Coercive Persuasion. A Sociopsychological Analysis of the 'Brainwashing' of American Civilian Prisoners by the Chinese Communists: By Edgar H. Schein; Inge Schneier; and Curtis H. Barker. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1961. 320 pp.

The Center for International Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sponsored this study of the social psychology of change of influence and attitude. What pressures are designed, what

coercive means are used, in the Chinese program of ideological thought reform and reindoctrination? Since the process of brainwashing exists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts must go beyond the implied political questions in asking themselves what this extreme of mental coercion means for their theoretical knowledge of psychological change. Even when the authors say that they are not concerned with the political implications of the whole thought-reform movement, every scientist is caught in a web of communications that gets hold of him, consciously or unconsciously, and molds him. People are converted not only in the political field or by religious ideas but their scientific a priori beliefs are also related to the persuasive circle in which they live.

This book is valuable because it gives an excellent summary of the various processes involved. Though it treats the subject mostly from a sociopsychological standpoint, it continually touches the individual dynamics involved and the close connection between political and personal values. The theories of influence which deal with change of ego, self, or identity appear the most applicable. Ample attention to psychoanalytic interpretation is given; the authors consider rationalization, identification, regression, and internalization. Because of their sociopsychological approach, they do not take into account sufficiently the mystery of human masochism and need for dependency. If one wanted to be critical one could ask, does there not also exist a mental coercion by negative emphasis and omission? Such is the way the book handles priorities of former publications and their criticism of colleagues. While the authors approach the subject from various, though nonintegrated, angles, they reproach other