THOUGHT REFORM AND THE
JESUS MO VEMEN T
JAMES T. RICHARDSON
Department of Sociology
University of Nevada (Reno)
MARY HARDER
Department of Sociology
Kearney State College (Nebraska)
ROBERT B. SIMMONDS
Department of Sociology
State University of New York
at
Cortland
Back in the 1950s many Americans were taken aback and
appalled by psychologically and physically coercive methods
used against prisoners of war in the Korean conflict. This
indignation was compounded by information concerning
similar methods used against Chinese intellectuals and West1
ern prisoners in mainland China.’ Apparently most Americans believed that any good American soldier should be able
to withstand the pressures brought to bear on the POWs.
When it became public knowledge that such was not the case,
a great hue and cry arose from educated and lay public alike.
Scapegoats were sought, and simplistic explanations were
proffered in order to &dquo;explain&dquo; how otherwise fine young
American soldiers succumbed to the techniques used against
AUTHORS’ NOTE: A version
of this
paper
was
read at the annual
meeting of the Rocky Mountain Social Science Association in Salt Lake
City
in 19 72.
[185]
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[186]
them. A favored explanation was that of Pavlovian psychology, with its emphasis on the reduction of the human
organism to its animal nature through the use of physicalpsychological pressures. Even today, this explanation seems
to be generally accepted, especially among the lay public.
Scientists who were involved in research into the brainwashing phenomenon were nearly unanimous in their debunking
of this popular theory, mainly because it deemphasized the
very important group influences involved in thought reform
as it is popularly called, brainwashing.
We wish to examine these group influences, apparently the
essential elements in thought reform, in relation to the
contemporary Jesus Movement. We have chosen to apply the
findings of the thought reform literature to the Jesus
Movement because of the striking similarities between this
contemporary phenomenon and the brainwashing that took
place in China and Korea during the early 1950s. The
similarities include the dramatic changes in &dquo;world view&dquo; for
some of the individuals in both situations and the methods
whereby these changes are made. A look at these methods
will reemphasize the earlier findings of the brainwashing
research that elements of group structure and process were
keys to thought reform. This reemphasis occurs because it is
evident that few, if any, of the Jesus Movement groups use
anything like the Pavlovian methods attributed to the
Chinese. The thought reform, however, has been nearly as
drastic in some cases-from activist radicalism to voluntaristic
or,
fundamentalism.2
The idea of applying the thought reform findings to the
Jesus Movement grew out of some extensive and systematic
research on the Jesus Movement with which the authors have
been involved (Harder and Richardson, 1971; Simmonds et
et al., 1972).3 This research
focused on one particular group that is part of the movement
and has been in existence for some four years. The longevity
of the group indicates that it has been successful in recruiting
al., 1972; Harder, 1972; Harder
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[187]
members and that its techniques of &dquo;conversion&dquo; have been
fairly well worked out in practice. This brief paper will not
allow a thorough description of the group studied. Other
papers will give more information concerning the group itself
and its members. Suffice it to say that, during an initial
two-week stay at a branch of the group studied, a thirty-page
questionnaire (mostly open-ended) and a personality instrument were administered to 88 of about 93 members of the
commune. The data focused on a thorough description of the
participants (including the effects of joining the group) and
on testing some ideas concerning the conversion process.4
Two subsequent visits have allowed the gathering of even
more information on the group and its members.
BRAINWASHING AND RELIGION
Before we proceed into a direct application of some of the
thought reform findings, we would like to point out that we
are certainly not the first to note the similarities between
brainwashing and the techniques used by some religious
groups. Lifton (1963: 454-461 ) whose work will be a major
focus in this paper, has pointed out the similarities. He notes
that &dquo;religious totalism&dquo; has often been associated with
&dquo;revitalizing enthusiasm,&dquo; and he cites as examples postReformation fundamentalist and revivalistic cults-directly
anticipating our analysis. Also, he notes the fundamental
relationship of thought reform to religion in general. This
similarity has also been noted by Brown (1963: 223-243). Of
direct interest, too, is the application of the ideas of Lifton
to the religious community of Bruderhof offered by Zablocki
(1971: 239-285). Many other passing references to the
relationship of religion and brainwashing could be noted, but
these are the major ones of which we are aware.
One other important point that should be made prior to
the specific analysis is that we do not intend our comments
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[188]
to be considered normative in nature. In other words, we are
not saying that the similarities between thought reform as
practiced by the Chinese and conversion processes as practiced by religious groups mean ipso facto that such religious
groups are bad. We make no evaluations at all, for as Lifton
(1963) and others have pointed out, the goodness or badness
of applying the principles involved depends completely on
one’s point of view. The Chinese felt that they were helping
people &dquo;see the light,&dquo; which is also the perspective adopted
by most persons attempting to convert others to a given
religion.s
THE JESUS MOVEMENT
As indicated, the work of Lifton (1963, 1957, 1956) will
be the primary source for the examination of the Jesus
Movement. Most readers will recall his theorizing derived
from interviews with Chinese intellectuals and Western
prisoners who had experienced thought reform during incarceration in Communist China. His work will be used because
it is more relevant than that of those who studied only POWs,
a situation less comparable to the experience of most
adherents to the Jesus Movement than that of Western
prisoners and particularly Chinese intellectuals who were
subjected to thought reform. The experience of Western
prisoners led Lifton ( 1963) to develop an eleven-part process
of resocialization,6 which is used by Zablocki ( 1971 ) in his
study of the Bruderhof commune. The process, with three
major subheadings supplied by Zablocki, is as follows:
(A)
The
stripping process
(1)
the assault upon identity
the establishment of guilt
the self-betrayal
the breaking point
(2)
(3)
(4)
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[189]
(B)
Identification
(5) leniency and opportunity
(6) the compulsion to confess
(7) the channeling of guilt
(8) reeducation: logical dishonoring
(9) progress and harmony
(C)
Death and rebirth of the self
(10)
(11)
final confession
rebirth
This model has many aspects that recommend it to an
analysis of the recruitment processes used in the Jesus
Movement. However, it also has major deficiencies, as noted
by Zablocki ( 1971 ). Chief among the problems is the lack of
direct physical coercion in most Jesus Movement groups.
Some groups have apparently made strong efforts to separate
members from their parents, attempting to disallow any
meaningful contact between members and their families. Dart
( 1971 ) describes some of these difficulties associated with
the Children of God group (see also St. Louis Post Dispatch,
1971; Newsweek, 1971). Leaders in the group have been
accused by parents of participants of practicing hypnosis
(although this is strongly denied by group leaders); this is the
nearest thing to the kinds of coercion used on Western
prisoners or on Chinese intellectuals (who were forced to
denounce their fathers) that one can find in the literature
concerning the movement.
Another problem with the model is that it stresses the
&dquo;stripping process&dquo; through which the identity of the
individual is destroyed. Jesus Movement groups deemphasize
identity destruction to the extent that it was practiced by the
Chinese. A strong degree of overt coercion is not used in the
movement for two major reasons: (1) such tactics are
considered immoral by many and, perhaps more importantly,
(2) the tactics are not necessary. Overt coercion is not
necessary because most of the participants are characterized
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[190]
in terms of lack of identity or low self-concept.’ Put simply,
for many of the participants described in the popular press
and for those encountered by the authors of this paper, there
is no strong identity to destroy, and the methods used by the
Chinese to destroy the often very strong personalities of
incarcerated prisoners (e.g., priests, doctors, diplomats, and
the like) are superfluous. Although most of the Jesus
Movement participants were strongly affiliated with aspects
of the contemporary drug culture prior to affiliation,
anecdotal evidence from many of the members studied
indicates that their previous life styles were maladaptive (e.g.,
one members said, &dquo;If I had not come to the Lord, I would
either be in jail or in an institution, or maybe dead by now&dquo;).
Thus, conversion to Christianity seems to represent a more
adaptive decision for the participants, and this, in conjunction with the &dquo;weak&dquo; personalities of the members, eliminates an emphasis on the stripping process in Jesus Movement
groups.
It can also be said that a stripping process is unnecessary to
establish guilt in the majority of members of the movement.
As with the case of Zablocki’s analysis of the Bruderhof,
most of the individuals come to the movement with a
well-established sense of personal guilt. Perhaps this is the
case with participants in the movement because of their
involvement in many activities not condoned by their
background values. Many have a history of heavy involvement with drugs, drinking, and premarital sex, and some have
taken part in political activities of a disruptive nature. This
type of activity from persons with predominantly religious
backgrounds (see Harder and Richardson, 1971) could be
guilt-producing, particularly if it were defined by the
individuals as unrewarding in the long run. Possibly because
of these past activities, which have not led to the utopia that
was sought, many of the persons are at &dquo;the breaking point&dquo;
before they come into contact with the movement (an
important element in Lofland’s [ 1966] model of conver-
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[191]
seek out the movement as a way of
alleviating
impossible situation. Their self-betrayal is
readily obtained, without the coercion needed by the
Chinese.
The &dquo;identification&dquo; and &dquo;death and rebirth&dquo; sections of
the sequence do seem to have more application in the Jesus
Movement-as they also do with the Bruderhof. An identity
is offered as the initiates are led into accepting a definition of
themselves as sinners in need of confession. This new
definition is facilitated both by many of their backgrounds
and by their activities prior to joining the movement. Their
backgrounds also aid greatly in the process of reeducation
into the fundamentalist Christian world view. As this view is
accepted, they move into a state of &dquo;progress and harmony&dquo;
in which they learn what roles to occupy, what ideas to hold,
what language to use. In short, they learn what is rewarding
in their new social milieu.
The eventual outcome of staying in contact with a group
of the Jesus Movement is Lifton’s final phase rebirth, which
involves a radical affirmation of the fundamentalist world
view and is an important part of the initiate’s required
changes. For some, this culminating action is rather drastic,
in that they have had little meaningful contact with such a
view in the past. These individuals are somewhat analogous to
Western prisoners in China. They are having to learn
something relatively new and to incorporate it into their
self-concepts. As noted earlier, however, many of the
members of the Jesus Movement are from fundamentalist
backgrounds. Thus, the rebirth they experience can (and
perhaps should) be viewed as a &dquo;rededication&dquo; or reaffirmation of an earlier, discarded world view and thus of the
society based on the old world view.
It must be understood, however, that this reaffirmation of
society does not have to be (and probably seldom is) a
sion). Some
even
an
conscious act on the part of the participants. On the
conscious level, most of the participants are withdrawing
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[192]
from society (which they rapidly come to define as nonChristian or pagan). Many of them have experienced great
failure in trying to cope with society, and they are seeking a
more rewarding existence within a subsegment of society that
offers them &dquo;success&dquo; (conversion to status of &dquo;saved&dquo;) and
rewards (acceptance and concern). The overt rejection of
society is evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming
majority of the persons we interviewed expected the &dquo;end of
the world&dquo; during their generation, and they wanted this to
occur. The latent function of this explicit rejection of society
is the maintenance of the very society that is so strongly
rejected and withdrawn from. Thus, Berger’s (1969) theorizing about the function of religion as the chief sanctioning
agent of any society seems to be evidenced by the Jesus
Movement.
In some ways, the experience of these &dquo;returning fundamentalists&dquo; can be thought of as parallel to that of the
Chinese intellectuals. The Jesus Movement members are
&dquo;flipping back into their society&dquo; in a sense, because the
values of American society are, to a large extent, derived
directly from the fundamentalist tradition. Many or most of
the Jesus Movement members do not view their experience in
this way, but it seems somewhat apparent that they are
affirming their society in general when they enter seriously
into the Jesus Movement. (Why else would so many segments
of society have applauded the growth of the movement and
even aided directly in its support? See Dart [ 1971 ] and other
discussions.) This &dquo;moving back into society&dquo; is similar to the
experience of some of those Chinese intellectuals Lifton
describes. Many apparently sought out the &dquo;Revolutionary
Universities&dquo; in order to learn how to adapt to the changes in
their society. One of Lifton’s most prominent cases (Mr. Hu)
fits this pattern. It seems that many members of both the
Chinese intellectual groups and the Jesus Movement may be
thought of as persons wanting to reenter society, since they
have found their personal situation such that they can no
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[ 193]
longer cope with
society.
life’s
experiences outside the mainstream of
Because of the apparent similarities between the situations
and experiences of the Chinese intellectuals and many
members of the Jesus Movement, it seems efficacious to
apply more directly Lifton’s theorizing concerning the
Chinese intellectuals (we would suggest that Zablocki could
have also done this in his study of Bruderhof). Lifton ( 1957)
presents three major elements in his analysis of the thought
reform of the intellectuals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The great
togetherness: group identification
The closing in of the milieu: the period of emotional conflict
submission and rebirth
His analysis is taken from an examination of the activities
associated with the Revolutionary Universities set up in
China between 1948 and 1952. These universities were quite
large, sometimes involving up to four thousand persons in a
highly organized and authoritarian situation. At the start of a
session (which lasted approximately six months), participants
were brought together in an austere but friendly atmosphere.
They were warmly greeted and told to spend several days
getting to know members of a small group of about six to ten
persons to which they were assigned. Lifton points out that
there very rapidly developed a high esprit de corps, as
members openly exchanged personal information and discussed the reasons for their attendance at the &dquo;university.&dquo;
Thus, we see the development of a new reference group for
the persons involved, something similar to what happens
upon first contact with most Jesus Movement groups. They
are friendly, open, and seem to express genuine concern for
prospective members. Perhaps the movement convert is
allowed to &dquo;crash&dquo; at a group’s place of residence, and he is
treated as an important person by group members.
The &dquo;great togetherness&dquo; is further exemplified by the
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[194]
close personal ties that begin to develop between prospects
and members. Many of the prospects have been in situations
where close relationships were not fostered (i.e., in the
dog-eat-dog world of drug-oriented communities or simply in
moving around the country), and this new experience
becomes very meaningful for them. We think that they quite
often stay because of the primary relationships that develop,
and, in order to do this successfully, they must begin to show
interest in the group’s ideology. As has been noted in many
reports about the movement, much time is spent in participating in such activities as Bible studies, prayer groups, and
group-sharing sessions. These activities serve as vehicles
whereby the prospect can demonstrate an interest, and they
also furnish information about how to act and believe if one
is to remain in the group. The activities are very similar to the
formal courses and group discussions held by members of the
Revolutionary Universities. In both situations, group leaders
present the acceptable views and help others to rationalize
them during the group discussions.
It is just a matter of time, however, before the harmonious
situation that prevails changes drastically. In Lifton’s terms,
there is a &dquo;closing in of the milieu.&dquo; Prospects are expected
to make progress toward the goal of &dquo;committed Christian,&dquo;
and this follows a fairly regular timetable. Pressure, both
subtle and overt, is brought to bear on the novice. This
pressure is designed to let him know what is expected of him.
If he continues to respond properly, the pressure forces the
prospect to eventually adopt the group ideology as his own.
One &dquo;house&dquo; of the group examined for this research allowed
persons to remain in the house for three to four days with no
indication from the individual that he was &dquo;accepting
Christ.&dquo; After this period, however, the person was asked to
leave if his activities and discussion gave no indication that he
was seriously considering &dquo;taking Jesus.&dquo; The group members
justified this in terms of their goal, bringing people closer to
Christ, and rationalized that the nonaccepting person would
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[195]
not feel comfortable for any
long period of time unless he
shared the beliefs of the others.
The pressure is often successful because of the high value
that the prospect has placed on the primary relationships he
has developed. (This situation is perhaps illustrative of the
rather profound definition of conversion as &dquo;coming to agree
with your best friend.&dquo;) However, if anything impedes
&dquo;normal progress,&dquo; then sanctions are brought to bear. Group
members explain over and over the value in taking Christ
(happiness, and implicit acceptance) and the reasons for the
difficulty (pride, sinfulness, pleasures of this world, and so
on). The person is expected to respond appropriately. When
he does, there is celebration, and social rewards (warmth,
acceptance, being addressed as &dquo;brother&dquo; or &dquo;sister&dquo;) are
offered. If he does not eventually respond properly, then as a
last resort he is asked to leave. Zablocki cites several
illustrations of this cutting of ties. Another illustration is the
experience of Lofland (1966), who was asked to convert or
leave (he left).
A simple way of describing the process of milieu closure is
to say that the prospect, after a certain length of time, is no
longer allowed the privilege of occupying the newcomer
status (even if he is a researcher). He is forced to occupy a
new role of &dquo;interested person,&dquo; which, if occupied for any
length of time, leads to the eventual role of &dquo;convert&dquo; (see
Zetterberg [1952]for a discussion of conversion as a change
of roles). This last stage of the process is accomplished
through submission and rebirth. The prospect decides either
not to submit (and leaves) or submits to the group pressures
and gradually accepts the world view of the group. This
world view, of course, contains many elements that aid him
in a proper self-definition and in knowing what actions to
take as a consequence of being in this state. He is told that he
should confess, and perhaps he even has some role models
who demonstrate this ritual to him. Thus, the prospect is led
to a confession that has the effect of confirming his new
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[196]
world view. The confession primarily involves an oral denial
of the past and a commitment to the new future.
RELIGIOUS TOTALISM
Earlier in the paper,
mentioned that Lifton had related
his discussion of &dquo;reliIt is apparent that the ideology of much of
the Jesus Movement, including the segment we studied,
adheres strongly to something that can best be characterized
as religious totalism. Lifton notes that religious totalism is
just one of several possible forms of the more general
ideological totalism. He describes ideological totalism as
situations of &dquo;the coming together of immoderate ideology
with equally immoderate individual character traits&dquo; (Lifton,
1963: 419). Our comment will not focus upon the individuals involved as much as it will the things they come to
believe. This paper has suggested that group forces and
processes in the Jesus Movement cause a person to accept
ideas and behaviors quite foreign to or previously rejected by
the person.
This is perhaps not the place for a full-blown analysis of
the elements of fundamentalism. However, since forms of
fundamentalism have gained so many adherents in some parts
of the United States and because the elements of fundamentalism may be unfamiliar to some readers, a brief look at
the phenomenon seems in order.
Lifton mentions eight separate elements that are all part of
ideological totalism. These include: (1) milieu control, (2)
mystical manipulation, (3) the demand for purity, (4) the
cult of confession, (5) the &dquo;sacred science,&dquo; (6) loading the
language, (7) doctrine over person, and (8) the dispensing of
existence. Since some of these are not readily understandable, a few comments will be made about each.
Milieu control, which Lifton defines as &dquo;control of human
thought reform
gious totalism.&dquo;
to
we
religion through
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[197]
communication,&dquo; was nearly complete in the group we
studied, although the degree of such control varies across the
as a whole. At one extreme are groups like the
Children of God and at the other are groups of &dquo;teenie
boppers for Jesus&dquo; who live at home and attend regular
schools. In the group we examined, none but leaders could go
into town or even talk on the phone without permission. We
were unable to find out if there was any censorship of mail.
There was also control of intragroup communications, but
this will be examined as a part of &dquo;loading the language.&dquo;
Mystical manipulation is the term Lifton used for the sense
of higher purpose or calling felt in ideological totalism.
Members are told that they are part of some great plan that
has been revealed; they have been &dquo;chosen&dquo; by forces outside
themselves to carry on some mystical imperative. All those
we interviewed shared the view that they had been selected
by God for the work and witnessing they were doing. Most
made it very plain that they had &dquo;given themselves up to
God.&dquo; Thus, they would work for ten hours in the fields or
go into town to witness if God, through one of the pastors,
would only so direct them. All life’s major decisions were
made with the &dquo;great plan&dquo; in mind, and most members were
possessed by the &dquo;psychology of the pawn,&dquo; as Lifton terms
it.
The demand for purity refers to the dichotomous picture
of the world that is adopted by believers. Everything is in
black and white. &dquo;He who is not for me is against me&dquo; is the
rule. This includes old friends and loved ones, who are simply
defined away as significant others (except perhaps as potential converts). It should also be noted that a major emphasis
of the demand for purity is to bring out feelings of guilt on
the part of participants. The rigorous standards can seldom
be met; the individual nearly always falls short and is left
remorseful and repentant (and thus more easily manipulable).
But the problem goes even to a deeper level. If the individual
is successful at some task, credit is to go to the higher power.
movement
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[198]
Thus
when
found respondents who would blame themselves
they did something wrong, but accept no credit when
they did something properly. Fromm (1950) suggests that
such an ideology is very destructive of viable personalities.
The cult of confession appears not as strong an element in
most Jesus Movement groups, although there are some
elements of similarity. The compulsive nature of confession
that occurred in the Revolutionary Universities was not
noted in our research. However, we did note that most major
and even minor decisions were discussed openly with pastors,
and there was also an emphasis on discussing &dquo;trials&dquo;
(temptations or fleshly desires) with pastors.
All adherents seemed to treat their brand of Christianity as
a very explicit sacred science. They believed their basic
dogma was completely true and did not question it.
Contained within this dogma was an implicit view of the
moral vision for ordering human existence. In the case of
fundamentalism, the sacred science is even blatantly antiscientific and anti-intellectual, but it is still a sacred science in
Lifton’s terms. One important element of a sacred science is
that, in the totalist environment, there is no distinction made
between the sacred and the profane or secular. All things
have a meaning, and nothing is frivolous. Even the most
apparently casual action or thought has a greater meaning in
the plan of God.
Loading the language means that a &dquo;language of nonthought&dquo; is developed and used. Such was the case with the
group we studied. A few &dquo;thought-terminating cliches&dquo; were
used in many different types of situations. &dquo;Praise God,&dquo;
&dquo;Thank you, Lord,&dquo; &dquo;Are you a Christian,&dquo; and &dquo;Pray about
it&dquo; are examples. No situation was too complex for one of
these or a similar phrase. The members were &dquo;linguistically
deprived&dquo; by the acceptable language norms in the group.
we
Doctrine over person occurs when there is a &dquo;subordination of human experience to the claims of doctrine.&dquo; Such
is certainly the case in fundamentalism-including that
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[199]
most of the Jesus Movement. Ideas are held to
be of ultimate importance, and people must conform to
them. If they refuse, then they are asked to leave or are
treated as deviant. Eventually members learn that their own
experiences are inconsequential in relation to the doctrine of
the group.
Closely related to the notion of &dquo;doctrine over person&dquo; is
the dispensing of existence of those that are not doctrinally
pure. All things human are subjugated to the doctrine, and
this includes friends, family, loved ones, and even oneself.
Individuals are either believers or nonbelievers. There is no
middle ground of compromise on doctrinal points. The
&dquo;dispensing&dquo; is not as literal in the case of the Jesus
Movement as it was in the thought reform practiced in China,
but it still has profound effects. Young people are taught to
believe that their parents or friends are basically evil and not
to be even talked to except in a witnessing situation. They
are also led to believe that they themselves are evil if they
disagree on major points of doctrine.
Lifton suggests that the more these eight elements combine in a situation, the more the situation can be used to
change peoples’ thought and behavior patterns. Certainly the
Jesus Movement is not as extreme an example as was the
brainwashing that went on in China. However, many of the
same elements are present, and the backgrounds of many
participants make them quite susceptible to adopting such a
totalistic view of everything.
practiced by
SUMMARY
Hopefully, the preceding discussion has evidenced the
initial point that there are some rather important similarities
between the thought reform of Western prisoners and
Chinese intellectuals and the conversion processes of the
Jesus Movement. We would particularly emphasize the group
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[200]
structure and process elements present in both situations. As
we can verify, the group pressures brought to bear on persons
having contact with the movement are quite often extremely
intense. Coauthors of this paper who were involved in the
interviewing of members
of
Jesus Movement group were
under such pressure that they felt a need to withdraw daily in
order to reaffirm their own world view through &dquo;the thin
thread of conversation&dquo; (Berger, 1969: 17). If trained and
fairly objective observers such as these began to succumb to
the group influences, then the effect on participants without
&dquo;strong&dquo; personalities and with few viable alternative reference or primary groups must indeed be great. Also, we have
noted similarities between the types of thought systems
possessed by each movement. The fundamentalism of the
Jesus Movement seems to be a good example of Lifton’s
concept of ideological totalism.
one
NOTES
1. There is a fairly large literature on brainwashing, which separates logically
into two unequal portions. Most research has been done on the experience of
POWs in the Korean war. See, for example, Schien (1957a, 1957b, 1956), Segal
(1957), Bauer (1957), Miller (1957), and Kinkead (1957). Less work has been
done on the experiences of Western prisoners in China and of Chinese
"intellectuals," but this work is a major focus of this paper (see Lifton, 1963,
1957, and 1956.
2. There is little systematic evidence concerning the number of individuals so
markedly changed. The popular treatments of the Jesus Movement would have
one believe that this is a regular occurrence. However, evidence gathered by the
authors indicate that only a minority of those involved ever participated greatly in
political activism (although a good portion do classify themselves as liberal or
radical before joining; see Harder et al., 1972). The implication of this finding is
that the political activist and Jesus Movement groups have less overlap of
membership than we have been led to believe. This suggestion does not vitiate the
need for our study of brainwashing in the Jesus Movement, for something
noteworthy is happening when large numbers of society’s children are made into
proselityzing Chnstians in an age that is supposed to be secular.
3. There is a vast and growing popular literature on the Jesus Movement that
also contributed to the paper. While little of this reporting presents systematic
it is highly suggestive. See Adams and Fox (1972), which is one of the
best discussions of research on the movement. Other treatments include Time
evidence,
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[201]
(1971 and 1970), Commonweal (1970), Ramparts (1971), and Newsweek (1971).
fairly good treatments in book form are Strieker (1971) and Enroth et al.
(1972).
Two
4. The authors were testing an extended model of the conversion and
disaffiliation processes which derived directly from the work of Lofland (1966),
Cantril (1941), Toch (1965), and Gerlach and Hine (1970). Results of this
exammation will be presented in a later paper.
5. As noted m Harder et al. (1972), there is some very strong evidence that
joining the Jesus Movement can be "good" (aids in getting participants off drugs,
and so on), but there are also drawbacks. One such negative influence (to some) is
the fact that, upon joining the movement, many of the participants become
completely apolitical and henceforth care only about converting others to the
movement.
6. Lifton (1956) presented an earlier version of this model that has some
interesting features. We particularly like his earlier emphasis on the "recoding of
reality," which was the last step in his eleven-part process.
7. Some evidence for this point is presented in the paper by Simmonds et al.
(1972). The members as a group do not seem to have "strong" personalities, a
finding that could result both from a selection bias and from effects of group
membership. We would suggest both these facets play an important part in the
finding. Using the theorizing of Fromm (1950), in his classis statement about the
effects on an individual of participating in an authoritarian religion, we would
expect to find "weaker" personalities among people whose early religious
socialization was into such groups, and also among persons who had experienced
adult socialization into such a group. One might even expect an additivity of
effect, something that is partially testable from the data that have been gathered.
REFERENCES
ADAMS, R. L. and R. J. FOX (1972) "Mainlining Jesus: the new tnp." Society 9
(February): 50-56.
BAUER, R. A. (1957) "Brainwashing: psychology or demology?" J. of Social
Issues 13, 3: 41-47.
BERGER, P. (1969) The Sacred Canopy. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
BROWN, J.A.C. (1963) Techniques of Persuasion. Baltimore: Penguin.
CANTRIL, H. (1941) The Psychology of Social Movements. New York: John
Wiley.
Commonweal (1970) "Jesus freaks: savagery and salvation on Sunset Stnp." 93
(October 30): 122-125.
DART, J. (1971) "Youth commune religion upsets parents."
Los
Angeles
Tunes
(October 10).
FNROTH, R. M., F,. E. ERICSON, Jr., and C. B. PETERS (1972) The Jesus
People: Old Time Rehgion m the Age of Aquarias. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans.
FROMM, L. (1950) Psychoanalysis and Religion. New Haven, Conn. Yale Univ.
Press.
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
[202]
GERLACH, L. P. and V. H. HINE (1970) People, Power, Change: Movements of
Social Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
HARDER, M. W. (1972) "The role of women in a fundamentalist religious sect."
Presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Social Science
Association, Salt Lake City.
and J. T. RICHARDSON (1971) "The Jesus movement: some preliminary
empirical evidence." Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion, Chicago.
and R. B. SIMMONDS (1972) "The Jesus people." Psychology Today
---
---
(December).
KINKEAD, E. (1957) "The study of something new in history." New Yorker 33,
36: 102-153.
LIFTON, R. J. (1963) Thought Reform
and the
Psychology
of Totalism. New
York: W. W. Norton.
(1957) ’’Thought reform of Chinese intellectuals: a psychiatric evaluation."
13, 3: 5-20.
(1956) "Thought reform of Western civilians m Chinese Communist
prisons." Psychiatry 19, 2: 173-195.
LOFLAND, J. (1966) Doomsday Cult. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
MILLER, J. G. (1957) "Brainwashing: present and future." J. of Social Issues 13,
———
J. of Social Issues
---
3: 48-55.
Newsweek (1971) November 22: 89-90.
Ramparts (1971) "Jesus now: hogwash and holy water." 10 (August): 24-26.
SALZMAN, L. (1953) "The psychology of religious and ideological conversion."
Psychiatry 16, 3: 177-187.
SEGAL, J. (1957) "Correlates of collaboration and resistance behavior among
U.S. Army POW’s in Korea." J. of Social Issues 13, 3: 31-40.
SIMMONDS, R. B., J. T. RICHARDSON, and M. W. HARDER (1972) "The Jesus
movement: an adjective check list assessment of members of a fundamentalist
religious community." Presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Psychological Association, Portland, Oregon.
SCHIEN, E. H. (1957a) "Epilogue: something new
13, 3: 56-60.
———
(1957b) "Reaction patterns
in
history." J.
of Social Issues
to severe, chronic stress in American
Army
prisoners of war of the Chinese." J.
———
(1956) ’’The Chinese
of Social Issues 13, 3: 21-30.
indoctrination program for prisoners of war."
Psychiatry 12, 2: 149-172.
STRIEKER, L. D. (1971) The Jesus Trip: Advent of the Jesus Freaks. Nashville:
Abingdon.
St. Louis Post Dispatch (1971) "Parents protest Jesus-freak movement." October
17).
(1971) "New rebel cry: Jesus is coming." 97 (June 21): 56-63.
(1970) "Street Christians: Jesus as the ultimate trip." 96 (August 3): 31-32.
TOCH, H. (1965) The Social Psychology of Social Movement. Indianapolis:
Time
———
Bobbs-Merrill.
ZABLOCKI, B. D. (1971) The Joyful Community. Baltimore: Penguin.
ZETTERBERG, H. (1952) "The religious conversion as a change of social roles."
Sociology and Social Research 36, 3: 159-166.
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016