In a parallel discussion I
had with Monica, I argued that the separation she makes between
brainwashing (involving physical coercion) and mind-control (using
deception but no physical restrain) is not being made in the general
anticult literature:
Message-ID: <3231b599.39255117@news.ping.be>
Monica:
With brainwashing the person knows they are in the presence of
the enemy
and a prisoner. With mind control the person believes they are in
the
presence of friends who want only the best for them and thus,
will
cooperate.
Bernie:
Agreed: brainwashing involves physical coercion while
mind-control
only uses subtle or not so subtle influence. But what I think is
the
main point of contention is ~choice~. If physical coercion is
used, I
have no choice, I can't walk away and do what I like if I
disagree. In
the case of mind-control we face two major interpretations:
1) To use the term, as you do, with a connotation that the
cult member
as ~no~ choice, and therefore is not responsible. In this sense,
even
if you make the distinction between brainwashing and mind-control
in
terms of the means used, you don't actually do it in terms of the
results achieved. So, you could use interchangeably mind-control
or
brainwashing, which is what is often done in the anti-cult
circles.
2) To use the term in the sense of "strong
influence" but in which the
cult member always remains with the ~choice~ to say
"no" and to walk
away. In this sense, the cult member or ex-cult member is ~not~
relieved of his responsibilities, nor should he be deprived of
the
rights enjoyed by "normal" citizens.
Message-ID:
<32331d42.42769603@news.ping.be>
Monica:
>A person who is under mind control really has less
choice than the person being brainwashed who at least knows he/she is a
prisoner.
Bernie:
So, a person who is physically
restrained have more choice than a
person who is not physically
restrained? This is absurd. If I am
physically restrained, I have
~no~ choice, I can't walk outand do
what I want whenever I disagree.
If I am not physically restrained, of
course I can be influenced and
convinced, but at any time I have the
~basic~ freedom to say
"no" and do what I want. This is so basic and
simple that I am really baffled
that you can't see it.
Of course if I am a prisoner I
know that what I am being told can be
false whereas if someone is
cheating me I may not know this. But in
the later case, the ~basic~
decision still remains mine. What you are
saying is that the cult member or
ex-cult member is deprived of this
freedom, and therefore deprived
of responsibilities and rights,
because of some undefined,
unknown, spurious and mystical
"mind-control". This is
the point I object to. Not that there aren't
~elements~ of mind-control
present, but that, in the absence of
physical restrain, it cancels the
responsibilities, rights or identity of the individual.
>Nope. I said that the
results are different between the two. With mind control the person INTERNALIZES the programming to a much greater extent than under mind control. They
are not interchangeable.
This is just a difference in
the ~mode~ of programming. In both case,
you, as do the anti-cult clique,
equate brainwashing and mind-control
with the same ~end~ result: that
the person has ~no~ choice, and bears
no responsibilities in the fact
of being involved in the cult. Because
you give such an absolute power
to the term "mind-control", they can
be used interchangeably, which is
actually what ~is~ being done in the
anti-cult literature.
I can only agree with the term
"mind-control" if it is meant to be a
strong and spurious influence but
in which the person is still,
basically, responsible of the
decisions he takes. I do not agree with
the term "mind-control"
used with a connotation of a mystical zombie
state of mind in which the person
is deprived of his free will,
responsibilities and rights.
>Sounds like a nice idea
that we would all like to believe, that we really were in control, but that
just wasn't the case. The cult member did not always have the choice to say
no.
The cult member ~has~ always the
choice to say no if no physical restrain is used. Whether or not he is using this freedom or not is
another question. Maybe he is influenced and pressured in such a way
that it is very difficult for him to do say no, but in the absence of
restrain, he ~does~ have this possibility. This makes ~all~ the
difference.
The fact that the distinction between brainwashing and mind-control is not being made in
the anticult literature further shows, IMO, that the theory is based on hardly anything
else than prejudice and suggestion of some mysterious and inescapable process, in other
word, a pure superstition. Monica however, insist that the distinction is being made and
while non-scholars may use it interchangeably, it is not the case, for example, for Singer
and Hassan. At this point, I quote Singer through the only reference I had at hand,
showing that Singer does not make such a distinction at all:
Message-ID:
<32372e6e.15728707@news.ping.be>
Monica:
> The people writing their
literature are not always the scholars and so some of their
usage got sloppy and the terms mind control and brainwashing get used
interchangeably (and I believe incorrectly), but not by the people such as
Singer and Hassan.
Bernie:
I quote Margaret Singer Ph.D.:
"Well, it is a very well shaped social and psychological
manipulation of the people coming
into the organization without them
being aware they are being
manipulated, and that is why what the Moon
organisation does as their
induction process fits the definition of
brainwashing ... Brainwashing is a term that refers to a behavioural change
technology applied to induce the
learning of any new information and
behaviour under certain
conditions" (Transcript of the official tape recording of evidence given
in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench
Division, before Mr
Justice Comyn in the case of Orme v. Associated
Newspapers Group Ltd,
Royal Courts of Justice, 9 March 1981, p.
15)
Monica now tries to dismiss my reference on the basis that it is old and that Singer
didn't make such a distinction back then. Diane, however, use the book Singer wrote just
the preceding year to show that she still is not making the distinction at all. The terms
are indeed used intercheably, in an overall effort to create a suggestion, an emotional
and frightening picture that aims to justify the heavy hand or discriminative methods
anticult proponents are proposing.
referen@neont.com (Diane
Richardson)
Sun, 15 Sep 1996
01:39:14 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Kim Baker: MY STORY CONTINUES: THE
BEAST (Part 2 of 3)
Message-ID:
<51fn5s$58l@clark.zippo.com>
>Bernie:
>>I quote Margaret Singer Ph.D.:
>>"Well, it is a very well shaped social and psychological manipulation of the
people coming into the organization without them being aware they are
being manipulated, and that is why what the Moon organisation does as
their induction process fits the definition of brainwashing ... Brainwashing is a term that refers to a behavioural change technology applied to
induce the learning of any new information and behaviour under certain
conditions" (Transcript of the official tape recording of evidence given in the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, before Mr Justice Comyn in the case
of Orme v. Associated Newspapers Group Ltd, Royal Courts of Justice,
9 March 1981, p. 15)
>Monica:
She wrote this in 1981. I
don't think the distinction was being made then.
Diane:
You must have missed my earlier
message in which I refer you to
Margaret Singer's book
"Cults in Our Midst." Dr. Singer continues to
use the term
"brainwashing" to describe what you call "mind control."
Dr. Singer's book was
published just last year.
Diane Richardson
referen@neont.com
referen@neont.com (Diane
Richardson)
Wed, 11 Sep 1996
06:30:14 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Kim Baker: MY STORY CONTINUES: THE
BEAST (Part 2 of 3)
Message-ID:
<515mlh$puc@clark.zippo.com>
>Diane:
[massive snip]
>Bernie:
>>This is just a difference
in the ~mode~ of programming. In both case, you, as do the anti-cult
clique, equate brainwashing and mind-control with the same ~end~
result: that the person has ~no~ choice, and bears no responsibilities in
the fact of being involved in the cult. Because you give such an absolute
power to the term "mind-control", they can be used interchangeably,
which is actually what ~is~ being done in the anti-cult literature.
Monica:
>Okay, I'll ignore the name
calling (anti-cult clique) and address your point. You are saying that
because two concepts or words have the same result that they can be used
interchangeably? I have to challenge you on that one.
Well, Monica, you might wish
to start with Chapter 3 of Margaret
Singer's book, _Cults In Our
Midst_. The chapter is titled "The
Process of Brainwashing,
Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform."
Dr. Singer does not use the
term "mind control"; rather she uses
"thought reform" and
"psychological coercion" as substitutes. If you
read the chapter, you will see
that she consistently interchanges all
three of those terms in her
discussion -- all dealing with the
activities of cults, NOT
involving physical coercion.
>To give you an analogy,
there are many of modes of transportation that can get a
person from NYC to Boston. You can fly, take a train or bicycle. All
three modes of transportation get you the same result -- you end up in
Boston. Therefore, according to your line of reasoning, the terms
"Bicycle", "Train" and "Plane" can be used interchangeably. I don't
think so.
>What literature are the
terms being used interchangeably in? Certainly they are not in Steve
Hassan's book. If they are used interchangeably then the person who is doing
so is being sloppy, although some cults do use brainwashing and mind
control. People in the CofS have reported having been held against
their role, although I'll agree with Joe that these cases are the exception
rather than the rule.
Dr. Singer uses the terms
interchangeably in her book, and she does
not make any distinction when she
uses "brainwashing," "thought
reform," or
"psychological coercion."
>And furthermore, if you
read what I posted you will see that I made distinctions between the
results of brainwashing and mind control.
Perhaps you are more
scrupulous in your use of terminology than Dr.
Singer. I think Bernie makes a
very valid point.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
referen@neont.com
Random Quote :
Disclaimer :
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
