“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

Ensuring Liberties: Understanding State Restrictions on Religious Freedoms

“…In either case, the freedoms are denied. Evidence of these pressures has been documented at length in qualitative research and formal documents reporting on religious freedoms (Jahangir ; Marshall ; Richardson and Introvigne ; United States Department of State ).…”

“Tell Me Who Your Enemies Are”: Government Reports About the “Cult” Phenomenon in Israel

“…Most of the government reports took a critical stance toward NRMs, identifying them as threatening in various ways to the country, society and the citizens. The accusations against NRMs include financial fraud, violence toward members of the group or the surrounding society, harm to children in the group, harmful sexual behavior among the group members, and more (see Beckford ; Bromley and Robbins ; Richardson , ; Richardson and Introvigne ; Shupe and Bromley ). The most common accusation, primarily since the 1980s, is that of “brainwashing” or “mind control,” in other words, of depriving individuals in the group of free will and changing their personality to the point where they become automatons who obey the leaders’ every dictate without question (Richardson , ; Shupe and Darnell ).…”

“…Introvigne () suggested dividing the government reports between those that adopt a strong anti‐cult stance, which he calls Type I, and those that take a more complex position according to which NRMs also have positive aspects, which he calls Type II. At the same time, Richardson and Introvigne () note that both types of reports continue to express fear of “brainwashing” and do not provide sufficient representation to the research‐academic consensus, according to which the credibility of the thesis that “brainwashing” occurs in NRMs was refuted (Anthony ; Richardson ; Shupe and Darnell ; Zablocki and Robbins ).…”

“…In fact, the NRMs serve as an indicator of the society's perceived vulnerability, so that a society's response to them demonstrates how that society sees itself and its weaknesses (Barker :29; Beckford ). For example, in the United Kingdom and the United States, the cults were mainly accused of brainwashing, although in the United States, they were also held responsible for the breakdown of the family and various economic crimes (Beckford ; Melton ; Richardson and Introvigne ). In France, NRMs were portrayed as engaging in political plots and subverting the French ethos of separation between religion and state (Altglas ).…”

The Logic of Structured Dialogue between Religious Associations and the Institutions of the European Union

“…One particular instance of this is in relation to the use of 'brainwashing' rhetoric in cases involving 'cults'. Several European states have refused to recognise the right of individuals to practise a religion when that religion has been deemed eccentric by states with particular majority faiths (Richardson and Introvigne, 2001).…”