In some usages mind control and brainwashing serve as exact synonyms; other usages differentiate the two terms. In most cases, mind control is meant as the "abiblity to control or influence someone's actions" and brain washing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person and sometimes destroying the existing ones, usually regarding politics or religion.

Take in account that in this article the views, sometimes, represent different attitudes regarding the definitions of "mind control" and "brainwashing".

Mind control (or "brainwashing") refers to a broad range of psychological tactics able to subvert an individual's control of his own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decisions. The concept is closely related to hypnosis, but differs in practical approach.

There are a number of controversial issues regarding mind control and the methods by which control might be attained (either direct or more subtle) are the focus of study among psychologists, neuroscientists, and sociologists.

The question of mind control has been discussed in relation to religion, politics, prisoners of war, totalitarianism, black operations, neural cell manipulation, cults, terrorism, torture, parental alienation, and even battered person syndrome.

Mind control as a defense tactic (see also temporary insanity) was rejected by the court in the case of Patty Hearst, and in several court cases involving New Religious Movements.

Also, questions of mind control are regarding ethical questions linked to the subject of free will.

Theoretical models and methods

Lifton thought reform model

Main article: Thought Reform (book)

In his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., describes eight coercive methods which, he says, are able to change the minds of individuals without their knowledge and were used with this purpose on prisoners of war in Korea and China. These include:^[1]

• Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
• Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
• Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
• Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
• Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
• Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
• Doctrine over person. Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
• Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

In his 1999 book Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, he concluded that thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion.

Robert W. Ford a british radio operator who worked in Tibet in the 50' spent 5 years in chinese jails, published a book "Captured in Tibet", describing and analyzing thought reform to which he was arshly subjected.^[2]

Margaret Singer's conditions for mind control

Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book Cults in our Midst six conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence.^[3]

• Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how he is being changed a step at a time.
  • Potential new members are led, step by step, through a behavioral-change program without being aware of the final agenda or full content of the group. The goal may be to make them deployable agents for the leadership, to get them to buy more courses, or get them to make a deeper commitment, depending on the leader's aim and desires.
• Control the person's social and/or physical environment; especially control the person's time.
  • Through various methods, newer members are kept busy and led to think about the group and its content during as much of their waking time as possible.
• Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.
  • This is accomplished by getting members away from their normal social support group for a period of time and into an environment where the majority of people are already group members.
  • The members serve as models of the attitudes and behaviors of the group and speak an in-group language.
  • Strip members of their main occupation (quit jobs, drop out of school) or source of income or have them turn over their income (or the majority of) to the group.
  • Once stripped of your usual support network, your confidence in your own perception erodes.
  • As your sense of powerlessness increases, your good judgment and understanding of the world are diminished. (ordinary view of reality is destabilized)
  • As group attacks your previous worldview, it causes you distress and inner confusion; yet you are not allowed to speak about this confusion or object to it -- leadership suppresses questions and counters resistance.
  • This process is sped up if you are kept tired -- the cult will keep you constantly busy.
• Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person's former social identity.
  • Manipulation of experiences can be accomplished through various methods of trance induction, including leaders using such techniques as paced speaking patterns, guided imagery, chanting, long prayer sessions or lectures, and lengthy meditation sessions.
  • Your old beliefs and patterns of behavior are defined as irrelevant or evil. Leadership wants these old patterns eliminated, so the member must suppress them.
  • Members get positive feedback for conforming to the group's beliefs and behaviors and negative feedback for old beliefs and behavior.
• Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group's ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors.
  • Good behavior, demonstrating an understanding and acceptance of the group's beliefs, and compliance are rewarded while questioning, expressing doubts or criticizing are met with disapproval, redress and possible rejection. If one expresses a question, he or she is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to be questioning.
  • The only feedback members get is from the group, they become totally dependent upon the rewards given by those who control the environment.
  • Members must learn varying amounts of new information about the beliefs of the group and the behaviors expected by the group.
  • The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system is and the more difficult it is to learn, the more effective the conversion process will be.
  • Esteem and affection from peers is very important to new recruits. Approval comes from having the new member's behaviors and thought patterns conform to the models (members). Members' relationship with peers is threatened whenever they fail to learn or display new behaviors. Over time, the easy solution to the insecurity generated by the difficulties of learning the new system is to inhibit any display of doubts -- new recruits simply acquiesce, affirm and act as if they do understand and accept the new ideology.
• Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order.
  • The group has a top-down, pyramid structure. The leaders must have verbal ways of never losing.
  • Members are not allowed to question, criticize or complain -- if they do, the leaders allege that the member is defective -- not the organization or the beliefs.
  • The individual is always wrong -- the system, its leaders and its belief are always right.
  • Conversion or remolding of the individual member happens in a closed system. As members learn to modify their behavior in order to be accepted in this closed system, they change -- begin to speak the language -- which serves to further isolate them from their prior beliefs and behaviors.

A report on brainwashing and mind control presented by an American Psychological Association (APA) task force known as the APA Taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC), chaired by Singer, was rejected in 1987 by the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) as lacking "the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." and cautioned the task force members to "not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board."^[4]

In 2001, Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio, from the Roman seat of the Group for Research and Information about Sects (GRIS) published an article in which they assert that the rejection of the report should not be construed as a rejection of the theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New Religious Movements, and that the rejection by one division of the APA does not represent the whole association. They quote a personal e-mail from Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology, from 1997 in which Zablocki told the authors "many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing", and that the APA urged scholars to do more research on the matter. They also write that they have reason to believe that the APA still considers "psychological coercion" to be a phenomenon worth investigating, and not a notion rejected by the scientific community. They also write "Otherwise, why would people such as Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, and others considered to be 'anti-cultists' contribute to APA Conventions and be respected in other prestigious professional bodies as well?"^[5]

Writing in 1999, research and forensic psychologist Dick Anthony noted that the removal of Singer's brainwashing concept from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) "would seem to indicate that the American Psychiatric Association, like the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, has repudiated Singer's cultic brainwashing theory because of its unscientific character." Anthony also noted that Singer's testimony had also been repeatedly excluded from American legal trials.^[6]

Steven Hassan's BITE model

In his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, mental health counselor and exit counselor Steven Hassan describes his mind-control model, "BITE". "BITE" stands for "Behavior, Information, Thoughts, and Emotions." The model has a basis on the works of Singer and Lifton, and on the cognitive dissonance theory of Leon Festinger.^[7]

In the book, Hassan describes the components of the BITE model:^[7]

• Behavior Control
  • Regulation of individual’s physical reality
  • Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals
  • Need to ask permission for major decisions
  • Need to report thoughts, feelings, and activities to superiors
  • Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques positive and negative)
  • Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails
  • Rigid rules and regulations
  • Need for obedience and dependency
• Information Control
  • Use of deception
  • Access to non cult sources of information minimized or discouraged
  • Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
  • Spying on other members is encouraged
  • Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda
  • Unethical use of confession
• Thought Control
  • Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth"
  • Use of "loaded" language (for example, “thought terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words."
  • Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.
  • Use of hypnotic techniques to induce altered mental states
  • Manipulation of memories and implantation of false memories
  • Use of thought stopping techniques, which shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts
  • Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate.
  • No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful
• Emotional Control
  • Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings
  • Make the person feel that if there are ever any problems, it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s
  • Excessive use of guilt
  • Excessive use of fear
  • Extremes of emotional highs and lows
  • Ritual and often public confession of "sins"
  • Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

Hassan writes that cults recruit and retain members through a three-step process which he refers to as "unfreezing," "changing," and "refreezing". This involves the use of an extensive array of various techniques, including systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias), which he collectively terms mind control. He describes these steps as follows:^[8]

• Unfreezing: the process of breaking a person down
• Changing: the indoctrination process
• Refreezing: the process of reinforcing the new identity

In Releasing the Bonds he also writes "I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called "naturalistic" hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination."^[7]

Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, states that he is no longer involved in this practice.^[9] and which eventually became completely illegal except in the case of minors.

In Releasing the Bonds, Hassan describes an approach that he calls the "Strategic Interaction Approach" (SIA) in order to help cult members leave their groups, and in order to help them recover from the psychological damage that they have incurred. The approach is non-coercive and the person being treated is free to discontinue it at any time. He writes: "The goal of the SIA is to help the loved one recover his full faculties; to restore the creative, interdependent adult who fully understands what has happened to him; who has digested and integrated the experience and is better and stronger from the experience."^[10]

In 1998 the Enquete Commission issued its report on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" in Germany. Reviewing Hassan's BITE model, the report said that:^[11]

Thus, the milieu control identified by Hassan, consisting of behavioural control, mental control, emotional control and information control cannot, in every case and as a matter of principle, be characterised as "manipulative". Control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation.

Mind Control and the Battered Person Syndrome

A very different explanation of the control some groups have over their members is by associating it with Battered person syndrome and Stockholm syndrome. This has been done by psychologists Teresa Ramirez Boulette, Ph.D. and Susan M. Andersen, Ph.D.

Social psychology tactics

A contemporary view of mind control sees it as an intensified and persistent use of well researched social psychology principles like compliance, conformity, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, framing or emotional manipulation.

One of the most notable proponents of such theories is social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, former president of the American Psychological Association:

I conceive of mind control as a phenomena ^[sic] encompassing all the ways in which personal, social and institutional forces are exerted to induce compliance, conformity, belief, attitude, and value change in others. ^[12]

"Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles."

In Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary, and he titles them as follows:

• "Reciprocation: The Old Give and Take...and Take"
• "Commitment and Consistency: Hobgoblins of the Mind"
• "Social Proof: Truths Are Us"
• "Liking: The Friendly Thief"
• "Authority: Directed Deference"
• "Scarcity: The Rule of the Few"

Using these six broad categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.

Social psychological conditioning by Stahelski

Writing in the Journal of Homeland Security, a publication of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, Anthony Stahelski identifies five phases of social psychological conditioning which he calls cult-like conditioning techniques employed by terrorist groups: [Stahelski, 2004]:

1. Depluralization: stripping away all other group member identities
2. Self-deindividuation: stripping away each member’s personal identity
3. Other-deindividuation: stripping away the personal identities of enemies
4. Dehumanization: identifying enemies as subhuman or nonhuman
5. Demonization: identifying enemies as evil

Subliminal advertising

Main article: Subliminal message

Subliminal advertising was proposed around 1960 as a means for organized mass control of human behavior. The allegations has since then fallen out of the common debate, because there are few reports that subliminal advertising has any real effect in the way advertisers may wish.

Cults and mind control controversies

Some of the mind control models discussed above have been related to religious and non-religious cults (for debates regarding what is a cult, see the article). There is debate among scholars, members of new religious movements, and cult critics whether or not mind control is applied either in general or by any particular group.

Scholarly points of view

While the majority of scholars in the study of religion reject theories of mind control (e.g., Massimo Introvigne and J. Gordon Melton), it is often accepted in psychology and psychiatry (e.g., Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, and Philip Zimbardo) and in sociology the opinions are divided (e.g., David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe contra, Stephen A. Kent and Benjamin Zablocki pro). Most scholars have either a decided contra or a decided pro opinion; there are few who advocate a moderate point of view.

The medical journals The Lancet and The American Journal of Psychiatry have published favorable reviews of Steven Hassan's 1988 book Combatting Cult Mind Control.^{[13] [14]} The latter review was written by psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West, a long time advisory board member of the International Cultic Studies Association and of the Cult Awareness Network.

James T. (Jim) Richardson, professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, writes in his "Brainwashing" Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena that, while heavy on theory, the mind control model is light on evidence:

"The CCM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a NRM. Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during CCM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control." ^[15]

James Richardson, also states that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members has been limited. In addition, Thomas Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine and other scholars researching NRMs have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts and relevant professional associations and scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement. ^[16]

Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias:

"I am not personally opposed to the existence of NRMs and still less to the free exercise of religious conscience. I would fight actively against any governmental attempt to limit freedom of religious expression. Nor do I believe it is within the competence of secular scholars such as myself to evaluate or judge the cultural worth of spiritual beliefs or spiritual actions. However, 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." (Zablocki, 1997)

Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible".^[17]. Sociology professor Stephen A. Kent published several articles where he discusses practices of NRMs as regards to brainwashing ^{[18] [19]}

In 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer, the main proponent of mind control theories, to set up a working group called the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).

In 1987 the DIMPAC committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo ^[20] it is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.".

There are two interpretations of this rejection: one side (e.g. Amitrani and di Marzio 2000 and Zablocki 2001) see it as no position on the issue of brainwashing, the other (e.g. Introvigne 1997) sees it as rejecting all brainwashing theories.

Philip Zimbardo, who teaches a course on the "The psychology of mind control" at Stanford University, wrote that "Several participants [in a presentation called 'Cults of Hatred'] challenged our profession to form a task force on extreme forms of influence, asserting that the underlying issues inform discourses on terrorist recruiting, on destructive cults versus new religious movements, on social-political-'therapy' cults and on human malleability or resiliency when confronted by authority power."^[21]

Recently, there are indications that some members of both sides are willing to start a dialog as, for example, in the 2001 book "Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field". Additionally, professor of Sociology Eileen Barker was invited to speak at the 2002 yearly conference of the International Cultic Studies Association. And J. Gordon Melton and Douglas Cowan were invited to speak at a conference sponsored by the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.

Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming

Opponents of some new religious movements have accused them of being cults that coerce recruits to join (and members to remain) by using strong influence over members that is instilled and maintained by manipulation (see also Anti-cult movement, Opposition to cults and new religious movements and Christian countercult movement). Such opponents frequently advocate exit counseling as necessary to free the cult member from mind control. The practice of coercive deprogramming has practically ceased. (Kent & Szimhart, 2002)

Opponents of deprogramming generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming are being deceived, denied due process, and forced to endure more intense manipulation than that encountered during their previous group membership.

Steven Hassan, who began his career as a deprogrammer, criticizes deprogramming in his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. He writes that "Deprogramming has many drawbacks. I have met dozens of people who were successfully deprogrammed but, to this day, experience psychological trauma as a result of the method. These people were glad to be released from the grip of cult programming but were not happy about the method used to help them."^[22]

Mind control and recruitment rates

Eileen Barker states that out of one thousand people persuaded by the Moonies [Unification Church] to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week and less than 4% remained members by 1981, two years later.^[23]

Tyler Hendricks, former president of the Unification Church, estimates that approximately 100,000 people "moved into" the Unification Church as full-time members from the 1970s to the 1990s. Membership in the church was 8,600 in 2004 (counting only those who joined as adults and excluding the children of members). This is an attrition rate of 93%.

Billy Graham, one of the most prominent evangelists of the last century had only an average of 1% of the attendants of his evangelizations heed the altar call at all. Follow-up work after evangelizations shows that only 10% of the people responding to an altar call actually do join a church. Therefore successful Christian evangelizations resulted in a longterm success rate of 0.1%, as compared to the 4% of Barker's observation. And these 0.1% do not become full-time missionaries as in the Unification Church. (Langone, 1993).

Mind control and faith

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods "depriving people of the free exercise of religion". The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of 'brainwashing' or of 'mind control' should overcome the free exercise of religion. ^[24]

Leon Festinger based his theory of the cognitive dissonance, a component of Hassan's Mind Control model, on his observation that the faith of most members of a UFO cult was unshattered by failed prophecy. ^[25].

Barrett who is affiliated with CESNUR and Eileen Barker, whom some anti-cult activists consider cult apologists, wrote that logical arguments are irrelevant when trying to persuade some members to leave a movement due to the certainty that they have about their faith, which he sees as not confined to cults, but also occurring in some forms of mainstream religion. He also wrote that some members do not leave the movement even though they realize that things are wrong. See also Leaving a cult.

Counter-cult movement and mind control

In the Christian counter-cult movement there are several commentators who refute mind control as a factor in cult membership, and membership in both Christian and non-Christian cults as a spiritual or theological issue.

In an article by the evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged "victimization" by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion:

[...] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant.^[26]

In a rebuttal to the Passantino's article, a protagonist of the counter-cult movement, Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. et al. in his Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform, (first appeared in Cultic Studies Journal 15/2 1998), writes:

"The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for a detailed rebuttal. [...]For us, theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults, although others hold similar positions without considering theological issues. Cults distort one's perceptions both of natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. In the Christian tradition, the former is supposed to reveal the latter; therefore, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to former cult members.^[27]

Legal issues

Some persons have claimed a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control. In the cases of Patty Hearst, Steven Fishman and Lee Boyd Malvo the court rejected such defenses.

Also in the court cases against members of Aum Shinrikyo regarding the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system the mind control defense was not a mitigating factor.

Starting from the Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the American Psychological Association) (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994.^[28]

The Frye standard has since been replaced by the Daubert standard and there have been to court cases where testimonies about mind control have been examined according to the Daubert standard.

Some Civil suits where mind control was an issue, were, though, more effective:

In the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California the court states church practices had been conducted in a coercive environment and so were not protected by religious freedom guarantees. Wollersheim was finally awarded $8 million in damages. (California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)

"During trial, Wollersheim's experts testified Scientology's "auditing" and "disconnect" practices constituted "brainwashing" and "thought reform" akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens." "Using its position as religious leader, the 'church' and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice... Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant's outrageous conduct caused that harm... 'Church' practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees" [1]

In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of a Greek Jehovah's Witness Minos Kokkinakis, who had been sentenced to prison and a fine for proselytizing, to spread his faith, though the court sought to define what it regarded as acceptable ways of sharing one's faith. However, in a dissenting judgment, two judges argued that Kokkinakis and his wife had applied "unacceptable psychological techniques" akin to brainwashing. KOKKINAKIS v. GREECE (14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20 (25 May 1993) [2]

Mind control against children in Parental Alienation

Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin have claimed in Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children that many forms of mind control are used in Parental alienation by one parent against the other parent using both parents' children as unwitting weapons. This use of devastating mind control is often detrimental to children and follows them into adulthood by creating a chronic condition which the authors have named Parental Alienation Syndrome. (It should be noted that there is no medical or psychological recognition of PAS as an actual syndrome, and that the use of this term serves to reify the age-old practice of one parent turning the child against the other). The authors claim the mind control used in Parental Alienation often permanently damages or destroys the target parent's bonds with his or her children. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, in others, the alienating parent may be in fact protecting the child from an abusive or inadequate parent. These kinds of disputes are complex and the use of a simplistic term such as PAS can distract from the uniqueness of each situation.

Mind control in fiction and popular culture

Main article: Mind control in popular culture

Despite, or because being a serious topic in itself, mind control have attracted a large interest in the eyes of the popular culture, since, by the same logic as in conspiration theories, it may make the plot believable and more exciting.

Further reading

• Cialdini, Robert B., Influence: Science and Practice, Allyn & Bacon, 2000.
• Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella di Marzio: "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association, Cultic Studies Journal Vol 17, 2000.
• Bowart, Walter, Operation Mind Control, Dell, 1978.
• Bromley, D.B., Shupe, A.D., Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, Beacon Press, Boston, (1981).
• Clawar, Stanley, and Rivlin, Brynne, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, ABA, 2003.
• Free tutorial on mind control attacks and electronic attacks, Special analysis on how cellular phones and satellites are abused in these technologies resulting in electronic gang stalking. Author John Williams, M.S.E.E. has through companies he works for, Consumertronics.net and Lone Star Consulting, Inc., researched, designed and developed mind control and electronic attack laboratory devices and countermeasures for decades.
• Glasser, William, WARNING: Psychiatry Can be Dangerous to Your Health, Quill, 2004.
• Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing
• Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World#Brave New World Revisited, 1958, 1965 essays
• Intelligence Now
• Kramer, Joel, and Alstad, Diana, The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, North Atlantic, 1993.
• Singer, Margaret et al.: Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, November 1986 (DIMPAC report) [3]
• Introvigne, Massimo, “Liar, Liar”: Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA (Rebuttal to DIMPAC report) [4]
• Keith, Jim, Experiments in Mind-Control
• Kent, Stephen, Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God, The Family CULTIC STUDIES JOURNAL Volume 17 (2000)
• Kent, Stephen, Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), 2000, Hamburg, Behörde für Inneres, Arbeitsgruppe Scientology und Landeszentrale für politische Bildung property=source.pdf (pdf)
• Kent, Stephen and Szimhart, Joseph: Exit Counseling and the Decline of Deprogramming, Cultic Studies Journal 1/3, 2002
• Kilde, Rauni Leena, M.D.: Microwave Mind-Control[5]
• Langone, Michael: Recovery from Cults (book), 1993
• Lifton, Robert J., Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (1961);
• Lifton, Robert J., Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, (1999);
• Martin, Paul R. et al.: Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform in Cultic Studies Journal 15/2, 1998 [6]
• Passantino Bob and Gretchen. Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization. A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories. (1994) Cornerstone Magazine. [7]
• Ramirez Boulette, Teresa and Andersen, Susan M.: Mind Control and the Battering of Women, Cultic Studies Journal 3/1 (1986) [8]
• Ross, Colin A., Bluebird : Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists, Manitou Communications (December 6, 2000) ISBN 0-9704525-1-9
• Schein, Edgar H. et al., Coercive Persuasion (1961)
• Shapiro, K. A. Pascual-Leone, A., Mottaghy, F. M., Gangitano, M., & Caramazza, A. (2001). Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 713-720 [9]
• SSSR Resolution on New Religious Groups
• Stahelski, Anthony: Terrorists Are Made, Not Born: Creating Terrorists Using Social Psychological Conditioning, Journal of Homeland Security, March 2004 [10]
• Streatfeild, Dominic, Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control, Hodder, 2006.
• Taylor, Kathleen, Brainwashing, OUP, 2004.
• Young, Robert Vaughn: Toward a new model of "cult mind control" (2000) [11]
• Zablocki, Benjamin, The Blacklisting of a Concept. The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion, Nova Religio, vol. 1/1, October 1997
• Zablocki, Benjamin, Towards a Demystified and Disinterested Scientific Theory of Brainwashing, in Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (ed.), Misunderstanding Cults, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
• Zimbardo, Philip Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric? in Monitor on Psychology, November 2002 [12]
• Zimbardo, Philip: Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations in Langone, Michael et al.: Recovery from Cults (book), 1993, ISBN 0-393-31321-2

External links

• Mind Control and Ritual Abuse
• Mind Control Patents
• Mind Justice
• What Shall We Tell the Children
• Mind Control videos and info
• Derren Brown Mind Control
• Mind Control Stories
• See Dr. Ross Adey and the C.I.A.'s Project Pandoa
• The Occult Technology of Power

References

Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — sometimes unwelcome beliefs in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge.^[1]

In 1987, the The American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) provisionally declined to endorse one particular approach to brainwashing as "lack[ing] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur". The debate amongst APA members on this subject continues.^[2]

Origins of the term

The term "brainwashing" first came into use in the English language relatively recently. Author John Marks writes that a journalist later revealed to have worked undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)^[3] first coined the term in 1950. But the other source and report pointed out that the term came from the translation of the Chinese term "洗腦" (xǐ năo)^[4].

Earlier forms of coercive persuasion occurred during the Inquisition and in the course of show trials against "enemies of the state" in the Soviet Union, etc.; but no specific term emerged until the methodologies of these earlier movements became systematized during the early decades of the People's Republic of China for use in struggles against internal class enemies and foreign invaders. Until that time, presentations of the phenomenon described only concrete specific techniques.

The term xǐ năo (洗腦, the Chinese term literally translated as "to wash the brain") originally referred to methodologies of coercive persuasion used in the "reconstruction" (改造 gǎi zào) of the so-called feudal (封建 fēng jiàn) thought-patterns of Chinese citizens raised under pre-revolutionary régimes; the term punned on the Taoist custom of "cleansing/washing the heart" (洗心 xǐ xīn) prior to conducting certain ceremonies or entering certain holy places, and in Chinese, the word "心" xīn also refers to the soul or the mind, contrasting with the brain. The term first came into use in the United States in the 1950s during the Korean War (1950-1953) to describe those same methods as applied by the Chinese communists to attempt deep and permanent behavioral changes in foreign prisoners, and especially during the Korean War to disrupt the ability of captured United Nations troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment.^[5]

The word brainwashing consequently came into use in the United States of America to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners of war in Korea. Later analysis determined that some of the primary methodologies employed on them during their imprisonment included sleep-deprivation and other intense psychological manipulations designed to break down the autonomy of individuals. American alarm at the new phenomenon of substantial numbers of U.S. troops switching their allegiance to support foreign Communists lessened after the repatriation of prisoners, when it emerged that few of them retained allegiance to the Marxist and "anti-American" doctrines inculcated during their incarcerations. When rigid control of information ceased and the former prisoners' "natural" cultural methods of reality-testing could resume functioning, the superimposed values and judgments rapidly decreased.

Although the use of brainwashing on United Nations prisoners during the Korean War produced some propaganda-benefits to the forces opposing the United Nations, its main utility to the Chinese lay in the fact that it significantly increased the maximum number of prisoners that one guard could control, thus freeing other Chinese soldiers to go to the battlefield.

After the Korean War the term "brainwashing" came to apply to other methods of coercive persuasion and even to the effective use of ordinary propaganda and indoctrination. Formal discourses of the Chinese Communist Party came to prefer the more clinical-sounding term sī xǐang gǎi zào 思想改造 ("thought reform"). Metaphorical uses of "brainwashing" extended as far as the memes of fashion-following.

Political brainwashing

Studies of the Korean War (1950-1953)

The Communist Party of China used the phrase "xǐ nǎo" ("wash brain", 洗脑) to describe its methods of persuading into orthodoxy those members who did not conform to the Party message. The phrase played on xǐ xīn (洗心"wash heart"), a monition — found in many Daoist temples — which exhorted the faithful to cleanse their hearts of impure desires before entering.

In September 1950, the Miami Daily News published an article by Edward Hunter titled "'Brain-Washing' Tactics Force Chinese into Ranks of Communist Party". It contained the first printed use of the English-language term "brainwashing", which quickly became a stock phrase in Cold War headlines. Hunter, a CIA propaganda-operator^[6] who worked under-cover as a journalist, turned out a steady stream of books and articles on the theme. An additional article by Hunter on the same subject appeared in New Leader magazine in 1951. In 1953 Allen Welsh Dulles, the CIA director at that time, explained that "the brain under [Communist influence] becomes a phonograph playing a disc put on its spindle by an outside genius over which it has no control."

In his 1956 book Brain-Washing: The Story of Men Who Defied It (Pyramid Books), Hunter described "a system of befogging the brain so a person can be seduced into acceptance of what otherwise would be abhorrent to him". According to Hunter, the process became so destructive of physical and mental health that many of his interviewees had not fully recovered after several years of freedom from Chinese captivity.

Later, two studies of the Korean War defections by Robert Lifton and Edgar Schein concluded that brainwashing had a transient effect when used on prisoners-of-war. Lifton and Schein found that the Chinese did not engage in any systematic re-education of prisoners, but generally used their techniques of coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize to maintain their morale and to try to escape. The Chinese did, however, succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements by placing the prisoners under harsh conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, quality food, warmer clothes or blankets. Nevertheless, the psychiatrists noted that even these measures of coercion proved quite ineffective at changing basic attitudes for most people. In essence, the prisoners did not actually adopt Communist beliefs. Rather, many of them behaved as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical abuse. Moreover, the few prisoners influenced by Communist indoctrination apparently succumbed as a result of the confluence of the coercive persuasion, and of the motives and personality characteristics of the prisoners that already existed before imprisonment. In particular, individuals with very rigid systems of belief tended to snap and realign, whereas individuals with more flexible systems of belief tended to bend under pressure and then restore themselves after the removal of external pressures.

Working individually, Lifton and Schein discussed coercive persuasion in their published analyses of the treatment of Korean War POWs. They defined coercive persuasion as a mixture of social, psychological and physical pressures applied to produce changes in an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Lifton and Schein both concluded that such coercive persuasion can succeed in the presence of a physical element of confinement, "forcing the individual into a situation in which he must, in order to survive physically and psychologically, expose himself to persuasive attempts". They also concluded that such coercive persuasion succeeded only on a minority of POWs, and that the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment.

The use of coercive persuasion techniques in China

Following the armistice that interrupted hostilities in the Korean War, a large group of intelligence-officers, psychiatrists, and psychologists received assignments to debrief United Nations soldiers in the process of repatriation. The government of the United States wanted to understand the unprecedented level of collaboration, the breakdown of trust among prisoners, and other such indications that the Chinese were doing something new and effective in their handling of prisoners of war. Formal studies in academic journals began to appear in the mid-1950s, as well as some first-person reports from former prisoners. In 1961, two specialists in the field published books which synthesized these studies for the non-specialists concerned with issues of national security and social policy. Edgar H. Schein wrote on Coercive Persuasion, and Robert J. Lifton wrote on Thought Control and the Psychology of Totalism. Both books focussed primarily on the techniques called "xǐ nǎo" or, more formally "sī xiǎng gǎi zào" (reconstructing or remodeling thought). The following discussion largely builds on their studies.

Although American attention came to bear on thought reconstruction or brainwashing as one result of the Korean War (1950 - 1953), the techniques had operated on ordinary Chinese citizens after the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in October 1949. The PRC had refined and extended techniques earlier used in the Soviet Union to prepare prisoners for show-trials, and they in turn had learned much from the Inquisition. In the Chinese context, these techniques had multiple goals that went far beyond the simple control of subjects in the prison camps of North Korea. They aimed to produce confessions, to convince the accused that they had indeed perpetrated anti-social acts, to make them feel guilty of these crimes against the state, to make them desirous of a fundamental change in outlook toward the institutions of the new communist society, and, finally, to actually accomplish these desired changes in the recipients of the brainwashing/thought-reform. To that end, brainwashers desired techniques that would break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, with regard to information retained in the mind, and with regard to values. Chosen techniques included: dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt, group social pressure, etc. The ultimate goal that drove these extreme efforts consisted of the transformation of an individual with a "feudal" or capitalist mindset into a "right-thinking" member of the new social system, or, in other words, to transform what the state regarded as a criminal mind into what the state could regard as a non-criminal mind.

The methods of thought-control proved extremely useful when deployed for gaining the compliance of prisoners-of-war. Key elements in their success included tight control of the information available to the individual and tight control over the behavior of the individual. When, after repatriation, close control of information ceased and reality-testing could resume, former prisoners fairly quickly regained a close approximation of their original picture of the world and of the societies from which they had come. Furthermore, prisoners subject to thought-control often had simply behaved in ways that pleased their captors, without changing their fundamental beliefs. So the fear of brainwashed sleeper agents, such as that dramatized in the novel and the films The Manchurian Candidate, never materialized.

Terrible though the process frequently seemed to individuals imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party, these attempts at extreme coercive persuasion ended with a reassuring result: they showed that the human mind has enormous ability to adapt to stress (not a recognized term in common use with reference to psychology in the early 1950s) and also a powerful homeostatic capacity. John Clifford, S.J. gives an account of one man's adamant resistance to brainwashing in In the Presence of My Enemies^[7] that substantiates the picture drawn from studies of large groups reported by Lifton and Schein. Allyn and Adele Rickett wrote a more penitent account of their imprisonment (Allyn Rickett had by his own admission broken PRC laws against espionage) in "Prisoners of the Liberation",^[8] but it too details techniques such as the “struggle groups” described in other accounts. Between these opposite reactions to attempts by the state to reform them, experience showed that most people would change under pressure and would change back following the removal of that pressure.^{[original research?]} Interestingly, some individuals derived benefit from these coercive procedures due to the fact that the interactions, perhaps as an unintended side effect,^{[original research?]} actually promoted insight into dysfunctional behaviors that the subjects then abandoned.

Robert W. Ford a british radio operator who worked in Tibet in the 50' was arrested by the invading Chinese army. He spent nearly 5 years in jail, in constant fear of being executed, and was subjected to interrogation and thought reform. He published a book "Captured in Tibet" about his experience in Tibet, describing and analyzing thought reform to which he was harshly subjected.^[9]

Criticism of claims of political brainwashing

According to research and forensic psychologist Dick Anthony, the CIA invented the concept of "brainwashing" as a propaganda strategy to undercut communist claims that American POWs in Korean communist camps had voluntarily expressed sympathy for communism. Anthony stated that definitive research demonstrated that fear and duress, not brainwashing, caused western POWs to collaborate. He argued that the books of Edward Hunter (a secret CIA "psychological warfare specialist" passing as a journalist) pushed the CIA brainwashing-theory onto the general public. He further asserted that for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques (possibly to counteract the brainwashing efforts of the Chinese), and that their attempt failed.

Brainwashing in the context of new religious movements and cults

Frequent disputes regarding brainwashing take place in discussion of cults and of new religious movements (NRMs). The controversy about the existence of cultic brainwashing has become one of the most polarizing issues among cult-followers, academic researchers of cults, and cult-critics. Parties disagree about the existence of a social process attempting coercive influence, and also disagree about the existence of the social outcome — that people become influenced against their will.

The issue gets even more complicated due to the existence of several definitions of the term "brainwashing" (some of them almost strawman-caricature metaphors of the original Korean War era concept^[10] ) and through the introduction of the similarly controversial concept of "mind control" in the 1990s. (In some usages "mind control" and "brainwashing" serve as exact synonyms; other usages differentiate the two terms.) Additionally, some authors refer to brainwashing as a recruitment method (Barker) while others refer to brainwashing as a method of retaining existing members (Kent 1997; Zablocki 2001).

Theories on brainwashing have also become the subject of discussions in legal courts, where experts have had to pronounce their views before juries in simpler terms than those used in academic publications and where the issue became presented in rather black-and-white terms in order to make a point in a case. The media have taken up some such cases — including their black and white colorings.

In 1984, the British sociologist Eileen Barker wrote in her book The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? (based on her first-hand studies of British members of the Unification Church) that she had found no extraordinary persuasion techniques used to recruit or retain members.

Charlotte Allen reported that "[i]n his article in Nova Religio, Zablocki was worried less about those academics who may stretch the brainwashing concept than about those, like Bromley, who reject it altogether. And in advancing his case, he took a hard look at such scholars’ intentions and tactics. (His title is deliberately provocative: 'The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion.')"^[11] In his book Combatting Cult Mind Control Steven Hassan describes the extraordinary persuasion technique that (in his opinion) members of the Unification Church used to accomplish his own recruitment and retention.

Philip Zimbardo writes that "[m]ind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles."(Zimbardo, 2002)

Some people have come to use the terms "brainwashing" or "mind control" to explain the otherwise intuitively puzzling success of some fast-acting episodes of religious conversion or of recruitment of inductees into groups known variously as new religious movements or as cults.^[12]

One of the first published uses of the term thought reform occurred in the title of the book by Robert Jay Lifton: Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China (1961). (Lifton also testified on behavioral-change methodologies at the 1976 trial of Patty Hearst.) In his book Lifton used the term "thought reform" as a synonym for "brainwashing", though he preferred the first term. The elements of thought reform as published in that book sometimes serve as a basis for cult checklists, and read as follows:^[13][14]

• Milieu Control
• Mystical Manipulation
• The Demand For Purity
• Confession
• Sacred Science
• Loading the Language
• Doctrine Over Person
• Dispensing of Existence

Benjamin Zablocki sees brainwashing as a "term for a concept that stands for a form of influence manifested in a deliberately and systematically applied traumatizing and obedience-producing process of ideological resocializations" and states this same concept historically also bore the names "thought reform" and "coercive persuasion".

The APA, DIMPAC, and theories of brainwashing

Main article: APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control

In the early 1980s some U.S. mental-health professionals became prominent figures due to their involvement as expert witnesses in court-cases involving new religious movements. In their testimony they presented certain theories involving brainwashing, mind control, or coercive persuasion as concepts generally accepted within the scientific community. The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983 asked Margaret Singer, one of the leading proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a taskforce called the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such movements. Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in an ongoing case. The brief stated that:

[t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community, that the hypotheses advanced by Singer were little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept. [...] The theories of Drs. Singer and Benson are not new to the scientific community. After searching scrutiny, the scientific community has repudiated the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson. The validity of the claim that, absent physical force or threats, "systematic manipulation of the social influences" can coercively deprive individuals of free will lacks any empirical foundation and has never been confirmed by other research. The specific methods by which Drs. Singer and Benson have arrived at their conclusions have also been rejected by all serious scholars in the field.^[15]

The brief characterized the theory of brainwashing as not scientifically proven and suggested the hypothesis that cult recruitment techniques might prove coercive for certain sub-groups, while not affecting others coercively. On March 24, 1987, the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from this brief, as it considered the conclusion premature, in view of the ongoing work of the DIMPAC taskforce.^[16] The amicus as such remained, as only the APA withdraw the signature, but not the co-signed scholars (including Jeffrey Hadden, Eileen Barker, David Bromley and J. Gordon Melton). On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the brainwashing theory espoused "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."

With the rejection-memo came two letters from external advisers to the APA who reviewed the report. One of the letters, from Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of the University of Haifa, stated amongst other comments that "lacking psychological theory, the report resorts to sensationalism in the style of certain tabloids" and that "the term 'brainwashing' is not a recognized theoretical concept, and is just a sensationalist 'explanation' more suitable to 'cultists' and revival preachers. It should not be used by psychologists, since it does not explain anything". Professor Beit-Hallahmi asked that the report not be made public. The second letter, from Professor of Psychology Jeffrey D. Fisher, Ph.D., said that the report "[...] seems to be unscientific in tone, and biased in nature. It draws conclusions, which in many cases do not mesh well with the evidence presented. At times, the reasoning seems flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous. In fact, the report sometimes seems to be characterized by the use of deceptive, indirect techniques of persuasion and control — the very thing it is investigating".^[17]

When the APA's BSERP rejected her findings, Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy"; and lost in 1994.^[18]

Zablocki (1997) and Amitrani (2001) cite APA boards and scholars on the subject and conclude that the APA has made no unanimous decision regarding this issue. They also write that Margaret Singer, despite the rejection of the DIMPAC report, continued her work and retained respect in the psychological community, which they corroborate by mentioning that in the 1987 edition of the peer-reviewed Merck's Manual, Margaret Singer wrote the article "Group Psychodynamics and Cults" (Singer, 1987).

Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology and one of the reviewers of the rejected DIMPAC report, wrote in 1997:

"Many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing. Like so many other theories in the behavioral sciences, the jury is still out on this one. The APA and the ASA acknowledge that some scholars believe that brainwashing exists but others believe that it does not exist. The ASA and the APA acknowledge that nobody is currently in a position to make a Solomonic decision as to which group is right and which group is wrong. Instead they urge scholars to do further research to throw more light on this matter. I think this is a reasonable position to take."

APA Division 36 (then "Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues", today "Psychology of Religion") in its 1990 annual convention approved the following resolution:

"The Executive Committee of the Division of Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues supports the conclusion that, at this time, there is no consensus that sufficient psychological research exists to scientifically equate undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as "coercive persuasion", "mind control", or "brainwashing") with techniques of influence as typically practiced by one or more religious groups. Further, the Executive Committee invites those with research on this topic to submit proposals to present their work at Divisional programs." (PIRI Executive Committee Adopts Position on Non-Physical Persuasion Winter, 1991, in Amitrano and Di Marzio, 2001)

In 2002, APA's then president, Philip Zimbardo wrote in Psychology Monitor:

"A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money—and even their lives—for "the cause." (Zimbardo, 2002)

Other viewpoints

Two months after her kidnapping by the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974, Patty Hearst, an American newspaper-heiress, participated in a bank-robbery with her kidnappers. In her trial, the defense postulated a concerted brainwashing-program as central. Despite this claim, the court convicted her of bank-robbery.

In the 1990 U.S. v. Fishman Case, Steven Fishman offered a "brainwashing" defense to charges of embezzlement. Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe would have appeared as expert witnesses for him. The court disallowed the introduction of Singer and Ofshe's testimony:^[19]

"The evidence before the Court, which is detailed below, shows that neither the APA nor the ASA has endorsed the views of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe on thought reform ... At best, the evidence establishes that psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists disagree as to whether or not there is agreement regarding the Singer-Ofshe thesis. The Court therefore excludes defendants' proffered testimony (U.S. vs. Fishman, 1989)."

Social scientists who study new religious movements, such as Jeffrey K. Hadden (see References), understand the general proposition that religious groups can have considerable influence over their members, and that that influence may have come about through deception and indoctrination. Indeed, many sociologists observe that "influence" occurs ubiquitously in human cultures, and some argue that the influence exerted in "cults" or new religious movements does not differ greatly from the influence present in practically every domain of human action and of human endeavor.

The Association of World Academics for Religious Education states that "... without the legitimating umbrella of brainwashing ideology, deprogramming — the practice of kidnapping members of NRMs and destroying their religious faith — cannot be justified, either legally or morally."

F.A.C.T.net states that "Forced deprogramming was sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful, but is not considered an acceptable, legal, or ethical method of rescuing a person from a cult."^[20]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods "depriving people of the free exercise of religion". The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of "brainwashing" or of "mind control" should overcome the free exercise of religion. (See quote)

In the 1960s, after coming into contact with new religious movements (NRMs, a subset of which have gained the popular designation of "cults"), some young people suddenly adopted faiths, beliefs, and behavior that differed markedly from their previous lifestyles and seemed at variance with their upbringings. In some cases, these people neglected or even broke contact with their families. All of these changes appeared very strange and upsetting to their families. To explain these phenomena, some postulated brainwashing on the part of new religious movements. Observers quoted practices such as isolating recruits from their family and friends (inviting them to an end-of-term camp after university for example), arranging a sleep-deprivation program (3 a.m. prayer meetings) and exposing them to loud and repetitive chanting. Another alleged technique of religious brainwashing involved love bombing rather than torture.

James T. (Jim) Richardson, a Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, states that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth-rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment, most adherents participate for only a short time, and such groups have limited success in retaining members. Langone has rejected this claim, comparing the figures of various movements, some of which do (by common consent) not use brainwashing and others of which some authors report as using brainwashing. (Langone, 1993)

In their Handbook of Cults and Sects in America, Bromley and Hadden present one possible ideological foundation of brainwashing theories that they state demonstrates the lack of scientific support: they argue that a simplistic perspective (one they see as inherent in the brainwashing metaphor) appeals to those attempting to locate an effective social weapon to use against disfavored groups, and that any relative success of such efforts at social control should not detract from any lack of scientific basis for such opinions.

Philip Zimbardo, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University, writes: "Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited or seduced into doing — under the right or wrong conditions. The majority of 'normal, average, intelligent' individuals can be led to engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self destructive actions that are contrary to their values or personality — when manipulated situational conditions exert their power over individual dispositions."(Zimbardo, 1997)

Some religious groups, especially those of Hindu and Buddhist origin, openly state that they seek to improve what they call the "natural" human mind by spiritual exercises. Intense spiritual exercises have an effect on the mind, for example by leading to an altered state of consciousness. These groups also state that they do not [condone the] use [of] coercive techniques to acquire or to retain converts.

On the other hand, several scholars in sociology and psychology have in recent years stated that many scholars of NRMs express a bias to deny any possibility of brainwashing and to disregard actual evidence. (Zablocki 1997, Amitrani 1998, Kent 1998, Beit-Hallahmi 2001)

Steven Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, has suggested that the influence of sincere but misled people can provide a significant factor in the process of thought-reform. Many scholars in the field of new religious movements do not accept Hassan's BITE model for understanding cults.

Brainwashing in fiction

Print media

• In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional totalitarian government of Oceania uses brainwashing to erase nonconformist thought and rebellious personalities.
• In the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Huxley portrays a process of brain-washing newly-produced babies called "conditioning".
• In the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (film adaptation by Stanley Kubrick), the protagonist undergoes a re-education process called the "Ludovico technique" in an attempt to remove his violent tendencies.
• Max Ehrlich's novel The Cult (1978) (Bantam Books) deals with the fictional brainwashing and attempted deprogramming (counter-brainwashing) of a cult-member that goes horribly wrong.
• Vernor Vinge speculates on the application of technology to achieve brainwashing in Rainbows End (ISBN 0-312-85684-9), portraying separately the dangers of JITT (Just-in-time training) and the specter of YGBM (You gotta believe me). This picks up on themes of "mindrot" and controlled "Focus" in Vinge's earlier novel A Deepness in the Sky.

Video media

• In the television drama 24, Bob Warner believes that brainwashing accounts for his daughter Marie Warner's unwilling terrorism.
• In the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, the concept of brainwashing became a central theme. Specifically, Communist brainwashers turn a soldier into an assassin through something akin to hypnosis.
• In the anime series Fruits Basket, Akito Sohma uses brainwashing to change the feelings of various family members.
• The Charles Bronson movie Telefon has a similar plot to The Manchurian Candidate, featuring water-supply tampering as a brainwashing technique.
• In The Ipcress File, Michael Caine's character tries to resist his reprogramming.
• In Superman: The Animated Series, the two-part finale "Legacy" featured a story where Granny Goodness (under the orders of Darkseid) captures and brainwashes Superman into seeing himself as Darkseid's son.
• In the first film in the The Naked Gun trilogy, Reggie Jackson and others become tools in an effort to kill Queen Elizabeth II.
• In the NBC miniseries V, the alien Visitors use a "conversion chamber" to turn humans into obedient allies.
• The comedy Zoolander depicts male model Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) becoming brainwashed/hypnotized into trying to kill a fictional Prime Minister of Malaysia.
• In the 1978-81 BBC series Blake's 7, former freedom-fighter Roj Blake undergoes brainwashing therapy (referred to as "the treatment") to eradicate his revolutionary ideals and turn him into a model-citizen exhibit.
• In the Stargate SG-1 episode Enemies, the character Teal'c gets brainwashed by his former god, Apophis.
• In the Lost episode "Not in Portland", "the Others" brainwash the character Karl using drum-and-bass music and visuals
• In the film The Parallax View, an organization recruits sociopathic personalities and brainwashes them to commit assassinations.
• The movie The Confession by Costa Gavras portrays the very detailed brainwashing of a Czech politician to make him confess his "crimes"
• In one episode of The Simpsons, after Homer fixes a toaster and messes the past around, he says something against Ned Flanders and gets sent to a Re-Ned-ucation camp
• In Power Rangers in Space, cybernetic implants brainwash Astronema to revert to evil
• In The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, Mandy often uses a form of brainwashing to get what she wants
• In an episode of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, the Cola Cult brainwashes Gadget
• In the popular lonelygirl15 online video series, the Hymn of One cult brainwashes the main character, Bree
• In the first-season episode "Employee of the Month" from 6teen, The Clones (Chrissy, Kirsten, and Kristen) brainwash Nikki Wong into becoming less individualistic
• In the first-season episode "Jade's Dream" from Bratz, Burdine Maxwell brainwashes people into pink zombies
• In Operation: D.A.T.E. from Codename: Kids Next Door, the Delightful Children from Down the Lane brainwash people taking a picture into delightful zombies using a camera replaced with a delightfulization ray
• In Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Dai Li and Long Feng use brainwashing to stop people from talking about the war with the Fire Nation.
• In the film Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, the Joker brainwashes Tim Drake into becoming his own demented Joker Junior.

In video games

• In the video game Psychonauts, Boyd Cooper, the security-guard at Thorney Towers, undergoes hypnosis and has a second personality (dubbed "The Milkman") implanted into his mind, which certain actions or commands can trigger.
• In Half-Life 2, the Combine race uses brainwashing on humans to produce soldiers and CP units. They extract organs (brainwashed brains) from humans to create synths.
• In Quake 4, the Strogg race "brainwashes" the humans by activating the neutrocyte (mind-control chip), thus fully "Stroggifying" them.
• In a Captain N: The Game Master where Simon Belmont suffers temporary amnesia, Mother Brain orders King Hippo and Eggplant Wizard to brainwash Simon into becoming an enemy of the N-Team: they start scrubbing Mother Brain's glass casing as they misunderstand the meaning of the word "brainwash".
• In Starcraft, a dark archon unit can use "mind control" to bring opposing units into the player's side.

See also

• Autosuggestion
• Aversion therapy
• Classical conditioning
• A Clockwork Orange
• Coercion
• Conditioning
• Cults and mind control controversies
• Hypnotherapy
• Donald Ewen Cameron
• Hypnosis
• Indoctrination
• Milgram experiment
• Mind control
• Project MKULTRA
• Persuasion and attitude change
• Propaganda
• Religious conversion
• Stanford prison experiment
• Stockholm syndrome

Footnotes

References

• Amitrani, Alberto et al.: Blind, or just don't want to see? "Brainwashing", mystification and suspicion, 1998,
• Amitrani, Alberto et al.: "Blind, or just don't want to see? Mind Control in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association", 2001, Cultic Studies Review
• Anthony, Dick. 1990. "Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation" in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Excerpt
• APA Amicus curiae, February 11, 1987
• APA Motion to withdraw amicus curiae March 27, 1987
• APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology, Memorandum on Brainwashing: Final Report of the Task Force, May 11, 1987
• Bardin, David, "Mind Control ('Brainwashing') Exists" in Psychological Coercion & Human Rights, April 1994,
• Beith-Hallahmi, Benjamin: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, 2001 http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c59.html
• David Bromley, "A Tale of Two Theories: Brainwashing and Conversion as Competing Political Narratives" in Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (editors), Misunderstanding Cults, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
• Hadden, Jeffrey K., "The Brainwashing Controversy", November 2000
• Hadden, Jeffery K., and Bromley, David, eds. (1993), The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 75-97
• Hassan, Steven Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Somerville MA: Freedom of Mind Press, 2000. ISBN 0-9670688-0-0.
• Hindery, Roderick, Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought? Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 2001. ISBN 0773474072
• Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World Revisited. Perennial (2000); ISBN 0-06-095551-1
• Introvigne, Massimo, "'Liar, Liar': Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA" on the CESNUR website, 1998. Retrieved 2008-03-02
• Kent, Stephen A., Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)", November 7, 1997
• Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs: "When Scholars Know Sin", Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998).
• Kent, Stephen A.: Brainwashing Programs in The Family/Children of God and Scientology , in Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (ed.), Misunderstanding Cults, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
• Langone, Michael D, ed.: Recovery from cults: help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: W.W. Norton, 1993. ISBN 0393701646 , ISBN 0-393-31321-2
• Robert J. Lifton, Thought reform and the psychology of totalism; a study of "brainwashing" in China. New York: Norton, 1961. ISBN 0-8078-4253-2
• Marks, John, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate", 1978
• Richardson, James T., "Brainwashing Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena", Brigham Young University Law Review circa 1994
• Scheflin, Alan W and Opton, Edward M. Jr., The Mind Manipulators. A Non-Fiction Account. New York: Paddington Press, 1978, p. 437. ISBN 0448229773
• Schein, Edgar H. et al., Coercive persuasion: A socio-psychological analysis of the "brainwashing" of American civilian prisoners by the Chinese Communists. New York: W. W. Norton, 1961
• Shapiro, K. A. et al, "Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex", J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, pp. 713-720 (2001). [1]
• Singer, Margaret "Group Psychodynamics", in Merck's Manual, 1987.
• Wakefield, Hollida, M.A. and Underwager, Ralph, Ph.D., Coerced or Nonvoluntary Confessions, Institute for Psychological Therapies, 1998
• West, Louis J., "Persuasive Techniques in Religious Cults", 1989
• Zablocki, Benjamin: The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion. Nova Religio, October 1997, Vol. 1, No. 1: 96-121.
• Zablocki, Benjamin, Towards a Demystified and Disinterested Scientific Theory of Brainwashing, in Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (ed.), Misunderstanding Cults, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
• Zablocki, Benjamin, "Methodological Fallacies in Anthony's Critique of Exit Cost Analysis", ca. 2002,
• Zimbardo, Philip, What messages are behind today's cults? in Monitor on Psychology, May 1997
• Zimbardo, Philip, Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric? in Monitor on Psychology, November 2002

Further Reading

• Anthony, Dick, Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence. An Exploration of Admissibility Criteria for Testimony in Brainwashing Trials, Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley (California): Graduate Theological Union, 1996, p. 165.
• Barker, Eileen, The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1984 ISBN 0-631-13246-5
• Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), Communist Psychological Warfare (Brainwashing), United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., Tuesday, March 13, 1958
• Hassan, Steven. Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Somerville MA: Freedom of Mind Press, 2000. ISBN 0-9670688-0-0.
• Hunter, Edward, Brain-Washing in Red China. The Calculated Destruction of Men’s Minds, New York: The Vanguard Press, 1951; 2nd expanded ed.: New York: The Vanguard Press, 1953
• Lifton, Robert J., Thought reform and the psychology of totalism; a study of "brainwashing" in China. New York: Norton, 1961. ISBN 0-8078-4253-2
• Sargant, William Walters, Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing. Cambridge, MA: Malor Books, 1997. ISBN 1-883536-06-5
• Streatfeild, Dominic, Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control, 2006, ISBN 0-340-92103-X
• Taylor, Kathleen, Brainwashing: The Science Of Thought Control, 2005, ISBN 0-19-280496-0
• Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (editors), Misunderstanding Cults, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
• Philip Zimbardo, "Mind control: psychological reality or mindless rhetoric?" Monitor on Psychology, Volume 33, No. 10 November 2002

External links

• "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory": an essay by J. Gordon Melton
• "Brainwashing": Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe, a paper delivered by Dr Massimo Introvigne at the CESNUR-REMID conference held in Marburg, Germany, March 27 to March 29, 1998
• "Communist Psychological Warfare (Brainwashing)", Consultation With Edward Hunter, Author And Foreign Correspondent, by the Committee On Un-American Activities, US House Of Representatives, Eighty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, March 13, 1958
• Marci Hamilton, The Elizabeth Smart Case: Why We Need Specific Laws Against Brainwashing. Supplied link inoperative as of 2007-12-29
• Steven Hassan's BITE model, retrieved 2007-12-29. From chapter two of Steven Hassan: Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, published by Freedom of Mind Press, Somerville MA, 2000, ISBN 0-9670688-0-0
• How Stuff Works: Brainwashing
• Lifton's Thought Reform Model, adapted from Robert Jay Lifton's Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (Norton, 1961: reprinted 1989 by the University of North Carolina Press); retrieved 2007-12-29
• Mind Control and Ritual Abuse Information Service, retrieved 2007-12-29
• Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, November 1986
• Resolution of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) on "New Religious Groups", retrieved 2007-12-29; compare the Society's SSSR Newsletter of December 1990.