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.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 79
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments to Proposition 35. My so-called insistence on coercive change at any
point in the process is a fabrication of Anthony‘s. I nowhere posit or claim the existence of
coercive change among cult members. Among prisoners, the only coercion is that involved
in arresting them and imprisoning them.
Proposition 38. (Page 238f) According to Zablocki, brainwashing consists of
overwhelming or irresistible “extrinsic” influence to which the inner qualities of the person
are irrelevant, as opposed to normal ―intrinsic‖ influence, resulting from an interaction
between the inner characteristics of the person and outside influence. The extrinsic
influence character of brainwashing formulations is essential to establish that such influence
is “involuntary.”
X disputational relevant correct
Let‘s ignore the ―overwhelming or irresistible‖ adjectives that Anthony appends to this
proposition because I‘ve already established in my discussion of previous propositions that
there is nothing in my theory that alleges either of these adjectives. Doing that leaves us
with a new and interesting aspect of Anthony‘s argument: his distinction between extrinsic
and intrinsic forms of influence. As an ideal type, the intrinsic/extrinsic dimension of
influence can be analytically useful. Ideal-typically extrinsic forms of influence depend on
sources entirely outside the target person intrinsic forms of influence depend on sources
entirely internal to the target person. My theory of brainwashing models the process as an
extrinsic one. However, there is room for intrinsic factors in terms of differential
vulnerability to brainwashing.
Proposition 39. (Page 240f) He claims to base his brainwashing theory upon research on
minority religions and communes which he conducted and described in earlier books.
Indeed, in his 1980 book, Alienation and Charisma, alienation is one of the two master
concepts (the other being charisma) by which he organizes his data. Thus Zablocki himself
is, in this former guise as the author of these earlier publications, a proponent of what he
now labels the “seekership conjecture” school of new religions scholarship, a theoretical
orientation that he now sees as conflicting with his current brainwashing perspective.
X disputational X relevant correct
This criticism is based on an either/or way of thinking that Anthony wishes to impose on my
scholarship. I find both seekership theory and brainwashing theory useful in studying cult
behavior. There is nothing in either that contradicts the other.
Proposition 40. (Page 241) Zablocki appears to be acknowledging Lifton as a proponent
of the seekership explanation of conversion to new religions, whereas elsewhere he views
Lifton’s work as the primary theoretical foundation for the brainwashing explanation which
he regards as contradictory to the seekership explanation.
X disputational X relevant correct
I do not regard the seekership explanation of cult participation ―as conflicting‖ with the
brainwashing explanation. As I explain in various other writings, seekership and
brainwashing are complementary explanatory tools. Seekership seems better at explaining
some aspects of cult participation, and brainwashing theory seems to better account for
others. I favor an inclusionary approach to the study of cults, one that uses as many
different perspectives as necessary to try to make sense of the observed data. In the article
in which I compared the various perspectives (or conjectures, as I prefer to call them), I
was merely trying to establish that brainwashing is just as plausible and useful as any of the
others. I was not trying to oppose the conjectures as either/or alternatives.