Dianetics was unveiled to the public in the May 1950 edition of Astounding Science Fiction . Dianetics was the brainchild of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, and became the foundation for scientology toward the end of the decade. Dianetics was marketed as a “scientific” method for mental improvement—a robust alternative to conventional psychiatry—and was strongly debated in science fiction (sf) magazines. This article follows the trajectory of this cultural phenomenon from 1949 to 1999 as it appeared in this form of popular culture. A proximal reading method was applied to analyze 4,431 magazines, and identified 389 references to dianetics and scientology. References were found in advertising, reader letters, stories, feature articles, and editorials. Significant fluctuations in the prominence and perception of dianetics became clearly visible in the source material across a broad spectrum of content. Negative criticism was present from the outset, and based on logical and scientific arguments. This was countered by obfuscation, or attacks on the authors of these critiques. The followers and promoters of dianetics did not provide scientifically rigorous proof of their claims, and by the mid-1980s, dianetics and scientology were no longer serious topics in the magazines but had been added to other fads and fallacies of sf history. This article demonstrates the effectiveness of a digital humanities proximal reading method to underpin objective classification and analysis of this culturally significant phenomenon.

Threats, Scorn, and Litigation Some commentary on dianetics and scientology provoked litigious responses—direct or implied. In August 1970, Ted White (editor of Fantastic) published an editorial on the murder of Sharon Tate, in which he implied Charles Manson was a fan of Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, and a devotee of scientology—White’s comments were likely informed by an identical statement in Satan’s Slaves by James Moffatt, published under the pseudonym of James Taylor (Taylor, 1970). White’s editorial received an ad hominem attack from the well-lettered “Rev. Dr. C.E. Deckard, BS, DD, PhD,” which White published, and responded to, in the December 1970 issue of Fantastic—adding a defense of Barry Malzberg, who had clashed with the scientologists in November. Deckard attacked White personally, adopting a disparaging tone of higher moral authority: Frankly, I was astounded by such frothings masquerading as responsible editorial comment. I suppose charitably charging your babbling to your, evident, extreme youth would be the Christian thing to do, and I would do so if it were not for the fact that your vituperation was given national circulation through your magazine. However, someone must call you to account for your irresponsibility. To take your mouthings in the order in which they appeared . . . (Deckard, 1970, p. 129) Barry Malzberg’s critical article “Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science” in the November 1970 issue of Amazing had included a fresh suggestion that eugenics was a natural consequence of Hubbard’s statements about dianetics: “Hubbard notes, that as the result of the introduction of Dianetic therapy, some one-fourth of the human race will shortly become dominant over the remaining three-fourths, and thus control the destiny of the globe” (Malzberg, 1970, p. 127). Fortunately, Malzberg noted, perhaps with some degree of skepticism, “the fact that this master race will show far more compassion than could be otherwise expected, will avoid the possibility of genocide of non-clears” (p. 127). Following this, in March 1971, however, Malzberg wrote an apologetic letter saying, “It has come to my attention that an attorney claiming to represent the alleged interviewer in the introductory scientology film mentioned in my November 1970 article . . . has stated that I have libelled his client” (Malzberg, 1971, p. 129). Malzberg’s letter was printed with a lengthy rebuttal of his original article by the “Deputy Guardian for the U.S. Churches of scientology,” who stated, “In a field as retarded as human science, the emergence of a method to restore conclusively the tremendous power of true sanity is predictably subject to rejection before inspection” (Thomas, 1971, p. 104). A letter, from dianeticist J. E. Stewart, printed in the same issue managed to include all the techniques commonly used to defend dianetics—the conspiracy theory that the establishment was suppressing dianetics: The substance of the letter I received [from John. W. Campbell] was that dianetics had been fairly successfully treating psychosomatic illnesses and that the AMA [American Medical Association] stepped in and stopped them, that Hubbard was infringing on the Medical Profession. (Stewart, 1971, p. 122) And, moreover, that A. E. Van Vogt was a practitioner “of overpowering integrity” (Stewart, 1971, p. 122). He also reversed the burden of scientific proof: “no outsiders have ever proved it not to be a science,” as well as hinting at a media conspiracy: “Twenty years is a long time [for Van Vogt] to be interested in something in which mass-media magazines have insisted is entirely without scientific basis” (p. 123). Ted White, the editor, commented wryly on the response: “Apparently Barry’s article angered the Scientologists considerably” (p. 123). A review of Satan’s Slaves in Oz magazine that year inspired a rebuttal from the Church of scientology (Neville, 1971; Parselle, 1971), which referred to litigation against the publishers of Satan’s Slaves. Later, in a 1976 article, Malzberg became more circumspect, reporting secondhand the doubts author Alfred Bester had expressed regarding John W. Campbell’s enthusiastic embracing of dianetics, rather than making another direct critique of his own (Malzberg, 1976). L. Sprague de Camp later warned of these widespread, aggressive, and litigious practices of the scientologists in El-Ron of the City of Brass: More than one author has complained of harassment from outraged Scientologists by abusive letters and threatening telephone calls . . . While, so far as I know, none of these suits has ever come to trial they effectively discourage the publication of views unsympathetic to Hubbard and his followers. (Sprague de Camp, 1975, pp. 64-65) There was a pattern in the magazines of the followers of dianetics employing ad hominem arguments, evading the burden of scientific proof and threatening legal action against critical opposition. Governments concerned about dianetics advocacy and practices have carried out their own due process, also often confrontational. Scientologists were finally granted payroll tax exemption in 1983 in Australia, following a series of state judgments and legal arguments. The rationale for this did not flatter Hubbard: charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers. (Mason, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan, & Deane, 1983) In France, scientologists were accused of defrauding French citizens (Bitterman, 2009), significant issues were raised in Germany (Moseley, 1997), and the church of scientology has pursued extensive litigation to achieve charitable status as a religion in a number of countries (Carobene, 2014; Richardson, 2009).

Conclusion References to dianetics and scientology in the pages of sf magazines are not easily distinguished from those concerning pseudo-science and fads in general. John W. Campbell provided an initially positive platform in the pages of Astounding, but dianetics was subjected to immediate criticism in competitor magazines. Rational argument for independent scientific evaluation of dianetics was countered by rhetoric, which attacked or discredited critics, but implied, and actual, threats of litigation were not numerous during this period. Size and frequency of dianetics and scientology advertising fluctuated: Advertising changed cyclically from 1950 to 1984, when it ceased to appear in our sample corpus. There was a noticeable trend that might be associated with a resurgence of the scientology brand in the mid-1970s, and although it is beyond the scope of this article, parallel investigations of causes for such variations may be suitable subjects for further study. Almost immediately after being revealed in ASF, dianetics became the subject of critical appraisal and analysis, parody, and satire, and there was no evidence that it was considered significant by readers and editors after the late 1950s. Soon after it emerged in the sf magazines, dianetics came to be considered irrelevant, rather than revolutionary. In later magazine issues, retrospectives attributed its emergence to an unsophisticated period when sf included many esoteric interests, such as the Heironymous Machine and the Shaver Mysteries—as one of many naïve beliefs, fads, cults, and deceptions promulgated in the history of sf. The debate regarding dianetics and scientology revealed in the pages of the magazines is of particular significance considering the persistence of scientology to this day, despite being subject to consistent logical critique, and unmet demands for independently confirmed evidence. This might be explained by the success of scientologists in achieving recognition as a religion. Religions are reliant on faith, rather than empirical and replicable results, and a lack of scientific evidence may simply confirm the validity of scientology as a church, not answerable to demands for scientific proof.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author is the recipient of an Australian Research Training Program Award for his research. ORCID iD

Christopher Benjamin Menadue https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4794-8280