Brainwashing discussion
Definition of terms

January 15, 2003

The concept of brainwashing cults is a product of the American media which began in the 1940s and gained credibility in the 1950s. It has to do with new technologies advancing quickly enough to give the impression that man would now have the ability to play God and turn people into happy idiots. One of the main problems with the brainwashing concept is that it tends to feed itself if not approached in a responsible manner. For instance, it's not necessarily true that all happy idiots have been brainwashed. One factor in this irresponsible approach has been that a large part of the media's revenue does not result in dispensing information, but in providing entertainment. In a manner of speaking, the media live by creating cults.

As far as definitions of terms go, a cult is a group of people that is focused on doctrine from one source of information, as opposed to having a well-balanced view. Most cults, as the entertainment industry has demonstrated, are beneficial or at least harmless. Brainwashing aggravates the single-minded aspect however by providing a method or technology of having people rebel against the established, presumably well-balanced view, as opposed to having the doctrine survive based primarily on its own merit. To accomplish this conversion from the traditional to the expedient rationale, brainwashing operators use mass agitation and indoctrination. The purpose of agitation is to create hysteria and the purpose of indoctrination is to provide a solution to the artificial hysteria. Hysteria is an emotional state conducive to irrationality, which can be thought of as the inability to tell fact from fiction. The mass media are a a natural part of this, with sensational reports to bring about hysteria on the one hand, and soothing platitudes from dubious authorities to start people down the windy road to indoctrination on the other hand.

As can be assumed, a major ingredient of the brainwashing is deception. Deception proceeds from hysteria, but takes it a step further in that fiction becomes reality. Therefore, one initial stumbling block to detection of brainwashing is that brainwashers, when accused of brainwashing, will often hurl the accusations of brainwashing back into the face of the accusers. The conclusive step in evading open accusation, though, is to slightly change the perception of the brainwashing method being used so that it appears to no longer meet the accuser's specifications. Another stumbling block in detection of brainwashing is that the brainwashing cult, which is the actual source of mis- and dis-information, often works with outsiders sympathetic to outside causes to give the public impression that these outsiders support cult views and thus the cult.

To prove that brainwashing does not exist or to render it moot, it is best to proceed from the individual point of view. After all, an individual is legally responsible for his or her own actions. It is assumed that we are constantly aware of everything we are doing and that we are fully responsible for our own actions. That is the way things have to be in order for us to have a society. People who are not responsible for their own actions, such as criminals or the insane, may be isolated from society. The question, however, lies in being a member of a group and in the inclination of a member to put personal judgment into the hands of others -- while externally assuming sole responsibility. Neither can it be overlooked that in actual practice, people experience situations that diminish personal responsibility both by natural and artificial means. For instance, a person just waking up is not as responsible as a person operating at full-speed, nor might a hysterical person be considered fully responsible. Moreover, people are generally expected to have consciences. Which people keep their own consciences and which have entrusted them to others? These are difficult questions because the proof may involve overturning an individual's own claimed perceptions of reality, a situation that would best be avoided.

Coercive tactics encourage brainwashing as coercive tactics are, by nature, the direct exertion of an outside influence. Man-made laws are by nature coercive, so it's possible that a small degree of brainwashing is necessary for the purpose of setting bounds. Once these bounds are established, however, encouraging people to develop a conscience and use it would have a tendency to make people more responsible for their own actions to the extent that the examination of multiple sources of information was encouraged, among other things. The threshold of what is and what is not brainwashing probably lies in this area.

One sensational aspect of brainwashing is that sometimes it is done without the knowledge of the subject. While this is possible, increasing degrees of complicity are required on the part of the subject. The point is not whether a person has been brainwashed willingly or unwillingly, but whether a person has come to a conclusion by a rational method or had been induced by a brainwashing method. How much of the full process of making a decision has the person gone through and in how many stages of this process has the brainwashing cult been active and effective? Has the soulless cult conscience, in effect, replaced the personal conscience?

Brainwashing is defined in this survey as methods regularly used by cultic groups to make people come to irrational conclusions. A real-life example of this might be the recent claim by the Raelian Clonaid company that it is mass-producing cloned babies. While the overall effect of the coverage can reasonably be assumed to be that most people would now think of the Raelian claim as a hoax, it may also be reasonably assumed that some people believe the claim. Evidence of this would include an increase in business for Clonaid and increased membership for the Raelian movement. Would this prospective increase in business and in membership come about by rational means or by irrational means on the part of individuals? For this one case, the word "brainwashing" might be too strong of a word to describe the power of expectation exercised upon believers through the media. "Mental manipulation" would be a more suitable term for an instance of brainwashing.

The brainwashing method can be considered to be a system of control by assimilation of conscience. This includes gradually overcoming an individuals's defense of conscience, such as by using the power of expectation. It can be envisioned that emotion is used to form conscience, and that conscience is the basis of speech and action. One outcome of this (religious?) conversion might be that an increase in self-corruption by members of the group would result in a corresponding compensational increase in self-righteousness for the group itself. This feeling of compensation and exchange might then be interpreted by members as having a balanced view.