18 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
consensual within the program). Berger et al.
(2005, p. 150) argued that many theoretical
research programs already exist in contemporary
sociology. Thus, substantial theory growth is
occurring in sociology at the level of theoretical
research programs (Berger et al., 2005, p. 150).
Brainwashing Theory Debate
Berger et al. (2005, p. 148) argued that a
community of scientists who share common
cognitive standards of assessment can resolve
conflicts using agreed-upon procedures of
science without the interference of politics or
ideology. A relatively small community of social
scientists (especially sociologists) study newer,
controversial religions (or cults), so it will be
useful to examine aspects of the debates about
brainwashing in which a few of them are
engaged. In this section, therefore, we examine
the brainwashing theory debate associated with
the academic study of controversial religions to
determine (a) the extent to which noncognitive
factors influence the researchers, and (b) the
ability of the researchers to resolve disputes
using reason and evidence. Given the
controversial nature of the subject matter, the
academic study of these newer and often
marginal religions is a highly polarized area of
study. Sociologists Benjamin Zablocki and
Thomas Robbins (2001, p. x) addressed the
complexities of the phenomena under
investigation:
Cults are a genuine expression of
religious freedom deserving toleration.
At the same time, they are opportunities
for unchecked exploitation of followers
by leaders deserving civic scrutiny. As
fragile new belief systems, they need the
protective cover of benign neglect by
the state. But as religious movements, it
is always possible that a few of them
may turn into potential incubators of
terrorism or other forms of crime and
abuse.
Consequently, a polarization between scholars
concerned with repressive over-regulation of the
group (such as interference in rights to choose,
assemble, and practice a faith) and scholars
concerned with exploitation of individual
members (including a range of human rights
violations) defines the study of controversial,
often cultish, religions (Zablocki &Robbins,
2001, p. x).
The involvement of scholars in litigation relating
to controversial religions reinforces the
polarization (Zablocki &Robbins, 2001, p. 6).
Scholars from both sides of the polarization
testify as expert witnesses in court cases
involving allegations of brainwashing (Zablocki,
1997, p. 100) and related concepts. An
additional source of the polarization is the
collaboration between scholars and the
controversial religions themselves (Kent &
Krebs, 1998a 1998b). Controversial religions
searching for recognition and legitimacy
recognize the value of gaining scholarly support
(Balch &Langdon, 1998, pp. 205–206). Some
controversial religions sponsor scholarly
activities, and some leading scholars in the field
engage with controversial religions as
consultants to lend support in public relations
efforts (Beit-Hallahmi, 2001 Horowitz, 1978).
Scholars have raised concern over the extent to
which their colleagues can remain committed to
objectivity when they are either defending
freedom of religion or combating religious
exploitation (Robbins, 2001, p. 85). A related
concern is the extent to which litigation and
collaborationism further compromise objectivity
(Beit-Hallahmi, 2001 Horowitz, 1978
Zablocki, 1997). According to Robbins (2001, p.
78), scholars can establish “lucrative careers as
‘professional witnesses,’ lobbyists, or expert
consultants to various advocates and entities
embroiled in adversarial processes in law and
government.” Experts frequently engaged in
litigation may develop more extreme claims in
response to the requirements of the legal
situation (Robbins 2001, p. 78). Collaborations
between scholars and controversial religions, in
which the scholars regard the groups as allies
rather than foci of study, compromise the
credibility of the research (Beit-Hallahmi, 2001,
p. 46). Undisclosed financial arrangements
further undermine the credibility of research
findings (Beit-Hallahmi, 2001, p. 49 Zablocki,
1997, pp. 115–116).
In addition to possible compromises of
objectivity regarding controversial issues, Cole

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 19
(2001b, p. 56) argued that, without a universally
accepted core of paradigms, political and social
goals often are more important than cognitive
goals. In addition to career interests, researchers
in the social sciences often have a personal, as
opposed to intellectual, stake in the content of
their research (Cole, 2001b, p. 55). As applied to
the study of controversial religions, social
scientific researchers (or their families or
friends) either may have been or are members of
some of these groups. Moreover, they may have
developed images as representatives of
particular positions on controversial issues
through public sociological stances in the media.
Polarization, therefore, among researchers and
the correlative political and social goals of the
scholars demonstrate that noncognitive criteria
may be influential factors in the brainwashing
theory debate.
In the remainder of this section, we consider the
ability of the researchers involved in the debate
to use reason and evidence to resolve disputes.
According to Berger et al. (2005, p. 148), a
community of scientists within a program is able
to resolve disputes on rational grounds because
the scientists share consensual standards of
assessment. Therefore, we examine the
underlying disagreements of the brainwashing
debate to determine the extent to which the
researchers adhere to consensual standards of
assessment.
Central to the brainwashing debate is the
disagreement over the scientific validity of the
brainwashing concept. Some researchers argue
that brainwashing is a scientifically valid
concept (see Kent, 2000, p. 47 Singer &Addis,
1992 Zablocki, 1997, 1998). Other researchers
regard brainwashing as an ideological weapon
rather than a scientific concept (see Anthony,
2001, p. 289 Dawson, 1998, p. 103 Richardson
&Kilbourne, 1983 Robbins, Anthony, &
McCarthy, 1983, p. 322). Complicating this
debate over the validity of the concept is
confusion over whether debating parties are
discussing brainwashing as a social
psychological state among (presumably) heavily
indoctrinated individuals or as a sociological
program through which leaders attempt to create
compliance and agreement with an imposed
ideology. As David Bromley complained about
the brainwashing debates, it was “unclear
whether ‘brainwashing’ refers to the totalistic
structure of the organization, the process through
which various elements of that structure operate,
the intent of actors implementing those
elements, the impact or state that is created by
the structure/process, or some combination of
the foregoing” (Bromley, 1998a, p. 256). In
essence, brainwashing may exist on social levels
as programs or operative structures within
groups and organizations, but (at least as
permanent transformations) they may fail on
individual levels to indoctrinate according to
group or organizational leaders’ intentions
(Somit, 1968, p. 142). Scholars, therefore, have
to specify to which aspect of brainwashing they
are referring.
Whether researchers assume their discussions
about brainwashing to be on the social
psychological level or the sociological level has
important implications for their scientific
testing. According to Karl Popper (1963,
p. 256),
A system is to be considered as
scientific only if it makes assertions
which may clash with observations and
a system is, in fact tested by attempts to
produce such clashes, that is to say by
attempts to refute it.
Generally, researchers agree that falsifiability
differentiates scientific concepts from
pseudoscientific concepts (see Anthony, 2001, p.
274 Popper, 1959, pp. 34, 40–42 1963, pp. 33–
39 Zablocki, 2001, p. 193 see also Kuhn, 2012,
pp. 145–146 [on verification-falsification]).
Varying interpretations, however, of what
qualifies as falsifiability, and to what extent
brainwashing theories involve either
psychologically or sociologically unfalsifiable
criteria, contribute to the disagreement over the
scientific validity of the brainwashing concept.
Brainwashing and Free Will
At some point, all types of brainwashing
discussions make assumptions about people’s
free will and their agency to make decisions. Not
surprisingly, the issue of free will and its
implications for empirical evaluation figure
prominently in the disagreement over the