Do you mean "reductive" because you believe they are not a cult?
No, I mean "reductive" because the question "Are JW's a cult?" reduces the Witness experience to matter of semantics. It also makes it virtually impossible to talk about the Witness experience in ways that are fresh, nuanced, idiosyncratic, etc. If Dianne Wilson takes a huge chunk of her personal experience and directs it at the tired old question of whether her former religion is or isn't a cult, she sheds little light on either her experience or her former religion. The semantic game of labelling the Witnesses trivializes and oversimplifies the experience of being a [former] Witness.
I'm not saying that the question of whether the Witnesses are or aren't a cult isn't at all important. It's just that I'd expect a personal narrative to do more. Let me say again that I haven't read Wilson's book, so I don't know whether she's done any of what I'm talking about here.
Dedalus