Brainwashing Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on Cults and Sects

Abstract

and to the changes in such reports that have occurred, perhaps because of the influence of scholarly critiques offered for some of the earlier reports. The reports are divided into "Type I" and "Type II" reports, with the former being thorough-going in their anti-cult orientation, and the latter reports being more moderate in tone, with some attention paid to scholarship on new religions. However, the major thesis of the study is supported, as an examination of both types of reports reveals that they incorporate "brainwashing" and "mind control" imagery imported from the United States, even though such theories have been largely discounted within the United States. Use of such theories leads directly to some questionable policy recommendations, as demonstrated in the reports. Reasons for the spread of "brainwashing" ideas to Europe are discussed. James T. Richardson

Presidential Address Origins and Consequences of Religious Freedoms: A Global Overview

“…We find that religious groups are often charged with being a danger to public welfare. Even stable democracies, have accused religious groups with using “brainwashing” or “mind control” to secure the loyalty of members (Richardson and Introvigne 2001). In 2006, an official report to France's prime minister explained that the “sects” create a “condition of destabilization, disorientation, and vulnerability” and then use reinforcement techniques to reconstruct individuals’ personalities (Roulet 2006: 23).…”

Religious Pluralism

“…However, when a society such as Germany with its centralized legal system also has a "culture of paternalism" this can result in significant social control being exerted toward minority religious groups, with efforts made through governmental institutions to warn citizens of the dangers of such groups (Beckford 1985;Richardson and van Driel 1994;Seiwert 2004). France with its secular ideology of laicité working in concert with its centralized legal system, also has attempted to implement strong measures of social control toward minority faiths (Richardson and Introvigne 2001;Beckford 2004;Duvert 2004;Palmer 2011). And China, a quite centralized state system, certainly engages in monitoring and surveillance of unapproved religious groups, and then takes punitive action based on information gathered (Tong 2009;Edelman and Richardson 2005;Richardson 2011a).…”

Regulating Religion

“…Type I reports tend to be characterized by "adopting a four stage interpretive model," involving these basic tenets (Richardson and Inrovigne,200 I,p.145): I. Cults or sects are not true religions. Th is use of manipulation recalls the use of "mental manipulation" in the 1999 French report ; however, terms like 'brainwashing' and ' mind control' are not used explicitly in the definition of a 'sect,' as was found in many reports examined by Richardson and Introvigne (2001 Part II of the report is titled, 'Sects as destructive groups .' 'Sects' are perceived as anti-social group s. 2.…”