Litigation in the "cult wars" has shifted from "deprograming" cases to civil suits by ex-converts based on '%brainwashing" claims, and to criminal defenses claiming incapacity due to cdtic brainwashing. Early cases were decided on the basis of first amendment derivations barring judicial inquiries into conversion processes and religious authenticity. In 1988 the California Supreme Court carved out a parrow exception to this doctrine to be applied to circumstances where "coercive persuasion" is combined with concealment of a group's identity. The C o u r t ' s opinion entailed characterizations of the process and consequences of brainwashing which are problematic from the standpoint of social science. Several key questions must be resolved before brainwashing theories can make a constructive contribution to litigation involving religious groups. These questions relate to broader issues involving the nature, causes and indicators of involuntariness, and the closely related problem of drawing the line or identifyingthe exact point on a continuum beyond which the means or intensity of indoctrination becomes incapacitating. Although the 1988 California decision did not resolve these issues, they were considered from 1988-91 by several c o r n making procedural rulings on the admissibiity of "expert" testimony on brainwashingfpsychologicd coercion. A concluding section relates this legal to the duality of 'soft' vs. 'hard' detuminism in social science. This paper deals with "brainwashing" and related concepts (coercive persuasion, mind control, thought reform, etc.) and the criteria for the admissibility of theories employing such concepts in litigation involving religious and therapeutic movements or "cults". Whatever their denotation, which is not always clear, concepts such as brainwashing or mind conuol connote involuntariness. They suggest a distinctive form or iduence or psychotechnology which creates involuntary attitudinal and behavioral sequences. A scientific theory which explains such an influence process must, in order to be admissible, enable analysts (and legal authorities) to clearly This paper represents the first publicarion from a longer projea on coercive persuasion, religious movemenn and the law, which will culminate in a monograph by Mr Anthony. Dick Anthony is a doctoral candidate in the inter-area studies @sychology and religion) program of the Graduaxe Theological Union, Berkeley, CA. Mr Anthony has served as a professional consultant to lawyers and religious groups involved in "brainwashing" litigation. Thomas Robbins is a Research Assodate at the Sanra Barbara Cenm for Humanistic Studies. Correspondence maybe addressed to Mr Anthony ar 809 Evelyn Avenue, Albany, California 94706, USA. 0735-3936/92/010005-2516 12.50 0 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ' hrhony has served as a consulting expert TO lawyers with respect to writing premd motions or appeal briefi on the issue of the admissibility of brainwashing testimony in: Molko and Leal v. Holy Spirir Chapel (1989); and Greene and Ry...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.