Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 83
When asked their opinions about what enables cults to exist, respondents listed, in
descending order of preference: the world is too materialistic people cannot live without
absolutes or a meaning in life the need to avoid daily life the desire to find places where one
can focus on essentials with other people in a fraternal manner.
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Editor, Cultic Studies Journal
La persuasione socialmente accettata, il plagio e il lavaggio del cervello
(Socially Accepted Persuasion, Plagio, and Brainwashing). M. DiFiorino. Psichiatria e
Territorio, Forte Dei Marmi (Italy), 1990, 270 pages.
This rather long book, based on a conference held in September 1989 in Forte dei Marmi,
Italy, examines various aspects of psychological manipulation. Its chapters are organized
under the following sections: Plagio Between Reality and Denial Dynamics of Plagio and
Induced Psychosis Religious Conversion and the “New Cults”: Myth and Reality of
Brainwashing Manipulation in Therapeutic Relations and Manipulation and Mass Media.
The book revolves around the concept of plagio, a word I have refrained from translating
because I don’t believe it has an exact English equivalent. In Italy plagio was a crime that was
declared unconstitutional in 1981.
The crime of plagio consists of ...an absolute psychological --and eventually
physical --domination of a person. The effect of such domination is the annihilation
of the subject’s freedom and self-determination and the consequent negation of his
or her personality. (p. 15)
Crimes of plagio have rarely been prosecuted in Italy, and only one person was ever
convicted. The court that declared plagio unconstitutional found the concept to be imprecise,
lacking coherence, and liable to arbitrary application.
Plagio seems to have been what some anti-cult activists lobbied for in this country during the
late 1970s and early 1980s, that is, a law against “mind control” or “brainwashing.” Plagio,
however, appears to be even more extreme than mind control, which is why participants in
the Forte dei Marmi conference distinguished between plagio, manipulation, and
brainwashing. The closest thing to plagio in U.S. law is probably the concept of “undue
influence,” which is much more nuanced and flexible in its application than plagio and is
applicable in civil, not criminal, law.
The conference participants, most of whom were mental health professionals, appear to have
wrestled with many of the same issues that have troubled their North American counterparts.
There is the common-sense recognition that some people, especially those who are
suggestible, can be manipulated and exploited to a high degree. The neuropsychiatrist, Mario
Gozzano, identifies the following situations that can result in extreme subordination of one
person to another: amorous relationships dependency relationships such as teacher-pupil
the psychological influence attendant upon relationships based upon religious faith or political
commitment patient-therapist relationships and parent-child relationships. The difficulty
with Gozzano’s list is that such relationships would almost never reach the level of absolute
psychological domination that characterizes plagio.
A superficial analysis might indicate that the problem could be easily solved if plagio were
made less absolute, for example, if it were defined as “a high level of control of another
person.” However, as soon as the legal definition depends upon a continuum, specific criteria
must be enunciated in order to determine precisely where the behavior becomes criminal.
Rosedale (Cultic Studies Journal, 6(1), 1989) addresses this inherent conflict in the law
When asked their opinions about what enables cults to exist, respondents listed, in
descending order of preference: the world is too materialistic people cannot live without
absolutes or a meaning in life the need to avoid daily life the desire to find places where one
can focus on essentials with other people in a fraternal manner.
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Editor, Cultic Studies Journal
La persuasione socialmente accettata, il plagio e il lavaggio del cervello
(Socially Accepted Persuasion, Plagio, and Brainwashing). M. DiFiorino. Psichiatria e
Territorio, Forte Dei Marmi (Italy), 1990, 270 pages.
This rather long book, based on a conference held in September 1989 in Forte dei Marmi,
Italy, examines various aspects of psychological manipulation. Its chapters are organized
under the following sections: Plagio Between Reality and Denial Dynamics of Plagio and
Induced Psychosis Religious Conversion and the “New Cults”: Myth and Reality of
Brainwashing Manipulation in Therapeutic Relations and Manipulation and Mass Media.
The book revolves around the concept of plagio, a word I have refrained from translating
because I don’t believe it has an exact English equivalent. In Italy plagio was a crime that was
declared unconstitutional in 1981.
The crime of plagio consists of ...an absolute psychological --and eventually
physical --domination of a person. The effect of such domination is the annihilation
of the subject’s freedom and self-determination and the consequent negation of his
or her personality. (p. 15)
Crimes of plagio have rarely been prosecuted in Italy, and only one person was ever
convicted. The court that declared plagio unconstitutional found the concept to be imprecise,
lacking coherence, and liable to arbitrary application.
Plagio seems to have been what some anti-cult activists lobbied for in this country during the
late 1970s and early 1980s, that is, a law against “mind control” or “brainwashing.” Plagio,
however, appears to be even more extreme than mind control, which is why participants in
the Forte dei Marmi conference distinguished between plagio, manipulation, and
brainwashing. The closest thing to plagio in U.S. law is probably the concept of “undue
influence,” which is much more nuanced and flexible in its application than plagio and is
applicable in civil, not criminal, law.
The conference participants, most of whom were mental health professionals, appear to have
wrestled with many of the same issues that have troubled their North American counterparts.
There is the common-sense recognition that some people, especially those who are
suggestible, can be manipulated and exploited to a high degree. The neuropsychiatrist, Mario
Gozzano, identifies the following situations that can result in extreme subordination of one
person to another: amorous relationships dependency relationships such as teacher-pupil
the psychological influence attendant upon relationships based upon religious faith or political
commitment patient-therapist relationships and parent-child relationships. The difficulty
with Gozzano’s list is that such relationships would almost never reach the level of absolute
psychological domination that characterizes plagio.
A superficial analysis might indicate that the problem could be easily solved if plagio were
made less absolute, for example, if it were defined as “a high level of control of another
person.” However, as soon as the legal definition depends upon a continuum, specific criteria
must be enunciated in order to determine precisely where the behavior becomes criminal.
Rosedale (Cultic Studies Journal, 6(1), 1989) addresses this inherent conflict in the law
