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
(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
