Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 87
psychology. The idea that ―brainwashing‖ must involve the denial of free choice is based on
wrong premises. ―Brainwashing‖ does not in fact state that people are not able to choose
freely, but they choose freely on the basis of values that are different and which have been
totally restructured according to the viewpoint of the group and its leader. Zablocki holds
that there is a sequence of events that can be observed in the notion of ―brainwashing‖ and
that sometimes lasts for years. ―This visible and relatively unambiguous sequence consists
of four steps: (1) affiliation, (2) lifestyle modification, (3) disaffiliation, and (4)
disenchantment.‖11
Zablocki‘s main hypothesis is that under certain circumstances a person can be subjected to
a form of persuasion that can transform his or her values of reference and notion of
personal identity. This is a special kind of persuasion that is performed within a strongly
united group, which largely or totally controls the environment around the individual, and
which uses stress and disorientation to exercise its influence. The peculiarity of this kind of
persuasion lies in the fact that it persists even after the individual has left the group, as well
as in the terror of leaving the group it brings about, as if the very life of the individual
depended on his or her belonging to the group. Of course, even though these aspects are
easy to observe, there is no reason to think they are present, or have the same intensity, in
every group. There may also be individuals who are hard to condition, since the process
varies from individual to individual.
Zablocki also says that, in his opinion, ―...brainwashing is likely to always remain a
relatively rare phenomenon because of the difficulty of achieving the high degree of mileu
control and charismatic influence necessary to make it effective.12
We believe that the problem is that of identifying the level of conditioning a person must be
subjected to before we can speak of brainwashing. This problem of definiton arises because
there are several levels or degrees of conditioning inside different movements, as well as
different sensitivities and reactions on the part of individuals subjected to environmental
stimulation. Zablocki holds that ―brainwashing‖ is a relatively rare affair, and he does so on
the basis of his experience and of his assessment categories. Other scholars hold that it
does not exist at all, yet others imply that it happens quite frequently. The frequency of this
phenomenon is still harder to establish when we are dealing with children or very young
people, or with people who have psychological problems. The controversy about the
existence, frequency, and intensity of mental manipulation inside NRM‘s has also been dealt
with in committees of various European parliaments, which have drawn up reports after the
recent mass suicides.
European Governmental Committees
Concerning this issue, it is worth while to remember what Massimo Introvigne had to say
about the committee of the Belgian Parliament:
This committee claims to have ―taken note of the division in the academic
world,‖ and to have decided to choose sides. ―On the basis of its own
proceedings (and especially on hearings of dozens of former victims) the
committee comes to the conclusion that it cannot share the conclusions of the
group of sociologists of religions, since the latter clearly underestimate the
potential dangers which cultic organizations pose, due to a restrictive and
unilateral approach that such sociologists adopt.‖ Especially, the sociologists -
-and CESNUR --deny the existence of ―mental manipulation,‖ whereas the
committee has ―been presented with several testimonies on this matter‖
which have convinced them that the opposite holds true. The committee also
takes the liberty of preaching to the sociologists, since it ―deplores the
conclusions of this type of analysis which refer to ‗new religious movements‘
being published without a thorough examination. From an ethical point of

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 88
view, it is highly disputable to consider a cultic organization as a ‗new
religious movement (...).Analyses of this kind, which ignore one side of
reality, end up by justifying to a certain extent harmful cultic organizations.
The result is to give them carte blanche, or at least to allow them to perform
their dangerous activities more easily.‖13
We find another mention of the attitude of the Committee towards CESNUR in an article by
Julien Ries :
The Committee severely reprimanded the first group, CESNUR, for having
published the book, Pour en Finir Avec les Sectes, where 22 authors discredit
the ―Report by the Committee of Inquiry of the French National Assembly,
judged not to be scientific‖ since it provided moral justification for numerous
representatives of cult organizations during the hearings in Brussels, because
of its support for the new religious movements.14
The Belgian parliamentary report was severely criticised for having included some perfectly
―orthodox‖ Catholic groups in its list of 189 movements. Some used this to try to alarm the
public, saying more or less: ―Catholics, beware, if we approve the methods of the Belgian
Parliament Committee (which accepts testimonies by ‗apostates‘), some Catholic groups
could also be labelled as cults!‖
This of course would, quite rightly, cause a chorus of indignation in the Catholic world. As a
result, people of faith would start to embrace the same positions of total distrust towards
―apostates‖ and towards ―anti-cult‖ movements, which are a resource for families trying to
―recover‖ loved ones who belong to various kinds of ―cults.‖ This could lead to a new opinion
crusade, which, however, we believe would be entirely out of place.
We believe no such possibility existed, exists, or will exist. The Belgian parliament report
issued on April 28, 1997, does include some Catholic groups in its list of 189 movements,
but a note on the side makes a very important point:
...this list in no way expresses any judgement or any stand on the part of
the committee further examination of these movements must be made and
the chart must be updated constantly.
Moreover, on page 209, the text says that the commitee was able to make a census of 189
organizations that ―might belong to one of the three categories it laid down within the
framework of a definition,‖ i.e., harmless sects or new religions, a sect or new religion which
is harmful for individuals and societies, and criminal associations. In other words, the
committee de facto admits having mixed all groups together, leaving various people or
bodies free to make further classifications.15
So the 189 movements (which also include some Catholic groups) are not distinguished
within the three categories chosen by the Committee, which obviously did not want to take
the responsibility of putting on paper which groups are dangerous and which are not. Of
course, the fact that Catholic movements were listed together with truly dangerous cults led
to protests from the bishops as well. The parliament finally approved the Report, but
decided not to place the list of movements in its conclusions, but only to consider an
Appendix.16
We believe this is sufficient to prove that it is simply not true that the Belgian
Parliament called Opus Dei or other Catholic groups dangerous cults. It is also a
manipulation of facts to blame the ―anti-cult‖ movements, the ―apostates,‖ or anybody who
believes brainwashing exists in NRM‘s for the fact that Catholic groups too were listed. If
the Committee drew up such a list, it was because of testimonies and evidence which they
found to be credible. And in any case, when a Parliament Committee is established after