24 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
“future trajectories of action” (called projectivity
[Emirbayer &Mische, 1998, p. 971]) and make
“practical-evaluative” judgements “among
alternative possible trajectories of action” (called
practical-evaluative [Emirbayer &Mische,
1998, p. 971]). Clearly, however, each of these
elements would be severely curtailed in group or
state brainwashing programs, and the
curtailment would have dramatic implications
for people in them. Moreover, the authors
realized that their “relational” position about
interaction needed adjustment before it was
applicable to “corporate actors such as firms,
states, or other organizational entities”
(Emirbayer &Mische, 1998, p. 974). These
entities “cannot easily be accommodated within
the terms of such a framework unless they are
themselves given theoretical status equivalent to
that of natural persons or selves” (Emirbayer &
Mische, 1998, p. 974, n. 9).
Asserting the centrality of agency, therefore,
would require considerable adjustment before it
would be applicable to organizationally or state-
run brainwashing programs. Preliminary
discussions of agentic resistance to “total-
institution”14 programs have taken place (Flam,
1993: Scott, S., 2010, pp. 214–217 2011, pp. 5,
149, 160, 245), and sociologist Erving Goffman
identified a few of them in his famous 1961
study (Goffman, 1961, pp. 54, 63). He actually
mentioned “brainwashing camps,” which “offer
the inmate an opportunity to live up to a model
of conduct that is at once ideal and staff-
sponsored—a model felt by its advocates to be
in the best interests of the very persons to whom
it is applied” (Goffman, 1961, p. 64). He did not,
however, offer any examples of agentic
resistance to the camps.
Apostate Accounts
Another important and related disagreement in
the debate concerns supporting evidence,
namely the use of former-member (apostate)
14 The classic definition of total institutions comes from Erving
Goffman: “a total institution may be defined as a place of
residence and work where a large number of like-situated
individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable
period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered
round of life” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii).
accounts. A primary source of disagreement is
the veracity of former-member accounts, and
thereby the use of former-member accounts as
empirical evidence for brainwashing. Some
researchers regard former members as valuable
sources of information (Carter 1998 Kent &
Swanson, 2017 Zablocki, 1997, 1998). Former
members are valuable in that they may possess
both insider knowledge and outsider detachment
(Carter, 1998, p. 228). Other researchers,
however, contend that apostates construct
narratives as a means of legitimating social
control measures against the groups in which
they were members (Bromley, 1998b, pp. 19,
23–24, 36–37 Richardson, 1998, pp. 172–173
Wright, 1998, p. 97). Furthermore, former
members attempting to reenter mainstream
institutions may embrace brainwashing claims to
evade responsibility for their involvement in
controversial religions (Anthony, 2001, p. 286
Dawson, 2001, p. 387). Researchers who reject
the validity of apostate accounts tend to rely on
the statements of leaders and current members
(Lalich, 2001, p. 140).
Apostasy may refer to general religious leave-
taking or oppositional leave-taking (Bromley,
1998b, p. 35). Researchers who reject apostate
accounts tend to emphasize apostates as
oppositional leave-takers. For example,
sociologist David Bromley (1998b, p. 36)
defined the apostate role as
...one that occurs in a highly polarized
situation in which an organization
member undertakes a total change of
loyalties by allying with one or more
elements of an oppositional coalition
without the consent or control of the
organization.
Bromley (1998b, p. 37) further raised concern
over the credibility of apostate narratives:
Given the polarized situation and power
imbalance, there is considerable
pressure on individuals exiting in
[s]ubversive organizations to negotiate a
narrative with the oppositional coalition
that offers an acceptable explanation for
participation in the organization and for
now once again reversing loyalties.
“future trajectories of action” (called projectivity
[Emirbayer &Mische, 1998, p. 971]) and make
“practical-evaluative” judgements “among
alternative possible trajectories of action” (called
practical-evaluative [Emirbayer &Mische,
1998, p. 971]). Clearly, however, each of these
elements would be severely curtailed in group or
state brainwashing programs, and the
curtailment would have dramatic implications
for people in them. Moreover, the authors
realized that their “relational” position about
interaction needed adjustment before it was
applicable to “corporate actors such as firms,
states, or other organizational entities”
(Emirbayer &Mische, 1998, p. 974). These
entities “cannot easily be accommodated within
the terms of such a framework unless they are
themselves given theoretical status equivalent to
that of natural persons or selves” (Emirbayer &
Mische, 1998, p. 974, n. 9).
Asserting the centrality of agency, therefore,
would require considerable adjustment before it
would be applicable to organizationally or state-
run brainwashing programs. Preliminary
discussions of agentic resistance to “total-
institution”14 programs have taken place (Flam,
1993: Scott, S., 2010, pp. 214–217 2011, pp. 5,
149, 160, 245), and sociologist Erving Goffman
identified a few of them in his famous 1961
study (Goffman, 1961, pp. 54, 63). He actually
mentioned “brainwashing camps,” which “offer
the inmate an opportunity to live up to a model
of conduct that is at once ideal and staff-
sponsored—a model felt by its advocates to be
in the best interests of the very persons to whom
it is applied” (Goffman, 1961, p. 64). He did not,
however, offer any examples of agentic
resistance to the camps.
Apostate Accounts
Another important and related disagreement in
the debate concerns supporting evidence,
namely the use of former-member (apostate)
14 The classic definition of total institutions comes from Erving
Goffman: “a total institution may be defined as a place of
residence and work where a large number of like-situated
individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable
period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered
round of life” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii).
accounts. A primary source of disagreement is
the veracity of former-member accounts, and
thereby the use of former-member accounts as
empirical evidence for brainwashing. Some
researchers regard former members as valuable
sources of information (Carter 1998 Kent &
Swanson, 2017 Zablocki, 1997, 1998). Former
members are valuable in that they may possess
both insider knowledge and outsider detachment
(Carter, 1998, p. 228). Other researchers,
however, contend that apostates construct
narratives as a means of legitimating social
control measures against the groups in which
they were members (Bromley, 1998b, pp. 19,
23–24, 36–37 Richardson, 1998, pp. 172–173
Wright, 1998, p. 97). Furthermore, former
members attempting to reenter mainstream
institutions may embrace brainwashing claims to
evade responsibility for their involvement in
controversial religions (Anthony, 2001, p. 286
Dawson, 2001, p. 387). Researchers who reject
the validity of apostate accounts tend to rely on
the statements of leaders and current members
(Lalich, 2001, p. 140).
Apostasy may refer to general religious leave-
taking or oppositional leave-taking (Bromley,
1998b, p. 35). Researchers who reject apostate
accounts tend to emphasize apostates as
oppositional leave-takers. For example,
sociologist David Bromley (1998b, p. 36)
defined the apostate role as
...one that occurs in a highly polarized
situation in which an organization
member undertakes a total change of
loyalties by allying with one or more
elements of an oppositional coalition
without the consent or control of the
organization.
Bromley (1998b, p. 37) further raised concern
over the credibility of apostate narratives:
Given the polarized situation and power
imbalance, there is considerable
pressure on individuals exiting in
[s]ubversive organizations to negotiate a
narrative with the oppositional coalition
that offers an acceptable explanation for
participation in the organization and for
now once again reversing loyalties.
