Cult Conversion: Freewill Or Brainwashing? Essay, Research
Paper
The controversy surrounding new religious movements seems to be
foremost concerned with whether or not the members of these
religions come of their own freewill or if they convert as a
necessary and inevitable response to advanced coercion, or
«brainwashing» techniques employed by the cult leaders.
The concept of brainwashing came into popular existence in the
1950?s as the result of attempts to try and explain the behaviour
of some American GI?s who defected to the Communists during the
Korean War (19 Oct 1999). Many people, including some
professionals, found brainwashing to be an acceptable explanation
for the otherwise unexplainable behaviour. However, the
brainwashing theory did nothing to explain why hundreds of other
captured GI?s chose to remain true to their country even at the
risk of being tortured. It could not accurately account for the
behaviour of a select few GI?s when it did not offer any
explanation for the behaviour of the majority.
Since the 1950?s, the concept of brainwashing has faded in and out
of public consciousness with a tendency to flare up again in the
face of public controversy. In the 1960?s and 1970?s the
brainwashing debate again took center stage, this time in an
attempt to explain the behaviour of so-called radicals who left
behind a «normal» life and opted instead for a «cult»
existence.
Although scholars of new religious movements would agree that
religious groups often have substantial influence over their
followers, they would also argue that the «influence exerted in
“cults” is not very different from influence that is present in
practically every arena of life,» (19 Oct 1999). Mainstream
religions also exercise influence over their members concerning
matters such as lifestyle choices, familial relations and monetary
donations. Furthermore, most social scientists concede that some
degree of influence is inevitable in each culture and facet of life
even outside the arena of religious choice.
Despite the fact that there do not appear to be any studies that
conclusively provide evidence of brainwashing as a legitimate
explanation for joining an NRM, and in spite of the many studies
that have refuted that brainwashing defense successfully, the
brainwashing theory continues to be debated regularly. The concept
of brainwashing is still often relied on to account for behaviour
that is otherwise culturally unjustifiable.
If brainwashing is not an appropriate explanation for the
conversion of people to NRM?s than what is? A common theme on the
anti-cult side of the conversion debate is the argument that
members are, to varying degrees, predisposed to becoming cult
members. This supposed predisposition is commonly thought to be a
product of depression, grief, loneliness and a life filled with
successive failures. However, as recent studies have shown, this is
not entirely true. Although many people who seek out
NRM?s are suffering with depression or have realized some setbacks
the same could be said of some that seek out mainstream religions
for the same reasons, namely to feel better about themselves and to
find purpose and meaning in life.
Shelley Leibert, an instructor with the Unification Church, has
discussed two main types of people that pass through the UC camps
(Dawson, 1996:204). Leibert describes one type as being well
rounded, successful and secure while the other is described as
being drug users, dropouts and drifters. Leibert concludes that it
is the latter that are most unlikely to dedicate themselves to the
lifestyle of the UC.
Proponents of the predetermination theory often argue that it is
these depressed and lonely people who are susceptible,
predetermined and often targeted «victims» of cult brainwashing.
They make these assumptions often lacking any firsthand knowledge
of cult recruiting practices. While it is true that at times some
cult members appear to be more vulnerable to cult recruiting
(Dawson, 1996:205), it remains that vulnerability and predisposed
are two different concepts. Furthermore, many of those who are
deemed to be «vulnerable» (recent divorcees, the grieving, etc.,)
frequently regard their cult experience as a positive and
therapeutic experience, even after leaving the cult environment
(Dawson, 1996:205).
Although, as Dr. John G. Clark suggests, these seemingly vulnerable
people join NRM?s in an attempt to «feel better about themselves»
(Dawson, 1996:207), the same thing can be said of many who join
mainstream religious organizations. Regardless of whether the
vulnerable person chooses to join a mainstream religion or an NRM,
it is, nevertheless, still a choice. The exercising of freewill, or
choice, by cult inductees is evident but their frequent church, or
cult, hopping done in order to find a group whose beliefs and
practices best answer their questions (Dawson, 1996:205).
The brainwashing theory conveniently provides an outlet for the
anti-cult movement to answer to the question of why some people
chose NRM?s over mainstream religions. It allows those who leave
NRM?s and regret their former connections to avoid taking
responsibility for their actions and takes the blame for their
«deviant» behaviour away from them. In doing so, the brainwashing
theory negates the plausibility of freewill.
In closing, it could be argued that, if brainwashing were a
legitimate theory, the anti-cult movement exhibits more «mind
control» behaviours than do NRM?s, when considering their
participation in action such as «deprogramming» and their
consistent use of propaganda and half truths.
and Consulted
Dawson, L.L. (1998). Comprehending cults. Don Mills: Oxford
University Press.
Dawson, L.L. ed. (1996). Cults in context. Toronto: Canadian
Scholars? Press.
The Brainwashing Controversy. (19 Oct 1999)
cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/cultsect/brainwashing.htm (29
May 2000).
Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory. (10 Dec
1999) www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm (2 June 2000).
Paloutzian, R.F. (1996). Invitation to the psychology of religion.
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.