigne\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/IMRE.42092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To explain why my experience of studying Scientology both parallels, and differs from, what other scholars reported in this discussion, I first offer some autobiographical notes on my career as a scholar of new religious movements. Second, I elaborate on the notion of ‘Scientology Studies 2.0;’ i.e., an approach discussing L. Ron Hubbard’s writings on their own merits, rather than focusing on his controversial biography only, and how they inspire the daily life of ordinary Scientologists, quite apart from court cases and sensational media coverage. Third, I mention how a possible dialogue between scholars of different opinions about Scientology is torpedoed by a gatekeeping activity by professional anti-cultists who strive to make this dialogue impossible. In conclusion, I integrate the suggestions offered in this issue by Bernard Doherty with some of my own.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/IMRE.42092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/IMRE.42092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

为了解释为什么我研究山达基的经历与其他学者在这次讨论中所报告的既有相似之处,又有不同之处,我首先提供一些关于我作为新兴宗教运动学者的自传笔记。其次,我详细阐述了“山达基研究2.0”的概念;也就是说,这是一种讨论L.罗恩贺伯特作品本身优点的方法,而不是只关注他有争议的传记,以及它们如何启发普通山达基人的日常生活,而不是法庭案件和耸人听闻的媒体报道。第三,我提到对山达基持不同意见的学者之间可能的对话是如何被专业反邪教分子的把关活动破坏的,他们努力使这种对话不可能。最后,我将伯纳德·多尔蒂在本期中提出的建议与我自己的一些建议结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scientology Studies 2.0, Utopia or Opportunity?
To explain why my experience of studying Scientology both parallels, and differs from, what other scholars reported in this discussion, I first offer some autobiographical notes on my career as a scholar of new religious movements. Second, I elaborate on the notion of ‘Scientology Studies 2.0;’ i.e., an approach discussing L. Ron Hubbard’s writings on their own merits, rather than focusing on his controversial biography only, and how they inspire the daily life of ordinary Scientologists, quite apart from court cases and sensational media coverage. Third, I mention how a possible dialogue between scholars of different opinions about Scientology is torpedoed by a gatekeeping activity by professional anti-cultists who strive to make this dialogue impossible. In conclusion, I integrate the suggestions offered in this issue by Bernard Doherty with some of my own.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Allowing Belief The Intersectional Logic of “Bad Religion” “I Believe in Bees” Does Anyone Sincerely Believe in Science? and Several Other Questions Critical Race and Religion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1