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.
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.
