Abstract
Scientology has consistently been interpreted by sociologists in terms of rationalization. However, a review of existing studies shows that the meaning attached to this term varies around a central ambiguity summed up as the "iron cage" versus "charisma". The author argues that this ambiguity arises from ambivalence over the public meaning of science in modernity. Through a re-examination of existing accounts of Scientology provided by Wilson, Whitehead, and Wallis, the author offers a revised interpretation that attempts to resolve the ambiguity through emphasizing the socially constructed and rhetorical nature of the public meaning of science. With this, rationalization appears no longer as an external logic dictated by science, but as resource of persuasion that social groups may construct differently on different occasions to suit different specific purposes such as legitimation of their actions and beliefs. Accordingly, NRMs may fruitfully be studied as active attempts to develop an ethics of conduct based in part on interpretations of the public meaning of science.