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.
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.
