Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 24
that the cult world was a lot more complex than the once dominant Moonie model implied.
Moreover, most of the people attending our conferences hadn‘t been around during the late
70s and early 80s and only knew vaguely, if at all, of the ―cult wars.‖ Thus, changes in the
critical community made it receptive to the dialogue that I hope will continue well into the
future.
Scholarship on “Brainwashing”
Until Ben Zablocki (1997) began to defend the brainwashing notion, the sociological
literature tended to portray ―brainwashing‖ in extreme terms, conflating lay and
professional presentations. Dr. Barker captured the essence of what the sociologists said
we said:
Recruitment that employs deception should, however, be distinguished from
―brainwashing‖ or ―mind control.‖ If people are the victims of mind control,
they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether
or not to join a movement—the decision is made for them. (Barker,
1989/1995, p. 17)
Dr. Barker‘s encapsulation of what she thought ―ACMers‖ said certainly was accurate to a
point, especially for certain vocal laymen, such as Ted Patrick (1977). Dr. Barker did not
quote any ―ACM‖ experts on the definition of ―brainwashing‖ my impression is that
sociologists hardly ever quoted us when they were telling their readers what we said.
Most of the mental health professionals of this era, who preferred to eschew the term
―brainwashing,‖ had views that were more nuanced and interactional than the ―robot‖ view
of ―brainwashing‖ implied in Dr. Barker‘s quote above. Even some of the early writings of
critics, in my opinion, set the stage for, or at least provided some theoretical framework for,
the changes within the critical community that I alluded to above. Let me simply give a few
quotes as examples:
The cults these people belonged to maintain intense allegiance through the
arguments of their ideology, and through social and psychological pressures
and practices that, intentionally or not, amount to conditioning techniques
that constrict attention, limit personal relationships, and devalue reasoning.
(Singer, 1979, January, p. 75)
Clearly, the groups are far from uniform, and what goes on in one may or
may not go on in another. Still, when in the course of research on young
adults and their families over the last four years, I interviewed nearly 300
people who were in or who had come out of such cults, I was struck by
similarities in their accounts. For example, the groups‘ recruitment and
indoctrination procedures seemed to involve highly sophisticated techniques
for inducing behavioral change. (Singer, 1979, January, p. 72)
With respect to a specific susceptibility to conversion, the usual psychiatric
categories do not entirely satisfy and indeed are confusing. A great variety of
persons from the early teens to the 50s, with a wide variety of personality
strengths and weaknesses, have entered these groups. The cults themselves
select a segment of the marketplace and, as with any new enterprise, thrive
only if they develop technical skills to build a core group and maintain internal
congruity. The attempts of many observers to describe salient personality
traits that render converts vulnerable and place them in pathological
categories have been misleading, because they have tended to obscure the
fact of nearly universal susceptibility to sudden change in the general
population. In my studies of more than 60 subjects in all stages of
involvement, about 60% by examination and by history obtained from
that the cult world was a lot more complex than the once dominant Moonie model implied.
Moreover, most of the people attending our conferences hadn‘t been around during the late
70s and early 80s and only knew vaguely, if at all, of the ―cult wars.‖ Thus, changes in the
critical community made it receptive to the dialogue that I hope will continue well into the
future.
Scholarship on “Brainwashing”
Until Ben Zablocki (1997) began to defend the brainwashing notion, the sociological
literature tended to portray ―brainwashing‖ in extreme terms, conflating lay and
professional presentations. Dr. Barker captured the essence of what the sociologists said
we said:
Recruitment that employs deception should, however, be distinguished from
―brainwashing‖ or ―mind control.‖ If people are the victims of mind control,
they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether
or not to join a movement—the decision is made for them. (Barker,
1989/1995, p. 17)
Dr. Barker‘s encapsulation of what she thought ―ACMers‖ said certainly was accurate to a
point, especially for certain vocal laymen, such as Ted Patrick (1977). Dr. Barker did not
quote any ―ACM‖ experts on the definition of ―brainwashing‖ my impression is that
sociologists hardly ever quoted us when they were telling their readers what we said.
Most of the mental health professionals of this era, who preferred to eschew the term
―brainwashing,‖ had views that were more nuanced and interactional than the ―robot‖ view
of ―brainwashing‖ implied in Dr. Barker‘s quote above. Even some of the early writings of
critics, in my opinion, set the stage for, or at least provided some theoretical framework for,
the changes within the critical community that I alluded to above. Let me simply give a few
quotes as examples:
The cults these people belonged to maintain intense allegiance through the
arguments of their ideology, and through social and psychological pressures
and practices that, intentionally or not, amount to conditioning techniques
that constrict attention, limit personal relationships, and devalue reasoning.
(Singer, 1979, January, p. 75)
Clearly, the groups are far from uniform, and what goes on in one may or
may not go on in another. Still, when in the course of research on young
adults and their families over the last four years, I interviewed nearly 300
people who were in or who had come out of such cults, I was struck by
similarities in their accounts. For example, the groups‘ recruitment and
indoctrination procedures seemed to involve highly sophisticated techniques
for inducing behavioral change. (Singer, 1979, January, p. 72)
With respect to a specific susceptibility to conversion, the usual psychiatric
categories do not entirely satisfy and indeed are confusing. A great variety of
persons from the early teens to the 50s, with a wide variety of personality
strengths and weaknesses, have entered these groups. The cults themselves
select a segment of the marketplace and, as with any new enterprise, thrive
only if they develop technical skills to build a core group and maintain internal
congruity. The attempts of many observers to describe salient personality
traits that render converts vulnerable and place them in pathological
categories have been misleading, because they have tended to obscure the
fact of nearly universal susceptibility to sudden change in the general
population. In my studies of more than 60 subjects in all stages of
involvement, about 60% by examination and by history obtained from
