Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 80
Reply to Dr. Robbins
I want to thank Thomas Robbins for his extensive comments on my article. It is gratifying to
have one‟s work read, let alone stimulate so much thought.
However, I believe that much of his criticism is based on an overinterpretation and
misinterpretation of what I said. Dr. Robbins accuses me of being biased against cults I
think his bias against the anticult stance led him to misinterpret much of what I am saying.
I find the fact that he consistently misspelled my name [in the original version of his paper]
to be a telling example of his inattentiveness. Frankly, if I had said what he says I said, I
would have to agree with him. But I did not.
In any case, I would like to address some of the specifics of his comments. First of all, yes, I
did come to my Moonie weekend with an anticult bias.
Ironically, I did not start out that way. I and two other anthropologists wrote a proposal to
study deprogramming. One of the foundations we had applied to sent it to American Family
Foundation (AFF) for review. AFF recommended not to fund it although I forget their exact
reasons, it had to do with the fact that we were too procult. So, if I began my research with
bias, it was in Dr. Robbins‟s direction. It was only after I began my research-by reading the
literature and interviewing former members and deprogrammers (an admittedly biased
group)-that my bias moved in the opposite direction.
This paper (the one Robbins commented on), however, was written many years after I
finished working on the project. Since then, my own work has gone in other directions. I
have little emotional investment in the subject of cults, and basically wrote this article as an
intellectual exercise: here is a model of the brain I think it can be applied to cult conversion
and deprogramming. What struck me about the conversion process was the contrast
between my feelings about my training camp experience and the facts I knew about the
group. Dr. Robbins writes, “Evidently unless one ends up actively disliking the persons
whose sinister doings one has been warned about, one has been insidiously brainwashed
and is urgently in need of deprogramming.” Put that way, it sounds ludicrous. But again, he
is overstating my case. The facts of Moonie life-the extraordinarily long working hours, the
relative poverty of the members versus the wealth of the leaders, the munitions factories
owned by a supposedly peaceful religion-I do not believe are in question. I just could not
understand why something that I believed (thought) was negative felt positive.
By the way, Robbins keeps referring to my use of terms like sinister and brainwashing. In
fact, I never use the term sinister, and I generally used the term brainwashing in quotes. If
he read the title, he would see that I am looking at “cult conversion.” I do not see that as
very sinister. I still hold that what people refer to as “brainwashing” or “conversion” is a
form of socialization. While I personally am opposed to any group --whether it is religious
or secular --that unduly limits an individual‟s personal freedom and autonomy, I never
intended either of my CSJ articles to take the kind of strong stance Robbins is accusing me
of. I am merely trying to shed some light on what people refer to as “brainwashing”-and
why it is often so effective in causing people to make massive changes in their lifestyle,
family relationships, and beliefs.
Dr. Robbins accuses me of taking “at face value the self-serving formulations of
deprogrammers to the effect that their methods work purely on the intellectual level-
rational dialogues with „clients‟ in which emotionalism and nonrational influences are totally
absent.” I do not think that at all. Exit counseling is not a soiree, with people having
intellectual conversations over a cup of tea. Many of the accounts from the early days (prior
to all the lawsuits) were highly emotional and manipulative. What I meant to point out was
that the turning point in many of the accounts hinged on intellectual issues.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 81
Dr. Robbins also says that I give “the impression that cults are the exclusive repository of
emotional appeals, nonrational processes of spiritual persuasion, and conversionist
influences mediated by the lower and more primitive brain structures.” He goes on to say
that other (noncult) religions do this as well. I certainly never meant to give that
impression. I could not agree more with Dr. Robbins‟s perspective. I would add that most
rites of passage --whether to religious groups, the army, or fraternities --use a similar
approach. Dr. Robbins seems to be inferring a value judgment --somehow, activities which
involve neocortex (the intellect) are better than those that affect the limbic system
(emotions) or R-complex. I never intended to attribute differential value to any of those
systems, merely a difference in strength. The limbic system and R-complex are
phylogenetically older and more powerful than the neocortex. I do not think that makes the
neocortex better. Perhaps this reflects Dr. Robbins‟s belief in the superiority of the intellect,
but it does not mirror my own.
Dr. Robbins has no way of knowing this, but one of my major interests is in the
anthropology of consciousness. Cross-culturally, sedate church services are a rarity. A large
portion of the world‟s spiritual experiences involve “emotional fervor, mysticism, and
experiential ritual.” Personally, if I were more religious and hadn‟t been so conditioned by
my Jewish upbringing, I would vastly prefer attending a “high coercion” religious service.
Dr. Robbins points out that the “Moonist emphasis on learning without questioning doctrinal
tenets” have “long appeared in accounts of parochial schooling.” He implies that I attribute
this approach only to the Moonies. Once again, I agree with Robbins‟s position. I do not
recall contrasting the Moonie approach with other religions. I never intended to hold cults
up as a negative example to contrast with the positive example of other religions. He
accuses me of “implicitly treating cults as modes of psychopathology and as standing apart
from „normal‟ and „healthy‟ institutions.” If he is referring to my comment regarding the
emotional damage that is done during the process of cult conversion, I would also add that I
have observed emotional damage done by the Catholic Church, and from watching too
much television. If he is referring to something else I said, I have no idea what it was.
However, similarities --whether negative or positive-between cults and mainstream groups
do not make the groups equivalent. Dr. Robbins seems to ignore that logical truism.
In short, I believe Dr. Robbins is reading much more into my paper than is there. I think he
and I actually agree on many points. I do not think that the process of cult conversion is all
that different from the process of conversion to any group. While I do admittedly have a
bias against cults, I have a bias against any group that controls an individual‟s thoughts and
behavior to a great extent. This includes many mainstream religions as well as secular
organizations. However, I never intended my paper to be a “position” paper one way or the
other. As I said before, I merely offered a model that might give people a new way of
looking at the processes of conversion and deconversion.
Geri-Ann Galanti, Ph.D.
California State University
Los Angeles, California
These letters are an electronic version originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1994, Volume 11, Number 1,
pages 128-134. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound
volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.