Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 84
First of all, to bring up a quote from a book I published in 1971 as an attack on a theory
formulated in 2001 seems like an act of desperation. But even on its own terms, Anthony‘s
reading of this paragraph is flawed. I was referring here to whether the subjects of
persuasion were brought voluntarily or involuntarily to the site at which the persuasion
happened. Clearly, the prisoners studied by Lifton were brought by force to the prisons
where brainwashing was accomplished. They did not voluntarily go to prison. Members of
the Bruderhof, in contrast, joined that commune voluntarily. Since 1971, I have learned to
make these distinctions more explicit. Back when this early book was published, I was not
yet aware that scholars might confuse voluntarism in recruitment with voluntarism of the
persuasive process.
Proposition 56. (Page 259f) At the time that Zablocki wrote this passage, he apparently
believed that Lifton had demonstrated that thought reform, as conducted by the Chinese
Communists, accomplished involuntary world view transformation of its victims, whereas
conversion and commitment to NRMs such as the Bruderhof (the subject of his book) was
essentially voluntary and thus didn‘t really constitute thought reform or brainwashing, even
though it might be ―structurally similar‖ to it in certain ways. Furthermore, as he clearly
says in this passage, at that time Zablocki believed that: 1) all forms of world view
[re]socialization are structurally similar to thought reform 2) some forms of world view
resocialization, such as thought reform, are involuntary, whereas other forms, such as
conversion to the Bruderhof, and presumably to other new religions or so-called “cults,” are
voluntary.
X disputational X relevant correct
My distinction has to do with whether the subjects of persuasion were obtained by force and
brought to the persuasive site in chains or whether they decided to join a purely voluntary
association. Anthony and I agree that some organizations obtain their members by force
and some by voluntary recruitment. But I never claim that this has any bearing on the
―voluntarism‖ of the persuasive process itself.
Proposition 57. (Page 260) Careful review of his 1971 book reveals that Zablocki
believed:
...There is a danger, however, in making structural comparisons among totally
different processes. A fault of the comparative method is an inevitable tendency to
stress similarities and neglect differences. As I mentioned earlier, thought reform
and Bruderhof resocialization are poles apart phenomenologically. One is coercive,
rigid, and exploitive [sic]. The other [the Bruderhof] is voluntary, flexible, and loving.
Thought reform sacrifices its victims for the sake of future generations. The
Bruderhof, although concerned with the future, offers its members a deeply
rewarding life in the present. (1971, 265-66 emphasis mine)
disputational relevant X correct
Isn‘t it interesting that coercive institutions such as prisons can practice persuasive
techniques that are structurally similar to those practiced by voluntary associations such as
religious communes? Far from being an argument against brainwashing theory, this
similarity just makes the theory all the more intriguing.
Proposition 58. (Page 260) Zablocki at the time that he wrote it believed that even
though conversion to new religious world views shares certain ―structural similarities‖ to the
process of Communist thought reform as described by Lifton, nevertheless the
resocialization processes in the Bruderhof and other new religions did not result in
involuntary commitment to the new world views, whereas in Communist thought reform it
did result in involuntary commitment to Communist ideology.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 85
disputational X relevant X correct
See my comments on propositions 56 and 57.
Proposition 59. (Page 261) Since Zablocki says in the passage from his 1971 book
quoted earlier that all world view resocialization is structurally similar to brainwashing, this
would presumably mean that he now thinks, at some level, that all world view
resocialization in involuntary. This in turn would seem to support the conclusion, which has
been advanced by various critics of the cultic brainwashing theory, that the concept of
involuntary world view resocialization, (brainwashing), is an evaluative rather than an
empirical concept, in that it cannot be falsified.
X disputational X relevant correct
This is total nonsense and is useful only in showing glaringly the absurd deductions Anthony
can draw from his incorrect assumptions. My statement, again from a thirty-year-old book,
is meant to show that there is nothing mystical or unusual about brainwashing. It‘s just an
extreme form of ordinary persuasion.
Proposition 60. (Page 261) The following quote suggest that Zablocki is attempting to
show in his brainwashing publications that brainwashing produces a rather extreme degree
of the loss of the voluntary capacity to control one’s own actions:
Within family sociology, it used to be the tendency to say of battered wives, ―Why
don‘t they just leave the abusive situation? Nobody is holding them there by force.‖
Now it is much better understood that chronic battering can wear down not only the
body but the capacity to make independent decisions about leaving. I fail to see any
significant differences between this phenomenon and the phenomenon of the
charismatically abused participant in a cult movement. (1998, 231 emphasis mine)
X disputational X relevant correct
Is Anthony denying that battered wives often stay in abusive marriages because they
imagine the costs of leaving to be higher than they actually are? A broad consensus among
those who have studied spouse abuse is that they have noticed this phenomenon
(subjectively elevated exit costs) and have also noticed that some abused spouses succeed
in overcoming their fears and leaving anyway. Clearly, therefore, there is no loss of free will
inherent in the subjectively elevated exit costs of battered wives. Why then should there be
for brainwashed cult members?
Proposition 61. (Page 262) [Zablocki] contend[s] that converts to new religions are
unable to leave them, or at least find it very difficult to leave them even when they want
to.... Zablocki unequivocally asserts that brainwashing produces a severe compulsion to
remain in cults once one has joined, and in this sense, produces a loss of free will.
X disputational X relevant correct
Once again, Anthony fudges the critical distinction between ―unable to leave‖ and ―find it
very difficult to leave.‖ He seems to think these are sort of equivalent. This line of reasoning
would lead to the denial of the existence of social constraints in human action.
Proposition 62. (Page 262) It seems obvious, then, that Zablocki’s assertion that his
brainwashing perspective does not address the issue of free will is an example of tactical
ambiguity rather than an internally consistent characteristic of his argument. This in turn
would seem to indicate that, in this respect at least, Zablocki‘s brainwashing argument is
congruent with the CIA brainwashing paradigm that he claims to repudiate. It seems to me
that both Zablocki‘s paradigm, and the CIA brainwashing paradigm from which it is derived,
are primarily aimed at demonstrating the loss of free will of the alleged victims of
brainwashing.