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.
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.
