Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 78
Because I correctly state that hypnotism is yet another conjecture that some people have
used to account for charismatic obedience in cults, he rushes to the assumption that the
hypnotism conjecture is part of my own approach.
Proposition 34. (Page 234) Zablocki makes this same fundamental error in support of
this notion that hypnosis and other primitive states of consciousness form the basis for
brainwashed involuntary commitment to religious groups.
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments on Anthony‘s proposition 33.
Exit Costs, Pre-Motives, and Totalitarian Influence: Brainwashing as Exit Costs
[sic] and Absence of Pre-Motives
Proposition 35. (Page 236) The novel feature of Zablocki‘s version of the CIA model,
when compared to previous versions of the cultic brainwashing model, is the surprising
claim that research on thought reform did not demonstrate involuntary conversion of its
victims to a new Communist world view but rather the coercive intensification of
commitment to a Communist world view to which the victims of thought reform were
already committed.
X disputational relevant correct
Anthony‘s obsession with what he calls the ―involuntarism assumption‖ has him thoroughly
confused here, and also in propositions 36 and 37, which stem from the same confusion. I
discuss this confusion on page 176 of my chapter in Misunderstanding Cults, of which I will
quote a relevant excerpt here:
The difference between the state-run institutions that Lifton and Schein studied in
the 1950s and 1960s and the cults that Lifton and others study today is in the
obtaining function not in the retaining function. In the Chinese and Korean
situations, force was used for obtaining and brainwashing was used for retaining. In
cults, charismatic appeal is used for obtaining and brainwashing is used, in some
instances, for retaining.
This distinction seems to be difficult for Anthony to grasp although I have explained it to
him in numerous personal correspondences. I nowhere claim that the prisoners studied in
Chinese and Korean settings were Communists before their incarcerations. The only
coercion involved was in getting them incarcerated in the first place, an element lacking in
cults.
Proposition 36. (Page 236f) Zablocki seems to be saying that Lifton’s and Schein’s
subjects were already Communists prior to thought reform in the sense of already having
joined a Communist organization. He says: ―The target of brainwashing is always an
individual who has already joined the group.‖ (1998, 221).
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments to Proposition 35. In cults, it is individuals who have joined. Individuals
in the Chinese and Korean settings were brought to these institutions through the use of
force. Why is that so hard to understand, and why does it imply that these subjects joined
the Communist Party prior to their incarcerations?
Proposition 37. (Page 238) Zablocki‘s insistence that brainwashing consists of coercive
change in level of commitment to totalistic ideology, rather than coercive conversion to
totalistic ideology in the first place, is all the more puzzling when other passages are taken
into account in which he seems clearly to define brainwashing as coercive conversion to a
new world view.
Because I correctly state that hypnotism is yet another conjecture that some people have
used to account for charismatic obedience in cults, he rushes to the assumption that the
hypnotism conjecture is part of my own approach.
Proposition 34. (Page 234) Zablocki makes this same fundamental error in support of
this notion that hypnosis and other primitive states of consciousness form the basis for
brainwashed involuntary commitment to religious groups.
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments on Anthony‘s proposition 33.
Exit Costs, Pre-Motives, and Totalitarian Influence: Brainwashing as Exit Costs
[sic] and Absence of Pre-Motives
Proposition 35. (Page 236) The novel feature of Zablocki‘s version of the CIA model,
when compared to previous versions of the cultic brainwashing model, is the surprising
claim that research on thought reform did not demonstrate involuntary conversion of its
victims to a new Communist world view but rather the coercive intensification of
commitment to a Communist world view to which the victims of thought reform were
already committed.
X disputational relevant correct
Anthony‘s obsession with what he calls the ―involuntarism assumption‖ has him thoroughly
confused here, and also in propositions 36 and 37, which stem from the same confusion. I
discuss this confusion on page 176 of my chapter in Misunderstanding Cults, of which I will
quote a relevant excerpt here:
The difference between the state-run institutions that Lifton and Schein studied in
the 1950s and 1960s and the cults that Lifton and others study today is in the
obtaining function not in the retaining function. In the Chinese and Korean
situations, force was used for obtaining and brainwashing was used for retaining. In
cults, charismatic appeal is used for obtaining and brainwashing is used, in some
instances, for retaining.
This distinction seems to be difficult for Anthony to grasp although I have explained it to
him in numerous personal correspondences. I nowhere claim that the prisoners studied in
Chinese and Korean settings were Communists before their incarcerations. The only
coercion involved was in getting them incarcerated in the first place, an element lacking in
cults.
Proposition 36. (Page 236f) Zablocki seems to be saying that Lifton’s and Schein’s
subjects were already Communists prior to thought reform in the sense of already having
joined a Communist organization. He says: ―The target of brainwashing is always an
individual who has already joined the group.‖ (1998, 221).
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments to Proposition 35. In cults, it is individuals who have joined. Individuals
in the Chinese and Korean settings were brought to these institutions through the use of
force. Why is that so hard to understand, and why does it imply that these subjects joined
the Communist Party prior to their incarcerations?
Proposition 37. (Page 238) Zablocki‘s insistence that brainwashing consists of coercive
change in level of commitment to totalistic ideology, rather than coercive conversion to
totalistic ideology in the first place, is all the more puzzling when other passages are taken
into account in which he seems clearly to define brainwashing as coercive conversion to a
new world view.
