Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 66
The interested reader will have to examine, one by one, the 32 Anthony propositions that
fall into this free-will category to satisfy herself that none have succeeded in building this
isomorphism. Here, I will briefly mention one rather silly argument that Anthony relies on
heavily—his misconstruction of my use of the word ―free.‖ I use the term in the economic
sense to refer to the absence of structural costs imposed on an individual by society.
Virtually all of sociology accepts as axiomatic that social systems impose costs on individual
action and thereby constrain this action. Anthony does not seem to grasp that one can
discuss socially imposed constraints without declaring the overthrow of free will.
Legal Standards and Scientific Standards
The last of Anthony‘s errors that I wish to discuss briefly is his imposition of courtroom
standards on scientific discourse. In legal matters, one frequently cites one‘s ―authorities,‖
meaning the research experts that one is relying on for one‘s testimony. Anthony keeps
trying to identify my ―authorities,‖ never realizing that I rely on only three: my eyes, my
ears, and my nose. I do my own research, and I arrive at my theories, for better or worse,
inductively from my own observations. But Anthony will have none of this and instead
scours my citations and references under the erroneous (and sometimes ludicrous)
assumption that he is justified in treating any non-negative citations in my writing as my
―authorities‖ and, therefore, any criticism of the work of these supposed ―authorities‖ as a
successful attack on my own work. For example, Anthony finds that I include in my long list
of references one or two in which Margaret Singer (the writer whom he most loves to hate)
listed among them, acknowledging her prior work on some topic or other quite peripheral to
my argument. But, to Anthony, her very presence among the S‘s in my list of references
constitutes a fatal ―gotcha,‖ proving that Margaret Singer must be one of my authorities and
any discredit to her work successfully undermines my own. This assumption, of course, is
absurd and quite contrary to the norms of scholarly bibliography that encourage scholars to
be as inclusive as possible in their reference citations.
Conclusion
I have indicated only the three most common errors Dick Anthony has committed in
attempting to debunk my work. If my reasoning is correct, it follows that my contention that
the theory I have developed (which I include in the appendix to this paper for your
consideration) has successfully survived Anthony‘s attempt to debunk it. At the very
minimum, any attempt to revive Anthony‘s critique requires that at least one of his ninety-
eight propositions be successfully defended.
A Discussion of All Ninety-Eight Propositions Versus Zablocki Contained in
Chapter Six—Tactical Ambiguity and Brainwashing Formulations: Science
or Pseudoscience?
By Dick Anthony
Introduction: Zablocki’s Brainwashing Formulation
Proposition 1. (Page 215) Zablocki‘s recent brainwashing articles do not report concrete
research but rather attempt to clarify the conceptual outline of the brainwashing idea and to
defend its authentically scientific character.
disputational relevant correct
In fact, many of my books and papers report results of concrete research. In the
Misunderstanding Cults chapter in which I outline my theory, I report on the research that
supports the theory on pages 194-204. Whether or not I can point to research that supports
my theory, however, is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the theory itself.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 67
Proposition 2. (Page 215) I will also focus upon older publications by Zablocki (Zablocki,
1971, 1980), as well as publications by Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe (Ofshe, 1992
Ofshe and Singer, 1986 Singer, 1995 Mitchell, Mitchell, and Ofshe, 1980) and by Steven
Kent (1997), all of which Zablocki claim to be cultic brainwashing publications which provide
the empirical foundation for his more recent articles.
disputational X relevant correct
The reasoning here is that if Anthony can link my theory to theories presented by any of the
scholars whose works I cite in my bibliography, he will have an easier time debunking me.
All he will need to do is debunk the work of any of the people I cite in my bibliography, and
I will be tarnished through guilt by association. The rhetorical device he uses is to speak of
my citations as authorities, a term used in legal briefs and articles. He doesn‘t seem to
understand that, in academia, scholars have many reasons for citing prior works, and that
citation does not imply that these works are the “foundations” for my own, another legal
term that Anthony is fond of using inappropriately in trying to establish guilt by association.
In particular, the fact that I cite Margaret Singer doesn‘t make Margaret Singer‘s theory the
foundation of my own. Therefore, to trot out his earlier successful arguments debunking
Singer and claiming that those arguments must apply to all those who cite Singer as well is
not justifiable.
Proposition 3. (Page 215) In addition, Zablocki claims that his recent brainwashing
articles are based upon the empirical foundation provided by research on Communist
thought reform published in books by Edgar Schein (1961) and Robert Lifton (1961).
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments on Proposition 2.
Proposition 4. (Page 215) Zablocki claims that brainwashing is a valid scientific concept
that has been supported by considerable research both upon Communist coercive
persuasion and upon coercive influence tactics in new religions or cults. (1997, 104-107).
disputational X relevant correct
I point to homologies between my findings in cults and the findings of Lifton and Schein in
prison situations. My theory would stand alone, even if Lifton and Schein had never done
their research. But it is my duty to cite their work both because of its brilliant pioneering
nature and because homologies in influence mechanisms that can be observed between
settings that are as different as religious movements and prison re-education centers are
interesting and intriguing.
Proposition 5. (Page 216) According to Zablocki, the primary ideologically motivated
misinterpretation of the scientific brainwashing concept is that it has to do with illicit
recruitment mechanisms when it is really a concept concerning influence processes which
bring about addictive commitments to world views to which the targets of brainwashing
have already been converted prior to their being brainwashed.
disputational relevant X correct
Here we come to the first correct proposition in Anthony‘s chapter. However, it is merely a
correct description of something I have observed. It is not in disputational form, and it is
not relevant to the question of whether my theory is a valid one.
Proposition 6. (Page 217) a primary burden of his approach would seem to be that he
make good on his claim that his interpretation of this foundational literature of the
brainwashing concept, i.e. Lifton‘s and Schein‘s 1961 books, is different in kind from the
epistemologically spurious version used in legal trials.