"Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "" and "" Author(s): James T. Richardson and Massimo Introvigne Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2, (Jun., 2001), pp. 143-168 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387941 Accessed: 14/07/2008 00:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org "Brainwashing" Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on "Cults" and "Sects"

JAMEST. RICHARDSON MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

This study examinesthe recent rash of official reportsdone by governmentalagencies in WesternEurope to guide policy developmentin those societies. Particular attention is given to reports in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany,Sweden, and Italy, and to the changes in such reports that have occurred,perhaps because of the influenceof scholarly critiques offeredfor some of the earlier reports. The reportsare divided into "TypeI" and "TypeII" reports,with theformer being thorough-goingin their anti-cultorientation, and the latter reportsbeing more moderatein tone, with some attentionpaid to scholarshipon new religions. However,the major thesis of the study is supported,as an examinationof both types of reportsreveals that they incorporate "brainwashing"and "mindcontrol" imageryimportedfrom the United States, even thoughsuch theories have been largely discounted within the United States. Use of such theories leads directly to some questionablepolicy recommendations,as demonstratedin the reports.Reasons for the spread of "brainwashing"ideas to Europeare discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Religious minorities in Europe today are often perceived as a social problem, traditionally thought of as "a condition which is defined by a considerablenumber of persons as a diversion from some social normwhich they cherish"(Fuller and Myers 1941). Recent scholarshipsuggests that although a social problem's beginnings are subject to empirical verification,the way they developand are represented, constructed, or negotiatedis the resultof complicatedsocial processes (Richardson1997). In the 1970s, the concept of "moralpanic" was developed (Jenkins 1998) to explain how some social problemsgenerate exaggerated fears. Moral panics aredefined as socially constructed social problemscharacterized by a reaction,in the media and in political forums,out of proportion to the actualthreat. They are often based on folk statisticsthat are passed on from media to media, and may ultimatelyinspire political measures.According to Philip Jenkins, "the panic reaction does not occur because of any rationalassessment ..."; rather,it is "a result of ill-defined fears thateventually find a dramaticand oversimplifiedfocus in one incidentor stereotype,which then providesa visible symbol for discussionand debate" (Jenkins 1996:170). Jenkinsalso emphasizes the role of the "moralentrepreneurs" who have vested interestsin perpetuatingthese fears. "Sects"and "cults"are often quintessentialtargets of moral panics. "Sects performa conve- nient integrativefunction by providinga commonenemy, a 'dangerousoutsider' against which the mainstreamcan unite and reassertits sharedstandards and beliefs ... [T]he tension between sects and mainstreamcommunity might resultin active persecutionor it can take the form of ostracism and negative stereotyping"(Jenkins 1996:158). Moral panics usually have some objective basis. Nobody would deny that some new religious movementshave been guilty of criminalactivities, ranging from cases of fraud to the horrorsof the Solar Temple. The real problem, however, is

James T. Richardsonis a Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the Universityof Nevada, Mail Stop 311, Reno, Nevada 89557. Massimo Introvigneis the Managing Director of the Centerfor Studies on New Religions (CESNUR),Via Confienza19, 10121, Torino,Italy.

Journalfor the ScientificStudy of Religion 144 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION prevalence,rather than existence. Most scholarsof new religious movementswould subscribeto the conclusion of the Swiss federal reporton that "the immense majorityof these groups ["sects"or "cults"]represents neither a danger to their members nor to the State" (La Scientologie en Suisse 1998:132-33). Few scholars, on the other hand, would agree with the French(Assemblee Nationale 1996) or Belgian (Chambredes Representantsde Belgique 1997) parliamentaryreports that listed dozens of groups-from Mormonsto Quakersand Baha'is-as "sects"or "cults"actually, or potentially,dangerous. Moralpanics startwith a basis in reality,but escalate throughexaggeration when comments appropriateto particularincidents are generalized. This happened in the United States after Jonestown(in 1978) and is currentlyevident in Europefollowing the Solar Temple incidents of murdersand suicides (in 1994, 1995, and 1997), especially as demonstratedby so many official reports on new religions, or "cults and sects." It is in the escalation, ratherthan the creation, of moral panics that moral entrepreneurswith vested interests enter the picture. They include differentanti- movements, some of which currentlyreceive considerablepublic supportin some Europeancountries.I

"TYPE I" OFFICIAL REPORTS ON "SECTS" AND "CULTS" IN WESTERN EUROPE

Within this context, some Europeanparliamentary and other official reports generated in the wake of the Solar Temple incidents have adoptedan interpretivemodel that offers a virtual guaranteeof inflating,rather than deflating, moral panics. "Type I" (Introvigne2000) official docu- ments,which includethe Frenchreports (Assemblee Nationale 1996 and 1999), the Belgian report (Chambredes Representantsde Belgique 1997), largeparts of the Cantonof Genevareport (Audit sur les de'ives sectaries 1997) and of the same Canton'sreport on brainwashing(Commission penale sur les derives sectaries 1999), the deliberationsof the FrenchPrime Minister's "Observa- tory of Sects" (ObservatoireInterministeriel aur les Sectes 1998) and of its successor,the Mission to FightAgainst Sects (MILS2000) all adopta four-stageinterpretive model, describedas follows: 1. Cults or Sects are Not Religions. First,the model claims that some minorityreligious groups are not really "religions"but something else: namely, "cults"and "sects."The two words are used almost interchangeablyin Europe,with the word equivalentto ""(e.g., secte in French,setta in Italian,or sekte in German)being the most derogatoryin several languages. Because religious liberty is recognized in WesternEurope as a value often constitutionally safeguarded(including by internationaltreaties and declarations), the best way to discriminate against a religious minority is to argue that it is not religious at all (Dillon and Richardson 1994; Barker1996; Introvigne1999c). As sociologist LarryGreil says, religion is "a cultural resourceover which competinginterest groups may vie. Fromthis perspective,religion is not an entity but a claim made by certaingroups and-in some cases-contested by othersto the right of privileges associatedin a given society with the religious label" (Greil 1996:48). 2. Brainwashingand Mind Control. Second, since religion is usually defined as an exercise of free will, it is argued that a nonreligion can be joined only under some sort of co- ercion, which is quite often couched in brainwashing-liketerms. The hypnotic paradigm used against Mormonism, the , and other groups by 19th century countercultists (Miller 1983) resurfaced-after the Cold War had conveniently supplied the metaphorof "brainwashing"-in the 1970s "cult wars"in the United States and elsewhere (Robbinsand Anthony 1982; Anthony,Robbins, and McCarthy1983; Richardsonand Kilbourne1983). By the end of the 1980s, the first "crude"theories of brainwashinghad been largely debunked amongEnglish-speaking scholars (Barker 1984; Anthony 1990; Richardson1993, 1996a), al- thoughneo-brainwashing theories have been proposedmore recently,and the situationcould change.2However, these crudebrainwashing theories continue to informType I reportsdone by Europeangovernmental agencies, as will be shown (see Anthony 1999, especially). 3. Apostates.Third, because brainwashingtheories are the object of considerablescholarly crit- icism, the model requiresdiscrimination in terms of sources and narratives.The Frenchand BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 145

Belgian reports make little, or no, use of scholarly sources. The Belgian report explicitly states that it is aware of scholarly objections against the mind control model, but has made the "ethical"choice of preferringthe actualaccounts of "victims."By "victims,"the Belgian Commission means people usually defined by social scientists as "apostates,"i.e., former members who have become active opponents of the group they left, and who develop "ac- counts" of their involvement that cast their former group in a negative light (Richardson, van der Lans, and Derks 1986; Bromley 1998). The prevalenceof apostates among former membersis certainlyno more than 10 or 20 percent,depending on the movement (Solomon 1981; Lewis 1986, 1989; Introvigne 1999a). Most ex-membersusually are not interestedin joining a crusadeagainst the group they have left, but the model usually regardsapostates as adequaterepresentatives of the total largercategory of formermembers. 4. Anti-CultOrganizations. "Cults" or "sects,"we are told, are not religions because they apply brainwashingtechniques, whereas religions by their very natureare "free"and people may join or leave them at will. We know that "cults" and "sects" use brainwashingbecause we have the testimonies of their "victims" (i.e., apostates). We know that "apostates"are representativeof the groups' general membershipbecause they are hand-pickedby reliable watchdog organizations,groups referredto by scholars as "anti-cult"(Shupe and Bromley 1994). Anti-cultorganizations, prominent in all Type I reports,are, we are told, more reliable than academics because the former, unlike the latter,have "practical"experience actually workingwith the "victims." This four-stagemodel plays an importantrole in perpetuatingthe moralpanic aboutcults and sects, and is ratherstrictly adheredto in official documentsand institutionsthroughout French- speaking Europe. Of particularnote in all these Type I reportsis the lynch-pin role played by brainwashing-typetheories. Withoutthis ideological device, the reportswould be considerably weaker in both claims and recommendations.After contrastingType II reports,we will examine use of brainwashingconcepts in both types of reportsto see whetherthe two types of reportsare similar in use of such ideas.

"TYPEII" REPORTS

Scholarlycriticism directed against Type I reports(see Introvigneand Melton 1996) seems to have exertedsome influencein othercountries. We have seen "TypeII" (Introvigne2000) reports published in 1998 by the GermanParliament (Deutscher Bunderstag-13. Wahlperiode1998), the ItalianMinistry of Home Affairs (Ministerodell'Intero 1998), the Swiss Cantonof Ticino (Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblica e Cantonedel Ticino 1998), a governmentalSwedish Commission (1998) that investigatednew religious movements, and, in 1999, by the Council of Europe (Council of Europe-Committee on Legal Affairs and Rights 1999) and by a commission of the Swiss Parliament(Commission de gestion du Conseil National 1999). We would include the generalpart on "sects"of the Swiss reporton Scientology in the largerType II category,as well as the Berger reportpresented to, but not adoptedby, the EuropeanParliament (EuropeanParliament, Committee on Civil Liberties and InternalAffairs 1997). These reports differ from each other and are subjectto considerabledebate and criticism,but they do not apply the same Type I model and they concentratemore attentionon academic findings. For example, they generally acknowledgethat: 1. It is extremelydifficult to define such termsas "cult"and "sect,"or "religion,"and it may not be the province of secular states to attemptsuch definitions. 2. Althoughthere is concernthat some religious movementsmay exert excessive psychological pressures on their members, it is generally understoodthat there is no agreement among scholars on the definitionof "brainwashing"or "mindcontrol." 3. Militant ex-members are not viewed as the only reliable source of informationabout the groups.Those who reportpositive experiencesshould also be heard(the Swedish reportnotes 146 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

that "the greatmajority of membersof new religious movementsderive positive experiences from their membership"-1998:? 1.6), as well as scholars. 4. Privateanti-cult organizations may performa legitimatefunction but, as the Cantonof Ticino report puts it, the governmentsshould not support them to the point of "co-operatingin spreadingprejudices" or even a sort of "anti-cultterrorism" (terrorismo antisetta). Type II reportsrepresent more acceptance of scholarly work when comparedwith Type I reports, and prove that cooler tempers can prevail. However, Type II reportsare still uncertain concerningthe use of brainwashing/mindcontrol metaphors,and most contain suggestions that problems remain in the area of recruitmentand retention techniques, and that such problems should be attendedto by governmentalauthorities.

AN ASSESSMENT OF "BRAINWASHING" AND "MIND CONTROL" IDEAS IN THE REPORTS

Richardson(1996a) examined the uses made of brainwashingmetaphors in legal contexts aroundthe globe, such as before the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, as well as in several countries,including Spain, Argentina, Australia, and Russia, where such ideas had been discussed in courtand even includedin judgmentsrendered by the courts.He noted thatbrainwashing ideas had become an importantsocial and culturalexport of the United States, and that the concepts had permeatedmany cultures aroundthe world, as those societies grappledwith the spread of new religious groups.While not always successfully appliedwithin legal contexts, brainwashing notions were spreadaround the world as partof the culturalarsenal used in attemptsto exercise social control over these new phenomenathat were troublesometo some parentsas well as to policy makersand politicians. Since that 1996 law review articlethere has developedwithin a numberof Europeansocieties more concernabout the new religions, concernthat has manifesteditself, as noted, in a numberof officialreports done on the allegedmenace posed by suchmovements. The reportsin questionwere issued over a relativelyshort period of time. Therefore,it is significantthat there does seem to be a significantshift in the tenorof the reports.The TypeI reports,which arethe most egregiousin terms of theiracceptance of an anti-cultperspective, the ignoringof scholarship,and recommendations, includethe ones fromFrance (January 10, 1996), Belgium (April28, 1997), the Cantonof Geneva "general"report (May 24, 1997), a second reportfrom Francefocusing on financesof the groups (June 10, 1999), and the Cantonof Genevareport on brainwashing(1999). We will discuss some recent developmentsin France, as new laws are being sought that implementthe "findings"of Frenchreports, and we will also examinebriefly some changes in the Spanishlaw relatedto new religions, since the changes apparentlyderive directlyfrom influenceof the Frenchdebates. Type II reportsexamined here include the reportof the Swedish governmentalcommission (October 1998), the Swiss reporton Scientology (July 1998), the reportof the GermanEnquete Commission (June 19, 1998), the ItalianPolice Report (April 29, 1998), the Council of Europe report(June 22, 1999), and the Swiss Parliament'sCommission on Managementreport (July 1, 1999). As indicated,the guiding idea of this study is that there is one significantarea where all the reports,although somewhat different in tone, sharea similarperspective. That concerns concepts analogousto the derogatoryterms "brainwashing" and "mindcontrol" so often used in the United States as social weaponsagainst newer religions. We will discuss bothtypes of reportsto illustrate this similarity.

Type I Reports and Brainwashing

Certainlythe two reports from France (in turn influential on Spanish developments) and Belgium are pervadedwith the imagery of psychological manipulationand coercion, as is the reportfrom the Cantonof Geneva.Many pages in the reportsare devotedto the varioustechniques allegedly used to recruitmembers and retain them. Indeed, some of the most problematicsections BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 147 of those reports are devoted to such topics. The second French report, while not spending much time on brainwashing per se, does use the concept as a major justification for the conclusions and recommendations of the report. The Canton of Geneva report on brainwashing takes for granted the general structure of the previous French and Geneva reports, and goes on to propose specific anti-brainwashing legislation. Some discussion will be offered of each report in terms of its treatment of terms, concepts, and processes analogous to the Americanized brainwashing and mind control notions.

French Report I

This first French report evoked an outcry from scholars around the world. It presented a litany of anti-cult diatribe under the guise of an official parliamentary document supposedly based on objective study. That this is not the case is obvious to even the most casual observer. We will not recount all the criticisms of this report (see Introvigne and Melton 1996), but will instead focus just on what is said about recruitment and maintenance of participants, to give a flavor of the logic and theories that undergird this key aspect of the report.3 The report relies heavily on the ideas of noted French anti-cultist Jean-Marie Abgrall, a well- known anti-cult psychiatrist in private practice in France (for a critique of Abgrall's ideas, see Anthony 1999). Abgrall is quoted as saying (p. 42):

The recruitmentof the adept undergoesthree phases, from which adhesion will progressivelybe attained, and at the same time an intellectualand effective form of dependencywill appear.Step by step the new adeptwill be seduced, persuaded,and then fascinatedby the sect and its recruitingmembers. The first phase of recruitmentis evidently one of seduction. It focuses on a seductive alternativeto the difficultiesof everydaylife .... The seduction principle requiresthat the initial contact be destined to promote the identificationprocess between the recruiterand the recruit....

After noting that these techniques are used by many in different walks of life, and that "everybody manipulates everybody else," we read this startling statement:

We shall see thatthe dangersof the persuasiondiscourse used by the sects do not dependas much on the techniques used, but ratheron the consequences of adhesionthat result.

Another component of the adhesion process, according to the report, is "fascination," devel- oped during the many meetings and activities in which the potential recruit has been involved. The report then admits that there is a volitional element to participation (p. 43), with an interpretation of that voluntariness as follows: "The sects are not a net that falls upon people, but a web into which they end up." Later in the French report (pp. 90-91) a discussion is offered concerning legal means to address the threat posed by sects and cults. A caution is offered that, "For obvious reasons, the repression of mental destabilization practices is particularly delicate ...." Nonetheless, some legal tools are described, the most interesting of which is described as follows:

[T]he new Penal Code ... contains a new incriminationsusceptible to becoming a supplementaryjudicial means to fight againstthe practicesof certainsectarian movements. It is article 313-4, in which the terms"the fraudulent abuseof a state of ignorance,or a situationof weakness, be it a minor,be it a personwho is particularlyvulnerable due to age, due to illness, due to physical or psychological deficiency or a state of pregnancy,is apparentor due to this individual,to force this minoror this vulnerableperson to commit an act or to an abstentionthat is gravely prejudicialto him, is punishedby three years of jail and a 2,500,00 F penalty.

This new law, which seems somewhat like American conservatorship laws designed mainly to protect elderly people approaching senility, shows little respect for human agency, similar to classical brainwashing theories (Richardson and Kilboure 1983). It is being proposed for 148 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION use against those who would recruit for new and minority faiths.4 The proffer seems based on an assumption that no person in their right mind would choose to join such a group, so they must be sufferingfrom a mental defect of some sort if they participate.And that defect is caused by the recruiter.Thus, a brainwashing-likeinterpretation is offered to undergirdthis new law, so that it might be used in the currenteffort to exert social control over cults and sects in France.

Amendments to the Spanish Criminal Code

In Europe,there have been severalpre-Solar Temple official reports on sects andcults. Notable for its moderationwas the Dutch reportof 1984 (Witteveen 1984). Although less moderate,and introducingthe notionof "destructivecult," a Spanishreport of 1989 did not recommendnew anti- cult legislation(see Motilla 1999: 328-30). In fact, Spanishcourts repeatedly found in favorof the Childrenof God/The Family (Motilla 1999), notwithstandinglurid press campaignsexposing it as a brainwashing,child-abusing cult. After the firstSolar Temple tragedy, however, the decisions in favorof The Family and othergroups (Richardson1996a) were subjectto increasingcriticism, as evidencing an alleged "legal vacuum"in Spanish law when it was thought necessary to act against"destructive cults." The new SpanishCriminal Code (1995) thus introduceda section 515 no. 3 regardingas illicit an association that "even when having licit ends, uses violent methods or alteration and control of the personality in order to pursue such ends." Being a founder, an officer, a member,or even a "collaborator"of an "illicit association"is a criminaloffense, and the association itself is subjectto dissolution (Motilla 1999: 338). The referenceto "alterationand control of the personality"hides a notion of brainwashing, as evidenced by the District Attorney (D.A.) (Fiscal) of Tenerife, Canary Islands, in a 1999 case that he hopes will become a landmarkexample of prosecutingan association accused of practicing"alteration and controlof the personality"of its members.The D.A. statesthat the new provision introducedin the CriminalCode representsan "in-depthmodification" of Spanishlaw and offers the possibility of prosecutinga "destructivecult" whose featuresare "groupdynamic," "hypnoticprocedures" ("turning the attentionof the memberfrom outside to inside"),and "mind control"(Casanovas 1999:1-2). The case refers to the Foundation(originally a splinter group from the BrahmaKumaris) and made internationalheadlines on January8, 1998 when it was announcedthat the CanaryIslands police had preventeda of "a branchof the Solar Temple"by arrestingits leader, Germanmotivational speaker Heide Fittkau-Garthe,and a numberof followers. During subsequentmonths, the case disappearedfrom the international media. At the local level, it was clarifiedthat the Atman Foundationhas nothing to do with the SolarTemple but, accordingto a family of disgruntledGerman ex-members, may be "justas bad." Police investigationsin Germanyfailed to detect any evidence thatthe Foundationwas preparing a mass suicide. However,the accusationis maintainedin Spainat the time of this writing,together with some others, althoughno trial has been scheduled. Followinga requestby the D.A., thejudge in chargeasked a Mr.Eloy Rodriguez-Valdesto sub- mit an expert report on "whether the group may be regarded as a destructive cult." Mr.Rodriguez-Valdes describes himself as "a psychologist, sexologist, and experton destructive cults" in privatepractice in Bajamar,Tenerife, Canary Islands. He concludes thatthe Foundation is a destructivecult and practices"brainwashing" (lavado de cerebro).He submits 20 criteriato be used to distinguishbetween a "religion"and a "destructivecult" routinely using brainwashing. The first is that "religionshave a history,an antiquity,a social evolution. They are not founded overnight,"while destructivecults "haveno history,nor tradition"(Rodriguez-Valdds 1999:35). Second, religions "partakeof culture and society-they are the result of history"whereas de- structivecults "have nothing to do with history,much less are a result of it." Third, "members are free to accept or reject the content or dogma of a religion,"whereas the "adeptis underthe BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 149

obligation of believing, practicing and spreadingthe doctrine and belief of a destructivecult" (Rodriguez-Valdes1999:36). There are, as mentionedearlier, 17 othercriteria, but the firstthree are representativeenough of how platitudes,inaccuracies (are membersof a religion by definitionfree to "rejectits content or dogma"?),and value judgmentsare passed off as psychological or scientific conclusions about mind control,brainwashing, and destructivecults. For purposes of our study it is not relevant whether the leaders of the Atman Foundation are guilty of crimes other than promotingan associationthat is consideredillicit because it uses "alterationand control of the personality"(i.e., brainwashing).It is the evidence offered by the expert for this latter crime, and the comments of the prosecutor,that are particularlydisturbing in relationboth to the incriminationof brainwashingper se and to the use of professional"cult- busters"as experts appointedby the courts.

Belgian Report

The Belgian report,which is the most slanted of all the recent official reports,discusses at length the concept of "mentalmanipulation" and offers a lengthy summaryof Robert Lifton's 1963 classic, ThoughtReform and the Psychology of Totalism,although no critiquesof Lifton's work (or the ways it has been applied) were mentioned(see Anthony 1990, 1999). Nor does the Belgian reporttake into accountthe differencesbetween Lifton's own work and the use of Lifton by MargaretSinger and otheranti-cult authors; the latterand Lifton are quotedtogether as if their theorieswere one and the same (Richardson1993, 1996a). The treatmentof Lifton in the Belgian reportis a typical anti-cultapplication of some of his ideas to contemporaryreligious groups.5 The discussion of "PersuasionStrategies and Indoctrination"is especially revealing of the attitudesunderlying the Belgian report.One quote will illustrate:

The detrimentalsectarian organizations try to influencetheir members and their groups in the society with the aim to establish certainopinions and institutionsby biased intensive psychological means. An essential element in this context is indoctrination;the disciples are made dependenton the group in diverse ways. The membersof the groupmust be submissiveand made dependentto answerthe totalitarianneeds of the groupand its chief. With the help of adequatepsychological methods the group and its chief focus on becoming masterof the conscience of members.To this effect, it is startlingto realize that the membershave no conscience of being manipulated, and that they do not thereforedevelop any appropriatedefense strategy. Witnesses heardby the investigatingcommission have discussed mental manipulation,mental destabiliza- tion, psychological alienation, moral violence, attemptsat the autonomy of the will, of mental dislocation, of depersonalization,brainwashing, indoctrination, mental and personalitydestruction. (vol. II, p. 141)

The Belgian reportalso attemptsto explainaway criticismsoffered by Introvigneand Melton (1996), includingthe chapterby Richardson(1996b) critiquingbrainwashing theories. The report closes with recommendationsfor some new penal provisions, including one to make illegal "the abuse of a situationof weakness,"which is the provision taken from the Frenchpenal code discussedearlier. Apparently, this law, writtento protectminors and those with mentaldeficiencies, is now recommendedfor applicationin Belgium to people who participatein sects and cults. Of special concern in the Belgian report is anotherrecommendation of "a prison term of up to five years and/ora fine for those who use beatings, violence and threats,or psychological manipulation to persuade an individual about the existence of false undertakings,imaginary powers, and imminent fantasticalevents" (p. 224 in the Belgian report). Such a ster penalty could only derive from a belief that there were indeed techniques that were all-powerfulwhen used in recruitingby newer faiths. (See Fautre 1999 for more on the Belgium report.) It is however interestingto note that the Observatorycreated in Belgium to watch "harmful cults" has adopted a much more moderate approachthan its French counterpartand appears willing to cooperatewith internationalscholars. 150 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Canton of GenevaReport

AnotherType I report,from the Cantonof Geneva,while moremoderate in tone thanthose of France and Belgium, does contain recommendationsfor new statutesthat are obviously derived from an acceptanceof brainwashingviews aboutparticipation. One such recommendationis to promoteSwiss federallegislation makingmind control a federal felony. The reportclaims (p. 268), after discussing activities not legally problematic,that "certain reprehensiblebehavior has nonetheless escaped the law,"and then recommendsa new crime of "mentalmanipulation," with the following attributes:

a. If psychicaldestabilization of membersor theirmental manipulation have as consequencesattempts on their physical integrityor freedom, we can ... considerinstituting penal proceduresto restrainharm or coercion .... [T]he existence of injuryis not an absolute condition of action .... We should rememberthat in the Swiss penal law ... the attemptto commit an act is punishable,even though the execution of the act was interruptedor the culpable activity has run its course without neverthelessreaching the desired result. We can imagine in the meantime,with particularreference to brainwashing,that the group or its leadershipcannot be prosecuteddue to the lack of observableevidence of attemptson physical integrityor thata person has been deprivedof his liberty. b. We know that the notion of brainwashingwas born after the Koreanwar, from the treatmentsinflicted upon the Westernprisoners of war.This expressionsymbolizes today the intensive indoctrinationof a personwith the aim to producethe total loss of contactwith reality.In this context the victim weakens by loweringhis level or reactionand suppressinghis defenses. To this end, the victim will be subjected,for example,to repeatingsounds for extendedhours, to food deprivation,to repeatedphysical exercisesof shortduration ... and otherforms of intensive and prolonged stress .... This conditioningaims to erase the ideas and concepts of the person, presentingthese to him as being synonymouswith "sin"or as negative elements that have hinderedhis harmoniousdevelopment.

The reportstates that it is difficultto establishcoercion in cases wherethe personis a voluntary participantand there is no threatof serious injuryor violence, and then says: "We would only establish that the freedom of the memberhas been violated."Then, after commentingthat it is difficultto assess attemptson the psychical integrityof a person, the reportstates:

Neverthelessit doesn't seem reasonableto adhereto this simple affirmationand to answerto family memberswho are worriedabout the fate of the person being involved in dangeroussectarian movements that one must wait for the incidence of an attempton his physical or psychical integrityin order to act and remove him from ongoing destabilizationmaneuvers.

After lamentingthe difficulty of jurists operatingwithout medical definitionsor legislators who cannot simply decree a norm since it would be hardto enforce without experts to observe the mental destabilizationstate of members,the reportstates:

Nevertheless this does not hinder reflection.We could alternatively,due to the lack of possibility of producing a medical definition,consider the enactmentof a statutethat would focus on the actions of individualsaimed at achieving the mental destabilization.It would repressbehaviors that, taken individually,would not fall underthe law. This normcould describecertain known techniquesand define the illegal aims. It could be consideredas part of the group of statutesthat protect freedom. This norm could allow, in cases where constraintis inapplicableand where physical injurycannot be observed,intervention during the destabilizationprocess.

These ideas are then given more specificity in a later section of the Geneva report by Mr. Harari,a lawyer. This section of the reportis entitled, "RecommendationsRelative to the Penal Repression of Certain Cultic Activities." The recommendationsuse the term "victim" throughoutto refer to a recruitor participant,and, also, terms such as brainwashingand mental manipulationand mentaldestabilization are used casually as if they representaccepted facts and processes. One particularlynoteworthy passage in Mr. Harari'ssection states:

If such a normcould be adopted,the fraudulentabuse of the state of ignoranceor of a weakenedstate of the victim could be punished... where the acts or omissions thatcould result would gravely prejudicethe victim. (p. 294) BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 151

Mr.Harari goes on to recommendthat "associations and defense groups"(anti-cult organiza- tions) be allowed to assist victims of "culticactivities" in legal procedures,apparently basing his argumenton the helplessness of said victims aftertheir participationin the group.This seems to be a justificationfor allowing such groupslegal standingto initiate actions on behalf of members of "cults"even when the latterhave no intentionor desire to sue.

Second FrenchReport

The second French report(issued on June 10, 1999) shows that the French parliamenthas not been responsiveto critiquesof scholarsof its firstreport or of otherType I reports.Therefore, unlike other more recent reports, which we categorize as Type II, the second French report is Type I, given the virulentanti-cult perspective demonstrated throughout. The second reportfocuses on financesof religious minorities,but still finds a way to bring in brainwashingclaims in a significantmanner. It representsanother major effort by MPs Jacques Guyard,author of the 1996 Frenchreport who chairedthe parliamentarycommission thatdrafted the second report,and Jean-PierreBrard, a memberof the Frenchgovernmental Mission to Fight Against the Cults (establishedin 1998) who is noted for strong opinions on these mattersand is the authorof the 1999 document.The reportis divided into three parts,the first of which offers general comments on the situationconcerning sects in France and in Europe.We are told again of the potentialharm of such groups, and the efforts needed to control them, including adding a few more to the list of sects and cults publishedin the firstFrench report (Anthroposophy and the Rosicrucianorder AMORC, for instance, are now defined as dangerousand placed on the list). This section is conspiratorialin its overall flavor,and even contains a referenceto the scholarly association CESNUR (of which one of the authors is managing director) as a possible major organizationin an internationalpro-cult conspiracy. The second section gives considerabledetail about finances of the groups, discussing how they gain funds for their operations,and offering a typology of sorts, based on perceptionsof wealth of the groups (Jehovah'sWitnesses and Scientology are rankedat the top). This section also presents some truly disturbingmaterial in that it reportson individualcontributions to the groups,and names names, even thoughthose listed as giving moneyto certaingroups have broken no law in so doing. Those producingthe reportare protectedfrom legal action since this is an official parliamentaryreport, but in virtuallyany other civilized society such informationwould not be allowed to be published.6 The third section of the reportdeals with possible crimes related to finances of the groups. In its conclusion section, there are recommendationsfor other activities by the Mission to Fight Cults,7 more cooperation with anti-cult groups, and anti-cult initiatives by other branches of government.The report,since it contains little evidence of actual law breaking,must depend on other logic for its quite significant conclusions. It finds its justification by referring to the old stand-by,brainwashing (lavage de cerveau), called here mind control (manipulationmentale). Cults, although typically not breaking any laws, can be identified because they employ brainwashing.While other religious organizationsreceive money and pay salariesto leaders out of free will, cults, "whose use of mind controlcertainly does not need furtherevidence" (p. 187), will use brainwashingto persuadetheir "victims" to contributemoney. While otherorganizations obtainvolunteer work by members,cults "abusethe notion of volunteerwork" since they persuade membersto work througha "moder form of slaveryfounded on mind control"(p. 176). The reportalso urges reexaminationof the recommendationin the 1996 reportthat no anti- brainwashinglaws be considered, and that the Mission to Fight Cults should conduct a study of possible new statutes. Thus, the second French report clearly demonstrateshow claims of brainwashingare used to undergirdrecommendations and conclusions that otherwise could not be justified. 152 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Draft Law by SenatorAbout in France

On December 16, 1999, the French Senate unanimouslyapproved a draft law introduced by Mr. About amending the French Law of January10, 1936 and certain other laws. The Law of January10, 1936 was introducedto provide for the dissolution or winding-up, and ban, of combatant(at that time, mostly right-wing) anti-governmentorganizations and privatemilitias by a decree of the government.Cults, or "sects,"will now be included. The discussion in the senate was introducedunder the heading "FightingCults" (Lutte contre les Sectes), and cults are the aim of the law approvedon December 16, 1999 (althoughin the end the word "cult"was not introducedin the law, andthus the law could be used againstother groups as well). The discussion made clear thatthe anti-cultactivists in the senate are unhappyabout a numberof legal decisions "favorableto cults" and would like to offer the governmenta way to bypass the judiciary. Article 1 allows the governmentto dissolve organizationsand groups that have been found guilty at least twice of a variety of criminal offenses and are "regardedas a trouble for public order or a major danger for humanpersonality." The senate discussion made clear that both the "troublefor public order"and the "dangerfor human personality"refer to the criteriafor identifying "dangerouscults" in the 1996 report(where mind control had a key role), and that the list of "dangerouscults" in that report will be an importantpoint of reference. Article 2 takes care of the fact that in recent cases (involving, particularly,the Churchof Scientology) certain leaders or members of the movement but not the movement per se were found guilty of particularwrongdoings. Under Article 2, organizationsand movements may now be found guilty of a numberof crimes as corporatebodies. Even if this does not happen,the second partof Article 1 allows the dissolution and ban of groups "dangerousfor human personality"whose managersor "de facto leaders"have been found guilty, at least twice, of the same crimes. Special provisionsmake it particularlyfit for a ban the fact of having been found guilty of breachesof the Public Health Code, and this (as the printeddiscussion clarifies) is aimed at groups practicing, in a way regardedas hazardousto public health, faith healing or other alternativesto orthodox medicine. Finally, Article 3 amends the 1901 law on the associations, increasingto three years of jail and a fine of F 300,000 the penalty for those who try to reconstitutea bannedassociation underanother name. As a member of the senate (Mr. Foucaud) observed, the law of 1936 "was used by the [pro-Nazi] Vichy regime" and "left-wing movements were banned."He also observed that the referenceto at least two criminalverdicts against a movementfor an enormousvariety of crimes and wrongdoingsmay have paradoxicaleffects: "a movementmay be dissolved because a leader has been found twice guilty of writing bad checks for 10 dollars"(Lutte contre les sectes 1999: column 40). Nevertheless, all the senatorsvoted unanimouslyin favor of the draft law. In fact, mindcontrol and brainwashing would againplay a key role since not all movementswhose leaders have been found guilty of criminal offenses would be banned,but only those accused of being "dangerousfor humanpersonality." Approvalby the lower chamber,the NationalAssembly, was needed afterthe senate's unan- imous vote. The senatorshad noted that the problem for France is the internationalsituation, and the U.S. Departmentof State, "which includes Scientologists"(Lutte contre les sects 1999: column 35) was singled out for its activities on behalf of religious liberty. In fact, the French governmentitself appearedto be quite concerned about possible internationalconsequences if the About act was passed, and delayed a vote in the assembly because of such concerns,until the new Picarddraft law, in fact supersedingthe About draft,was introduced.

The Picard Draft Law in France (2000)

A new French anti-cult draft law dated May 30, 2000 and unveiled on June 6, 2000 was authoredby MP Ms CatherinePicard and signed by all FrenchSocialist Membersof the National BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 153

Assembly. It was approvedby the Commission of Law of the Assembly on June 14, 2000 and was passed unanimouslyon June 22 in the National Assembly. This extremelyrapid handling of such a controversialmeasure is itself a sign of how strongly some elements of French govern- ment feel aboutnontraditional religious groups. At the time of this writing, the law, after several amendments,awaits final approvalto become effective.8 The Socialist Partyis the partyof France'sPrime Minister.The National Assembly, if any- thing, made the draft law worse by changing the perimeterfrom a school, hospital, or similar location where "cults"cannot operate from 100 to 200 meters (making it impossible for such groups to operatealmost everywhere),allowing cities to deny buildingpermissions to so-called cults and allowing privateanti-cult organizationsto promote and become parties in court cases againstthem. These amendmentswere approvedagainst the opinion of the governmentitself, and elicited strongreactions by humanrights organizationsand the mainline churches(Catholic and Protestant).As a result,Justice Minister Elizabeth Guigou called for a "pause"and a reexamination before the law is approvedby the senate. The draftlaw originallycontained 11 articles,derived in partfrom severalformer proposals, includingthe one by SenatorAbout. The main featuresof the draftlaw were as follows: 1. Article 1 provides for the dissolution of a corporationor association whose activities have "the goal or effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependenceof peo- ple who are participatingin its activities"and that infringe "humanrights and fundamental liberties,"when this association,or its managers(or de facto managers)have been convicted "severaltimes" (how many times is not specified) for offenses such as fraud,illegal practice of medicine, and several other criminal offenses. The introductionmakes it clear that this combinationof mind control,infringement of "humanrights," and "several"criminal convic- tions is the definitionof a "sect"or "cult"now regardedas legally workable.The procedure of dissolutionis judicial and can be introducedbefore a civil courtby the local prosecutoror by any person who has an interestin the matter(including, apparently, anti-cultists). 2. Articles 2 to 5 createcorporate criminal liability for corporationsor associationsfalling under Article 1 in cases where only personalliability existed. 3. Article 6 lays out the punishmentfor any person who participatesin the reconstitutionof a corporationor associationthat has been dissolved-a three-yearprison term and a F 300,000 fine. Article 7 calls for the reneweddissolution of an associationthat has been reestablished after a first dissolution. 4. Article 8 forbids the setting up of any offices, seat, church, advertisement,or advertising activityby sects (i.e., the associationsand groupsdefined under Article 1) withinthe perimeter of 200 meters (as amended by the assembly) from a hospital, a retirementhouse, a public or private institution of prevention,curing, or caring, or any school for 2- to 18-year-old students.If this interdictionis violated, the sentence is two years' imprisonmentand a fine of F 200,000, and the corporationor association can be condemneditself. Cults or sects (as defined above) may also be denied buildingpermissions or licenses by cities. 5. Article 9 punishes any promotion or propagandaby an association or group falling under Article 1 "intendedfor young people" (age not defined) under penalty of a F 50,000 fine, applicableto both individualsand associations. 6. Article 10 establishesthe new crime of mentalmanipulation. "Mental manipulation" (in fact "brainwashing,"although this termis not used) is definedas any activityor activities"with the goal or the effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependenceof people who are participatingin the group's activities and to infringehuman rights and fundamental liberties; to exert repeatedpressures in order to create or exploit this state of dependence and to drive the person, against its will or not, to an act or an abstentionwhich is heavily prejudicialto her."The penalty is two years' imprisonmentand a fine of F 200,000, but if the victim is particularlyweak due to age, illness, etc., the penalty is five years' imprisonment and F 500,000 fine. Following the amendmentsby the assembly,court cases may be brought 154 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

by anti-cultorganizations, which can participateas partiesto a case and may collect damages from the so-called cults. Penalties will apply to associationsas well as to individuals. This last provision caused widespread protest by human rights organizations,mainline churches,and the judiciary.As a result, in January2001 the governmentsuggested that creating an offense of mental manipulationwas not appropriate,and the same results may be obtained throughan extension of the existing Section 313-4 of the Penal Code repressing"the deceitful abuse of a state of ignoranceor a situationof weakness."In a new text, both the offense and the termof"mental manipulation" disappeared, and Section 313-4 was amendedto includethe notion of a "stateof subjection,"either psychological or physical, caused by "theexercise of serious and repeatedpressures or techniquesaimed at alteringthe capacity of judgment"(a formulationthat repeats,word for word, the formulaused in the previousdraft bill to define the offense of mental manipulation).A second paragraphadded to the section would make punishmentof the offense heavier,up to five years of detentionand a fine of 5 million francswhen the crimes are committed "by a de facto or legal leader"of a "secte."

Canton of GenevaReport on Brainwashing

At a conference held on November 25, 1999, the Cantonof Geneva unveiled a "Reporton Mind Controlof the CriminalLaw Commission on Cultic Abuses" (Rapportde la Commission penale sur les derives sectaires sur la question de la manipulationmentale 1999). The Criminal Law Commissionon Cultic Abuses follows the above-mentionedCanton of Geneva 1997 report on cults and is the brainchildof a local politician, Mr. GerardRamseyer. The report starts by stating that cultic mind control "is a reality,"mentioning as evidence "former members and parents of current members heard as witnesses by the Commission" (p. 2). It goes on to present an outline of the issue of mind control (the term "brainwashing" is not used) in comparativelaw. Althougha Ms. Sophie Borguignon,Assistant Professor of Law at the Universityof Geneva and a memberof the Commission, is praisedfor her "serioushome- work"in this field, the results are not particularlyimpressive. Concerning the U.S. situation,the reportclaims that Molko (a well-known Californiandecision of 1988 involving the )"governs this matter"(p. 5), and no mention whatsoeveris made of the post-Molkode- bate, particularlyof the exclusion of witnesses on brainwashingand mind controlby U.S. judges startingin the Fishmancase (1990).9 An articleby Richardson(1996a), in fact extremelycritical of brainwashingclaims in general), is quoted only in orderto note that brainwashingdefenses raised by deprogrammers"have often (althoughnot systematically)been regardedwith favorby US courts,so thatdeprogrammers have been acquitted"(p. 4). No mentionis made of a numberof U.S. decisions regardingdeprogramming as a criminalactivity. In fact, the reportclaims that"de- programmingis a formof therapywhose aim is an attemptto counterthe mindcontrol imposed on the memberand to restorehis or her free will. In fact, the deprogrammertries to call into question the trustrelationship between the memberand the cult, showing that in fact he or she has been conned"(p. 4). The ItalianConstitutional Court decision of 1981 strikingthe provisionon plagio (brainwashing),dating back to the fascist regime,out of the ItalianCriminal Code as incompatible with a democraticconstitution is explainedaway with the argumentthat it was based on the vague characterof the statute,ignoring that the Italian court said in 1981 that any anti-brainwashing statutecan only be vague, since there is no accepted definitionof brainwashingin general. The reportalso mentions attemptsto reintroducea plagio statutein Italy, failing however to explain that, so far, these attemptshave consistentlyfailed. The second half of the report deals with Swiss law. It examines how existing provisions on fraud, consumerprotection, theft, and (in case of use of mind control to persuadethe mem- ber to have a sexual relation with a leader) rape may be used against mind control, and it is suggested that Swiss judges apply these provisions in a broaderway. The Commission thinks, however, that this is not enough, and proposes a new article of the CriminalCode (art. 182) as follows: BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 155

Whoeverhas carriedout physical or psychological actions in a repeatedand systematicalway, aimed at impairing the capacity of another person to make autonomousjudgments, or at placing this other person in a state of dependency,will be punishedwith a jail term and a fine. (p. 12)

The examples offered by the Commission as guidelines are not reassuring as far as the apparent vagueness of the provision is concerned:

This process includes, but is not limited to: -magnifying the possibility of the memberto be suggestionizedor fascinatedby a special diet, excessive repetitionof routine activities or rituals, sleep deprivation,participation to lengthy sessions where the tenets of the group are learned; -controlling the environmentof the member (isolation from family and friends, filteringthe information coming from the outside society ...); -controlling forms of communication(imposing the use of a coded language, excluding certain subject mattersfrom discussion ...); -excessive social control within the movement, exposureof the member to an intense humiliationshould he or she deviate from the tenets of the group. (p. 15)

It is also stated that "since the controlled member will rarely take the initiative of filing a criminal case, district attorneys should be free to act even without a previous complaint" (p. 15). It is unclear, at the time of this writing, whether this report will have any practical consequence at the cantonal or federal level in Switzerland.

Type II Reports

As indicated, there are several Type II reports that are not so slanted against minority religious groups. While these reports are more balanced, and do consider scholarly research, we will show that all but one still incorporates in important ways essential ideas from the brainwashing/mind control tradition, even if this usage is more subtle.

Swedish Report

The Swedish report is surprising because it makes overt criticisms of actions of other European governments toward newer religions. It is particularly critical of France and Belgium, saying that "some countries can be said, somewhat exaggeratedly, to have declared war on the new religious movements," which can only lead to more isolation for such groups.10 The report also stresses the right of adults to believe what they choose and express their beliefs. And, the report claims as well that "the great majority of members of new religious movements derive positive experience from their membership." In chapter seven of the Swedish report, which deals with legal perspectives, there is a lengthy discussion of the fact that Swedish laws cover virtually any kind of activity that might be harm- ful to society or to individual members. However, the section then closes with the following recommendation, presented in the official English summary of the report:

The Commission comes to the conclusion that the protectiveneeds of the individualare relativelywell-provided for in the majorityof cases. But legislationaffords insufficient protection with regardto what in the Commission's report is termed "improperinfluence" or manipulation.Introduction of the term "improperinfluence" in the legislation would benefit both serious practitionersof religion and personal integrity.If a person is induced, against his will, to renounce his faith (the term "deprogramming"was formerly applied), this, accordingto the legislation proposed, can be deemed improperinfluence, just as manipulationsof an individual in a religious movement can be regardedas improperinfluences. The Commission thereforeproposes that the Penal Code be amendedto include a new penal provisionmaking improperinfluence a punishableoffense. (?8)

Although the report uses an example of deprogramming to illustrate improper influence, the purview of the new proposed law would also cover "manipulations of an individual in a religious 156 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION movement."This suggests some concernabout recruitment and retentionpractices, as well as an implicit acceptanceof the idea that a person's will and judgment can be overcome by religious groups.Thus, it appearsthat even with all the positive things thatcan be said aboutthe balanceof the Swedish report,it has as an underlyingtheme ideas relatedto brainwashingnotions imported fromthe UnitedStates. Those ideas includepassivity and weakness on the partof potentialrecruits and members.Implicitly, the idea of improperinfluence, when used in referenceto normaladults (even young ones), seems a rejection of their volitional nature, which might be involved in a l decision to experimentwith a newer religion.

Swiss Reporton Scientology

A report specifically on Scientology, but with attentionto the general topic of sects, was commissionedby the State Security Advisory Committeein Switzerland.This report,although criticalof Scientology,is perhapsthe most balancedof all the recentgovernmental reports on new religions in that it is quite factual and considers seriously work by scholarsin this area of study. The reportdoes not adopt the anti-cult ideology that pervadesType I reportsand some Type II ones.12 The reportrecounts the restrainedapproach to new religious phenomenaby most govern- mentalentities in Switzerland,a point to which we will return.The reportalso recommendssome actionsby governmentalauthorities, such as the need for an "observationcenter" on new religions at a higher education institutionthat would producefactual and independentinformation about such phenomenafor use by the public and governmentalauthorities. The reportspecifically does not recommendthat Scientology (or any othergroup) be put undersurveillance, and it states that existing laws are adequateto give the state opportunityto oppose any injuriousactivity by sects. Of particularinterest, the report makes no use at all of brainwashingand mind control concepts. Indeed, the topic of recruitmentis given short shrift in the report, and there is an implied assumptioncommon to much scholarlyliterature on new religions thatpeople join these groups because they want to, not because of some sort of mystical psychotechnology such as brainwashing.Thus, this reportrepresents an exception to the usual finding that brainwashing concepts undergirdeven Type II reports.But, as will be shown, this reportis not the "last word" on cults and sects by Swiss authorities.

GermanEnquete Commission

The GermanBundestag established a much-publicizedEnquete Commission to inquireinto "So-Called Cults and Psycho Groups"in May 1996,13 which held many meetings and even traveledto the United States before issuing a final report.(A preliminaryreport had evoked some controversyand criticism.) The final report,issued in May 1998, was surprisinglymoderate in its tone in some sections (but not in all, see Besier and Scheuch 1999), and included statements that the new religions (with some exceptions) were not harmfulto society, and that they did not constitutethe seriousproblem that had been originallythought. However, the reportalso included a substantialminority report filed by some commission membersexpressing concern about anti- cult orientedportions of the report,and theirrecommendations, which would exert considerable control over minorityfaiths (see Seiwert 1999). Despite the generally more positive and scholarly informedportions of the report,it con- tains some assumptionsand claims about recruitmentprocesses indicatingthat the influence of scholarlyresearch and criticismsof earlierofficial reportswas not fully accepted.The reportdoes say (p. 141 of the English translation)there are some problemswith earlier-acceptedmodels of conversionthrough brainwashing, and thatconversion was usually an act of free will (Introvigne was among those who testified before the Commissionon this issue). However,there are places in the reportwhere the earliertheories still are accepted, even if more quietly or implicitly.It is BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 157 clear that new religions are viewed as sinisterforces to be observed, studied, and generallykept trackof if the governmentis to properlycare for its citizens. This approachderives, it has been noticed (Besier and Scheuch 1999), from the German government'stendency to assume a duty to protectthe individualagainst exploitation and harm, or more boldly put, to protect the individualfrom himself or herself, as the individual makes spiritualdecisions. Such a perspectiveleads ratherlogically to some innovativeapproaches taken by the Germanreport, as will be discussed. There is some direct evidence for the conclusion that the state accepts theories of recruit- ment that are negatively defined, as revealed through an examination of the topics covered in the lengthy report, especially the portion devoted to recruitment.14Five pages (74-78) are devoted to a discussion of "enlistmentand recruitmentstrategies," and 18 pages (140-57) to "forms of social control and psychological destabilisation."For example, the following com- ment is made about "psychological dependence,"a term used in a disparagingway within the report:

As a working concept, "psychologicaldependency" is proposed for the state of affairs where an individualhas formed an unusuallystrong and unusuallyexclusive bond, notably or even predominantlydriven by anxiety,with a community which on grounds of religion or ideology exerts an extensive or even exclusive influence on the general orientationand everydaylife of its members.(p. 147)

This definition makes it clear that the Commission does not look positively on religious groups that exercise a strong influence on their members.The Commission does offer a caveat when it says:

It should be noted that there is an implicit culturaljudgement in the identificationof dependencyin these terms, i.e. the notion that the observed bond is inappropriatelystrong, that it is harmfulfor the persons concernedand that it can be misused for immoralpurposes. (p. 147)

The Commission'srecommendations leave little room for doubtthat most on the Commission viewed new religious groups negatively,no matterthe conclusions drawn in parts of the report about the relativelybenign natureof most such groups. Most Commission memberswanted the groups to be studied, and wanted to have the governmentfund privateadvisory and information offices to help keep tabs on new religious and "psychogroups.""International cooperation" was called for to assist in finding out more aboutthe groups, as well. The concept of "milieu control" used by anti-cult activist Steve Hassan is discussed but criticized as too broad:

[T]he milieu control identifiedby Hassan, consisting of behaviouralcontrol, mental control, emotional control and informationcontrol cannot, in every case and as a matterof principle,be characterisedas "manipulative." Control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactionin a group or community.The social controlthat is always associatedwith intensecommitment to a groupmust thereforebe clearly distinguished from the exertionof intentional,methodical influence for the express purposeof manipulation.(p. 150)

The reportalso recognizedthat "in this areait is not possible (except in extremecases) to iden- tify cause-effectrelationships independently of the biography,the personalityand the social situa- tion of the candidate"(p. 151). While "theconcept of psychological dependencyas a so-called in- nerfact cannotas a rulebe used as a criterionfor justifying action by the authorities"(p. 154), the re- portstates that the distinctionbetween what takesplace in most social organizationsand "planned andpurposeful methods of manipulation[which] do at least tend to runcounter to the basic values of our social orderis possible"(p. 151). For instance,having heardas a witness Canadiansociolo- gist StephenKent (a well-knowncritic of Scientology andother movements), the Commissionwas persuadedthat "prolongedsensory deprivationalone can produceacute psychological disorders 158 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

(hallucinations)and make the victim receptiveto indoctrination('brainwashing')" (p. 150). Here, as elsewhere, it seems that at least one movement,Scientology, is regardedas so dangerousthat even a recommendedcaution in the reportnot to use the word "brainwashing"is abandoned. Throughoutthe majorityof the report there is a "consumerprotection" model operating. The governmentis assumingthat it has the right and obligationto protectpotential recruits from participatingin "problematicgroups." One could even say that the Commission has shown a rathersophisticated, if punitive,approach to the problemof regulatingnewer religious groups.It has linked religious groups with "psychogroups,"which are definitely not consideredreligious. It has called for more scientific researchon such groups(although it ignoredmuch such research as it drew up the report).Then it proposes a consumerprotection approach that has the effect of furnishingsome basis for also regulatingreligious groups. And, all this is done in the name of protectingthe citizenry,so who can possibly complain?All this is done despite explicit statements made in the reportthat the new religious groups are not a threatto democraticsociety. Plainly such a position is based upon the view that the groups are sinister,and that they do recruitand retainmembers in unacceptableways. It is noteworthythat this "consumerprotection" model, which has also been tried in the United States (see Richardson1986), has become influentialin otherofficial fora in Europe,such as the Berger reportto the EuropeanParliament.15 Martin Kriele says of this approachin the EnqueteCommission Report (1998:13):

The recommendationmade to the FederalCouncil to make a law regulatingthe commercialassistance for masteringlife, is incomprehensible.This draft law emanatesfrom the all-inclusive suspicion that those offering such services are not reliable,are mysterious,and work with manipulativetechniques and the consumershave to be especially protected.

Italian Police Report

This is a police reportprepared for internaluse by police and intelligence agencies. It does access considerablescholarly work, and indeed made use of the CESNUR libraryon new and minorityreligions. However,the reportalso contains some blatantmistakes in its discussions of some groups,most notablyThe Family/TheChildren of God. Chapterthree of the Italian police report does contain a discussion of brainwashingand mind control (pp. 10-11), and offers in a footnote a standardanti-cult oriented reconstruction of the brainwashingprocess allegedly used by new religions. The footnote discusses three major processes that are supposedly involved in recruitingand maintainingmembers. These include isolation, indoctrination,and maintenance. * Isolation includesa numberof elements such as the eliminationof family life; "love bombing" to reinforcethe sense of belonging to the group;elimination of privacy;and total obligationof one's wealth to the group,causing financialdependence on the group. * Indoctrinationincludes constant attendance at very difficultlectures; absolute obedience; con- formity to specific dress codes; a sense of mystery and participationin an insoluble design; and use of repetitiveformulas that ridicule the critical senses. * Maintenanceincludes continuous mental impregnationand deprivationof sleep designed to induce a state of dependence;depersonalization by eliminating personal initiative;constant psychological pressureby other membersto preventself-doubt; and the use of a cryptic lan- guage that makes communicationwith the outside world difficult. There is also in the report a discussion of plagio, a term close to what some mean by brainwashing,and that used to be referredto in section 603 of the ItalianCriminal Code. However, the reportcorrectly notes that the offense was declaredunconstitutional in 1981 and is no longer partof Italianlaw. This point notwithstanding,there are severaluses of the termlater in the report, with claims that membersof certaingroups are "submittedto plagio" (p. 89). BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 159

There is also on page 10 a concern aboutrecruiting techniques. The reportdecries:

the use, in orderto recruitnew candidatesand maintainthem in the fold of subliminalmechanisms of fascination and of brainwashingor similarmethods to limit the liberty of self-determinationof the individual.

Further,the reporttalks of indoctrinatingthe adeptby using "scientificmethods to decrease the psychicaldefense of the individual,and to inducea criticallevel of total obedience."At another place the report says that "'mental conditioning' ... should not be prosecutedunless it can be demonstratedthat techniquesof suggestion and hypnosis have been used ...." It is clear that brainwashingnotions serve as an underpinningof this report,even thoughthe reportcontains some thoughtfuland informed portions. Thus, such underlyingideas have survived the infusion of other scholarshipinto the report.Why this has occurredremains to be seen.

Swiss Canton of TicinoReport

This reportfrom the Canton of Ticino in Switzerlandalso shows the apparentinfluence of criticism by scholarsof some earlierreports. Indeed, it even mentions (p. 17) possible problems with "anti-cultterrorism" against newer faiths, which suggests a differentapproach in this report. However,again we see clear signs thatbrainwashing themes are acceptedby the report'swriters. We also see evidence of possible cross-fertilizationbetween this report and the Italian police reportreferred to earlier. The report'ssection on "How People Join"is replete with languageindicating acceptance of the mindcontrol/brainwashing perspective. Readers are told (p. 22) thatthe "dangersare numerous andtreacherous" for youths who aretargeted by the cults. The process of joining the SolarTemple is describedas "seductionexerted on the public ... by means of a manipulativeprocess ...." Of participants,we are told that "theirvulnerability and sense of not being loved are exploited."A footnote likens the relationshipof participantand leaderto that of the sado-masochisticrelation. There is discussion of "affectivitybombing" (p. 23), which seems a reference to the term "love bombing,"which some apply to recruitmenttechniques of the Unification Churchwhere the groupgoes about"providing him with an image of happyand comfortablepeople who intend to help those who have problems."We are told that the recruitmentprocess becomes "moreand more exacting both psychologically and financially."Recruits then approacha "slipperycliff, which will bring about a breakingpoint." The reportsays that "at times the group will threaten his family in orderto put a stop to efforts to lure the adeptaway from the sect." Even the use of hypnosis and chemical methods can be instrumentalin eliciting total sub- mission.

[P]rogressiveisolation is what has increasinglyvictimized subjectand immunizedhim againstexternal influences and made him utterlydependent on this new reality. In the group privacy is dismantled... and a collective self replaces the individualself. (p. 24)

Anotherfootnote discussing the UnificationChurch methods claims that"A 'godfather'who will be in chargeof this personfull-time progressivelybegins the brainwashingprocess." There is also discussion of a "seriesof activities"that are "prolongedand tiring"including mentally. Here is mentionedthe example of learninglengthy prayers.The reportadds that a demandingroutine allows little sleep because of the "intricaterules imposed."All this:

underminespersonal responsibility, ... which is particularlyappealing to people who are psychologically easy to manipulatebecause they feel relieved of their burdenof responsibility.

The group uses "a reproachfulattitude" for those who deviate from the norms of the group. The recruitis asked to "makea confession."Thus the group causes him to: 160 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

create in himself a huge sense of guilt which will be later used to increasehis psychological dependence:this is programming.Identity has been practicallytransformed. (p. 25)

After this process, we are told, "it is almost impossible for him to leave the group .... The submission is complete." We are also informed that Michele Del Re, an Italian law professor who heads an anti-cult organization, states that:

the technique of subjugationwithin destructivecults has nothing original to offer. It is in fact the very same techniqueborn at the beginningof the post-warperiod in Chinese prisonsand which was also developedin Korea and in Bulgaria,where political prisonerswere used as guinea pigs for mentalconditioning.

The report claims that this technique has three major steps (recall the Italian police report), including (1) isolation of the person; (2) indoctrination of the person; and (3) keeping the person in a state of absolute dependence. A summary paragraph concludes:

The negative consequences can be summarizedin the loss of social contact, breakingof existing relationships, transformationof personality,mental dependence, material submission, even culminatingin physicalconsequences of being deprivedof a balanceddiet, sleep deprivation,or neglect of medical needs.

Then, just to remind the reader that something sinister is happening, another summary list of the principle techniques used in luring people to join is given (p. 26). These include "love bombing," "isolation," "repetition," and "sleep deprivation," all of which are described in some detail. The report closes with a familiar litany of what should be done about the menace of sects and cults. The report offers (p. 34) recommendations, including,

it is necessaryto intervenebefore the damageis made and to punishwhoever may use chemical, or psychological methods in orderto dominateanother. One might then imagine that psychical violence might be prosecutedas a crime.

The report adds:

One could certainly hypothesize a law that would punish the acts which tend to destabilize the person, that is, those behaviorsthat are not punishablein themselvesbut thatare punishablewhen they exist in combination.This would allow interveningto a markeddegree while the process of destabilizingthe individualis in progress,rather than waiting for the damage to be actualized.

The report admits that there may be "difficulty of proof' since there are often no witnesses to the actions of the "suspected criminal who affirms that the supposed victim was fully consenting." This set of recommendations is chilling to read, and plainly would be problematic to implement. They demonstrate that some in the Canton of Ticino fully accept the brainwashing myth and are willing to take drastic actions based on that acceptance.

Swiss National Council Report on Cults

On July 1, 1999, the Commission of the Management of the Swiss National Council (the Federal Parliament) produced a report to guide public policy in the area of new religious groups, apparently in response to some other reports done by governmental entities in Switzerland, partic- ularly the more balanced one dealing with Scientology discussed earlier.16This report is generally mindful of scholarly studies of new religions, although it does not accept scholarly views com- pletely. Of particular interest is the creative, if problematic, method used to address the issue of recruitment and maintenance of participation in new religions. BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 161

The reportdoes not use the term"brainwashing" at all, in apparentrecognition of the disrepute of that term in scholarly circles. However, the report does talk at length about "indoctrinating movements"(mouvements endoctrinants), and states that this is the "key element"to observe in movements with possible "cultic"features (p. 24). The reportadmits that indoctrinationis part of a continuumbetween acceptableforms of influenceand unduepressure, and that it is not easy to define for legal purposes.However, it goes on to say (paragraph435) that "The most notable featureof indoctrinatinggroups is the limitationof self-determinationto the point of eradication of autonomy."The reportalso notes how difficult it is to measure such manipulationprocesses from the outside; because some of the process is internalto the recruit,it is hard to prove that deception was used. In cases of "alterationor suppressionof free will" (p. 36), the state shouldprotect individuals againstthe "indoctrinatingmovement." Of special concern to the Council are childrenand those who may believe in pseudo-therapeutic"miracle cures" proposed by some movements.One quote will demonstratepotential implicationsof the assumptionsconcerning so-called indoctrinating groups.

Since not only civil and criminal legislation, but democracy as well rest on the axiom of responsible self- determination,no rightfulState, no matterhow liberal,can witness withoutreaction the actions of indoctrinating groups that systematicallyannul individualautonomy. (paragraph 445)

The Swiss reportdoes not, however,recommend any new federallegislation, and the proposal in the Cantonof Genevareport to legislate againstmind control (discussedearlier) is called "pre- mature"at the federallevel. 17The reportdoes adopta consumerprotection model, and states that there might need to be some additionalregulation making it easier to apply consumerprotection statutes to "for-profitspiritual assistance" (p. 51). The report also recommendsestablishing a federal service for informationon new groups, and states that it should not be biased. Thus, the Federal Swiss Parliament'sreport is more moderateand recognizes that there are differencesof opinionin this area.There is little regurgitationof anti-cultrhetoric within the report, as was seen in the reportsfrom Belgium and France.However, it is easy to discernbrainwashing and mind controlideas lurkingwithin the discussion of so-called indoctrinatinggroups, and these help drive the policy recommendationfor new regulationsof a consumerprotection variety. On June 29, 2000, the Swiss governmentpublished a response to the report,praising the Commission's efforts but rejectingall its main proposals.The Swiss governmentconcluded that no special laws were appropriate,and that it is not the province of the federal state to create watchdoginstitutions to observe "cults."To a limited extent, the governmentmay supportprivate nonpartisanefforts (such as the Observatorycreated at the University of Lausanne,see Conseil federal 2000). Thus it may be the case that implicit brainwashingtheories in the parliamentary reporthave not carriedthe day in Switzerland.

Council of EuropeReport on Sects and Cults

In 1999, the Council of Europeadopted a compromisedocument entitled, "Illegal Activities of Sects" (Doc. 8373, June 22, 1999) that is within the ambit of a Type II report.The reportwas the result of much discussion, and representsthe views of variousparties, which means that the documenthas importantinternal contradictions. It makes strong statementsin favor of religious freedom and pluralism,and againstreferring to religious groups with the "extremelypejorative" termsect (p. 4), but also makes some recommendationsthat derive from concernabout "religious, esoteric, or spiritualgroups," as they are referredto in the report. The reportdoes not recommendrestrictive legislation, and mentionsmore thanonce thatthe state should stay neutralin mattersreligious. The reportdoes call for establishmentof informa- tion centers, including regional ones, to aid in disseminationof informationon the groups. The 162 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

reportjustifies itself in this regardin two ways: that "thenumber of people joining sects is rising constantly,"and because of "theestablishment of sects in centraland easternEurope" (p. 3). This concernabout central and easternEurope pervades the report,with recommendationsbeing made thataid packagesfor those countriesinclude money for informationcenters on sects, and so forth. Of special interestis the concernexpressed about recruitment and socializationof members. There are various conceptualizationsrelated to brainwashingin the report,including some that use the term brainwashingexplicitly. For instance,the reportssays:

The assemblyattaches great importance to protectingthose most vulnerable,and particularlythe childrenof mem- bers of religious,esoteric or spiritualgroups, in case of ill-treatment,rape, neglect, indoctrinationby brainwashing .... (p. 2)

The term brainwashingis also mentioned in the report in a discussion (p. 6) of the well- known Kokkinakiscase in the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, which was decided in 1993 as the first violation of article 9 of the EuropeanCommission of HumanRights. As Richardson (1995b, 1996a) pointed out, both the majorityand minority opinions in that case (which was decided on a vote of 6-3 in favorof Jehovah'sWitnesses right to proselytize in Greece) make use of the termbrainwashing as if it is a well-understoodconcept within legal and scholarlycontexts. The reportuses statementsfrom this judgmentto indicatethat some proselytizingis unacceptable because it might entail "the use of violence or brainwashing"(p. 6). The following statementappears in the conclusion of the report(p. 9): "Itwould be necessary to reflectupon the legal consequencesof the indoctrinationof sect members,often called 'mental manipulation."'This somewhat ambiguousstatement seems to suggest that groups engaging in "mentalmanipulation" should suffer some legal consequences,but the reportis not clear on how such groups are to be identified. So, again we see an official reportof an interparliamentaryentity in Europe assumingthat something called "brainwashing"is a reality,even if several differentterms are used to refer to this process. And again, we see this assumptionused as a justificationfor policy decisions, such as the establishmentof informationcenters and the internationalexchange of informationon the groups in question, not to mentionthe notion of "legal consequences"for mentalmanipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear from reviewing these reportsthat the American culturalproduct of ideas about brainwashingand mind control is alive and well in Europe, and that those ideas have helped promotethe moralpanic in some Europeancountries over cults and sects. Culturaldiffusion has, regrettablyin this case, been relatively successful, but it has also been limited and narrow.The thoroughcritique of such ideas that has been done by scholars both from the United States and othercountries (including European ones) is usually missing from the package(see, for example, Barker1984, 1989;Robbins and Anthony 1982; Anthony 1990, 1996;Anthony and Robbins 1995; James 1986; Richardson1985, 1991, 1993, 1996a). Thus we see the raw ideas of brainwashing and relatedconcepts includedin both Type I and Type II reports(with the exception of the Swiss report on Scientology), and such ideas appearto be driving policy recommendationsin some Europeancountries, even including those that claim that the new religions are not a threatand that religious freedom and pluralismare valued. Why brainwashingnotions have been so readily adopted in the Europeancontext needs furtheranalysis. One could say this has occurredbecause of the tendencyto accept the word of apostateswhen claims are made and accounts offered about what happenedto them when they joined newer religions. Those claims and accountsare apparentlymore culturallycoherent if use is made of concepts such as brainwashing,mind control, or relatedterms, as Introvigne(2000) notes (see also Richardson,van der Lans, and Derks 1986; Bromley 1988, 1998). BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 163

However,the tendencyto blame apostateaccounts for widespreaduse of such ideas begs the question of why in some Europeancountries those particularaccounts are valued above others, including scholarly research-basedclaims that brainwashingas it is popularlyunderstood does not occur. Those trying to understandthe resiliency of brainwashing-basedarguments will be forced to examine, among other things, the social constructionistquestion of who gains when such argumentsare acceptedand moral panics ensue. For instance,it is clear thattraditional churches gain (at least in the shortrun) if such notions are accepted as a basis for policy because competitionfor membershipis stifled. Also, cultural conservativesgain if culturalinnovations are stymied throughthe use of such rhetoric.Cultural liberals may also supportanti-cult uses of brainwashingideas if they are anti-American,and if they view cults and sects as archconservativeand reactionary(as is often the case in present-day France).Politicians may, in turn,adopt brainwashing ideas as partof theirrhetoric because it fits their purposeof wanting to appearto rebuildor defend the culturalintegrity of a society as they seek to gain and retain political power. Media representativesmay make use of brainwashing theories if only because they make for a good story, which also happens to sell copies. Those opposed to religion in general also may promote the idea that cults and sects are a threatwith their alleged use of brainwashingarguments because it furthersa general anti-religionagenda. In France, the first Europeancountry to develop such anti-cult oriented reports to guide governmentalpolicies, the state has had a traditionof supportingsecular humanism dating back to the French Revolution. At the SupplementalMeeting on Freedom of Religion held by the Organizationfor Security and Cooperationin Europe (OSCE) in Vienna on March 22, 1999, answeringcriticisms in the OSCEreports introducing the discussionon religiouspluralism (one of which was presentedby Introvigne),the secretaryof the FrenchMission to Fight Cults, Mr.Denis Barthelemy,explained the Frenchposition in a particularlyinteresting way. He said that"religious liberty" and "freedom of belief" are different concepts, and may indeed conflict. "Religious liberty" (a "collective liberty" for churches and movements) may be limited for the sake of "freedom of belief," the "individualliberty" of thinking and believing without "constraints" externalto the individualconscience. This is an argumenttypical of French secular humanism, and was used in 19th and early 20th century France in order to disband a numberof Catholic religiousorders, and to compel monksand nuns to abandontheir convents against their will. France will protect against "constraints"to the formationof their individual"belief," Mr. Barthelemy concluded,not only childrenbut also "adultsin need of protection"(Barthelemy 1999). Protectingindividuals against groups may look like a legitimateoption within the framework of a general acceptance of personal freedom. However, Mr. Barthelemy's speech implies that the individualcitizen's freedom of forming one's belief "freely"shall be protectedif necessary against this citizen's wish, precisely because-being subjectto brainwashingor mindcontrol-he or she merely thinkshe or she has accepteda belief "freely"when such is in fact not the case. The ostensibly liberal referenceto "freedomof belief" in fact hides the quintessentiallyreactionary presuppositionthat the governmentknows better than its adult citizens "in need of protection" where their real freedom and best interestslie. The confluenceof the variousinterests we mentionedin the listing of those sharinga common interestin exerting social control over sects and cults is well illustratedin the French situation, as well as in most of the other countries discussed herein. Such a confluence of interests has contributedto a widespreadacceptance of brainwashingtheories, particularly in some societies.18 In the United States,brainwashing theories are supportedonly by a minorityof academicscholars (and generally,in these few cases, in the form of "neo-brainwashing"models ratherthan in the "crude"form prevailing in some Europeanreports), but are still often mentionedin mediaaccounts of "cults."Only if social constructionistideas are taken seriously will scholars be able to come to some reasonableunderstanding of why the particularmoral panic about cults and sects has occurred,and how the particularcultural diffusion of brainwashing/mindcontrol theories has taken place when and where it has.19 164 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

NOTES

1. The receipt of public funding supportfor anti-cultefforts is mainly limited to France and Germany.It is also note- worthy that the recent patternof official anti-cultistactivity in Europe is not monolithic. Some countries, such as The Netherlandsand the United Kingdom,have not seen the developmentof a strong anti-cultmovement, and some early official reportson new religions, such as the one in The Netherlands,have not been nearly so negative in tenor (Kranenborg1994; Richardsonand van Driel 1994). It is also worth noting that, as one reviewerpointed out, some of these official reportshave had little directimpact (others have had considerableimpact however, see herein,Fautre 1999; Introvigne 1999b, 2000), and they have not always been determinativein court actions, some of which have been won by minority faiths even in places such as France. This latter situationof court decisions not necessarily following political agendas is an indicationof the relativeautonomy of the judicial system in some countries,a very importantpoint to note (Richardson1999a). 2. As one reviewernoted, one majorappellate court decision in the UnitedStates reversing the trendagainst brainwashing- based claims could have a significant impact on acceptance of such claims. However, we think this an unlikely occurrence (for why, see Ginsburg and Richardson 1998; Richardson 1991, 1993; Anthony 1990; Anthony and Robbins 1992, 1995). 3. For some consequencesof the Frenchreports, see especially Introvigne(1999b, 2000) but also Swantko(1999). 4. The famous Katz case from California(Katz v. SuperiorCourt, 73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 1977) led to the virtualdiscon- tinuanceof such applicationsof conservatorshiplaws in the United States (see Bromley 1983). 5. We say "some of his ideas" because the typical anti-cult applicationof Lifton's theories overlooks completely the last chapterof Lifton (1963), which talks of voluntaryparticipation in self-change programs.Lifton notes that many people in CommunistChina were not forced convertsbut that they sought out ways to learn abouttheir new society and thereforeto fit in better.Later, Lifton himself (1987:211) cautionednot to "use the word brainwashingbecause it has no precise meaning and has been associated with much confusion,"and that "thoughtreform, and totalism in general, are not necessarily illegal, however we may deplore them."Most recently, Lifton (1999:202-13) clarified that,although most "cults"(and a varietyof otherorganizations) use "thoughtreform," law enforcementshould rather focus on the small minorityof "world-destroyingcults," identified, inter alia, by their"ideology of killing to heal, of altruisticmurder and altruisticworld destruction"and by "the lure of ultimateweapons" See Anthony(1996, 1999) for a more thoroughdiscussion of Lifton's ideas. 6. On March21, 2000, the JusticeCourt of Parisfound MP JacquesGuyard, president of the parliamentarycommission thatdrafted the 1999 report,guilty of defamationfor having called Anthroposophy"a cult"(secte) practicing"mental manipulation."Guyard was fined F 20,000 and orderedto pay F 90,000 to the AnthroposophicalFederation of Steiner Schools. Guyard'sargument was thatAnthroposophy was regardedas a cult in the second Frenchparliamentary report (1999), a documentcovered by parliamentaryimmunity. The courtstated that "the investigation [of thatparliamentary report]was not serious. It is provedthat it only consideredaffidavits by alleged 'victims' of Antroposophybut that neither the authorsof these affidavitsnor the alleged perpetratorswere heard by the [parliamentary]commission." The Parisjudges also decided to stripGuyard of his parliamentaryimmunity in connectionwith this case (subject to appeal at the time of this writing).Thus at least some Frenchcourts seem relativelyindependent from the anti-cultist agenda illustratedby the reportsdiscussed herein. 7. The Mission to Fight Cults was established after the "Observatoryof Cults,"which came into being after the first Frenchreport, issued in 1998, which was thoughtby some to be to soft on the cult problem.One criticismwas thatthe Observatoryhad as presidenta governmentofficer with no anti-cultbackground. The Mission is partof the executive branchof governmentwhose members are appointedby the Prime Minister.The presidentof the Mission is Alain Vivien, who as MP authoreda firstFrench report back in the 1980s (see Richardson1995b), and who is a personwith strong views critical of new religions. Vivien is associated with a Frenchanti-cult organization that is humanistand anti-Catholicin orientation;hence there has been some criticism in the Catholicpress of his appointment. 8. In an unusual show of concern, Pope John Paul II made some indirectlycritical comments on June 10, 2000 when acceptingthe credentialsof the new FrenchAmbassador to the Holy See, Mr.Alain Dejammet.The Pope remindedthe new ambassadorthat, "religious liberty, in the full sense of the term,is the firsthuman right. This means a libertywhich is not reducedto the privatesphere only. To discriminatereligious beliefs, or to discreditone or anotherform of religious practice is a form of exclusion contraryto the respect of fundamentalhuman values and will eventually destabilize society, wherea certainpluralism of thoughtand action shouldexist, as well as a benevolentand brotherly attitude. This will necessarilycreate a climate of tension, intolerance,opposition, and suspicionnot conduciveto social peace."The Pope also called on "the media to be vigilant and to treatfairly and objectively the differentreligious denominations [in French,confessions]." French authorities immediately responded that "cults and sects" are not confessions. 9. See Anthony and Robbins (1992) for discussion of the limited implicationsof the Molko decision (Molko & Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 179 Cal. App. 3d 450, 1986), and Anthony and Robbins (1995) and Richardson(1996c) for discussions of the landmarkFishman decision (United States v. Fishman,743 F. Supp. 713, N.D. Cal. 1990). 10. All quotes are takenfrom the official English languagesummary of the Swedish report,"In Good Faith"(1998). 11. See Richardsonand Kilboume (1983) for a detailed analysis of the themes in both classical and contemporaryuses BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 165

of brainwashingtheories. Also see Anthony (1990, 1996, 1999), Robbins and Anthony (1982), James (1986), and Richardson(1991, 1993, 1996a) for assessmentsof these themes. 12. The reporthas been roundlycriticized by anti-cultists,and its very developmentwas controversial.The report'smajor author,Jean-Francois Mayer, a well-respectedSwiss scholarof new religiousphenomena, does not adoptan anti-cultist perspectivein his work, and strivesfor a balancedand factualapproach in all his scholarlywriting. Mayer, who at the time was an officer and employee of the Swiss CentralOffice of Defense (Switzerland'ssecurity planningagency at the time), was well knownbecause of his researchon the SolarTemple prior to, and after,the mass murder/suicidesthat occurredin 1994. His assistanceto law enforcementauthorities as the SolarTemple tragedy unfolded was well known. He was asked to preparea reportby the ConsultativeCommission on State Security,which was a group appointed by the executive branchof the Swiss federal government.See the critical story by a leading Swiss anti-cultjournalist, Hugo Stamm (1997a), who also had a critical editorialin the same issue (Stamm 1997b). This attackcontributed to concernwithin the Swiss Parliament,which eventuallyled to the productionof a parliamentaryreport to be discussed later in this paper. 13. For a discussion of the controversyover "cults"and "sects"within Germanyand the impactthis controversyhas had on the academic communitystudying such phenomena,see Hexham and Poewe (1999), as well as Baumann(1998) and Besier and Scheuch (1999). 14. Some subheadingsof topics covered in this portionof the reportinclude: "Forms of Social Controland Psychological Destabilisation,""Levels of Psychological Dependency,""Religious Dependency," "Levels of Social Controland Ma- nipulativeElements," "Potential Dangers," and "Opportunitiesand Need for GovernmentalInterventions." The very titles of the subsectionsreveal a pervasivesuspicious posturetoward the newer religions. 15. This report,which was approvedby the Committeeon Civil and Libertiesand InternalAffairs, was submittedto but not voted on by the plenarysession of the EuropeanParliament in July 1998. The reportwas postponedindefinitely, and is no longer pending because of the June 1999 elections, which had the effect of killing all pending proposals.It is availableon the CESNUR website . 16. See note 11, which recountsthe controversyengendered by the reporton Scientologyproduced earlier by a commission of the Swiss government. 17. The first yearly reportof the Frenchgovernmental Mission to Fight Against Cults (MILS 2000) also noted that the proposals for incriminatingbrainwashing per se are "interesting,but theories of mind control have, in the present statusof science, a subjectivecharacter making them difficultto be used in a legal scenario." 18. It is ironic indeed to see Chinese authoritiesusing brainwashingclaims as justificationfor social control of the movement.The brainwashingterm was firstused by EdwardHunter (1953), a CIA operative,as a way to describe the alleged resocializationtechniques of the Chinese Communistsafter the takeoverin mainlandChina (Richardson and Kilboume 1983). 19. Obviously, historical and cultural factors play a role as well, and must be taken into account to help explain the varied patternof anti-cult sentimentacross Europe. Such historical and culturalelements must furnish a contextual backgroundfor the operationof the constructionistperspective outlined herein.

REFERENCES

Anthony,Dick. 1990. Religious Movementsand BrainwashingLitigation: Evaluating Key Testimony.In T. Robbins and D. Anthony,eds., In Gods WeTrust, 295-44. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks. .1996. Brainwashingand TotalitarianInfluence: An Explorationof Admissibility Criteriafor Testimony in Brain- washing Trials.Ph.D. Dissertation.Berkeley, CA: GraduateTheological Union. .1999. Pseudoscience and MinorityReligions: An Evaluationof the BrainwashingTheories of Jean-MarieAbgrall. Social Justice Research 12:421-56. Anthony,Dick, andTom Robbins. 1992. Law,Social Science, and the "Brainwashing"Exception to the FirstAmendment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 10:5-30. .1995. Negligence, Coercion, and the Protectionof Religious Belief. Journal of Churchand State 37:509-36. Anthony,Dick, Tom Robbins, and James McCarthy.1983. LegitimatingRepression. In D. Bromley and J. Richardson, eds., The Brainwashing/DeprogrammingControversy, 319-28, New York:Edwin Mellen. Assembl6e Nationale. 1996. Les Sectes en France. Rapportfait au nom de la Commission d'Enquete sur les sectes (documentn. 2468). Paris:Les Documentsd'Information de l'Assemblee Nationale. -. 1999. Rapportfait au nom de la Commissiond'Enquete sur la situationfinanciere,patrimoniale et fiscale des sectes, ainsi que sur leu-s activites economiqueset leurs relationsavec les milieux economiqueset financiers (documentn. 1687). Paris:Les Documentsd'Information de l'Assemblee Nationale. Audit sur les derives sectaires. Rapport du groupe d'experts genevois au Departementde la Justice et Police et des Transportsdu Cantonde Geneve. 1997. Geneva:Editions SuzanneHurter. Barker,Eileen. 1984. The Makingof a Moonie: Brainwashingor Choice? Oxford:Basil Blackwell. . 1989, New Religious Movements:A Practical Introduction.: Her Majesty's StationaryOffice. 166 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

. 1996. But is it a Genuine Religion? In L. Griel and T. Robbins, eds., Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theoryon Quasi-Religion,97-109. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press. Barth6lemy,Denis. 1999. Interventionof the French delegation at the OSCE SupplementaryMeeting on Freedom of Religion. Vienna, March22, 1999. Baumann,Martin. 1998. ChannelingInformation: The Stigmatizationof Religious Studies as an Aspect of the Debate about the New Religious Movements in Germany.In E. Barkerand M. Warburg,eds., New Religions and New Religiosity, 204-21. Aarhus:Aarhus University Press. Besier, Gerhard,and ErwinK. Scheuch (eds.). 1999. Die neuenInquisitoren. Religionsfi-eiheit und Glaubensneid.Zurich: Interfrom. Bromley, David G. 1983. Conservatorshipsand Deprogramming:Legal and Political Prospects. In D. Bromley and J. Richardson,eds., The Brainwashing/Deprog-rammingControversy, 267-93. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Bromley,David G. (ed.). 1988. Fallingfron the Faith: Causes and Consequencesof Religious . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. .1998. The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformationof Religious Movements. Westport,CT: PraegerPublishers. Casanovas,Carlos Eguiluz. 1999. El Fiscal al Juzgado de InstruccionNumero Nueve. SantaCruz de Tenerife. Chambredes Representantsde Belgique. 1997. Enqueteparlementaire visant a elaborer une politique en vue de lutter contre les pratiques illegales des sectes et les dangers qu'elles represententpour la societe et pour les personnes. particulierementles mineursd'age. Rapportfait au nom de la Commissiond'Enquete, 2 vol. Bruxelles:Chambre des Representantsde Belgique. Commission de gestion du Conseil National. 1999. "Sectes" ou mouvementsendoctrinants en Suisse. La necessite de l'action de l'Etat ou. vets une politiquefe'deraleen matierede "sectes."Rapport de la Commissionde gestion du Conseil national du 1 erjuillet 1999. Bern: Commissionde gestion du Conseil national. Commission penale sur les derives sectaires. 1999. Rapportde la Commission penale sur les derives sectaires sur la questionde la manipulationmentale. Geneva: Commission penale sur les derives sectaires. Conseil federal.2000. Response du Conseil fed6ralau rapportde la CdG-CN:"'Sectes' ou mouvementsendoctrinants en Suisse-La necessite de1^Oaction de l^Oetat ou vers une politique federaleen matierede 'sectes."' Bern:Conseil federal. Councilof Europe-Committee on Legal Affairsand HumanRights. 1999. Illegal Activitiesof Sects: Report(Doc. 8373). Strasbourg:Council of Europe. Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945. Believing withoutBelonging. Oxford:Blackwell. Deutscher Bundestag-13. Wahlperiode. 1998. Endbericht der Enquete-Kommnission"Sogenannte Sekten und Psy- chogruppen."Bonn: DeutscherBundestag. Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblica e Cantonedel Ticino. 1998. Interrogazionisulle sette religiose. Bellinzona: Dipartimentodelle Istituzioni,Repubblica e Cantonedel Ticino. Dillon, Jane, and James T. Richardson. 1994. The "Cult"Concept: A Politics of RepresentationAnalysis. SYZYGY: Journal of AlternativeReligion and Culture3:185-97. Enquete-Commissionon "So-CalledSects and Psychogroups."1998. Final Report of the EnqueteCommission ol "So- Called Sects and Psychogroups":New Religious and Ideological Communitiesand Psychogroupsin the Federal Republicof Germany.(English translation)Bonn: DeutscherBundestag, Referat Offentlichkeitsarbeit. EuropeanParliament, Committee on Civil Libertiesand InternalAffairs. 1997. Draft Resolutionon Cults in the European Union. Brussels-Strasbourg:European Parliament 1997. Fautre,Willy. 1999. "Belgium's Anti-Sect War.Social Justice Research 12:377-92. Fuller,D.C., and D. Myers. 1941. The NaturalHistory of a Social Problem.American Sociological Review 6:21-5 1. Ginsburg,Gerald, and James T. Richardson.1998. "Brainwashing"Evidence in Light of Daubert. In Law and Science, edited by H. Reece, 265-88. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Greil, ArthurL. 1996. SacredClaims: The "CultControversy" as a StruggleOver the Right to the Religious Label. In D. Bromley and L. Carter,eds., The Issue of Authenticityin the Studyof Religions, 46-63. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press. Hexham, Irving, and KarlaPoewe. 1999. "Verfassungsfeindlich":Church, State, and New Religions in Germany.: The Journalof Alternativeand EmergentReligions 2:208-27. Hunter,Edward. 1953. Brain-Washingin Red Chinathe CalculatedDestruction of Men'sMinds. New York:The Vanguard Press. Introvigne,Massimo. 1999a. Defectors,Ordinary Leave-Takers, and Apostates: A QuantitativeStudy of FormerMembers of in France.Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternativeand EmergentReligions 3:83-99. 1999b. Holy Mountainsand Anti-Cult Ecology: The Campaign Against the Aumist Religion in France. Social Justice Research 12:365-76. . 1999c. Religion as Claim:Social andLegal Controversies. In J. G. Platvoetand A. L. Molendijk,eds., ThePragmatics of DefiningReligion. Contexts,Concepts atnd Contests, 41-72. Leiden-Boston B Koln: Brill. . 2000. Moral Panics and Anti-Cult Terrorismin Western Europe. Terrorismand Political Violence, 12:47- 59. BRAINWASHINGTHEORIES IN EUROPE 167

Introvigne,Massimo, and J. Gordon Melton (eds.). 1996. Pour en finir avec les sectes. Le debat sur le rapport de la commissionparlementaire. 3rd ed. Paris:Dervy. James, Gene. 1986. Brainwashing:The Myth and the Actuality.Thought: Fordham University Quarterly LXI (241):241- 57. Jenkins,Philip. 1996. Pedophilesand Priests: Anatomyof a ContemporaryCrisis. New York:Oxford UniversityPress. - 1998. Moral Panic: ChangingConcepts of the Child Molesterin ModernAmerica. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press. Kriele, Martin. (1998). The Legal-Political Recommendationsof the Sect Commission. Zeitschriftfur Rechtspolitik (Magazinefor Legal Politics) 9:349. La Scientologie en Suisse. Rapportprepare a I'intentionde la CommissionConsultative en matiere de protection de I'ltat. 1998. Bern: Departementfederal de Justice et de Police. Lewis, James R. 1986. Reconstructingthe "Cult"Experience. Sociological Analysis 47:151-59. .1989. Apostates and the Legitimationof Repression: Some Historical and Empirical Perspectives on the Cult Controversy.Sociological Analysis 49:386-96. Lifton, RobertJ. 1963. ThoughtReform and the Psychologyof Totalism.New York:W.W. Norton. . 1987. The Futureof Immortalityand OtherEssays for a Nuclear Age. New York:Basic Books. - 1999. Destroyingthe Worldto Save It: AumShinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global 7errorism.New York:Metropolitan Books-Henry Holt and Company. Luttecontre les sectes. 1999. Seance du Senat francaisdu 16 d6cembre1999 (minutes). Miller, Donald. 1983. Deprogrammingin HistoricalPerspective. In D. Bromley and J. Richardson,eds., The Brainwash- ing/DeprogrammingControversy, 15-28. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks. MILS (Mission Interministeriellede Luttecontre les Sectes). 2000. Rapportd'activite. Paris:MILS. Ministerodell'Intero, Dipartimentodella Pubblica Sicurezza-Direzione CentralePolizia di Prevenzione. 1998. Sette religiose e nuovi movimentimagici in Italia. Rome: Ministerodell'Intemo. Motilla, Agustin. 1999. New Religious Movements in Spain. In New Religious Movementand the Law in the European Union. Proceedings of the Meeting:Lisbon, UniversidadeModerna 8-9 November;1997, 325-40. Milan:Giuffre. ObservatoireInterministeriel sur les Sectes. 1997. Rapportannuel 1997. Paris:La DocumentationFrangaise 1998. Richardson,James T. 1985. Active vs. Passive Convert:Paradigm Conflict in Conversion/RecruitmentResearch. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 24:163-79. .1986. ConsumerProtection and Deviant Religion. Review of Religious Research 28:168-79. . 1991. Cult/BrainwashingCases and the Freedomof Religion. Journal of Churchand State 33:55-74. - 1993. A Social PsychologicalCritique of "Brainwashing"Claims aboutRecruitment to New Religions. In J. Hadden and D. Bromley,eds., The Handbookof Cults and Sects in America(vol. 3, partb of "Religionand the Social Order," 75-97). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press. . 1995a. Legal Status of MinorityReligions in the United States. Social Compass42:249-64. . 995b. MinorityReligions, Religious Freedom,and the an-EuropeanPolitical and Judicial Institutions.Journal of Chu-ch and State 37:39-60. -. 1996a. "Brainwashing"Claims and MinorityReligions Outsidethe United States:Cultural Diffusion of a Question- able Legal Concept.Brigham YoungUniversity Law Review 1996:873-904. - 1996b. Les resistancesaux groupesreligieux minoritairesen France.In M. Introvigneand J. G. Melton, eds., Pour en finir avec les sectes, 73-84. Paris:Dervy. .1996c. Sociology and the New Religions: "Brainwashing",the Courts,and Religious Freedom.In P. Jenkinsand S. Kroll-Smith,eds., Witnessingfor Sociology: Sociologists in Court, 115-34. Westport,CT: Praeger. . 1997. The Social Constructionof :Understanding an InternationalSocial Problem.Australian Journal of Social Issues 32:61-85. - 1999a. Social Justice and MinorityReligions. Social Justice Research 12:241-52. . 999b. Social Control of New Religions: From "Brainwashing"Claims to Child Sex Abuse Accusations. In S. Palmerand C. Hardman,eds., Childrenin New Religions, 172-86, New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity Press. Richardson,James T., andBrock Kilboure. 1983. Classical andContemporary Uses of BrainwashingModels: A Compar- ison and Critique.In D. Bromley and J. Richardson,eds., The Brainwashing/DeprogrammingControversy, 29-46, New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks. Richardson,James T., Jan van der Lans, and FransDerks. 1986. Leaving and Labelling:Coerced and VoluntaryDisaffil- iation for Religious Social Movements.In K. Land and G. Lang, eds., Resea-ch in Social Movements,Conflict, and Change, Vol. 9, 97-126, Greenwich,CT: JAI Press. Richardson,James T., andBarend van Driel 1994. New Religions in Europe:A Comparisonof Developmentsand Reactions in England,France, Germany, and The Netherlands.In A Shupeand D. Bromley,eds., Anti-CultMovements in Cross- CulturalPerspective, 129-70, New York:Garland. Robbins, Tom, and Dick Anthony. 1982. Deprogramming,Brainwashing, and the Medicalizationof Deviant Religion. Social Problems29:283-97. Rodriguez-Valdes,Eloy. 1999. Infonrmepericial que solicita el Juez a instancias del Ministerio Fiscal del juzgado de prim-erainstancia, instrucci6nnE 4. SantaCruz de Tenerife. 168 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Seiwert, Hubert.1999. The GermanEnquete Commission on Sects: Political Conflictsand Compromises.Social Justice Research 12:323-40. Shupe, Anson, and David Bromley. 1994. Anti-CultMovements in Cross-CulturalPerspective. New York:Garland. Solomon, Trudy. 1981. Integratingthe Moonie Experience:A Survey of Ex-Membersof the Unification Church. In T. Robbins and D. Anthony, eds., In Gods We Trust:New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America, 275-94. Princeton:NJ: RutgersUniversity Press. Stamm, Hugo. 1997a. Der Staatsschutzund der Freundder Sekten (State Security and the Friend of the Sects). Tage- samzeigerZurich, Feb. 4. 1997b. Naive Staatsschhtzer(Naive State SecurityAgents) TagesamzeigerZurich, Feb. 4. Swedish Commission. 1998. In Good Faith. Society and the New Religious Movements(Official English-languagesum- mary). Stockholm:Norstedts Tryckeri AB. Swantko,Jean. 1999. The Twelve TribesCommunities, the Anti-CultMovement, and the Government'sResponse. Social Justice Research 12:341-64. Witteveen,Tobias A. 1984. Overheiden Nieuwe ReligieuzeBewegingen. Gravenhage: Kamerstukken.