(c) With brainwashing as an individual model,
can mass mind control be orchestrated?
(d) How close is science to the possibility of
ultimate control of the mind?
(e) How can a person resist brainwashing
methods?
Whether such studies will clarify or cloud our
understanding of extreme-influence processes
remains to be seen. What is important, however,
is that brainwashing is a concept that is
attracting the attention of a whole new group of
scientific researchers.
Another book brings together substantial
research on more benign aspects of suggestion
and interaction. The Science of Social Influence
(Pratkanis, 2007) and the appearance of the
journal Influence make a good case for the fact
that sufficient psychological research data exists
to support claims that expert testimony on
matters of influence, from the conversational to
the coercive, can meet the legal standards of
admissibility.
Put another way, psychology and sociology have
now produced data-based and theory-tested
explanations of how influence works, or does
not work, depending on the variables that fit
within the SIM. The days when brainwashing
can be called mere rhetoric or an outmoded
piece of political propaganda may be coming to
an end.
Perhaps even more important is the expansion of
interest in influence theory brought about by
recent international events. Cult stories still
arouse some interest in the media, but the
headlines now involve terrorism and
fundamentalism. The old question has returned:
How can ordinary people be turned into
religious/political zealots who engage in suicide
bombings and violent acts of terror against
innocent citizens? The research literature on this
important topic has increased exponentially.
Many government officials are now more
willing to hear from thought-reform experts as
problems in their countries increase due to
extensive and intensive indoctrination with
fundamentalist ideas. In short, unlike in the past,
when belonging to a cultic group might have
been involuntary, but not externally dangerous,
in today’s world there is much to fear unless we
understand and thwart brainwashing.
Other headlines may bode well for the
resurrection of interest in brainwashing and the
understanding of the science behind it. Two
examples immediately come to mind. First, after
several decades of horrific child molestations by
religious leaders, and the cover-ups that have
shielded the full extent of the problem, we now
can talk about the concept known as grooming
(Weber, 2014). Grooming is not relegated just to
child sexual abuse, nor to such abuse by priests.
Studying the gradual process by which innocent
youths are converted into victims enables
researchers to shed light on aspects of the more
comprehensive brainwashing process.
A second, though related, example is human
trafficking, which has become an international
problem and disgrace. Professor Kim (2011) has
articulated many relevant connections between
grooming, undue influence, and situational
coercion. My point is that people who would
have had little reason to talk with each other
previously—the brainwashing specialists, the
terrorism fighters, the child protectors—
suddenly find they have much common ground.
Because the attacks on mental integrity persist
and have become more widespread and
dangerous, we unfortunately seem to have
entered a new era of interest in thought reform
and undue influence. The need for the work that
we do as experts testifying in defense of human
rights is greater than ever.
Conclusion
United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H.
Jackson made a statement that is as true today as
when he wrote it more than 60 years ago:
But we must not forget that in our
country are evangelists and zealots of
many different political, economic and
religious persuasions whose fanatical
conviction is that all thought is divinely
classified into two kinds—that which is
their own and that which is false and
dangerous. (American Communications
Association v. Douds, 1950)
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 79
can mass mind control be orchestrated?
(d) How close is science to the possibility of
ultimate control of the mind?
(e) How can a person resist brainwashing
methods?
Whether such studies will clarify or cloud our
understanding of extreme-influence processes
remains to be seen. What is important, however,
is that brainwashing is a concept that is
attracting the attention of a whole new group of
scientific researchers.
Another book brings together substantial
research on more benign aspects of suggestion
and interaction. The Science of Social Influence
(Pratkanis, 2007) and the appearance of the
journal Influence make a good case for the fact
that sufficient psychological research data exists
to support claims that expert testimony on
matters of influence, from the conversational to
the coercive, can meet the legal standards of
admissibility.
Put another way, psychology and sociology have
now produced data-based and theory-tested
explanations of how influence works, or does
not work, depending on the variables that fit
within the SIM. The days when brainwashing
can be called mere rhetoric or an outmoded
piece of political propaganda may be coming to
an end.
Perhaps even more important is the expansion of
interest in influence theory brought about by
recent international events. Cult stories still
arouse some interest in the media, but the
headlines now involve terrorism and
fundamentalism. The old question has returned:
How can ordinary people be turned into
religious/political zealots who engage in suicide
bombings and violent acts of terror against
innocent citizens? The research literature on this
important topic has increased exponentially.
Many government officials are now more
willing to hear from thought-reform experts as
problems in their countries increase due to
extensive and intensive indoctrination with
fundamentalist ideas. In short, unlike in the past,
when belonging to a cultic group might have
been involuntary, but not externally dangerous,
in today’s world there is much to fear unless we
understand and thwart brainwashing.
Other headlines may bode well for the
resurrection of interest in brainwashing and the
understanding of the science behind it. Two
examples immediately come to mind. First, after
several decades of horrific child molestations by
religious leaders, and the cover-ups that have
shielded the full extent of the problem, we now
can talk about the concept known as grooming
(Weber, 2014). Grooming is not relegated just to
child sexual abuse, nor to such abuse by priests.
Studying the gradual process by which innocent
youths are converted into victims enables
researchers to shed light on aspects of the more
comprehensive brainwashing process.
A second, though related, example is human
trafficking, which has become an international
problem and disgrace. Professor Kim (2011) has
articulated many relevant connections between
grooming, undue influence, and situational
coercion. My point is that people who would
have had little reason to talk with each other
previously—the brainwashing specialists, the
terrorism fighters, the child protectors—
suddenly find they have much common ground.
Because the attacks on mental integrity persist
and have become more widespread and
dangerous, we unfortunately seem to have
entered a new era of interest in thought reform
and undue influence. The need for the work that
we do as experts testifying in defense of human
rights is greater than ever.
Conclusion
United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H.
Jackson made a statement that is as true today as
when he wrote it more than 60 years ago:
But we must not forget that in our
country are evangelists and zealots of
many different political, economic and
religious persuasions whose fanatical
conviction is that all thought is divinely
classified into two kinds—that which is
their own and that which is false and
dangerous. (American Communications
Association v. Douds, 1950)
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 79
