Mind Control & Brainwashing

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.

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

Theoretical models and methods

Lifton thought reform model

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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:

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]:

Subliminal advertising

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

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:

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:

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 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 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:

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:

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.

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.

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

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

External links

References

^ Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, Robert J. Lifton, 1956
^ Robert W. Ford, Captured in Tibet, Publisher: Oxford Univ Press, September 1990, ISBN 019581570X ; Wind Between the Worlds: Captured in Tibet , Publisher: SLG Books, ISBN: 0961706694
^ Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, Margaret Thaler Singer, Jossey-Bass, publisher, April 2003, ISBN 0-78796-741-6]
^ May 11, 1987, APA MEMORANDUM available online
^ "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association, Amitrani Marzio and Raffaella Di Marzio, Cults and Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001
^ Anthony, Dick, Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall, Social Justice Research, Springer Netherlands (1999), Volume 12, Number 4
^ ^a ^b ^c Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
^ Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 4, Steven Hassan, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
^ Refuting the Disinformation Attacks Put Forth by Destructive Cults and their Agents
^ Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 3, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
^ 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
^ Phil Zimbardo
^ The Lancet reviews Combatting Cult Mind Control by exit-counselor Steve Hassan
^ American Journal of Psychology reviews Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steve Hassan
^ Brainwashing by Religious Cults
^ CESNUR - Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies
^ Brainwashing by Religious Cults
^ Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The Family
^ http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/inneres/arbeitsgruppe-scientology/veroeffentlichungen/brainwashing-pdf,property=source.pdf
^ CESNUR - APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures
^ Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric? Philip Zimbardo, Monitor on Psychology, Volume 33, No. 10, November 2002
^ Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 3, Aitan Press, 2000
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...A deprogramming triggers the deepest fears of cult members. They have been taken against their will. Family and friends are not to be trusted. The trauma of being thrown into a van by unknown people, driven away, and imprisoned creates mistrust, anger, and resentment.
^ Brainwashing by Religious Cults
^ American Civil Liberties Union Records, 1947-1995: Finding Aid
^ cognitive dissonance
^ http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/mind_control.html
^ Martin, Paul: "Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform"
^ Case No. 730012-8, Margaret Singer, et al., Plaintiff v. American Psychological Association, et. Al., Defendants
"This case, which involves claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, clearly constitutes a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over matters both academic and professional. The disputant may fairly be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology. The speech of which the plaintiff's complain, which occurred in the context of prior litigation and allegedly involved the "fraudulent" addition of the names of certain defendants to documents filed in said prior litigation, would clearly have been protected as comment on a public issue whether or not the statements were made in the contest of legal briefs. The court need not consider whether the privilege of Civil Code 47 (b) extends to an alleged interloper in a legal proceeding. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action. In particular Plaintiffs cannot establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the underlying lawsuit. Thus Defendants' Special Motions to Strike each of the causes at action asserted against them, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 is granted."

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].

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.

Contents