|
In Reply to: Cult brainwashing vs mental conditioning posted by Oldtimer on September 04, 2004 at 18:29:31:
My feeling is that in any informed discussion on this broad subject of control, it is better to move away from the term "brainwashing." As I see it, this term falls at the extreme end of the continuum. It is too easily discredited.
Brainwashing also seems to imply that the one brainwashed had no control and therefore was not responsible for his or her actions. The Patty Hearst defence. In our context, does that mean that if we were brainwashed, we are not accountable for what we did on the group? Does this mean that the thousands of members and ex-members who abused children in the group are not accountable for what they did? If so, how does that make the victims feel?
This is part of what I mean by a slippery slope. Brainwashing/mental conditioning is a part of an overall debate. What did we do? Why did we do it? Who did we hurt? What is our responsibility, both personally and corporately?
From what I gather, there is not much credible research to support the classical hardline extreme notion of brainwashing. But maybe there is.
As for me, I'll take a mental conditioning approach. Something like that. It allows me to acknowledge the core evil of the group while exploring the nature and degree of my own culpability. I can't just say that I was brainwashed for X number of years of my life -- it just doesn't work. Too easy an out.
To all the brainwashing afficionados out there: If you want to use the term, can you please enlighten us all by pointing to credible research and literature on the topic? So far we have Dr Phil -- why am I worried? As well, can you address issues such as the one I mentioned above -- the abuser who denies responsibility because he was brainwashed?
Thanks. I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion.
