Dancing the Hokey-Pokey with Academia; Shifting Meanings, Sensationalized Terms Rupert Till explains his unconventional choice

of the word cult in the first chapter: Lost In Music: Pop Cults and New Religious Movements. What makes the word choice interesting is that it IS so unconventional. Till freely admits that no modern religious scholars make use of the word due to the negative connotations cult has acquired during the past several decades. He notes that negativity can be traced primarily to sensationalist media and oppositional Christian groups like the Cultic Studies Association and the Family Action Information and Resource. (Note: did anyone else enjoy the irony of the acronym of that second organization, or just me? F.A.I.R.) Till notes that the phrase New Religious Movement (NRM) replaced the word cult in academic literature because researchers needed a way of identifying emerging religious organizations from established ones and no longer could use the earlier term because of the heavy baggage that the word cult had accumulated, primarily during the sixties and seventies. Throughout chapter one, Till gives examples of this traditional usage from the annals of early sociological literature: Christianity was described as a cult that emerged from Judaism; the Jehovahs Witnesses, a cult that emerged from Christianity. He then goes on to explain how NRM is used to designate such emerging organizations that were previously known only as cults. Till recognizes scholarly usage of the new terms, notes the reasons why cult came into disfavor, and then dances around the old usage and the more modern usage, emerging from the intricate sideways shuffle with his own usage. Ill focus on what Till terms the provocative and deliberative decision to use the word cult later, but first, a brief explanation of why Till considers the choice a solid one: The author spends the majority of this first chapter listing qualities and characteristics of the popular, non-academic, and generic meaning of cult. In each case, he then notes how some popular music movements are similar. He notes the frequent cultic devotion to a single individual and describes how rock gods and heroes are ascribed mythical, semi-divine status by their fans and how they are seen as uniquely gifted; singled out to spread a sacred message. Till notes the similarities between commitment and participation levels between religious cults and music cults, how this entails an expenditure of resources and involves alienation from conservative culture, ones immediate reference group, and from previous generations. The types of activities that devoted followers of music cults engage in is also likened by Till to the socalled brainwashing techniques of religious cults, as are the use of mind-altering legal and illegal substances. On top of these surface similarities, Till notes the pervasive intellectual/emotional impact of music upon the mind and suggests that shadowy and powerful figures are behind the scenes, maximizing these pseudo or implicit religious behaviors towards financial gain (and with implied, less-than-noble purposes). Till recognizes that he is stepping out alone on an unsteady branch in using the word cult, calling the move provocative and deliberate. Provocative because he knows that the word is often used in a pejorative or negative way and that being a member of a cult is often seen as a

bad thing (Till) It is deliberate in that he wants to recontextualize, reconstruct, redefine, redeem and reclaim the word cult and uses it as a joyous affirmation of [popular music scenes and movements] glorious transgression of all those things that those who would use the word negatively hold most dear (Till). While it is clear from this chapter that Tills use of cult is both carefully-made and well thought-out, is it fair to say that it is also provocative? I dont believe so. Using cult does make an interesting point: whereas a NRM simply describes ANY emerging and non-mainstream religious organization, cult suggests a religious organization that is not simply emerging and non-mainstream, but also oppositional to and in rebellion against popular mores. But what about Tills other stated reason for using cult; to transform the way the word itself is understood? In other words, is there much chance that cult can be redefined, recontextualized, etc by Pop Cult: Religion and Popular Music? Is there much likelihood that ANY book can redefine ANY word (especially if that word carries with it the intensely negative connotations as cult does)? Perhaps. A little. (But I doubt it.) What confuses me is this: Till mentions implicit religions, discusses how appropriate they are as a designation for a social group that acts in a religious manner but refuses a religious label, then immediately moves on to another topic. It is as if the author wants to mention a more appropriate label that he probably should be using in his book, but realizes that it isnt very provocative and instead chooses a term that carries more shock value. Till writes that: Implicit religions are those that have all the hallmarks of [traditional] religion, but that may be focused on elements that may be regarded as belonging within the secular realm, or include elements that are not within easily defined boundaries of the sacred and profane.they require a huge level of commitment, extreme seriousness, irrational faith and belief which is instinctive and passionate as much as it is rational and reasoned, ritualized participation and strict codes of practice. (Till) From everything that the author describes, this definition fits the musico-religious aspects of the pop cults that he is describing with near perfection. While I appreciate the reasons Till doesnt chose to refer to these groups as NRMs (because they are most certainly NOT explicit religions), I simply cannot understand why he chooses cult rather than describing them as implicit religious organizations! If he did not want to use the designation of implicit, I would have preferred that Till INVENT a word, rather than attempt to redefine and recontextualize a sensationalist word that has a fuzzy meaning and unclear application. Word count: 1003

Note: References are quoted from an eBook version of Pop Cult: Religion and Popular Music, and therefore, no page numbers are available for in-text citations.