Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 150
I will only address the most obvious problems I had with the authors‘ treatment of this
topic. I agree that the terms ―brainwashing‖ and ―mind control‖ have been over employed
and used in a simplistic and reductionist manner. However, the authors (and from what I
can tell, a great many others) continue to foster the false notion that ―mind control‖ is an
updated term for a process approaching black magic or ―voodoo.‖ They engage here in
several logical fallacies.
On page 70, the authors state that ―the whole subject of brainwashing as it applies to
religious groups has been debunked by competent scholars and repeated studies. Religious
people do think for themselves.‖ Again, I know of no one who makes the claim that all
religious people do not think for themselves. However, it is equally false to claim that all
people (religious or otherwise) do think for themselves. This is not a black or white issue.
Unlike pregnancy, it is indeed possible to be ―a little bit‖ or partly unduly influenced.
Secondly, there is no single theory of ―mind control,‖ but rather a variety of theories of
undue influence or ―mind control.‖ These theories are far from uniform, but they all agree
on four major points: (1) behavior and beliefs can be influenced and even radically
changed, (2) influence can occur outside awareness (and therefore outside one‘s control),
(3) people are influenced to various degrees due to various factors, and some people seem
more vulnerable than others, and (4) people can be influenced to commit grave acts of
harm. Nobody argues that there are people who seem able to resist ―mind control,‖ or who
voluntarily exit ―mind control cults.‖
Nobody argues that the CIA‘s MK-ULTRA (and related) projects failed to reach their
impossible goals: Develop a perfect, consistent and totally reliable means of breaking
Soviet agents and then convert them into double agents, and create a cadre of “perfect,”
unknowing CIA “sleeper agents” who, if captured by our Soviet counterparts, could never be
broken (or would commit suicide). No such perfect technology was developed. However,
the CIA‘s experiments did succeed in some cases. If we applied the same ―if it doesn‘t work
100% then it isn‘t valid‖ criteria to open heart surgery or antibiotic research, there would be
quite a rise in unnecessary heart failures and deaths from bacterial infections. We all know
these medical procedures are not 100% effective and probably never will be, yet they enjoy
almost universal acceptance as being ―valid.‖
Meanwhile, over half a century of social psychology research has shown that the behavior of
―good‖ people can be drastically reshaped and influenced, as recent events in Abu Ghraib
have sadly reminded us. The behavior of U.S. prison staff was eerily similar to those
reported in Dr. Philip Zimbardo‘s famous prison study at Stanford University 30 years ago.
The concept of ―undue influence‖ has been recognized by law for centuries. Our own
government seems to recognize that something akin to brainwashing occurs in Al Qaeda
training camps and, more frightening, certain Islamic schools.
My own experience in discussions with staff and leaders of ―cultic groups,‖ is that they
readily recognize the existence of ―mind control‖ when it is purportedly practiced by
psychiatrists, psychologists, exit-counselors, and so-called deprogrammers. The authors of
TCATC ignore the serious issues raised by these studies in favor of a gross generalization
that all cult critics continue to buy into the Singer-Ofshe model of ―mind control.‖ There
have always been critics who questioned all or parts of this model (including me), and there
have been revised theories that have incorporated the findings of more recent social
psychological studies. Hopefully, since Ms. O‘Meara has attended AFF conferences, she has
had some exposure to theories other than the Singer-Ofshe model, and will modify her
blanket statement about the ―hoax of brainwashing‖ in a second edition of TCATC.
I will only address the most obvious problems I had with the authors‘ treatment of this
topic. I agree that the terms ―brainwashing‖ and ―mind control‖ have been over employed
and used in a simplistic and reductionist manner. However, the authors (and from what I
can tell, a great many others) continue to foster the false notion that ―mind control‖ is an
updated term for a process approaching black magic or ―voodoo.‖ They engage here in
several logical fallacies.
On page 70, the authors state that ―the whole subject of brainwashing as it applies to
religious groups has been debunked by competent scholars and repeated studies. Religious
people do think for themselves.‖ Again, I know of no one who makes the claim that all
religious people do not think for themselves. However, it is equally false to claim that all
people (religious or otherwise) do think for themselves. This is not a black or white issue.
Unlike pregnancy, it is indeed possible to be ―a little bit‖ or partly unduly influenced.
Secondly, there is no single theory of ―mind control,‖ but rather a variety of theories of
undue influence or ―mind control.‖ These theories are far from uniform, but they all agree
on four major points: (1) behavior and beliefs can be influenced and even radically
changed, (2) influence can occur outside awareness (and therefore outside one‘s control),
(3) people are influenced to various degrees due to various factors, and some people seem
more vulnerable than others, and (4) people can be influenced to commit grave acts of
harm. Nobody argues that there are people who seem able to resist ―mind control,‖ or who
voluntarily exit ―mind control cults.‖
Nobody argues that the CIA‘s MK-ULTRA (and related) projects failed to reach their
impossible goals: Develop a perfect, consistent and totally reliable means of breaking
Soviet agents and then convert them into double agents, and create a cadre of “perfect,”
unknowing CIA “sleeper agents” who, if captured by our Soviet counterparts, could never be
broken (or would commit suicide). No such perfect technology was developed. However,
the CIA‘s experiments did succeed in some cases. If we applied the same ―if it doesn‘t work
100% then it isn‘t valid‖ criteria to open heart surgery or antibiotic research, there would be
quite a rise in unnecessary heart failures and deaths from bacterial infections. We all know
these medical procedures are not 100% effective and probably never will be, yet they enjoy
almost universal acceptance as being ―valid.‖
Meanwhile, over half a century of social psychology research has shown that the behavior of
―good‖ people can be drastically reshaped and influenced, as recent events in Abu Ghraib
have sadly reminded us. The behavior of U.S. prison staff was eerily similar to those
reported in Dr. Philip Zimbardo‘s famous prison study at Stanford University 30 years ago.
The concept of ―undue influence‖ has been recognized by law for centuries. Our own
government seems to recognize that something akin to brainwashing occurs in Al Qaeda
training camps and, more frightening, certain Islamic schools.
My own experience in discussions with staff and leaders of ―cultic groups,‖ is that they
readily recognize the existence of ―mind control‖ when it is purportedly practiced by
psychiatrists, psychologists, exit-counselors, and so-called deprogrammers. The authors of
TCATC ignore the serious issues raised by these studies in favor of a gross generalization
that all cult critics continue to buy into the Singer-Ofshe model of ―mind control.‖ There
have always been critics who questioned all or parts of this model (including me), and there
have been revised theories that have incorporated the findings of more recent social
psychological studies. Hopefully, since Ms. O‘Meara has attended AFF conferences, she has
had some exposure to theories other than the Singer-Ofshe model, and will modify her
blanket statement about the ―hoax of brainwashing‖ in a second edition of TCATC.
