Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 69
Zablocki‘s (2001) sociological theory of brainwashing builds upon the pioneering work of
Lifton (1961), who studied thought reform among U.S. POWs in Korea and Chinese students
and intellectuals on the mainland. Zablocki‘s theory is not about how people enter
charismatic groups, or cults, but ―the process of inducing ideological obedience in
charismatic groups‖ (p. 160). He describes in detail the complex process that enables cultic
groups to build commitment and loyalty among members and, when it serves the leader‘s
interests, to devote enough resources to selected members so as to turn them into what he
calls ―deployable agents‖—that is, members who are uncritically obedient to leaders even in
the absence of external controls. Zablocki‘s ―economic‖ perspective implies that members
will vary in their commitment to the group/leader because leadership must make resource-
allocation decisions concerning the building of commitment among different members.
Leaders, then, will not put effort into developing a deployable agent, unless such a person
can deliver an objective that is worth the resources that the leader expends. Hence,
Zablocki says that there ―is no reason to believe that all cults practice brainwashing any
more than that all cults are violent or that all cults make their members wear saffron robes‖
(p. 196).
Zablocki‘s (2001) theory presumes that a necessary but not sufficient condition for
brainwashing to occur is ideological totalism, ―a sociocultural 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‖ (p. 183). Although
the resocialization process differs among groups, common elements include ―a stripping
away of the vestiges of an old identity, the requirement that repeated confessions be made
either orally or in writing, and a somewhat random and ultimately debilitating alternation of
the giving and the withholding of ‗unconditional‘ love and approval‖ (p. 187). The
resocialization process affects cognitive functioning and emotional networking, which in turn
lead ―to the attainment of states of hyper-credulity and relational enhancement,
respectively‖ (p. 187). Because convictions function more as valued possessions than as a
means of testing reality, ―a frontal attack on convictions, without first undermining the self-
image foundation of these convictions, is doomed to failure‖ (p. 188). The assault on
members‘ identity is compensated by the payoff of feeling more ―connected with the
charismatic relational network‖ (p. 188), which ultimately brings about an identification with
the group, an ―imitative search for conviction‖ (p. 189), and ―the erosion of the habit of
incredulity‖ (p. 189). A symbolic death and rebirth marks the completion of the
brainwashing process as ―the cognitive and emotional tracks come together and mutually
support each other‖ (p. 189). With the brainwashing process complete, the individual
perceives the cost of exit to be sufficiently high that compliance with group demands
becomes a rational choice.
Lalich (2004) complements Zablocki‘s Lifton-based process model. Although she too is most
concerned with the deployability associated with the brainwashing concept, Lalich
approaches the brainwashing phenomenon by examining the complex interaction of the
processes of conversion and commitment. She views conversion, as does this paper, as a
worldview shift that usually occurs within a social context, which can enable converts to
sustain and strengthen their worldview shift. Lalich discusses four interlocking structural
dimensions that underpin the social dynamics of cultic groups:
1. charismatic authority
2. a transcendent belief system
3. systems of control
4. systems of influence

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 70
―The relational aspect of charisma is the hook that links a follower or devotee to a leader
and/or his or her ideas‖ (Lalich, 2004, p. 17). The transcendental belief system ―binds
adherents to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group‘s rules and norms‖
(p. 17). Systems of control are ―overt rules, regulations, and procedures that guide and
control group members‘ behavior‖ (p. 17), while the systems of influence reside in the
group culture ―from which members learn to adapt their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors
in relation to their new beliefs‖ (p. 17). These four factors working together can lead to a
―self-sealing system that exacts a high degree of commitment (as well as expressions of
that commitment) from its core members‖ (p. 17) and that is ―closed in on itself, allowing
no consideration of disconfirming evidence or alternative points of view‖ (p. 17). The self-
sealing system forms a bounded reality. Within that frame of mind the person's choices
become constrained because of the external sanctions of the social system and the person's
own internalized sanctions. This places members in ―a narrow realm of constraint and
control, of dedication and duty‖—what Lalich appropriately calls ―bounded choice.‖
The notion of bounded choice is consistent with this essay‘s depiction of a conversion
pathway of ever narrowing options. The elucidation of the brainwashing process can help
explain how a formerly nonviolent person can become committed to a group that
perpetrates violence. If individuals do not see the end to which they will be led, and if they
do not drop out of the group‘s system before the commitment process gathers steam, they
may reach a point where, as Zablocki puts it, the exit costs become so great that conformity
and even identification with a system that might have once been viewed as repugnant
become less difficult than departure from the system. Brainwashing, then, is not an ―either-
or‖ concept. It is a process that might have varying degrees of success. Although the
―Manchurian-Candidate‖ level of control may be mythical, astounding levels of control can
be achieved. Nevertheless, a leader‘s control is never absolute, so leaders must always
factor members‘ individual psychologies into their plans.
In some cases, the violence at the end of the road might be radically out of (pre-group)
character for particular members. It seems beyond coincidence, for example, that nearly
1,000 suicidal/homicidal people just happened to come together in the jungles of
Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. A powerful process of influence and control that took place
over a period of years steered the majority of followers to a collective suicide and directed
others to follow Jones‘s command to murder those who resisted the suicide order. Like Jim
Jones, Shoko Asahara, head of Aum Shinrikyo, enhanced the brainwashing process by
carefully selecting from the membership individuals who would be least likely to resist his
demands for violence, specifically the murder of opponents and the release of lethal gas in
the Tokyo subway. It seems unlikely to me that either he or Jones chose their killers at
random, nor did they need ―born killers.‖ Because their members had gone through a
process of intense socialization into a totalistic system, the leaders might have been able to
push selected members above a critical threshold of killing potential, a threshold that the
members would never have even approached in ordinary life had they not committed
themselves to the group.
In other cases, as noted earlier, an individual‘s psychological needs might incline him or her
toward violence even before the person encounters a group that advocates violence
indeed, the preexisting inclination toward violence may cause a person to seek out or at
least to choose a violent group from among those available to him or her. However, even in
these situations, some process of influence and control will usually operate. When the
violently inclined gather in a group, somebody comes to be in charge. A leader who
understands the art of brainwashing may be more successful in directing his violent
followers toward the fulfillment of the leader‘s goals than one who lacks that understanding.
Some youth gangs and some terrorist groups might fall in this category.