Changes

Critics of mind control theories of conversion 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]]."[16] Indeed virtually all of these models share the notion that converts are in [[fact]] innocent "victims" of mind-control techniques.[10] Hassan suggests that even the cult members manipulating the new converts may themselves be sincerely misled people.[17] By considering NRM members innocent "victims" of psychological coercion these theories open the door for psychological treatments.

Critics of mind control theories of conversion 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]]."[16] Indeed virtually all of these models share the notion that converts are in [[fact]] innocent "victims" of mind-control techniques.[10] Hassan suggests that even the cult members manipulating the new converts may themselves be sincerely misled people.[17] By considering NRM members innocent "victims" of psychological coercion these theories open the door for psychological treatments.

Sociologists like Eileen Barker have criticized [[conversion]] theories precisely because they [[function]] to justify costly interventions like deprogramming or exit counseling.[18] For similar reasons scholars like Barker have also criticized mental health professionals like Margaret Singer for accepting lucrative expert witness jobs in court cases involving NRMs.[18] Singer was perhaps the most publicly notable scholarly proponent of "cult" brainwashing theories, and she became the [[focal]] point of the [[relative]] demise of those same theories within her [[discipline]].[7]

Sociologists like Eileen Barker have criticized [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion conversion] theories precisely because they [[function]] to justify costly interventions like deprogramming or exit counseling.[18] For similar reasons scholars like Barker have also criticized mental health professionals like Margaret Singer for accepting lucrative expert witness jobs in court cases involving NRMs.[18] Singer was perhaps the most publicly notable scholarly proponent of "cult" brainwashing theories, and she became the [[focal]] point of the [[relative]] demise of those same theories within her [[discipline]].[7]

 

==Scholarly opposition==

==Scholarly opposition==

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.[19] For this and other reasons, sociologists like David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the [[idea]] that "[[cults]]" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[20] 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 other scholars researching NRMs) have [[argued]] and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional [[associations]] and of [[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.[21]

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.[19] For this and other reasons, sociologists like David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the [[idea]] that "[[cults]]" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[20] 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 other scholars researching NRMs) have [[argued]] and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional [[associations]] and of [[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.[21]