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

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 86
He then concludes that ―the real sociological issue ought not to be whether brainwashing
ever occurs but rather whether it occurs frequently enough to be considered an important
social problem.‖5 This scholar, however, suggests focusing the study of this phenomenon,
not on the recruiting methods used by groups, but on the processes which make it
enormously difficult to leave them, and which continue to condition people even after they
have left: ―Does something occur to create, in the mind of the person, a social-psychological
prison without guards or walls?‖6
These suggestions can help serious scholars avoid confusing ideology, philosophy, and
culture with a scientific approach. Why after all should we totally deny the possibility that
certain groups, under certain conditions, can actually practice some form of mental
conditioning? How can we otherwise explain cases of collective suicide or mental illnesses
which recur constantly among people who join such groups, or why ―normal‖ people can
firmly believe absurd and unimaginable things and go on doing so even when it is proved
that these do not exist?
What is worrying is the attempt to minimise such episodes and to downplay their enormous
seriousness. Unfortunately, even the case of Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out a poison gas
outrage in the Tokyo subway, has received this ―softening down‖ treatment from religion
scholars who raised an outcry about persecution of the group led by Shoko Asahara.
Here are the words of Haifa University psychologist Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, who, after
describing the sarin outrage in Tokyo on March 20, 1995, which led to the death of 13
people and injury to many others, says:
According to media reports, four Americans arrived in Tokyo to defend Aum
Shinrikyo against charges of mass terrorism. Two of them were NRM
scholars. According to these reports, they stated that Aum Shinrikyo could
not have produced the gas used in the attack, and called on Japanese police
not to ―crush a religion and deny freedom‖ (Reid, 1995 Reader, 1995).7
Actually, the author of the article says, the Japanese authorities had been rather negligent
before, if not actually conniving with, the criminal operations of Aum Shinrikyo, precisely
because it was an NRM. The author complains of the ostentatiously favorable attitude of his
colleagues, and says that this kind of behavior not only involved Aum Shinrikyo, but recurs
constantly among NRM scholars, and is in his opinion deplorable.8 A Cult Observer summary
of a Washington Post article indicated that the American scholars‘ ―visit was not well
received in Japan‖9 because it had been widely reported that Aum had paid for their ticket
to Japan and because the Japanese public believed it already knew more than enough to
consider Aum guilty.
Concerning this matter, it should be said that ―actually, at the opening of the press
conference held in Japan, J. Gordon Melton [one of the American scholars to whom Beit-
Hallahmi refers] stated that the travelling expenses --‗but no kind of fee‘ --had been paid
for by Aum Shinrikyo.‖10 Whoever gave out the news, the facts stand and speak for
themselves.
What we wish to stress is that tragedies like those we have just mentioned invite all of us,
scholars included, to look for a plausible explanation of the phenomenon and for possible
ways to prevent others from happening. Sticking one‘s head in the sand like an ostrich is of
no use. One should lift up one‘s head, open up one‘s eyes and ears, and use one‘s brain
without making exceptions for anybody, if the safety of human lives, and their
psychological, physical, and spiritual well-being depends on this.
Going back to those who are trying to understand and investigate these issues honestly and
without prejudices, we find a proposal by Zablocki interesting. He says that the notion of
―brainwashing‖ should be defined again, and then treated like any other notion of social