And the wisdom to know the difference? Freedom, control and the sociology of religion - 2002 Presidential Address

Sociology of Religion, Fall, 2003 by Eileen Barker

Faced with the challenge of going beyond circular a priori assumptions that converts (or "recruits") were either free or coerced when they joined a movement such as the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, (7) I decided that, while distinguishing between freedom and determinism involved two concepts that appeared well nigh impossible to operationalise, it might be possible to operationalise the concept of choice, at least for the purposes of this particular study insofar as it focussed on processes happening in a clearly defined situation over a limited period of time.

   A choice would involve reflection (in the present), memory
   (of the past) and imagination (of possible futures). A person would
   be an active agent in deciding between two or more possible options
   when [s]he could anticipate their potential existence, and when, in
   doing so, [s]he drew on his[her] previous experience and his[her]
   previously formed values and interests to guide his[her] judgement
   (Barker 1984:137).

The social situation in question arose when potential members, who had already become persuaded that the Unification Church might have something worthwhile to offer them, were invited by the movement to attend a residential workshop. Here they would be subjected to the so-called mind control techniques. The proposition (promoted by certain sections of the media and "anticultists") to be tested was that irresistible and irreversible practices employed during the workshop would result in all those who had accepted the invitation ending up as compliant "Moonies," ready to devote their lives to the every whim of their Korean Messiah, Sun Myung Moon.

What transpired was that, of over a thousand who had attended workshops in the London area during. 1979, 90 percent did not end up joining the movement. It seemed clear, therefore, that I had to look at the individuals (rather than merely at the techniques employed during the workshops) if I were to understand why some would join and others would not. In other words, the obvious enough conclusion was that the Unification environment (its techniques and its promises) could not by itself provide a sufficient explanation for the outcome; it was necessary to take the individuals themselves into account as independent variables in the process. (8)

It may well be the case that Unificationists and committed members of many other new religions would like to be able to have more success in drawing new members to their faith. It is certainly not being denied that they tried hard to influence those who were prepared to listen, and that they could be both persistent and aggressive (and sometimes deceptive) in their proselytising efforts. Scholarly research has, however, shown over and over again that the techniques of persuasion employed by the NRMs are a far less efficient means of gaining new members than the practice of being born into an established tradition, such as Islam or Roman Catholicism. The fact is, however, that (a) the vast majority of people subjected to "brainwashing" find themselves perfectly capable of saying "no, thank you," and that (b) those who do join the NRMs (and, presumably, are subjected to even greater doses of such techniques) have managed to leave of their own free will (Bromley 1988; Wright 1987). This must suggest, at least in situations which involve no physical restrictions or malfunctioning of the brain, that there is, minimally, some collaboration on the part of the individual.