Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 77
Nevertheless, those who plan to study this controversial and very difficult topic will find
Saliba‘s chapter valuable.
What audience should buy this handbook? Probably university libraries. Serious scholars,
who are not acquainted with the sociology of religion, are advised instead to skim recent
issued of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, American Sociological Review, and
Sociological Analysis. Others can safely rely on this journal, the Observer, and Singer and
Lalich to keep up with research on cults. In sum, the contributors, even though frequently
one-sided, raise many issues which deserve careful consideration by social scientists.
Arthur A. Dole
Emeritus Professor Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Trenton, Maine
The Recovered Memory/False Memory Debate. Kathy Pezdek, &William P.
Banks. (Eds.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996, 394 pages.
What does an edited book about false memory of child sexual abuse (CSA) written by 34
psychologists have to offer those interested in cults? Quite a bit, if the reader can plow
through its scholarly jargon.
The false memory controversy started when adult children accused their parents of sexually
abusing them as children. Many of these accusers claimed to have recovered these
memories in adulthood, after years of suppression. Like parents of cult recruits, anguished
parents formed alliances with lawyers, theologians, exit consultants, and, most pertinent
here, with social scientists and mental health specialists. These behavioral scientists, mostly
academic psychologists and sociologists, assembled evidence that recovered memories
(especially as proposed by psychoanalytic theorists and practitioners) were unsupported and
that children‘s memories were inaccurate and distorted. They claimed that allegedly
incompetent and irresponsible therapists, as well as overzealous court officers misused mind
control methods to implant false memories of CSA. Other ―experts‖ supported the accusers.
They claimed that memories of CSA, whether or not they were forgotten and then recalled,
were based on real events. Hence the false memory debate among authorities, much like
the controversy between apologists and critics of new religions, continues in court, at
professional meetings, and in learned journals. In fact some of the cult critics, most notably
Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe, have also been active in combating false memories.
Parenthetically, I became interested in false memories because of my professional
colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, Pamela and Peter Freyd. When their adult
daughter, Jennifer, an academic psychologist, accused her father of CSA, her parents‘ pain
and outrage reminded me of cult victims‘ parents (my wife and I included) when a beloved
child is entrapped in a manipulative group. The Freyds have founded the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation. Like its ―cousins,‖ the American Family Foundation and Cult
Awareness Network, the FMSF in defending those accused of CSA, has generated both
support and criticism. As is evident in this book, however, the two sides in the false
memory debate are by no means identical to the sides in the cult controversy. For example,
I am not aware that the supporters of recovered memories have been corrupted, as some
scholars have been in defending new religions.
In The Recovered Memory/False Memory Debate, the contributors seem fair minded, even
handed, balanced, and evidence-oriented, whatever their positions about memory. Personal
attacks are absent. Each essay stakes out a position. However, if the reader is unacquainted
with the primary sources cited, it is difficult to evaluate the argument. The ―debate‖ is more
Nevertheless, those who plan to study this controversial and very difficult topic will find
Saliba‘s chapter valuable.
What audience should buy this handbook? Probably university libraries. Serious scholars,
who are not acquainted with the sociology of religion, are advised instead to skim recent
issued of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, American Sociological Review, and
Sociological Analysis. Others can safely rely on this journal, the Observer, and Singer and
Lalich to keep up with research on cults. In sum, the contributors, even though frequently
one-sided, raise many issues which deserve careful consideration by social scientists.
Arthur A. Dole
Emeritus Professor Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Trenton, Maine
The Recovered Memory/False Memory Debate. Kathy Pezdek, &William P.
Banks. (Eds.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996, 394 pages.
What does an edited book about false memory of child sexual abuse (CSA) written by 34
psychologists have to offer those interested in cults? Quite a bit, if the reader can plow
through its scholarly jargon.
The false memory controversy started when adult children accused their parents of sexually
abusing them as children. Many of these accusers claimed to have recovered these
memories in adulthood, after years of suppression. Like parents of cult recruits, anguished
parents formed alliances with lawyers, theologians, exit consultants, and, most pertinent
here, with social scientists and mental health specialists. These behavioral scientists, mostly
academic psychologists and sociologists, assembled evidence that recovered memories
(especially as proposed by psychoanalytic theorists and practitioners) were unsupported and
that children‘s memories were inaccurate and distorted. They claimed that allegedly
incompetent and irresponsible therapists, as well as overzealous court officers misused mind
control methods to implant false memories of CSA. Other ―experts‖ supported the accusers.
They claimed that memories of CSA, whether or not they were forgotten and then recalled,
were based on real events. Hence the false memory debate among authorities, much like
the controversy between apologists and critics of new religions, continues in court, at
professional meetings, and in learned journals. In fact some of the cult critics, most notably
Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe, have also been active in combating false memories.
Parenthetically, I became interested in false memories because of my professional
colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, Pamela and Peter Freyd. When their adult
daughter, Jennifer, an academic psychologist, accused her father of CSA, her parents‘ pain
and outrage reminded me of cult victims‘ parents (my wife and I included) when a beloved
child is entrapped in a manipulative group. The Freyds have founded the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation. Like its ―cousins,‖ the American Family Foundation and Cult
Awareness Network, the FMSF in defending those accused of CSA, has generated both
support and criticism. As is evident in this book, however, the two sides in the false
memory debate are by no means identical to the sides in the cult controversy. For example,
I am not aware that the supporters of recovered memories have been corrupted, as some
scholars have been in defending new religions.
In The Recovered Memory/False Memory Debate, the contributors seem fair minded, even
handed, balanced, and evidence-oriented, whatever their positions about memory. Personal
attacks are absent. Each essay stakes out a position. However, if the reader is unacquainted
with the primary sources cited, it is difficult to evaluate the argument. The ―debate‖ is more
