International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 27
In addition, Dawson’s (2001, p. 387) primary
argument against the validity of apostate
accounts concerned the influence that
deprogramming and exit counseling have on
apostates’ brainwashing claims and their
negative posture toward the former group. Kent
(2001b, p. 408) indicated, however, that none of
the former members he interviewed had
undergone deprogramming or exit counselling.
Furthermore, in focusing on the supposed
methodological inadequacies rather than
assessing the evidence, Dawson avoided
evaluating the content of Kent’s theory. Dawson
argued that, given the methodological issues, he
could not verify Kent’s evidence therefore,
...little attempt will be made to
question directly the veracity of the
evidence reported by Kent, derived
largely from media reports, court
documents, religious texts, and
organizational memoranda, and
interviews with ex-members done by
Kent. ...The specific factual claims
Kent makes may or may not be true. I
do not have access to the materials he
uses in order to make my own
assessment. But in some respects it is
not relevant whether or not the facts are
true (Dawson, 2001, p. 380 emphasis
added).
Thus, Dawson’s critique reflects the Kuhn-Cole
argument that, without consensual standards of
assessment, conflicts concern foundation issues
rather than the theory.
Kent’s theory proliferation demonstrates that
theory growth is possible. Dawson’s critique,
however, indicates that a lack of consensual
standards of assessment, in combination with
noncognitive factors, constrains theory growth.
According to Cole (2001b, p. 39), “a field is
making progress if it has a core and is
developing new knowledge which is being
added to the core.” Analysis of the
brainwashing-theory debate reveals that the
researchers involved in it lack consensual
cognitive standards of assessment with which to
resolve theoretical problems.
Noncognitive factors, which have polarized the
researchers into opposing factions, influence
how the researchers respond to theoretical
conflict. Thus, it is unlikely that the researchers
will accept the development of new and possibly
contradictory knowledge. Furthermore, the
grounds on which the researchers dismiss new
knowledge are political and ideological rather
than scientific. Zablocki (1997, p. 106–107)
referred to the dismissal of brainwashing as
“blacklisting,” in that the dominant faction of
researchers seeks to “defame, ridicule, or ignore
the theory and to marginalize its adherents,” as
opposed to refuting the theory on an empirical
basis. Zablocki (1997, p. 97) concluded that “the
majority camp (debunkers of the brainwashing
conjecture) has declared victory and demanded
premature closure to the scientific debate.”
For example, Anthony and Robbins (2004, p.
285) contend that all brainwashing formulations
are essentially modifications of the same core
brainwashing theory, which “has been
conclusively disconfirmed in all of the realms in
which it has been scientifically evaluated.” The
dismissal of brainwashing without scientific
refutation minimizes the valuable potential of
further research. In contrast to this blanket
dismissal, Kent (2008, p. 99) demonstrated that
brainwashing remains applicable “in a wide
variety of legal, political, and social contexts.”
Articles supporting brainwashing, however,
appear in marginalized journals, as opposed to
the leading journals concerning the sociology of
religion (Zablocki, 2001, pp. 168–169).
Conclusion
In response to the Kuhn-Cole argument that
sociological theory cannot progress without
highly developed paradigms, Berger et al.
(2005) argued that theoretical research programs
are sufficient for theoretical progress. Berger et
al. (2005) further argued that sociology already
has many programs, and theory growth is
occurring at the level of theoretical research
programs. Sociology, however, is a diverse and
divided field, encompassing several very
different orienting strategies (Szmatka &Mazur,
1996, p. 267). Consequently, researchers
disagree over methodological directives.
Conflict between communities of researchers,
In addition, Dawson’s (2001, p. 387) primary
argument against the validity of apostate
accounts concerned the influence that
deprogramming and exit counseling have on
apostates’ brainwashing claims and their
negative posture toward the former group. Kent
(2001b, p. 408) indicated, however, that none of
the former members he interviewed had
undergone deprogramming or exit counselling.
Furthermore, in focusing on the supposed
methodological inadequacies rather than
assessing the evidence, Dawson avoided
evaluating the content of Kent’s theory. Dawson
argued that, given the methodological issues, he
could not verify Kent’s evidence therefore,
...little attempt will be made to
question directly the veracity of the
evidence reported by Kent, derived
largely from media reports, court
documents, religious texts, and
organizational memoranda, and
interviews with ex-members done by
Kent. ...The specific factual claims
Kent makes may or may not be true. I
do not have access to the materials he
uses in order to make my own
assessment. But in some respects it is
not relevant whether or not the facts are
true (Dawson, 2001, p. 380 emphasis
added).
Thus, Dawson’s critique reflects the Kuhn-Cole
argument that, without consensual standards of
assessment, conflicts concern foundation issues
rather than the theory.
Kent’s theory proliferation demonstrates that
theory growth is possible. Dawson’s critique,
however, indicates that a lack of consensual
standards of assessment, in combination with
noncognitive factors, constrains theory growth.
According to Cole (2001b, p. 39), “a field is
making progress if it has a core and is
developing new knowledge which is being
added to the core.” Analysis of the
brainwashing-theory debate reveals that the
researchers involved in it lack consensual
cognitive standards of assessment with which to
resolve theoretical problems.
Noncognitive factors, which have polarized the
researchers into opposing factions, influence
how the researchers respond to theoretical
conflict. Thus, it is unlikely that the researchers
will accept the development of new and possibly
contradictory knowledge. Furthermore, the
grounds on which the researchers dismiss new
knowledge are political and ideological rather
than scientific. Zablocki (1997, p. 106–107)
referred to the dismissal of brainwashing as
“blacklisting,” in that the dominant faction of
researchers seeks to “defame, ridicule, or ignore
the theory and to marginalize its adherents,” as
opposed to refuting the theory on an empirical
basis. Zablocki (1997, p. 97) concluded that “the
majority camp (debunkers of the brainwashing
conjecture) has declared victory and demanded
premature closure to the scientific debate.”
For example, Anthony and Robbins (2004, p.
285) contend that all brainwashing formulations
are essentially modifications of the same core
brainwashing theory, which “has been
conclusively disconfirmed in all of the realms in
which it has been scientifically evaluated.” The
dismissal of brainwashing without scientific
refutation minimizes the valuable potential of
further research. In contrast to this blanket
dismissal, Kent (2008, p. 99) demonstrated that
brainwashing remains applicable “in a wide
variety of legal, political, and social contexts.”
Articles supporting brainwashing, however,
appear in marginalized journals, as opposed to
the leading journals concerning the sociology of
religion (Zablocki, 2001, pp. 168–169).
Conclusion
In response to the Kuhn-Cole argument that
sociological theory cannot progress without
highly developed paradigms, Berger et al.
(2005) argued that theoretical research programs
are sufficient for theoretical progress. Berger et
al. (2005) further argued that sociology already
has many programs, and theory growth is
occurring at the level of theoretical research
programs. Sociology, however, is a diverse and
divided field, encompassing several very
different orienting strategies (Szmatka &Mazur,
1996, p. 267). Consequently, researchers
disagree over methodological directives.
Conflict between communities of researchers,
