Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 83
disputational relevant X correct
Anthony is correct that this is the more important question.
Proposition 53. (Page 258) there are many other passages in Zablocki‘s works on
brainwashing in which he contends, as in this passage, that the brainwashing paradigm is
concerned with demonstrating that brainwashed conversion and commitment to social
groups is (at least relatively) involuntary. See for instance this statement in the abstract to
his 1998 article:
―In contrast to some of the more grandiose claims sometimes made for
brainwashing as the sole explanation of cult movement behavior, I argue
instead that brainwashing is only one of the factors that needs to be
examined in order to understand the more general phenomenon of exit costs
as a barrier to free religious choice.‖ (1998, pg. 216)
And also:
...exit cost analysis is primarily concerned with the paradox of feeling trapped in
what is nominally a voluntary association. It asks not ‗Why did they leave?‘ but
rather, ‗What prevents them from leaving?‘(1998, 220)
X disputational X relevant correct
Again, there is no implication of an insult to free will in any of these quotations. Anthony
continues to stumble on what is to him an unfamiliar paradigm. Every time I talk about
social constraints on action, Anthony infers an attack on free will. Does he believe that
social constraints do not exist and that we all act in a social vacuum? If so, he is at odds
with the entire field of sociology.
Proposition 54. (Page 259) there are many other examples of passages in which Zablocki
asserts that brainwashing diminishes voluntary religious choice without actually using the
words voluntary or involuntary.... In my view Zablocki contends repeatedly that
brainwashing accomplishes involuntary influence of cult members even if he doesn‘t always
use the voluntarism term in affirming this proposition.
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments on propositions 49, 50, and 53.
Proposition 55. (Page 259) At times Zablocki does use the voluntary/involuntary
terminology. In one of his publications, which Zablocki regards as a scientific study of cultic
brainwashing, he made the following statement:
Change of world view is possible, although rare and difficult. It can occur in a
religious conversion and in psychoanalysis. Both of these processes are undergone
voluntarily. Classic thought reform [as defined by Lifton] is an involuntary method of
changing a person‘s world view. I am going to compare the Bruderhof novitiate with
the thought reform process in order to locate the points of structural similarity which
are common to all forms of world view socialization, whether voluntary or coercive,
religious or secular. (1971, 247 emphasis mine). In this passage at least, Zablocki
uses variants of the voluntary/involuntary terminology to refer to the
voluntary/involuntary dimension of world view transformation. He also seems in this
passage to be referring to the voluntarism dimension as an either/or variable,
asserting without qualification that thought reform [brainwashing] is an involuntary
method of changing a person‘s world view.
X disputational X relevant correct
disputational relevant X correct
Anthony is correct that this is the more important question.
Proposition 53. (Page 258) there are many other passages in Zablocki‘s works on
brainwashing in which he contends, as in this passage, that the brainwashing paradigm is
concerned with demonstrating that brainwashed conversion and commitment to social
groups is (at least relatively) involuntary. See for instance this statement in the abstract to
his 1998 article:
―In contrast to some of the more grandiose claims sometimes made for
brainwashing as the sole explanation of cult movement behavior, I argue
instead that brainwashing is only one of the factors that needs to be
examined in order to understand the more general phenomenon of exit costs
as a barrier to free religious choice.‖ (1998, pg. 216)
And also:
...exit cost analysis is primarily concerned with the paradox of feeling trapped in
what is nominally a voluntary association. It asks not ‗Why did they leave?‘ but
rather, ‗What prevents them from leaving?‘(1998, 220)
X disputational X relevant correct
Again, there is no implication of an insult to free will in any of these quotations. Anthony
continues to stumble on what is to him an unfamiliar paradigm. Every time I talk about
social constraints on action, Anthony infers an attack on free will. Does he believe that
social constraints do not exist and that we all act in a social vacuum? If so, he is at odds
with the entire field of sociology.
Proposition 54. (Page 259) there are many other examples of passages in which Zablocki
asserts that brainwashing diminishes voluntary religious choice without actually using the
words voluntary or involuntary.... In my view Zablocki contends repeatedly that
brainwashing accomplishes involuntary influence of cult members even if he doesn‘t always
use the voluntarism term in affirming this proposition.
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments on propositions 49, 50, and 53.
Proposition 55. (Page 259) At times Zablocki does use the voluntary/involuntary
terminology. In one of his publications, which Zablocki regards as a scientific study of cultic
brainwashing, he made the following statement:
Change of world view is possible, although rare and difficult. It can occur in a
religious conversion and in psychoanalysis. Both of these processes are undergone
voluntarily. Classic thought reform [as defined by Lifton] is an involuntary method of
changing a person‘s world view. I am going to compare the Bruderhof novitiate with
the thought reform process in order to locate the points of structural similarity which
are common to all forms of world view socialization, whether voluntary or coercive,
religious or secular. (1971, 247 emphasis mine). In this passage at least, Zablocki
uses variants of the voluntary/involuntary terminology to refer to the
voluntary/involuntary dimension of world view transformation. He also seems in this
passage to be referring to the voluntarism dimension as an either/or variable,
asserting without qualification that thought reform [brainwashing] is an involuntary
method of changing a person‘s world view.
X disputational X relevant correct
