Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 84
say too? And why should ―apostates‖ always be unreliable? What philosophical dogma lays
this down? Where is the evidence that every ―apostate‖ is associated with an anti-cult
movement? And even if some really were, does this mean that merely because they belong
to such a group, they lose their human value, so much so that they cannot be believed even
when they present proof. We are dealing here with bigotry, not science.
Luckily, not all scholars agree with this attitude. For example, Benjamin Zablocki, Professor
of Sociology at Rutgers University, who has studied NRM‘s for about 30 years, says he has:
visited hundreds of religious communes and talked with or interviewed over a
thousand members and ex-members of these groups. Enough of these people
have explained their experiences by something like a brainwashing model to
convince me that the weapon exists. Some of them probably are lying or
confabulating, but it is unlikely that all of them are. Most had no particular ax
to grind, nor were the majority associated with any anti-cult organization.1
The same author says:
Since many NRM apostates were sources of evidence about brainwashing, a
tendentious campaign was begun to define the apostate role as one whose
accounts were inherently unreliable. Instead of letting the issue of the
reliability of apostate accounts be settled empirically, an attempt was made
to settle it definitionally ...By definition, they are all now following the
ideological line of some opposing group, usually an anti-cult organization.2
It is true that people who leave such groups do not always do so dramatically nor do they
always bear a negative memory of the group indeed, they sometimes recognize that there
were positive as well as negative features in it. It is also true that only a few denounce the
―injustices‖ they suffered.
The fact that the former are less numerous than the others does not necessarily imply that
they are exceptions. It could mean that other former members, who could testify to the
same facts, do not do so for other reasons, including:
1. Fear due to the continued presence inside the group of a relative one has to go on
living with or whom one is afraid of losing once and for all, or whom one hopes to
help ―recover.‖
2. Blackmail of various kinds, both emotional and financial.
3. Shame for taking part in not entirely ―transparent‖ activities when one was involved
in the group.
4. A psychological reaction of total rejection of the past experience, felt to be foreign to
one‘s own picture of oneself, a defensive desire not to mention this part of one‘s past
any more.
5. Involved minors are not always able to testify suitably to any psychological or
physical abuse they may have suffered.
6. A left-over phobia induced by the leadership, which leads to the notion that those
who do not keep secrets may suffer mishap or disaster of some kind
Who can decide whether the silence of the majority of former members is more reliable than
the dramatic testimony of a minority of ―apostates‖? Who can decide that ―apostates‖ are
―bad‖ former members, and that all the others are ―good‖? Can some percentages here and
there in one hurried study finally prove a principle which can then be generalized to all
groups and all situations? And what about the statement that ―apostates‖ accuse the groups
they used to belong to in court only to be awarded damages, or in order to get publicity for

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 85
their story, or to publish their autobiography for money? Who can establish the intentions of
people? Could it not be that an ―apostate‖ decides to testify or to ask for an indemnity or to
write a book simply because he considers it to be a useful action for mankind? One could
say the same thing about a couple who decides to sue a doctor who, in their opinion, has
caused the death of their child through negligence. They will certainly ask to for damages,
but are they doing so because they want to get rich, or because they want to see justice
enforced and want to prevent the doctor from repeating the same mistake with others? In
terms of principle, why is such a notion not also applicable in the case of ―apostates‖?
When the conscience of a person is involved, the scholar might do best to bow his head and
say, ―this is a task for God and not for me.‖ While one can investigate the actions of a
person, it is much harder to establish the real reason why he performs them. And this holds
true for the members and leaders of NRM‘s. While one may criticize their actions,
statements, and doctrines, nobody can reliably and easily judge their intentions. The history
of mankind is replete with examples of people who did a great deal of damage to others,
thinking to do well.
As we see it, there is a tendency to be very indulgent towards the organizations involved,
but ferocious towards so-called ―apostates,‖ even though the latter --while denouncing the
abuses they have suffered --rarely deny, in their often very painful confessions, having
made serious mistakes themselves. Considering the complex and delicate nature of this
issue, it would perhaps be best to establish some objectivity and formulate research
hypotheses that are not prejudiced and which use diverse methods of investigation.
Who Wants the Funeral of “Brainwashing”?
What is the basic issue behind this matter? It is what is commonly called ―brainwashing.‖
This expression, coined by a journalist named Hunter, today is merely a metaphor, and like
all metaphors expresses a complex notion by using a picture, in this case images
reminiscent of Frank Sinatra‘s role in the movie, The Manchurian Candidate.
Some people are scandalised by the very mention of this expression others, like Benjamin
Zablocki, are not afraid to use it because ―It may also be the most misunderstood of all
these terms, but I see that as an advantage, since using the term impels us to face these
misunderstandings head-on instead of avoiding them with linguistic sleights of hand.‖3
What causes so much distrust among scholars is not simply the metaphor, but what it
means. Admitting the possibility that some form of mind conditioning might be practised on
members within an NRM is something of a holy monster to be exorcised, in order to achieve
the noble purpose of defending religious freedom at all costs.
We agree entirely with those who wish to defend religious freedom, but not at all costs, not
at the cost of closing an eye to violations of other, equally fundamental, human rights. First
of all, we should establish what a ―religion‖ is, and what, on the other hand, is mystifcation,
exploitation, abuse of credulity, etc. These issues, however, would take a thorough
investigation, and they are not the purpose of this article. Zablocki says:
I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying NRMs through
participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-
members, that these movements have unleashed social and psychological
forces of truly awesome power. These forces have wreaked havoc in many
lives --in both adults and in children. It is these social and psychological
influence processes that the social scientist has both the right and the duty to
try to understand, regardless of whether such understanding will ultimately
prove helpful or harmful to the cause of religious liberty.4