Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 76
On the positive side, there is valuable material on the changing characteristics of new
religions and their members, a host of qualitative and quantitative studies are cited which
may be unfamiliar to non-sociologists, and many contributors apparently read the Journal of
Cultic Studies and Singer, Langone, Ofshe, Clark, Lifton, West, Hassan, etc. Their criticisms
of ‗ACM‘ demand responsible rebuttal. Contributor James Richardson, for one,
acknowledges, if only in a qualified footnote, that leaders and members of new religions
have indeed violated laws. (vol. 3A, p. 93) But, no contributor addresses in any depth the
relationship of some new religions to the far right or the manipulation of movie stars,
politicians, and academics. I recommend to scholars and researchers in all relevant
disciplines the chapter by Richardson, Balch, and Melton (vol. 3B, pp263-276) on problems
of research and data in the study of new religions. They make clear that it is exceptionally
difficult to collect a representative sample of cultists and ex-cultists and to obtain valid and
reliable data from them. Finally, many chapters are rich in thought provoking perspectives.
Biases and couched in sociological jargon though they may be at times, they still merit
careful consideration. Space prohibits full analysis here of the host of ideas, conjectures,
assertions, and speculation with which these volumes abound. However, I will consider
briefly selected chapters which address conversion and family, brainwashing, and mental
health.
Wright and D‘Antonio (vol. 3A, pp 222-227) summarize four perspectives that attempt to
link youth conversion to familial factors: identity formation theory, functional analysis,
family deprivation thesis, and the pathological model. The possibility that manipulative
group practices, intensive social influence, or psychological abuse (―If you can‘t persuade
your biological family to accept your true Father, they are doomed to hell!‖) might interfere
with family relationships is dismissed. Nor do any of the theorists presented here speculate
about the families who accept their children‘s conversion or about the children born of cult
parents.
Stark and Iannaccone (vol. 3A, pp 241-261) ―hope to demonstrate that the economic
rational choice approach to religion is possibly the most powerful and comprehensive social
scientific approach that scholars have at their disposal.‖ They liken religions to ―firms
supplying a commodity ‖ they ―assume that individuals choose their actions rationally.‖
After presenting a set of propositions in respect to conversion, sacrifice and stigma, they
assert that without resorting to brainwashing, psychopathology, or cognitive dissonance,
such propositions explain how people are attracted to religions. It is evident to me that
psychiatrists or psychologists could easily construct a more convincing contrary theory – a
theory of irrationality.
Many of these contributors attempt to demolish the straw concept of brainwashing. For
example, Machalek and Snow (Vol. 3, pp 53-74) in their chapter ―Conversion to New
Religious Movements.‖ Assert that the ―simplistic, monocausal‖ brainwashing model is
declining in popularity. They call for a more fully developed ―macrosociological approach to
the study of conversion to new religious movements.‖ Brainwashing is indeed a
controversial term but, as I see it, intensive social persuasion and hypnotic suggestion are
preferable explanatory concepts, which are more acceptable to social scientists.
Furthermore, drawing from law and criminology, deceptions, swindles, scams, and
confidence schemes should be included within a multidisciplinary approach to conversion.
―In general, studies on active members of NRM‘s tend to find membership beneficial, while
those on deprogrammed members conclude that cultic lifestyle has devastating effects on
personality. Adoption of better theoretical frameworks and methodological procedures is
necessary before any definite conclusions are reached on the effect of cult membership.‖
Thus Saliba summarizes his chapter, ―The New Religions and Mental Health‖ (Vol. 3B, pp
99-113). No studies published after 1990, are cited, and therefore the important recent
contributions of Singer, Lalich, West, Langone, Martin and others are not considered.
On the positive side, there is valuable material on the changing characteristics of new
religions and their members, a host of qualitative and quantitative studies are cited which
may be unfamiliar to non-sociologists, and many contributors apparently read the Journal of
Cultic Studies and Singer, Langone, Ofshe, Clark, Lifton, West, Hassan, etc. Their criticisms
of ‗ACM‘ demand responsible rebuttal. Contributor James Richardson, for one,
acknowledges, if only in a qualified footnote, that leaders and members of new religions
have indeed violated laws. (vol. 3A, p. 93) But, no contributor addresses in any depth the
relationship of some new religions to the far right or the manipulation of movie stars,
politicians, and academics. I recommend to scholars and researchers in all relevant
disciplines the chapter by Richardson, Balch, and Melton (vol. 3B, pp263-276) on problems
of research and data in the study of new religions. They make clear that it is exceptionally
difficult to collect a representative sample of cultists and ex-cultists and to obtain valid and
reliable data from them. Finally, many chapters are rich in thought provoking perspectives.
Biases and couched in sociological jargon though they may be at times, they still merit
careful consideration. Space prohibits full analysis here of the host of ideas, conjectures,
assertions, and speculation with which these volumes abound. However, I will consider
briefly selected chapters which address conversion and family, brainwashing, and mental
health.
Wright and D‘Antonio (vol. 3A, pp 222-227) summarize four perspectives that attempt to
link youth conversion to familial factors: identity formation theory, functional analysis,
family deprivation thesis, and the pathological model. The possibility that manipulative
group practices, intensive social influence, or psychological abuse (―If you can‘t persuade
your biological family to accept your true Father, they are doomed to hell!‖) might interfere
with family relationships is dismissed. Nor do any of the theorists presented here speculate
about the families who accept their children‘s conversion or about the children born of cult
parents.
Stark and Iannaccone (vol. 3A, pp 241-261) ―hope to demonstrate that the economic
rational choice approach to religion is possibly the most powerful and comprehensive social
scientific approach that scholars have at their disposal.‖ They liken religions to ―firms
supplying a commodity ‖ they ―assume that individuals choose their actions rationally.‖
After presenting a set of propositions in respect to conversion, sacrifice and stigma, they
assert that without resorting to brainwashing, psychopathology, or cognitive dissonance,
such propositions explain how people are attracted to religions. It is evident to me that
psychiatrists or psychologists could easily construct a more convincing contrary theory – a
theory of irrationality.
Many of these contributors attempt to demolish the straw concept of brainwashing. For
example, Machalek and Snow (Vol. 3, pp 53-74) in their chapter ―Conversion to New
Religious Movements.‖ Assert that the ―simplistic, monocausal‖ brainwashing model is
declining in popularity. They call for a more fully developed ―macrosociological approach to
the study of conversion to new religious movements.‖ Brainwashing is indeed a
controversial term but, as I see it, intensive social persuasion and hypnotic suggestion are
preferable explanatory concepts, which are more acceptable to social scientists.
Furthermore, drawing from law and criminology, deceptions, swindles, scams, and
confidence schemes should be included within a multidisciplinary approach to conversion.
―In general, studies on active members of NRM‘s tend to find membership beneficial, while
those on deprogrammed members conclude that cultic lifestyle has devastating effects on
personality. Adoption of better theoretical frameworks and methodological procedures is
necessary before any definite conclusions are reached on the effect of cult membership.‖
Thus Saliba summarizes his chapter, ―The New Religions and Mental Health‖ (Vol. 3B, pp
99-113). No studies published after 1990, are cited, and therefore the important recent
contributions of Singer, Lalich, West, Langone, Martin and others are not considered.
