14 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
Contextualizing Debates About Brainwashing Within the Discipline of
Sociology
By Stephen A. Kent and Kelsey Lindquist
University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Abstract
As a discipline, sociology lacks a core of
universally accepted paradigms. Consequently,
noncognitive factors, such as political and
ideological values, influence sociologists’ choice
of research problems and responses to conflicts
between and among theories, which hinders
theory growth. In this article, we examine
aspects of the theoretical debate within
sociology about brainwashing to assess the
possibility of theory growth in the absence of
universally accepted paradigms. We do so by
returning to important debates between
sociologist Benjamin Zablocki and
transpersonal psychologist Dick Anthony, and
also published exchanges between sociologists
Stephen Kent and Lorne Dawson. These debates
reveal imprecision over whether the
brainwashing term refers to a psychological
condition or a social program, and
disagreements over the implications of
brainwashing for controversial sociological
concepts that involve agency versus free-will
restrictions. Imprecision and disagreements
within these debates hinder theoretical growth
involving brainwashing as a useful, scientific,
sociological concept.
In this article, we examine the brainwashing
theory1 debate primarily within sociology, using
1 A basic definition of brainwashing as a social psychological
phenomenon is “the systematic, scientific[,] and coercive
elimination of the individuality of the mind of another” (Scheflin
&Opton, 1978, p. 40). As an organizational program,
brainwashing involves coercive regimens of harsh punishment,
forced self-confessions, social isolation, hard labor, and intense
doctrinal study (see Kent, 2000, p. 9). We are aware that the term’s
first Western appearance was in works published by journalist and
CIA employee Edward Hunter (see Scheflin &Opton, 1978, pp.
15, 86–87), leading some to see it as being “first and foremost an
emotional scare word” (Scheflin &Opton, 1978, p. 23). Hunter,
however, simply used a translation of the Chinese term hsi nao
(“wash brain” [Lifton, 1961, p. 3 see Taylor, 2004, pp. 4–5]).
Berger, Willer, and Zelditch’s (2005) theoretical
research program as a framework for theoretical
growth, to assess the possibility of theoretical
progress within a context of limited consensus.
By doing so, we hope to untangle several thorny
issues that seem to be impeding reasoned
discussion and possible theoretical advancement
of brainwashing as a social scientific (especially
sociological) theory. We begin the article with
an overview of arguments by sociologist
Stephen Cole (b. 1941) and physicist/historical
philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) about
advancement in scientific theory, especially their
discussions about paradigms and core concepts.
We follow these discussions with Berger et al.’s
response to them, then use this exchange as a
framework through which to examine the
conflict within sociology over the scientific
status of brainwashing. In the final section, we
discuss the implications of this analysis of the
concept for theoretical growth in sociology. We
examine literature from both sides of the
brainwashing-theory debate to obtain a current
overview of the argument as it relates to
controversial religions2 that have flourished in
the West after World War II (Kent, 2009).
Going beyond the term’s origins, Kathleen Taylor observed that
“as brainwashing became more popular it became more
academically disreputable, perhaps in part because of its highly
political origins. But in the early 1950s academic psychologists
and psychiatrists were still prepared to associate themselves with
brainwashing research, resulting in a flurry of studies on Korean
prisoners of war” (Taylor, 2004, p. 269, n. 3).
2 Scholars who use the term new religious movement tend to have a
positive disposition toward the group, whereas scholars with a
more critical stance tend to use the term cult (for further
explanation, see Zablocki &Robbins, 2001, p. 5). The purpose of
this article is not to evaluate the accuracy of these terms, but rather
to examine the ways in which the scholars attempt to resolve
theoretical conflicts. Therefore, whenever possible, we use the
term controversial religions in this article to reflect a neutral
approach.

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 15
Overview of the Debate Over Theory and
the Sociology of Knowledge
Determining the extent to which social processes
influence the construction of sociological
knowledge is an overarching theme in the
ongoing debate over the state of sociology (Best,
2003 Cole, 2001a, pp. 9–10 Keith &Ender,
2004 Turner, 2006). Central to the debate is the
argument that sociology has become too
ideological (i.e., more influenced by “personal
experiences and values” [Cole, 2001b, p. 56]
than by empiricism, theory development, and
theory testing). Critics concerned with the state
of the discipline argue that ideology, power,
authority, and other social processes, rather than
evidence from the empirical world, influence
sociologists’ understanding of human behavior
(Cole, 2001a, pp. 8–13 see Smith, 2014). For
example, sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset
(2001, p. 247) attributed the “parlous” state of
sociology to the increasing politicization of the
discipline (see also Huber, 2001, pp. 299–300,
305). Joel Best went so far as to claim that
critics charge sociology with being “just
ideology, only thinly and disingenuously
disguised as science, that is the domain of ‘knee-
jerk liberals’ and irresponsible radicals who
would coddle criminals while blaming society”
(Best, 2003, p. 2).
A related concern is the problem of progress and
consensus (Cole, 2001a, pp. 13–20). Sociologist
Stephen Cole (2001b) argued that sociology
lacks a developed core of agreed-upon
knowledge.3 Many others concur (see Davis
2001 Huber 2001, pp. 301–302 Stinchcombe,
2001, p. 95). For example, a review of
introductory textbooks in sociology concluded
“sociology, at least at the introductory level,
does not appear to be widely grounded in a
common language of core concepts, in either the
1940s or the 1990s” (Keith &Ender, 2004, p.
28). Subsequently, respected theorist Jonathan
3 Unlike sociology, the natural sciences have core knowledge.
Examples of core knowledge in the natural sciences include the
Weinberg, Salam and Glashow theory of weak interactions
(physics), the Watson, and Crick model of DNA (molecular
biology), and Darwin’s theory of evolution (evolutionary biology)
(Cole, 2001b, p. 37).
Turner concluded, “sociology is not
symbolically unified. Its symbolic resource base
is fractured and cannot serve to integrate
sociology” (Turner, 2006, p. 25).
In the absence of core knowledge, political and
social processes have great significance. Power
within the discipline, rather than contributions to
the core, determines intellectual authority in
sociology. Thus, without core knowledge,
disagreeing sociologists engage in political
fighting (Cole, 2001a, pp. 29–30). Cole (2001a,
pp. 29–30) stated that sociologists “fight and
war among each other with the spoils going to
the most powerful (the extent to which
someone’s ideas are right or wrong has no
bearing on the battle).” Indeed, reported Joel
Best, “the history of American sociology is, in
part, a story of competition for social standing in
the discipline” (Best, 2003, p. 5).
Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) argued that a
discipline’s progress is dependent on core
knowledge. Core knowledge (similar to Thomas
Kuhn’s [2012, pp. 43–51] concept of paradigm)
provides the foundation for the development of
science. With core knowledge, researchers know
which unsolved problems are solvable.4 Without
core knowledge, researchers select topics on
personal and ideological grounds,5 which leads
to “undoable” 6 projects (Cole, 2001b, p. 53).
4 “Solvable” problems are puzzles, the answers to which utilize
theoretically collected data related to a core disciplinary issue. A
solvable research investigation might involve validity and
reliability analyses of researchers’ use of the brainwashing concept
in relation to social-manipulation programs in an effort to
determine the concept’s scientific rigor. An unsolvable research
investigation would involve an attempt to determine a universally
accepted moral or ethical position on these programs. As
psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton observed, “it is important to realize
that what we see as a set of coercive maneuvers, the Chinese
Communists view as a morally uplifting, harmonizing, and
scientifically therapeutic experience” (Lifton, 1961, p. 15 [italics
in original] see Taylor, 2004, p. 5).
5 As Cole (2001b, p. 51) clarified, “physicists don’t decide to study
quarks because they have experienced them. Sociologists study
aspects of phenomena which they themselves participate in. The
problem with selecting topics for research based upon
noncognitive [i.e., ideological or personal] criteria is that it reduces
the chances that the results of the research will be important in
answering any significant theoretical questions.”
6 “Doable” research involves investigations using available
techniques and existing theories to examine issues with existing or
discoverable data. A doable research investigation might be the use
of widely used coding techniques to identify how researchers use