Cults and Rhetorical Analysis

Pictured above is the abandoned entrance to Jonestown—a cult that ended in mass suicide. Photo from Insider's Reuters Staff.

“Vulnerability: The Bait for Cult Leaders” by Kayla Tucker is an award winning Arak Journal article. The winners get their article published in a fancy journal along with what I can only assume is a few other prizes. I ended up reading Tucker’s article solely based on the title. What followed was a shaky argument being held together by a strained pathos. I was not impressed.

While I was analyzing Tucker’s essay, I realized that her points didn’t connect. None of them truly knocked me out of the park as I was reading them. In fact, it was a bit boring. The pathos was good, but that was basically the only good rhetoric I found. Ethos was alright, as Tucker did flaunt a few psychologist and PhD titles from her sources. Her sources, of which, are mostly 1990s studies, which throws any sort of kairos—relevancy—out the window. Her weakest point was her use of logos—logic—because it seemed like she was just kind of stringing the reader along as she went. Her points made after the evidence provided really didn’t hold up well when held up to a critical eye. In fact, she fabricated a controversy when the evidence implied a knowledge gap, not discourse. She said, “These are two vastly different definitions of cults, suggesting the controversy of this subject,” but two vastly different definitions don’t imply any sort of argument. In reality, it seems like these definitions co-exist; there is a gap in knowledge between the people who use either definition. This is most likely due to media coverage, but Tucker doesn’t hone in on this.

Tucker’s inconsistent use of rhetorical techniques just make this essay wobbly to read. I wish she had elaborated on where she was going with the piece instead of just trying to get there.