Discursive opportunities and the transnational diffusion of ideas: ‘brainwashing’ and ‘mind control’ in Japan after the Aum Affair

Abstract

A case study in the sociology of ideas, this article refines the theory of ‘discursive opportunities’ to examine how intellectual claims cross national and linguistic boundaries to achieve public prominence despite lacking academic credibility. Theories of ‘brainwashing’ and ‘mind control’ originally began in the United States in the 1960s as a response to the growth of new religious movements. Decades later in Japan, claims that so‐called ‘cults’ ‘brainwashed’ or ‘mind controlled’ their followers became prominent after March 1995, when new religion Aum Shinrikyō gassed the Tokyo subway using sarin, killing thirteen. Since then, brainwashing/mind control have both remained central in public discourse surrounding the ‘Aum Affair’ despite their disputed status within academic discourse. This article advances two arguments. Firstly, the transnational diffusion of brainwashing/mind control from the US to Japan occurred as a direct result of the 1995 Tokyo sarin attack, which acted as a ‘discursive opportunity’ for activists to successfully disseminate the theories in public debate. Secondly, brainwashing/mind control became successful in Japanese public discourse primarily for their normative content, as the theories identified ‘brainwashing/mind controlling cults’ as evil, violent and profane threats to civil society.

How happenings do (not) turn into events: A typology and an application to the case of 9/11 in the American and Dutch public spheres

“…The central aim of this paper is to better understand how happenings (do not) turn into events. I propose that this can be done not by conceptualizing events and interpretative structures—“cultural repertoires” (e.g., Lamont, 1992 , 2000 , 2019 ; Lamont et al., 2016 ; Lamont & Thévenot, 2000 ), “cleavage structures” (e.g., Kriesi et al., 1995 , 2008 ; Kriesi & Pappas, 2015 ), and “discursive opportunity structures” (e.g., Koopmans & Olzak, 2004 ; Koopmans & Statham, 2010 ; Koopmans et al., 2005 ; Ushiyama, 2019 )—as separate social entities, but rather by developing a typology that indicates why some happenings are “just” reproductions of said structures, whereas others are so significant that they become incentives to transform those very structures. This typology posits that such a transformation can occur either through shock (Sewell, 2005 ) or focus (Kingdon, 2011 [1984]): happenings turn into events because they are a significant rejection or since they present a significant confirmation of the ideas and expectations that comprise existing interpretative structures.…”

“…134-136;Kriesi et al, 1995, pp. 145-164;Ushiyama, 2019Ushiyama, , p. 1736), my aim is not to find out how objective factors such as country size or the locus of the attacks of 9/11 can directly explain the event's meaning-making processes. Rather, my goal is to take the perspective of public actors themselves and investigate which factors and justifications they mobilize, while drawing on national interpretative structures, to claim 9/11 to be (not so) shocking or to link it to the issues of safety and Islam.…”

“…134–136; Kriesi et al., 1995 , pp. 145–164; Ushiyama, 2019 , p. 1,736). Instead, the importance of such factors is always mediated by the meanings attached to them within given repertoires, cleavages, and discourses.…”

“…In recent decades, various perspectives have been developed within the fields of sociology and political science for making cross‐national comparisons of cultural or political behavior and attitudes. Among the most fruitful and prominent are “cultural repertoires” (e.g., Lamont, 1992 , 2000 , 2019 ; Lamont et al., 2016 ; Lamont & Thévenot, 2000 ), “cleavage structures” (e.g., Kriesi et al., 1995 , 2008 ; Kriesi & Pappas, 2015 ), and “discursive opportunity structures” (e.g., Koopmans & Olzak, 2004 ; Koopmans & Statham, 2010 ; Koopmans et al., 2005 ; Ushiyama, 2019 ). Today, many sociologists and political scientists use one of these perspectives when engaging in country‐comparative research.…”

Untitled

“…Accordingly, aware of institutional and cultural structures of the political environment, actors observe the contestants' actions, evaluate their options and possible outcomes of their strategies. At this juncture, as the DOS approach suggests, cultural aspects, such as values, images, belief systems are applied to shape creative discourses along with exercising charismatic leadership and, forging alliances and solidarity, and engaging with associate groups or institutions (Ferree et al, 2002: 62-63;Ushiyama, 2019).…”