Brainwashing

The term mind control (also referred to as “brainwashing,” “coercive persuasion,” “thought reform,” and the “systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence”) refers (according to Michael Langone) "to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated .[1] Various commentators identify broad ranges of psychological tactics seen as subverting individuals' sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.

Theories of brainwashing and of mind control originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed systematically in indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded or modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements (NRMs). Since their application to NRMs, mind control theories have become controversial within scientific and legal contexts; Both the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association have found no scientific merit in them.[2]

The Korean War and the origin of brainwashing

The Oxford English Dictionary records its earliest known English-language usage of "brainwashing" in an article by Edward Hunter in New Leader published on 7 October 1950. During the Korean War, Hunter, who worked at the time both as a journalist and as a Agent U.S. intelligence agent, wrote a series of books and articles on the theme of Chinese brainwashing.[3]

The Chinese term 洗腦 (xǐ năo, literally "wash brain") originally referred to methodologies of coercive persuasion used in the 改造 (gǎi zào, "reconstruction", "change", "altering") of the so-called "feudal" (封建 fēng jiàn) thought-patterns of pre-revolutionary Chinese citizens. The regime Maoist regime in China aimed to transform individuals with a "feudal" or capitalist mindset into "right-thinking" members of the new Chinese social system. To that end the regime developed techniques that would break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, information retained in the mind and personal values. Chosen techniques included the dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt, and group social pressure. 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.

Hunter and those who picked up the Chinese term used it to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners-of-war. It was believed that the Chinese in North Korea used such techniques to disrupt the ability of captured troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment.

New religious movements (NRMs) and the shift of focus

After the Korean war applications of mind control theories in the United States shifted in focus from politics to religion. Starting in the 1960's an increasing number of American youths were coming into contact with new religious movements, and those who converted suddenly adopted beliefs and behaviors that differed greatly from those of their families and friends; in some cases they neglected or even broke contact with their loved ones. In the 1970s the anti-cult movement applied mind control theories to explain these sudden and seemingly dramatic religious conversions.[6][7][8] The media was quick to follow suit,[9] and social scientists sympathetic to the anti-cult movement, who were usually psychologists, developed more sophisticated models of brainwashing.[7] While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part skeptical of their ability to explain conversion to NRMs.[10] In the years that followed, brainwashing controversies developed between NRM members, various academic researchers, and cult critics.

Theories of mind control and religious conversion

Over the years various theories of conversion and member retention have been proposed that link mind control to NRMs, and particularly those religious movements referred to as "cults" by their critics. These theories resemble the original political brainwashing theories with some minor changes. For instance Philip Zimbardo discusses mind control as "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,"[11] and he suggests that any human being is susceptible to such manipulation.[12] In a 1999 book Robert Lifton also applied his original ideas about thought reform to Aum Shinrikyo, concluding that in this context thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion. Margaret Singer, who also spent time studying the political brainwashing of Korean prisoners of war, agreed with this conclusion: in her book Cults in Our Midst she describes six conditions which would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible.[13]

The subject has even been approached from the perspective of neuroscience and social psychology. Kathleen Taylor suggests that "brainwashing" is activated by manipulation of the prefrontal cortex rendering the person more susceptible to black and white thinking.[14] Meanwhile, 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. Using 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.

Deprogramming and the anti-cult movement

The theories of Singer, Lifton and other researchers have been adopted and adapted by both academic and non-academic destructive cult critics from the inception of the anti-cult movement. These critics often argue that certain religious groups use mind control techniques to unethically recruit and maintain members. At first many of these critics advocated or engaged in deprogramming as a method to liberate group members from apparent "brainwashing". However the practice of coercive deprogramming fell out of favor in the West and was largely replaced by exit counseling. For instance exit counselor Steve Hassan promotes what he calls the BITE model in his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves.[15] The BITE model describes various controls over human 1) behavior, 2) information, 3) thought, and 4) emotion.[15] Hassan claims that cults recruit and retain members by using, among other things, systematic deception, behavior modification, the withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias). He refers to all of these techniques collectively as mind control.

Critics of mind control theories of conversion caution against the broader implications of these models. For instance, in the 1998 Enquete Commission report on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" in Germany a review was made of the BITE model. The report concluded that "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."[16] Indeed virtually all of these models share the notion that converts are in fact innocent "victims" of mind-control techniques.[10] Hassan suggests that even the cult members manipulating the new converts may themselves be sincerely misled people.[17] By considering NRM members innocent "victims" of psychological coercion these theories open the door for psychological treatments.

Sociologists like Eileen Barker have criticized conversion theories precisely because they function to justify costly interventions like deprogramming or exit counseling.[18] For similar reasons scholars like Barker have also criticized mental health professionals like Margaret Singer for accepting lucrative expert witness jobs in court cases involving NRMs.[18] Singer was perhaps the most publicly notable scholarly proponent of "cult" brainwashing theories, and she became the focal point of the relative demise of those same theories within her discipline.[7]

Scholarly opposition

James Richardson 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.[19] For this and other reasons, sociologists like David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[20] In addition to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine (amongst other scholars researching NRMs) have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of 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.[21]

Some sociologists disagree with this consensus. For instance, Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias. Stephen A. Kent has also published several articles about brainwashing.[22][23] These scholars tend to see the APA's decision as one of no consensus while what Melton sees as a majority of scholars[24] may regard it as a rejection of brainwashing and of mind control as legitimate theories.

Legal issues, the APA and DIMPAC

Since their inception, mind control theories have also been used in various legal proceedings against "cult" groups. For instance, in 1980 ex-Scientologist Lawrence Wollersheim successfully sued the Church of Scientology in a California court which decided in 1986 that church practices had been conducted in a psychologically coercive environment and so were not protected by religious freedom guarantees. Others who have tried claiming a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control, like Patty Hearst, Steven Fishman and Lee Boyd Malvo have not been successful.

In 1983 American Psychological Association (APA) asked Margaret Singer 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 court case related to brainwashing. The brief repudiated Singer's theories on "coercive persuasion" and suggested that brainwashing theories were without empirical proof.[25] Afterward the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from the brief since Singer's final report had not been completed.[26] However, on May 11, 1987, the APA's 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 that "after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."[27]

Two critical letters from external reviewers Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Jeffery D. Fisher accompanied the rejection memo. The letters criticized "brainwashing" as an unrecognized theoretical concept and Singer's reasoning as so flawed that it was "almost ridiculous."[28] After her findings were rejected Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost.[29] Benjamin Zablocki and Alberto Amitrani interpreted the APA's response as meaning that there was no unanimous decision on the issue either way, suggesting also that Singer retained the respect of the psychological community after the incident.[30] Yet her career as an expert witness ended at this time. She was meant to appear with Richard Ofshe in the 1990 U.S. v. Fishman Case, in which Steven Fishman claimed to have been under mind control by the Church of Scientology in order to defend himself against charges of embezzlement, but the courts disallowed her testimony. In the eyes of the court, "neither the APA nor the ASA has endorsed the views of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe on thought reform"[31]

After that time U.S. courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that such theories were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Yet there have been two court cases since this time where testimonies about mind control have been examined in accordance with the more recent Daubert standard.

In popular culture

Print media

• In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949 before the popularization of the term "brainwashing"), the fictional totalitarian government of Oceania uses brainwashing-style techniques to erase nonconformist thought and rebellious personalities.

• In the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, the protagonist undergoes a re-education process called the "Ludovico technique" in an attempt to remove his violent tendencies.
• 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 1999 novel A Deepness in the Sky.

Video media

Brainwashing became a common trope of films, television and games in the late ttwentieth century: a convenient means of introducing changes in the behavior of characters and a device for raising tension and audience uncertainty in the climate of Cold War and outbreaks of terrorism. For a classic example:

• the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate makes the concept of brainwashing a central theme. Specifically, Communist brainwashers turn a soldier into an assassin through something akin to hypnosis.

See also

MKULTRA

References

1. Langone, Michael. "Cults: Questions and Answers". www.csj.org. International Cultic Studies Association. Retrieved 2009-12-27. "Mind control (also referred to as 'brainwashing,' 'coercive persuasion,' 'thought reform,' and the 'systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence') refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated."
2. Wright, Stuart A. (1997-12). "Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any "Good News" for Minority Faiths?". Review of Religious Research 39 (2): 101–115. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
3. Marks, John (1979). "8. Brainwashing". The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-0773-6. Retrieved 2008-12-30. "In September 1950, the Miami News published an article by Edward Hunter titled " 'Brain-Washing' Tactics Force Chinese into Ranks of Communist Party." It was the first printed use in any language of the term "brainwashing," which quickly became a stock phrase in Cold War headlines. Hunter, a CIA propaganda operator who worked under cover as a journalist, turned out a steady stream of books and articles on the subject."
4. Browning, Michael (2003-03-14). "Brainwashing agitates victims into submission". Palm Beach Post (Palm Beach). ISSN 1528-5758. Retrieved 2008-07-05. "During the Korean War, captured American soldiers were subjected to prolonged interrogations and harangues by their captors, who often worked in relays and used the "good-cop, bad-cop" approach, alternating a brutal interrogator with a gentle one. It was all part of "Xi Nao," washing the brain. The Chinese and Koreans were making valiant attempts to convert the captives to the communist way of thought."
5. Ford RC (1990). Captured in Tibet. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-581570-X.
6. Ford RC (1997). Wind Between the Worlds: Captured in Tibet. SLG Books. ISBN 0-9617066-9-4.
7. Melton, J. Gordon (1999-12-10). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2009-06-15. "In the United States at the end of the 1970s, brainwashing emerged as a popular theoretical construct around which to understand what appeared to be a sudden rise of new and unfamiliar religious movements during the previous decade, especially those associated with the hippie street-people phenomenon."
8. Bromley, David G. (1998). "Brainwashing". in William H. Swatos Jr. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0761989561.
9. Barker, Eileen: New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty's Stationery office, 1989.
10. Wright, Stewart A. (1997). "Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any 'Good News' for Minority Faiths?". Review of Religious Research 39 (2): 101–115.
11. Barker, Eileen (1986). "Religious Movements: Cult and Anti-Cult Since Jonestown". Annual Review of Sociology 12: 329–346.
12. Zimbardo, Philip G. (November 2002). "Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric?". Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved 2008-12-30. "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. Conformity, compliance, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, guilt and fear arousal, modeling and identification are some of the staple social influence ingredients well studied in psychological experiments and field studies. In some combinations, they create a powerful crucible of extreme mental and behavioral manipulation when synthesized with several other real-world factors, such as charismatic, authoritarian leaders, dominant ideologies, social isolation, physical debilitation, induced phobias, and extreme threats or promised rewards that are typically deceptively orchestrated, over an extended time period in settings where they are applied intensively. 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,' and engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money—and even their lives—for 'the cause.'".
13. Zimbardo, P (1997). "What messages are behind today's cults?". Monitor on Psychology: 14.
14. Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, Margaret Thaler Singer, Jossey-Bass, publisher, April 2003, ISBN 0-78796-741-6]
15. Taylor, Kathleen Eleanor (December). Brainwashing: The Dream of Mind Control. Oxford University Press. p. 215. ISBN 9780192804969. https://books.google.com/books?id=BIuju20yhDkC&dq. Retrieved 2009-07-30. "Your susceptibility to brainwashing (and other forms of influence) has much to do with the state of your brain. This will depend in part on your genes: research suggests that prefrontal function is substantially affected by genetics. Low educational achievement, dogmatism, stress, and other factors which affect prefrontal function encourage simplistic, black-and-white thinking. If you have neglected your neurons, failed to stimulate your synapses, obstinately resisted new experiences, or hammered your prefrontal cortex with drugs (including alcohol), lack of sleep, rollercoaster emotions, or chronic stress, you may well be susceptible to the totalist charms of the next charismatic you meet. This is why so many young people baffle their more phlegmatic elders by joining cults, developing obsessions with fashions and celebrities, and forming intense attachments to often unsuitable role models."
16. Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
17. Final Report of the Enquete Commission on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" New Religious and Ideological Communities and Psychogroups in the Federal Republic of Germany
18. Hassan, Steven (1988). Combatting cult mind control. Rochester, Vt: Park Street Press. ISBN 0-89281-243-5.
19. Barker, Eileen (1995). "The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34 (3): 287-310.
20. Richardson, James T. (1985-06). "The active vs. passive convert: paradigm conflict in conversion/recruitment research". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24 (2): 163–179. doi:10.2307/1386340. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
21. Brainwashing by Religious Cults
22. CESNUR - Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies
23. Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The Family
24. Dr. Stephen A. Kent (1997-11-07) (PDF). Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Force (RPF). Retrieved 2008-08-16.
25. Melton, J. Gordon (10 December 1999). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 5 September 2009. "Since the late 1980s, though a significant public belief in cult-brainwashing remains, the academic community-including scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies-have shared an almost unanimous consensus that the coercive persuasion/brainwashing thesis proposed by Margaret Singer and her colleagues in the 1980s is without scientific merit."
26. CESNUR - APA Brief in the Molko Case. [t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community [... the hypotheses advanced by Singer comprised] little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data [...] [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.
27. Motion of the American Psychological Association to Withdraw as Amicus Curiae
28. American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). "Memorandum". CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religion. Retrieved 2008-11-18. "BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."
29. APA memo and two enclosures
30. Case No. 730012-8 Margaret Singer v. American Psychological Association
31. Amitrani, Alberto; Di Marzio R (2001). "Blind, or just don't want to see? Mind Control in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association". Cultic Studies Review.
32. Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith, Lingua Franca, December 1998.

Further reading

• Bowart W.H. (1978). "Operation Mind Control". Dell.
• Langone MD (1993). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-31321-2.
• Lifton RJ (1989). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-4253-2.
• Singer M et al. (1986-11-01). "Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC report)". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
• Streatfeild D (2008). Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control. New York: Picador. ISBN 0-312-42792-1.
• Zablocki, B (1997). "The Blacklisting of a Concept. The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion". Nova Religio 1 (1): 96–121. doi:10.1525/nr.1997.1.1.96.
• Zablocki, B (1998). "Exit Cost Analysis: A New Approach to the Scientific Study of Brainwashing" (PDF). Nova Religio 2 (1): 216–249. doi:10.1525/nr.1998.1.2.216. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
• Zimbardo P (2002-11-01). "Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric?". Monitor on Psychology.

External links

• Mind Control: America's Secret War - The History Channel Video (2000)
• Mind Control at the Open Directory
• Mind Control and the New World Order by Al Neal (video)