Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 80
Proposition 41. (Page 250) Unlike the brainwashing paradigm, the totalism theory does
not interpret the contemporary influence situation of the person as the primary cause of his
religious or political choices. This approach is clearly contradictory to Zablocki’s attempt to
explain involuntary religious conversions exclusively on the basis of social influence which is
independent of the pre-existing character of the person who is being influenced.... (For
instance Zablocki states: ...‖the brainwashing model does not focus primarily on
characteristics of the subject. The assumption is that many different kinds of people can,
with enough effort, be brainwashed.‖
X disputational X relevant correct
Again, we must ignore the gratuitous insertion of the term ―involuntary religious
conversion,‖ which I neither state nor imply in my theory. We are then left with the heart of
this proposition: Anthony‘s concern over my statement that ―many different kinds of people
can, with enough effort, be brainwashed.‖ He sees this as making my theory ―contradictory‖
to his theory of totalist influence. But to say that many different kinds of people can be
brainwashed is not to say that all people can be brainwashed. This differentiation is not
merely nitpicking. Indeed, my empirical observations suggest to me that some people are
immune to this sort of persuasion. The investigation of what personal characteristics these
people share is, to me, one of the more fascinating topics on the agenda of the study of
cults or new religious movements. Furthermore, I do not claim (or believe) that the amount
of effort necessary to brainwash a person is similar across all personality types. These are
all interesting issues and quite amenable to empirical investigation. If Anthony and his allies
would stop trying to obstruct this entire area of study, we could get on with the interesting
job of trying to get the answers to these questions.
The Brainwashing Term
Proposition 42. (Page 250) Another obvious indication that Zablocki‘s articles express the
CIA brainwashing paradigm rather than the totalitarian-influence paradigm is that he refers
to the perspective he is advocating as a ―brainwashing‖ theory. Both Schein and Lifton
repudiate the brainwashing term because it designates the CIA brainwashing theory which
their research had disconfirmed. (Schein, 1961, 18 Lifton, 1961, 4 1987, 211).
X disputational relevant correct
Propositions 42 through 45 are concerned not with a critique of theory but with a critique of
terminology. As I explained in the beginning of this essay, I have chosen to separate strictly
the discussion of the phenomenon from the discussion of the label used to designate the
phenomenon. This is not to say that issues surrounding the label ―brainwashing‖ are not
important, just that greater clarity is achieved by not confounding the two separate issues. I
do not insist that the phenomenon I have been researching be labeled ―brainwashing‖ as
long as a reasonable degree of consensus can be achieved on a satisfactory alternative
label. For a fuller discussion of these matters of terminology, see the Appendix at the end of
this essay.
Proposition 43. (Page 251) Zablocki, on the other hand, asserts that the “brainwashing”
term accurately stands for the tradition represented by Lifton‘s and Schein‘s research.
disputational relevant X correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Proposition 44. (Page 252) It seems me to be likely that Zablocki continues to use the
“brainwashing” term in contradiction to its repudiation by Schein and Lifton for the same
reason that they have rejected it, i.e. because the brainwashing term is actually defined in
terms of the involuntary world view transformation which the research of Schein and Lifton
demonstrated did not occur as a result of Communist thought reform.
Proposition 41. (Page 250) Unlike the brainwashing paradigm, the totalism theory does
not interpret the contemporary influence situation of the person as the primary cause of his
religious or political choices. This approach is clearly contradictory to Zablocki’s attempt to
explain involuntary religious conversions exclusively on the basis of social influence which is
independent of the pre-existing character of the person who is being influenced.... (For
instance Zablocki states: ...‖the brainwashing model does not focus primarily on
characteristics of the subject. The assumption is that many different kinds of people can,
with enough effort, be brainwashed.‖
X disputational X relevant correct
Again, we must ignore the gratuitous insertion of the term ―involuntary religious
conversion,‖ which I neither state nor imply in my theory. We are then left with the heart of
this proposition: Anthony‘s concern over my statement that ―many different kinds of people
can, with enough effort, be brainwashed.‖ He sees this as making my theory ―contradictory‖
to his theory of totalist influence. But to say that many different kinds of people can be
brainwashed is not to say that all people can be brainwashed. This differentiation is not
merely nitpicking. Indeed, my empirical observations suggest to me that some people are
immune to this sort of persuasion. The investigation of what personal characteristics these
people share is, to me, one of the more fascinating topics on the agenda of the study of
cults or new religious movements. Furthermore, I do not claim (or believe) that the amount
of effort necessary to brainwash a person is similar across all personality types. These are
all interesting issues and quite amenable to empirical investigation. If Anthony and his allies
would stop trying to obstruct this entire area of study, we could get on with the interesting
job of trying to get the answers to these questions.
The Brainwashing Term
Proposition 42. (Page 250) Another obvious indication that Zablocki‘s articles express the
CIA brainwashing paradigm rather than the totalitarian-influence paradigm is that he refers
to the perspective he is advocating as a ―brainwashing‖ theory. Both Schein and Lifton
repudiate the brainwashing term because it designates the CIA brainwashing theory which
their research had disconfirmed. (Schein, 1961, 18 Lifton, 1961, 4 1987, 211).
X disputational relevant correct
Propositions 42 through 45 are concerned not with a critique of theory but with a critique of
terminology. As I explained in the beginning of this essay, I have chosen to separate strictly
the discussion of the phenomenon from the discussion of the label used to designate the
phenomenon. This is not to say that issues surrounding the label ―brainwashing‖ are not
important, just that greater clarity is achieved by not confounding the two separate issues. I
do not insist that the phenomenon I have been researching be labeled ―brainwashing‖ as
long as a reasonable degree of consensus can be achieved on a satisfactory alternative
label. For a fuller discussion of these matters of terminology, see the Appendix at the end of
this essay.
Proposition 43. (Page 251) Zablocki, on the other hand, asserts that the “brainwashing”
term accurately stands for the tradition represented by Lifton‘s and Schein‘s research.
disputational relevant X correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Proposition 44. (Page 252) It seems me to be likely that Zablocki continues to use the
“brainwashing” term in contradiction to its repudiation by Schein and Lifton for the same
reason that they have rejected it, i.e. because the brainwashing term is actually defined in
terms of the involuntary world view transformation which the research of Schein and Lifton
demonstrated did not occur as a result of Communist thought reform.
