Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 37
Assumptions Seven and Eight
We accept assumptions seven and eight as written, but reject what the Passantinos infer
from these assumptions: ―7. Religious conversion and commitment may be termed mind-
control if it meets certain psychological and sociological criteria, regardless of its doctrinal or
theological standards‖ and ―8. The psychological and sociological standards, which define
mind-control, are not absolute, but fall in a relative, subjective continuum from ‗acceptable‘
social and/or religious affiliation to ‗unacceptable‘‖ (p. 32).
The Passantinos conclude this section by saying, ―According to most cult mind-control model
advocates, no one is immune to the right mind-control tactics used at the right time.
Anyone is susceptible‖ (p. 32). After quoting Hassan, the authors quote from Martin‘s book,
Cult-Proofing Your Kids: ―But the truth of the matter is, virtually anyone can get involved in
a cult under the right circumstances ...Regardless of one‘s spiritual or psychological health,
whether one is weak or strong, cultic involvement can happen to anyone‖ (Martin, 1993, pp.
21, 179).
Claiming to state the views of mind-control model proponents, the Passantinos write, ―Cult
mind-control must be distinguished from ‗mere‘ deception, influence, or persuasion. A main
distinguishing characteristic at the core of mind-control is the idea that the individual
becomes unable to make autonomous personal choices, not simply that his or her choices
have been predicated on something false‖ (p. 32).
This paragraph again reveals the authors‘ fundamental misunderstanding of the model as
propounded by most of those who hold it. Mind-control advocates do not deny that cult
members make choices rather, the advocates assert that these choices result from a
systematic, intense, and prolonged program of ―deception, influence, [and] persuasion.‖
Mind-control is not something qualitatively different from deception, influence, and
persuasion because it subsumes all of these. It is an extension of these processes and
others (e.g., lack of information, fear of considering certain choices, and perceptual
narrowing due to dissociative processes such as prolonged singing, chanting, tongue
speaking, meditating, listening to charismatic speakers, etc.). This is a crucial point. It is
not either deception or mind-control. Mind-control involves deception and other processes
that affect making choices --that is, the cult member, and on occasion even the recruit, is
gradually manipulated to the point where other options are no longer considered viable.
Objection: The Brainwashing Connection
In a section entitled ―Objection: The Brainwashing Connection,‖ the Passantinos allege that
mind-control advocates demonstrate a ―contradictory embracing and rejecting of the
brainwashing connection‖ (p. 33). According to the Passantinos, mind-control advocates say
that the early methods of mind-control were ineffective compared to later methods, which
require less coercion and employ techniques like hypnosis. The Passantinos write:
―However, it stretches one‘s credulity to believe that what highly trained and
technologically supported CIA, Russian, Korean, and Chinese experts could
not accomplish under extremes of mental, emotional, and physical abuse,
self-styled modern messiahs like David Koresh (high school dropout), Charles
Manson (grade school dropout), and Hare Krishna founder Prabhupada (self-
educated) accomplished on a daily basis and on a massive scale with control
methods measurably inferior to those of POW camp torturers.‖ (p. 33).
However, the Passantinos‘ quotation from Hassan two paragraphs earlier (p. 33) responds
to this objection. Hassan points out that ―mind-control … is more subtle and sophisticated.
Its perpetrators are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much less defensive. He
unwittingly participates by cooperating with his controllers and giving them private
Assumptions Seven and Eight
We accept assumptions seven and eight as written, but reject what the Passantinos infer
from these assumptions: ―7. Religious conversion and commitment may be termed mind-
control if it meets certain psychological and sociological criteria, regardless of its doctrinal or
theological standards‖ and ―8. The psychological and sociological standards, which define
mind-control, are not absolute, but fall in a relative, subjective continuum from ‗acceptable‘
social and/or religious affiliation to ‗unacceptable‘‖ (p. 32).
The Passantinos conclude this section by saying, ―According to most cult mind-control model
advocates, no one is immune to the right mind-control tactics used at the right time.
Anyone is susceptible‖ (p. 32). After quoting Hassan, the authors quote from Martin‘s book,
Cult-Proofing Your Kids: ―But the truth of the matter is, virtually anyone can get involved in
a cult under the right circumstances ...Regardless of one‘s spiritual or psychological health,
whether one is weak or strong, cultic involvement can happen to anyone‖ (Martin, 1993, pp.
21, 179).
Claiming to state the views of mind-control model proponents, the Passantinos write, ―Cult
mind-control must be distinguished from ‗mere‘ deception, influence, or persuasion. A main
distinguishing characteristic at the core of mind-control is the idea that the individual
becomes unable to make autonomous personal choices, not simply that his or her choices
have been predicated on something false‖ (p. 32).
This paragraph again reveals the authors‘ fundamental misunderstanding of the model as
propounded by most of those who hold it. Mind-control advocates do not deny that cult
members make choices rather, the advocates assert that these choices result from a
systematic, intense, and prolonged program of ―deception, influence, [and] persuasion.‖
Mind-control is not something qualitatively different from deception, influence, and
persuasion because it subsumes all of these. It is an extension of these processes and
others (e.g., lack of information, fear of considering certain choices, and perceptual
narrowing due to dissociative processes such as prolonged singing, chanting, tongue
speaking, meditating, listening to charismatic speakers, etc.). This is a crucial point. It is
not either deception or mind-control. Mind-control involves deception and other processes
that affect making choices --that is, the cult member, and on occasion even the recruit, is
gradually manipulated to the point where other options are no longer considered viable.
Objection: The Brainwashing Connection
In a section entitled ―Objection: The Brainwashing Connection,‖ the Passantinos allege that
mind-control advocates demonstrate a ―contradictory embracing and rejecting of the
brainwashing connection‖ (p. 33). According to the Passantinos, mind-control advocates say
that the early methods of mind-control were ineffective compared to later methods, which
require less coercion and employ techniques like hypnosis. The Passantinos write:
―However, it stretches one‘s credulity to believe that what highly trained and
technologically supported CIA, Russian, Korean, and Chinese experts could
not accomplish under extremes of mental, emotional, and physical abuse,
self-styled modern messiahs like David Koresh (high school dropout), Charles
Manson (grade school dropout), and Hare Krishna founder Prabhupada (self-
educated) accomplished on a daily basis and on a massive scale with control
methods measurably inferior to those of POW camp torturers.‖ (p. 33).
However, the Passantinos‘ quotation from Hassan two paragraphs earlier (p. 33) responds
to this objection. Hassan points out that ―mind-control … is more subtle and sophisticated.
Its perpetrators are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much less defensive. He
unwittingly participates by cooperating with his controllers and giving them private
