ONE of the most interesting aftermaths of the Korean conflict in I950-I953 has been the preoccupation of many Americans with brainwashing. The word itself has become popular as a term for all sorts of persuasion and, within the appropriate context, as an explanation for any behavior which we do not understand. There are probably many reasons for this preoccupation. First, because our struggle with the Communist world is partially an ideological one, we need new terms for ideological weapons-e.g., brainwashing. Second, because the Chinese Communists were successful in stalemating the Korean conflict and in eliciting germ-warfare confessions and other collaborative behavior from their American prisoners of war (POWs), we have had to find someone or something to blame. The conclusion that the collaborator and confessor were brainwashed is one convenient way of assigning such blame. Third, our own society has become increasingly concerned about the ethics and implications of techniques of overt and covert persuasion, such as the soft sell, motivational research, subliminal stimulation, the use of drugs to influence psychological functioning, the use of hypnosis as an anaesthetic, and so on. This growing technology of influence has fed into the conception that society, or some of its agents, is becoming capable of overwhelming the human mind completely. Fourth, our changing international position has led us to an attitude of tense doubt about our supremacy and our capacity to cope with international problems. Given these and doubtless many other factors, it is no wonder that we have begun to question where the limits of the integrity of the human mind lie, and increasingly to entertain concepts like brainwashing which express graphically our loss of confidence in our capacity as individuals to master our world. When things go wrong, it is far less ego-deflating to say that we have been