Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 206
Reflections on Falun Gong and the Chinese Government
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Editor, Cultic Studies Review
Abstract
The Chinese government has been harshly criticized for its treatment of Falun
Gong members. The government and some western family members of Falun
Gong practitioners say that Falun Gong has harmed thousands of citizens and
poses a threat to public order. Passion is so high on both sides of this
controversy that an objective evaluation is difficult to make. This paper
approaches the controversy by asking questions directed at the Falun Gong
organization and the Chinese government in the hope that the answers might
contribute to a productive dialogue.
The articles by Rosedale (2003a), Rahn (2003), and Luo (2003) and the comment with
reply by Robbins (2003) and Rosedale (2003b), respectively, underscore how difficult it is to
arrive at a balanced and informed perspective on the conflict between the Chinese
government and the Falun Gong movement. This difficulty was further underlined by two
sessions at AFF‘s June 2003 conference, one in which a Falun Gong member and two critics
presented and one in which a spirited discussion, involving panelists and audience members
(including about half-dozen Falun Gong members) continued nearly two hours beyond the
allotted 90 minutes.
Falun Gong members are passionate in their criticisms of the Chinese government and have
compiled impressive documentation of abuses. Yet many individuals in China, and some
family members of Falun Gong members in the U.S., are equally passionate in their
condemnation of Falun Gong, and they also point to documented abuses, medical neglect in
particular.
The high level of passion in this area makes it difficult to assess the controversy objectively.
Doing so requires a deep appreciation of Chinese culture and accurate, reliable information
about what is really going on in China. Few of us possess the former and quite possibly
none of us knows all the vital facts concerning the contemporary scene vis a vis Falun Gong.
It seems to me, then, that we should approach the subject in a spirit of dialogue, rather
than ideology or cultural egocentrism. We certainly can have and should share opinions.
However, let us not hang on to our views so firmly that they become incorrigible. With this
caveat in mind, I wish in this paper to share my reflections on the following questions:
1. What prejudices can interfere with our attempts to seek a balanced and informed
perspective on the conflict?
2. To what extent has Falun Gong harmed Chinese individuals, families, and society?
3. How much of a threat does Falun Gong pose to the stability of the Chinese
government and how should the government respond?
Cleaning the Lens of Our Prejudices
I here use the term ―prejudice‖ in the sense of ―any preconceived opinion or feeling, either
favorable or unfavorable‖ (Random House Webster‘s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition,
2001). Several kinds of prejudices can distort our thinking on the conflict between China
and Falun Gong.
China is a Gulag
Many people perceive China to be such a heavy-handed totalitarian state that to live in
China is tantamount to living in a gulag. This view fosters a presumption of deception

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 207
toward the Chinese government: Whatever the government says must be a lie, and
whatever the government‘s enemies say about it must be true.
Certainly, China is still a long way from being as open, tolerant, and free as the United
States and other democracies. But is it so bad as to warrant a presumption of deception?
Economically, China has made remarkable strides in recent years, progress that could not
have occurred without an increased level of political freedom and respect for the rule of law.
Although the Tiananmen Square episode remains a vivid memory for most who watched it
unfold on television, the recent peaceful protest marches in Hong Kong suggest to some
that Hong Kong may accelerate China‘s movement toward greater freedom, rather than
have its own freedom suppressed by the Chinese government.
Now, let me not be misunderstood. I am not saying that China is a ―worker‘s paradise‖!
Political freedom, however, does indeed appear to be increasing, even if not as rapidly as
many want. Nonetheless, there are still many human rights problems. A number of
independent agencies support Dr. Robbins‘ assertion that some adherents of Falun Gong
and other religious groups are indeed brutally targeted by the government (e.g., Chinese
crackdown on religion, 2001, 13 December U.N. human rights boss blasts China, 2000, 29
February Up to 1200 temples destroyed in Chinese Crackdown, 2000, 13 December).
The Chinese government can surely be criticized. But that does not mean that the
government‘s claims, or claims by people in mental health agencies, for example, must
always be contradicted. We should approach their allegations with skepticism, not a
presumption of deception. And we should hope that China continues its movement toward
political transparency, the need for which became acutely clear during the SARS epidemic.
Otherwise, we run the risk of falling into an ideological hole in which we automatically
assume that allegations 1, 2, 3 ….n are all false simply because they are made by people
working for or dependent upon the government. Let us look at the claims skeptically, but
also individually.
Cults are Good
Where some approach China with a presumption of deception, others approach cults with a
presumption of benevolence (I here use ―cult‖ in the more general sense of a charismatic
group, not the pejorative sense). Cult members mean what they say, and since what they
say is almost always warm and fuzzy, cults must be good. Falun Gong members say that
the movement is about truth, compassion, and forbearance. Since no sensible person
opposes these aspirations, Falun Gong must be ―good,‖ if one accepts its claims uncritically.
Ironically, some who seem inclined toward a presumption of benevolence with regard to
cults and cult members demonstrate a presumption of deception when those very same cult
members become ex-members and say bad things about their former groups. They are
now said to be apostates telling ―atrocity tales‖ that are motivated by sour grapes and a
desire to save face.
The presumption of benevolence transforms into a presumption of persecution when a cultic
movement commits violent acts. Why do ―good‖ groups do ―bad‖ things? The simplistic
answer some offer is that ―bad‖ people, ―bad‖ movements, or ―bad‖ governments persecute
the groups unjustly and ―drive‖ them to violence. Of course, there is an element of truth to
this assertion, for sociology has a rich literature on deviance amplification. An element of
truth, however, isn‘t the whole truth, and we should eschew simplistic interpretations.
Cults are Bad
The same mentality, but pointing in the opposite direction, can be found among some cult
critics. If a religious group is new, out of the mainstream, and centered on a charismatic
leader, it must be a cult and ipso facto must be bad. Nothing group members say can be