|
In Reply to: Re: Zablocki article posted by excog on December 03, 2005 at 13:44:01:
What I've read of his works so far are true to my personal experiences in the cult. When I read Dick Anthony's chapter in Misunderstanding Cults, on the otherhand, I was so outraged at his position that I made copious notes in the margins of almost every page of what is the longest chapter in the book. I did that, even though it was a copy I borrowed from the library, because his analysis of cults is so off that I wanted subsequent readers to know what it is really like to be entangled in a web of deceit, manipulation and indoctrination, and how hard it is to escape such an environment. In those notes, I provided counterpoints to Anthony's arguments based on my personal experience. Of course, Zablocki, with his wealth of knowledge in the field, gives a far more educated, thorough response to Anthony than I ever could. I sure was glad to have subsequently discovered Zablocki's point-by-point rejoinder to Anthony.
A couple months ago I emailed him about an unpublished article of his. However, he never responded to me. After briefly introducing myself I asked him the following:
"To understand why some scholars are completely dismissive of apostate accounts I've been searching for articles on the subject. This morning I came across an article by Michael Langone in C & S, Vol. 1 No. 1, 2001, "The Two "Camps" of Cultic Studies: Time for a Dialogue" in which he refers to an article by you, "The Reliability and Validity of Apostate Accounts in the Study of New Religious Movements." I notice on your website that this article has not yet been published. I am extremely interested in this topic and so am hoping that you might be willing to let me read your article, perhaps by sending it in an email attachment. If that is not possible, are there any other articles on this particular topic that you could point me to? I will continue to search for similar studies, but any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated."
