Misunderstanding cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field - Book Review Sociology of Religion, Winter, 2003 by James T. Richardson

By BENJAMIN ZABLOCKI and THOMAS ROBBINS (eds.) Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001, 524 pp. $85.00 (cloth), $35.00 (paper).

This volume, co-edited by two scholars whose works have differed significantly over the years, has been much discussed during its preparation, with controversy surrounding it from the outset. Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins' stated goal was to encourage dialogue about significant differences that can be found in the study of New Religious Movements ("cults" to some). To accomplish this goal the editors set out to develop a balanced field of contributors who would present well-reasoned arguments in favor of their position. However, several scholars in the field, including this writer, withdrew from the project after initially agreeing to participate. Perhaps because of some decisions to withdraw from the project, the final list of authors ends up somewhat skewed in favor of those in the field who support more "anti-cult" views of newer religious phenomena.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the book is the polarization that exists between its covers. The introduction, co-authored by Zablocki and Robbins, itself contributes greatly to the divisions that are found throughout the book. In the introduction we are told that historically there are three major groupings of scholars involved in this area of study. One group, extreme in their support of so-called "cults," is referred to as "cult apologists," while the other extreme includes those more strongly opposed to "cults," referred to as "cult-bashers." Unfortunately those cited as moderates do not have chapters in the book.

Following the introduction is a chapter by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. His controversial position, represented in this chapter, is that most NRM scholars are "collaborationists" who have been bought off by the groups they study. This chapter is followed by a solid chapter by Thomas Robbins that would have made an excellent introduction to the volume. Robbins implicitly criticizes Beit-Hallahmi's approach when he mentions (p. 88) that there is a "whiff of McCarthyism associated with a strategy of attempting to discredit existing scholarly research based on accusations about relationships of scholars to religious groups." Robbins even criticizes his co-editor, Zablocki, in this thorough review of the field and its major areas of controversy.

Susan Palmer's entertaining chapter about her many experiences in researching NRMs in her prolific scholarly career offers considerable insight into problems faced by any researcher serious about understanding the how and why of such groups. Her chapter is followed by Janja Lalich's, who seems to assume that all "cults" are always trying to trick and mislead researchers. Lalich argues (p. 149) that the term "cult" should be used as the basis of a new "paradigm" guiding such research.

The heart of this book contains several chapters dealing with what is sometimes referred to as the "brainwashing" issue, with chapters by Benjamin Zablocki, Dick Anthony, David Bromley, Lorne Dawson, and, oddly, two chapters by Steve Kent. Zablocki tries to resurrect "brainwashing," a concept considered debunked by most scholars in the field. Zablocki states (p. 162) "... an uncompromising outcry of fastidious naysaying, by a tight-knit faction of pro-religion scholars" who, according to Zablocki, have managed to stop serious research into "... powerful techniques for inducing obedience ..." To be fair, Zablocki also uses quite colorful phraseology to characterize those who think that all cults use "magic spells" to "... snap the minds and enslave the wills of any innocent bystander unlucky enough to come into eye contact." Zablocki's chapter contains a rather selective reading of the literature of those with whom he disagrees. Zablocki also over-reaches in his defense of using ex-member accounts as primary data. For instance, he says that prominent sociologist David Bromley "and his followers ..." (p. 199) would, if they could hear the stories of "a few hundred of these emotionally haunted ex-members ... be deeply ashamed of the way they have subverted role theory to deny a voice to a whole class of people."

Dick Anthony, in the longest and most substantial chapter in the volume, does a thorough job of building a case that Zablocki's views are a rehash of the discredited "Singer-Ofshe" brainwashing theory. (Zablocki has, of course, returned the favor in his own chapter, countering Anthony's arguments vigorously.) Anthony is, as many readers will know, primarily responsible for having "brainwashing" based testimony tossed out of many courts in the U.S. and Europe, and thus he is a prime target for those who wish to revive it. Anthony's chapter details the "tactical ambiguity" used by those propounding versions of "brainwashing" theory, in what will, I think, become a definitive work in this area of study.

The heated exchange between Zablocki and Anthony is followed by a solid chapter by David Bromley, who argues that "brainwashing" versus conversion is a case of "competing political narratives." The real issue, he says, concerns the view of "agentic relationships" taken by the researcher, with brainwashing theorists assuming that human agency can be easily overcome by various techniques used by "cults." Following this is another heated exchange between Kent and Dawson over whether Scientology and The Family have practiced what could be termed "brainwashing" in their efforts to discipline and retain members. Kent gives a resounding "yes" to this question, in a chapter that relies on the accounts of past ex-members, while Dawson offers severe criticisms of the data on which Kent bases his argument.

The book closes with three quite different chapters that seem almost like after-thoughts. One by Amy Siskind, on "childrearing issues in totalistic groups," presents a narrow view of child rearing in new religions, focusing on the potentially negative aspects of such situations. She seems to assume that virtually all "cults" are totalistic, and that they do a terrible job tearing children, supporting this contention mainly with anecdotes and ex-member accounts. Julius Rubin offers a detailed chronology of alleged difficulties he has encountered in his studies of the Bruderhof, which he says have been seriously impeded by Bruderhof efforts to suppress negative information about the group. There is no response included from anyone associated with the Bruderhof, so the reader does not hear the group's side of the stow, however. The book closes with a succinct and balanced chapter by Jeffrey Kaplan discussing the roots of religious violence in America. Kaplan, a noted scholar in this field, offers some valuable insights, especially about the interactive character of violent outbreaks between religious groups and agents of social control.

This volume definitely is a "mixed bag." There is truly fine analytical work in some of the chapters, but others have limitations of one sort or another. The volume is also quite revealing in that some very strong statements are being made about fellow scholars, some of who are also included in the book! So, this volume is a case of caveat emptor if there ever was one.

James T. Richardson

University of Nevada, Reno

COPYRIGHT 2003 Association for the Sociology of Religion

--- http://lastliberal.org

"God Hates Fags!" -- Rev. Fred Phelps

Go Back