Citation

Shinn LD. Sociol. Relig. 1992; 53(3): 273-285.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1992, Association for the Sociology of Religion)

DOI

10.2307/3711704

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Scholars of religious traditions and behaviors recognize the multiple interpretations that can be given to any religious group, symbol, or action. Students of New Religious Movements in particular are aware of the myriad ways such groups behave as they organize themselves in ever-changing social and institutional structures. How then are scholars who are aware of the conflicting information or nuances of interpretations of NRMs to answer when placed in the role of an expert witness in a court of law where the process is adversarial and the issues are reduced to absolutist black and white portraits and the answers demanded are yes or no? In a broader sense, how should scholars react to public questions about the cults from parents, the media, or anti-cultists that would require divulging negative information often discovered in the confidence of research relationships? These and other such ethical questions are addressed in this essay with examples taken from eight years of research among the Hare Krishnas in America and three instances of serving as an expert witness in cult trials. One important conclusion reached is that it is important who gets to define what is a religion or authentic conversion and that academic experts may well contribute to the absolutism of the courtroom in their close adherence to single modes of explanation of religious behavior.