Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Brainwashing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 207.6.251.92 to last revision by PelleSmith (HG)
Penbat (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
58,229 edits
Line 23: Line 23:
===Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming===
===Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming===


Opponents of some [[new religious movement]]s often accuse them of being "[[cult]]s" that coerce recruits to join (and members to remain) by using mind control or other forms of manipulation. At first many of these opponents advocated [[deprogramming]] as to free members from mind control. However the practice of coercive deprogramming fell out of favor and was largely replaced by [[exit counseling]].
Opponents of some [[new religious movement]]s often accuse them of being "[[cult]]s" that coerce recruits to join (and members to remain) by using mind control or other forms of [[Psychological manipulation|manipulation]]. At first many of these opponents advocated [[deprogramming]] as to free members from mind control. However the practice of coercive deprogramming fell out of favor and was largely replaced by [[exit counseling]].


Exist counselors often have their own theories of mind control derived from the work of psychologists like Singer and Lifton. For instance [[Steve Hassan]] promotes what he calls the BITE model in his book ''[[Releasing the Bonds|Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves]]''.<ref name="RTBCh2">''[[Releasing the Bonds]]: Empowering People to Think for Themselves'', Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000</ref> The BITE model describes various controls over human 1) behavior, 2) information, 3) thought, and 4) emotion :<ref name="RTBCh2"/> Hassan claims that cults recruit and retain members by using, among other things, systematic deception, behavior modification, the withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of [[phobia]]s). He refers to all of these techniques collectively as mind control.
Exist counselors often have their own theories of mind control derived from the work of psychologists like Singer and Lifton. For instance [[Steve Hassan]] promotes what he calls the BITE model in his book ''[[Releasing the Bonds|Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves]]''.<ref name="RTBCh2">''[[Releasing the Bonds]]: Empowering People to Think for Themselves'', Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000</ref> The BITE model describes various controls over human 1) behavior, 2) information, 3) thought, and 4) emotion :<ref name="RTBCh2"/> Hassan claims that cults recruit and retain members by using, among other things, systematic deception, behavior modification, the withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of [[phobia]]s). He refers to all of these techniques collectively as mind control.

Revision as of 14:10, 29 September 2009

Mind control is often also referred to as brainwashing and less often as thought reform. In theory these terms refer to a broad range of psychological tactics thought to subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making. These theories originally developed out of the supposed use of propaganda and torture techniques by totalitarian regimes to indoctrinate their own citizens as well as prisoners of war. Mind control was later adopted and expanded to explain a wider range of phenomena such as conversions to new religious movements, parental alienation, and even battered person syndrome. Mind control theories have always been controversial within scientific and legal contexts. Currently most social scientists agree with the official stances of the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association which dismiss these theories as unscientific.

Theoretical models

In his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., describes eight coercive methods which, he says, are able to change the minds of individuals without their knowledge and were used with this purpose on prisoners of war in Korea and China. These include:[1] In his 1999 book Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, Lifton concluded that thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion. Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book Cults in our Midst six conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence.[2]

A contemporary view of mind control sees it as an intensified and persistent use of well researched social psychology principles like compliance, conformity, persuasion, and dissonance]. One of the most notable proponents of such theories is social psychologist Philip Zimbardo who conceives of mind control as "the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles."[3]

In Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary. Using categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.[citation needed]

New religious movements and mind control controversies

Scholarly points of view

The majority of scholars in the study of religion reject theories of mind control[4] . James Richardson, states that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members has been limited. For this and other reasons, sociologists like David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[5] In addition, to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine amongst otherscholars researching NRMs have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts and relevant professional associations and scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement.[6]

In 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer, the main proponent of mind control theories, to set up a working group called the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987 the DIMPAC committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo [7] it is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.".

A minority of sociologists disagree with this consensus. For instance, Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias. Stephen A. Kent has also published several articles about brainwashing.[8][9] These scholars tend to see the APA's decision as one of no consensus while the majority of scholars see it as a rejection of brainwashing and mind control as legitimate theories.

Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming

Opponents of some new religious movements often accuse them of being "cults" that coerce recruits to join (and members to remain) by using mind control or other forms of manipulation. At first many of these opponents advocated deprogramming as to free members from mind control. However the practice of coercive deprogramming fell out of favor and was largely replaced by exit counseling.

Exist counselors often have their own theories of mind control derived from the work of psychologists like Singer and Lifton. For instance Steve Hassan promotes what he calls the BITE model in his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves.[10] The BITE model describes various controls over human 1) behavior, 2) information, 3) thought, and 4) emotion :[10] Hassan claims that cults recruit and retain members by using, among other things, systematic deception, behavior modification, the withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias). He refers to all of these techniques collectively as mind control.

Opponents of deprogramming generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming have been deceived, denied due process, and forced to endure more intense manipulation than that encountered during their previous group membership.[citation needed] Others caution against the broader implications of these models. For instance, in the 1998 Enquete Commission report on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" in Germany a review was made of the BITE model. The report concluded that "control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation."[11]

Some persons have claimed a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control. In the cases of Patty Hearst, Steven Fishman and Lee Boyd Malvo the court rejected such defenses. In the court cases against members of Aum Shinrikyo regarding the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system the mind control defense was not a mitigating factor.

Starting from the Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the American Psychological Association) (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994.[12]

The Frye standard has since been replaced by the Daubert standard and there have been to court cases where testimonies about mind control have been examined according to the Daubert standard.

Some Civil suits where mind control was an issue, were, though, more effective:

In the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California the court states church practices had been conducted in a coercive environment and so were not protected by religious freedom guarantees. Wollersheim was finally awarded $8 million in damages. (California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)

"During trial, Wollersheim's experts testified Scientology's "auditing" and "disconnect" practices constituted "brainwashing" and "thought reform" akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens." "Using its position as religious leader, the 'church' and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice... Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant's outrageous conduct caused that harm... 'Church' practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees"[13]

In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of a Greek Jehovah's Witness Minos Kokkinakis, who had been sentenced to prison and a fine for proselytizing, to spread his faith, though the court sought to define what it regarded as acceptable ways of sharing one's faith. However, in a dissenting judgment, two judges argued that Kokkinakis and his wife had applied "unacceptable psychological techniques" akin to brainwashing. KOKKINAKIS v. GREECE (14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20 (25 May 1993)[14]

See also

Methods

Researchers

Miscellaneous

References

  1. ^ Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, Robert J. Lifton, 1956
  2. ^ Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, Margaret Thaler Singer, Jossey-Bass, publisher, April 2003, ISBN 0-78796-741-6]
  3. ^ Phil Zimbardo
  4. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (10 December 1999). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 5 September 2009. Since the late 1980s, though a significant public belief in cult-brainwashing remains, the academic community-including scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies-have shared an almost unanimous consensus that the coercive persuasion/brainwashing thesis proposed by Margaret Singer and her colleagues in the 1980s is without scientific merit.
  5. ^ Brainwashing by Religious Cults
  6. ^ CESNUR - Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies
  7. ^ CESNUR - APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures
  8. ^ Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The Family
  9. ^ Dr. Stephen A. Kent (1997-11-07). "Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Force (RPF)" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-08-16. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ^ a b Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
  11. ^ Final Report of the Enquete Commission on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" New Religious and Ideological Communities and Psychogroups in the Federal Republic of Germany
  12. ^ Case No. 730012-8, Margaret Singer, et al., Plaintiff v. American Psychological Association, et al., Defendants
    "This case, which involves claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, clearly constitutes a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over matters both academic and professional. The disputant may fairly be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology. The speech of which the plaintiff's complain, which occurred in the context of prior litigation and allegedly involved the "fraudulent" addition of the names of certain defendants to documents filed in said prior litigation, would clearly have been protected as comment on a public issue whether or not the statements were made in the contest of legal briefs. The court need not consider whether the privilege of Civil Code 47 (b) extends to an alleged interloper in a legal proceeding. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action. In particular Plaintiffs cannot establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the underlying lawsuit. Thus Defendants' Special Motions to Strike each of the causes at action asserted against them, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 is granted."
  13. ^ Newsletter May 2002 - Scientology pays Lawrence Wollersheim at www.factnet.org
  14. ^ KOKKINAKIS v. GREECE - 14307/88 (1993) ECHR 20 (25 May 1993) at www.worldlii.org

Further reading

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F316887348
✕
Bahnsport-Info

Kostenfrei
Ansehen