The Myth of the Brainwashed Believers – Dawson cites a variety of evidences to show that the idea of brainwashing is a handy yet flimsy crutch to avoid recognizing that people may indeed choose to radically alter their spiritual path by joining religious groups that differ from their family or societal traditions.  Dawson points out the polar gap between communist POW techniques that started with capture and confinement then included physical and psychological tortures versus the alleged controls exercised by groups that allow people to come and go freely and participate (or not) in group activities.  Studies that have been conducted on people who left (or were taken from) new religious movements are very light on empirical evidence and completely ignore such factors as predisposing characteristics, volition, and the failure of so many groups to keep their converts.  Dawson points out the lucrative deprogramming market and political control agendas that are conveniently supported by the notion that new and/or minority religions are brainwashing their recruits, collecting members against their better judgment.  Frankly, suggests Dawson, classic rebellion and/or dissatisfaction with the status quo are more appropriate answers to the question of why people join NRM’s.

The Myth of the Invulnerable Mind – Singer & Lalich point out several historical examples of people being coerced into giving false testimony against themselves or others, and behaving in ways they would normally deem unacceptable.  Pressures from real or perceived authorities, society, and various forms of direct torture & manipulation have caused shifts in beliefs and behaviors of groups large and small.  The question then becomes, at what point does this demand for conformity, whether within a family unit, a cohesive group, or an entire society, cross the line from training and the maintenance of social order into that other insidious realm we refer to as ‘Brainwashing’?  According to Singer & Lalich, a deliberate program that, without the subject’s awareness and/or consent, destabilizes their sense of self, causes them to drastically reinterpret their life history and radically alter their world view, and develops dependence on the leader or organization would rightfully be labeled ‘Brainwashing’ or ‘Thought Reform’.  A common word picture of this form of change is boiling a live frog – wherein the unsuspecting frog is in cool water that heats imperceptibly until it is boiling and the frog is cooked.  This is significantly different than a person making a carefully considered choice to radically change their life with the help of a defined program and/or support group.

The Myth of the Objective Answer – Bromley points out, most convincingly, that the debate between brainwashing and true conversion is as impossible to settle scientifically as the debate over whether or not the chicken preceded the egg.  There are facts to support, and to counter, both positions.  It is true that people have been able to resist attempts to change their beliefs and behaviors, and it is equally true that authorities and organizations have been able to elicit dramatic change in individuals.  The extent to which responsibility for that change belongs to the convert or the organization is indefinable without experimentation and observation that would be morally unacceptable and remain scientifically difficult to support.  Zablocki supports a position that can be defined as a middle compromise, indicating that some (but not all) New Religious Movements have been shown to exercise compulsive retraining on some, but not all, of their adherents, resulting in a few instances of people willing to be uncritically obedient to any command at any cost.  At the same time, it is recognized that other systems are deliberately structured to elicit the same response in their clientele.  Bromley boils it all down to a political debate over who may decide which groups are worthy of the allegiance and compliance of individuals.

From Conflict to Controversy:

Generally speaking, New Religious Movements have periods of escalating tensions with the society and accepted norms around them, rarely (by percentage) reaching the point of deadly conflict.  The more prevalent tendency is to retreat or accommodate.  Occasionally, however, the tension reaches what Bromley refers to as Dramatic Denouements, and final decisive action is taken.  In the aftermath of more violent episodes, people seek to understand what appropriate authority looks like, usually discovering that the apparently easy answers are way too costly.

 Shall the State have authority over Religion?

In the case of Jim Jones and the Peoples’ Temple, retreat to Guyana was followed by US Congressional investigations, murder, and finally mass suicide.  Theoretically, they would not have been under US jurisdiction, having physically left the country.  In the case of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians of Waco, retreat to a private compound was followed by US civil and federal authorities investigating allegations of child sexual abuse and illegal accumulation of firearms, raids, the death of federal agents, and finally a showdown that ended with an arson fire and death of nearly all followers.

Does the US Constitution’s freedom of religion clause mean that a group declaring itself to be religious is outside the jurisdiction of civil authorities?  Do civil authorities have the right and responsibility to investigate and/or enforce compliance with the laws of society, even if it means disbanding or utterly destroying a group of adherents?  What are the appropriate boundaries when it comes to the defense of minors and other vulnerable citizens, or the group’s capability to wreak havoc on the communities beyond the religious enclave?  If the state has the right of authority over religion, what keeps it from outlawing Bibles and other potentially inflammatory writings like Orwell’s 1984 and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?

Shall Religion have authority over the State?

Whether by conflict escalation or religious edict, there are groups who believe that they must take authority over the unbelieving society, by force if necessary.  Such is the case with Asahara Shoko’s Aum Shinrikyo vs Japan and Sayyid Qutb’s Islam vs the world.  Initially, Aum Shinrikyo made rather peaceful attempts to gain authority through recruitment and political elections.  When these didn’t succeed and tensions between the group and civil authorities reached a breaking point, the followers of Aum prepared for an attack on Japanese society.  Though they had the motivation and some of the materials, this attempt fizzled and gave law enforcement the leeway to conduct raids and end the threat of Aum.  Society is not faring as well in it’s conflict with Qutb’s followers, as 9/11 and many incidents prior and since can attest.  Allah must rule, society must obey, and rebels must die…battle is inevitable, and conquest imperative.

When the deity demands allegiance from all and destruction of dissenters, does society have proper recourse?  Would it not be best if all of society were of the same conviction and followed the same doctrines?  What is wrong with bringing all of society into proper compliance with the dictates of a transcendent god?  How far is too far in the quest for a righteous and theocratic society? What is to be done with the reality of competing deities?

In the US, the controversy continues between the ideals of the conservative moral majority and the ideals of the post modern liberals.  One group is working to return to traditional standards of conduct rooted in Judeo-Christian doctrines, the other is working to overcome anything perceived as restrictive of individual autonomy, especially in light of alternate doctrines and beliefs.  Fortunately, to date, we have not escalated to the point of starting a new militarized Civil War.

————————————————————————————-

References

Bromley, David G., and J. Gordon Melton. Cults, religion, and violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.

Dawson, Lorne L.. Comprehending cults: the sociology of new religious movements. 2. ed. London: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.

Gabriel, Mark A.. “Chapter 15: The Founding Father of Modern Jihad.” Islam and terrorism. New York: Charisma House, 2002. 113-122. Print.

Gabriel, Mark A.. “Chapter 14: Forefathers of Terrorism.” Islam and terrorism. New York: Charisma House, 2002. 103-112. Print.

Husain, Mir Zohair. “Chapter 2: Understanding Islam, Muslims, Islamism, and Anti-Americanism.” Islam and the Muslim world. dubuque: McGraw-Hill/contemporary learning series, 2006. 53-58. Print.

Richardson, James T.. “Chapter Ten: A Critique of “Brainwashing” Claims About New Religious Movements.” Cults and new religious movements: a reader. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. 160-166. Print.

Singer, Margaret T.. “3: The Process of Brainwashing, Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform.” Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. 52-82. Print.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.