Sociologi: Eileen Barker

The scientific study of religion? You must be joking!
society for the scientific study of religion is: dispassionate, objective, systematic, accurate research.

Theier aim is to go beyond the merely anecdotal by attemting to raise for public debate a number of issues, some of which have been touched upon elsewhere but are not yet routinely adressed in methodological handbooks.

The study of NRM´s (new religious movements) is to learn much of interest for the study of religion in general. But more scientific, more balanced, objective and accurate. It is a less biassed, subjektive and wrong understanding of the movements than they have themselves.

The pursuit of crude positivism is doomed to failure for a number of reasons intimately bound to the very nature of social reality.

E.B. (eileeen Barker) is profoundly influenced by the work of Karl Popper who distinguishes a scientific from a pseudo-scientific enterprise..
She would start with empirical refutability and continue by adding a gerat number of qualifications.

Primary and secondary constructions of social reality.

the primary construction
of an NRM is the product of direct and indirect interactions between the members of the movement and betweeen members and the rest of society.
Secondary construction
are depictions of the movement that are offered in the public arena by sociologists and others, including the movement itself.

About the movement: if we are concerned with "the cult scene", secondary constructios, including those of the sociologist, make a difference and must be considered as part of the primary construction of THAT social reality.

Berger and Luckmann says: social reality exists only as ideas in people´s heads.

If we as social scientists want to understand what is going on, we have no option but to use ourselves as a "medium".
We need to have some knowledge about the meanings that situation have for individuals. We need to be able to understand how a situation can be perceived.
No two people will percieve a situation in exactly the same way. But our perceptions are more or less shared.

The variation will depend upon such factors as people´s innate characteristics, their past experiences, hopes, fears, interests, assumptions, values and expectations and the social position.

People wiil altso describe and explain the movement in different ways. They will select from among the features persented to them.

Making a difference.
Social scientists should be clinically detached observers who do not allow their observations to affect the data.
Such an approach is not only difficult but methodological inappropriate for the kind of research that is needed for an acceptable secondary construction of NRM´s.

Most social scientists who have worked "in the field" are aware of the impact that they might have.
The very fact theat a normally impermeable boundary can be permeated by an outsider affects the group and its members.

Asking questions that no one else has previously asked can lead to an unexpected "raising of consciousness" in the movement.

I was affecting the data not only as part of a methodological procedure, but also as part of a political action.

The shift from a methodological to a more politico-ethical involvment in the "cult scene" became even more marked when I reached the conclusion that a considerable amount of unnecessary suffering and unhappiness might be avoided were social scientific constructions of NRM´s to compete more robustly in the market place.

I set up a charity called INFORM (information network focus on religious movements) with the aim of providing information that was objective, balanced and as up-to-date as possible.
It has certainly resulted in a great deal more about the "cult scene" and to contest untrue statements about NRM´s.

INFORM points out the likely consequenses of a varity of action, ranging from joining a new religion to trying to abduct someone from one.

INFORM´s policy is to use secondary constructs according to the logic of the social sciences in order to bring about a resolution of problems through amelioration and accommodation and avoid "deviance amplification" and the exacerbation of problems.

To compare the secondary constructs of social science with the competition (se tabel 1)

What we are concerned with is an exercise in the sociology of knowledge, examining how the socio-logic of group aims and interests can give rise to systematic differences between the various secondary constructions.

the sociology of religion
we wish to present as accurate, objective and unbiased an account as possible.

Popper says: "our great instrument for progress is criticism"

Social scientists SELECT what will go into our constructions.

There would be absolutely no point in the sociologist´s merely reproducing what the Raëlian (en fra en NRM) says and does - this has to be put in a wider context.

We are repesenting rather than presenting.
The constructs of social science EXCLUDE details that do not seem to be of particular interest.

The constructs of social science EXCLUDE theological judgments. The sociology of religion is concerned with who believes what under what circumstances, how beliefs become part of the cultural milieu and are used to interpret people´s experiences, and what the consequenses og holding particular beliefs may be.

We have to remain methodologically agnostic.

Weber says: social scientists stipulate what they mean by particular concepts or use ideal types.

social scientists try to EXCLUDE their own subjective evaluations from the actual collection and analysis of data.

A fundamental component of science is the comparative method, which by putting the NRM in a wider frame of reference, brings balance into the eqation. They use control groups.

The new religions.
NRM´s aim is to gain new members. Therefore they have political and financial or legal advantage by presenting a secondary construction of their own primary reality in the public domain.

NRM will draw on nonempirical revelation.

NRM: their involvment means that ´members are unable or unwilling to see what is going on with the same detachment as some outsiders (siger Wilson)

As lobbyists, anticults have to be proactive not only in promoting their constructions but also in denying or dismissing other constructions and denigrating the constructors.

Stories about the wealth controlled by fx Moon, L. Ron Hubbard are common.
But also "deprogrammers" can charge tens og thousands of dollars for their sevices.

Not surprisingly, given the money involved, the mind control issue has proved to be one of the fiercest battlegrounds.

Data for ACM (anti cult movements) stories tend to be collected from anxious parents, disillusioned exmembers and negative media reports.

The media
get a good story + gain new audiences.

Members of the media collect their data from sources selected for accessibility and the provision of good quotes.

Many are reluctant to ask members of NRMs for their own versions of reality, and they dismiss press releases from the movements far more readily than they dismiss the information handed out by the ACM.

The media are under no obligation to introduce comparisons to assess the relative rates of negative incidents.

The law.
Primary interest: ensure, that justice is carried out according to the law of the land.

The law does make use of "expert witnesses" who usually present their credentials as representatives of the scientific community.

Lawyers will invite those witnesses who are known to hold views that support their clients case. It is the court thar decides what questions will and will not be asked and, thus, answerd.

Therapists.
Therapists and counselors have an interest in helping their client.
They may need to help the client to construct privately a new reality that he or she can live with and feel good about.

They have a different aim from social scientists and will, therefore, use different methods and employ different kinds of knowledge.

The profession is not one that aims primarily to constryct an accurate and balanced account.

Counselors and therapists have crossed swords with sociologists because 1) the so-called brainwashing or mind-control thesis and 2) allegations of ritual satanic abuse.

Some construct a version of reality themselves, and then put considerable pressure on the client to accept it.

Beyond the ivory tower.
Some statements (moral evaluations and claims about the supernatural) are not empirically testable.

The method of social science ought to ensure that it produces a more balanced and more useful account than that of its competitos for seeing the way things are and the way things might be. And for implementing decitions about how they ought to be.

We can find ourselves being affected by our competitors.
We are in danger of letting our competitors define our agenda.

If we are not heard by outsiders not only may we be missing some valuable feedback, we are also likely to be excluding ourselves from making any difference to "the cult scene".

What we write have to be of relevance for the audience we want to reach.

The cults fascinatingly evil compared to the rest of us, but also, because of their mind control techniques, they provide a simple explanation of why people reject "normal" society to follow "incredible" beliefs and lead "impossible" lives. The cults can be held responsible for any problems that exists between members and their families.

Playing their game
(some) members of the media deliberately misrepresent their informants. "to set us up to put us down".
Apart from being extremely frustrating and unpleasant, such experiences con make one wonder whether agreeing to take part in any program is not simply counterprodictive.

We do not react to the pressures of media interests or the competition of ACM interests.

The media usually give us an opportunity to put things in context through comparisons.

Taking sides or sitting on the fence?
Science is not summing two extremes positions and dividing by two.

Whose side are you on? The scientist´s answer might be " the side of accuracy and balance".

Codes of ethics amongst scientists: we may not want to betray confidences about individual informants.
Barker says: even if we do not do a "whitewash" we shall at least be fairer to them than most other constructors.

We are unlikely to start promoting their beliefs, proclaming Moon the messiah or Berg an endtime prophet.

We may come to feel protective and when we see them attaced unfairly come to their defense.

We have held back information for the scientifically questionable reason that we felt that the way the information would be used would be unacceptable to us.
The negative aspects we report will be taken out of context by the media.

We need to declare the limits of our expertice and make it clear that we have no special criterion to choose between opposing theological or moral claims.

The loneliness of the long-term researcher.
We are actually obstructing ourselves from acquiring a fuller understanding of how the ACM operates within the cult scene.

Meta-values reconsidered.
Research ought to be as value-free as possible in the sense that the aim is to describe and explian what IS the case, without inserting the researcher´s values into secondary constructions.

The researcher making a difference: social scientists sometimes ought to become involved in their data. The effect they have on the data ought to be noted and analyzed like any other part of the research.

Conclusion.
As social scientists, we are interested in producing accurate and balanced constructions.

The exercise of social sciencs is an important and valuable discipline.

There is no reason why we should not fight ignorance and misinformation when we see it.

e need to be more aware, careful and true to our meta-values as professional social scientists than has sometimes been the case.

If we are to preserve our expertise then we need to sharpen our tools of reflexive awareness, open debate and constructive critique.