Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 96
It is puzzling that Anthony has so much trouble understanding that certain social-
psychological processes might produce disorientation at times while a subject is going
through the processes but not as an end result. This phenomenon is not limited to
brainwashing. There are hundreds of commonplace processes that are stressful to go
through but result in tranquility when they are completed. Because disorientation can result
from extreme stress, the stress-tranquility relationship is understandable and even
predicable. Perhaps the most commonplace of these processes is courtship. How many
couples have felt disoriented at times while they are head-over-heels in love, and yet they
have managed to collect themselves well enough to stand before the preacher and take
their vows in at least relative sobriety? Because Anthony is married, perhaps he can use his
own experiences of this process to help him understand that the distinction I am making is
not remarkable. In fact, as many field researchers have observed, the brainwashing process
puts stress on individuals that can lead to periods of disorientation. But after the person has
gone through this process of persuasion and become a deployable agent, the stress
becomes much less, and there is no reason to expect disorientation.
Proposition 95. (Footnote 27, page 301f). Zablocki‘s endorsement of Ofshe‘s cultic
brainwashing theory as essentially equivalent to his own...
X disputational relevant correct
I do not say this, nor do I believe it. Anthony seems to believe that if you give credit to
another scholar by citing his work, you are thereby asserting that your work and his work
are equivalent. This is the indirect method of criticism that Anthony seems to prefer. Rather
than dealing with my theory directly, he tries to establish its equivalence to a theory he has
previously discredited.
Proposition 96. (Footnote 29, page 302). Zablocki is asserting ...that the brainwashing
term and its variants, such as menticide, are synonymous with the term ‗thought reform,‘
[and] that the brainwashing and thought reform models ...are equivalent also.
X disputational relevant correct
Here Anthony is just talking about words. Let him specify what he means by the menticide
model, by the brainwashing model, and by the thought-reform model, and then let us see
whether or not they are equivalent. As stated, this proposition is so vague that it has no
content.
Proposition 97. (Footnote 32, page 302f). [Zablocki‘s] assertion in this passage that
the goal of brainwashing is to create ‗deployable agents‘ implicitly contradicts Zablocki‘s
assertion in the same passage that brainwashing is not concerned with the issue of free will.
The deployable agent term is used only by advocates of the CIA brainwashing model and
indicates that the person so designated has become an involuntary mental prisoner of the
group to which he is committed.
X disputational X relevant correct
In this proposition, Anthony merely displays his ignorance of the literature in organization
sociology. The term deployable agent has been around for a long time in sociology and
social psychology. The term was first used in sociology by Phillip Selznick in his influential
book, The Organizational Weapon. Deployable agent has nothing to do with free will or the
lack of free will. It has to do only with the empirical question of the extent to which an
agent can be trusted to remain obedient when not under surveillance.
Proposition 98. (Footnote 35, page 304). Zablocki says that all of the eight themes of
totalism do not have to be present in order for an environment to be considered totalistic.
Thus ...concrete allegations of totalism by him would be difficult to falsify.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 97
X disputational X relevant correct
Anthony is assuming that totalism must be construed as a dichotomous variable. An
organization or an environment is either totalistic or it is not. Most sociologists see totalism
as a continuum. A given organization can be more or less totalistic than another
organization. This is how Goffman uses the concept in his work on total institutions.
Because totalism is a concept, not a theory, issues of falsifiability are misplaced in
discussing it. But the concept certainly measures something real. An organization with
seven of the criteria of totalism set out by Lifton is highly likely to be more totalistic than
one that has only two.
Conclusion
Because none of Anthony‘s ninety-eight propositions have proven to be disputational,
relevant, and correct, it follows that Anthony‘s chapter as a whole cannot be considered a
successful critique of the brainwashing theory as I have presented it in my chapter of
Misunderstanding Cults (which follows in this document as an Appendix). This conclusion, of
course, does not demonstrate that the theory is either useful or correct, but only that
Anthony‘s chapter is not relevant to any discussion of its validity. The only way that these
conclusions can be refuted would be if Anthony (or someone else) were to point out a
proposition that I have missed, or if my own comments on at least one of these propositions
can be shown to be inaccurate.
Appendix: Zablocki’s Theory of Brainwashing in Charismatic Groups Taken
Verbatim from Chapter Five of Zablocki and Robbins, Misunderstanding
Cults, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001 (Pp. 182 -193)
Definitions
D1. Charisma is defined using the classical Weberian formula: as a condition of ―devotion to
the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual
person, of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him.‖ Being defined this
way, as a condition of devotion, leads us to recognize that charisma is not to be understood
simply in terms of the characteristics of the leader, as it has come to be in popular usage,
but requires an understanding of the relationship between leader and followers. In other
words, charisma is a relational variable. Charisma is defined operationally as a network of
relationships in which authority is justified (for both superordinates and subordinates) in
terms of the special characteristics discussed above.
D2. Ideological Totalism is defined as a socio-cultural system that places high valuation on
total control over all aspects of the outer and inner lives of participants for the purpose of
achieving the goals of an ideology defined as all important. Individual rights either do not
exist under ideological totalism or they are clearly subordinated to the needs of the
collectivity whenever the two come into conflict. Ideological totalism has been
operationalized in terms of eight observable characteristics: milieu control, mystical
manipulation, the demand for purity, the cult of confession, ―sacred science,‖ loading the
language, doctrine over person, and the dispensing of existence.
D3. Surveillance is defined as keeping watch over a person‘s behavior and, perhaps,
attitudes. As Hechter has shown, the need for surveillance is the greatest obstacle to goal
achievement among ideological collectivities organized around the production of public
goods. Surveillance is not only costly, it is also impractical for many activities in which
agents of the collectivity may have to travel and act autonomously and at a distance. It
follows from this that all collectivities pursuing public goals will be motivated to find ways to