International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 21
precision,11 and that critics of groups used it
when they disapproved of a belief system to
which people had converted (Barker, 1984, p.
135 see Barker, 2003, p. 288). Some years later,
however, she offered observations about social
control and restraint that are central to an
understanding of free will within a sociological
perspective.
In her 2002 presidential address to the
Association for the Sociology of Religion (and
published the following year), Barker reminded
her audience that “the natural sciences describe
laws that clearly impose well-nigh insuperable
limits on our freedom” (Barker, 2003, p. 291).
Specifically, within the social sciences
(particularly sociology), “freedom and control”
were concepts
that lie at the very heart of the sociological
enterprise. [Karl] Marx, [Émile] Durkheim,
[Max] Weber, [Georg] Simmel, and [George
Herbert] Mead ...were all concerned with the
ways in which individuals are, variously,
enabled and restrained by the structures and
cultures within which they find themselves and
how they create, conserve, change and negotiate
those structures and cultures. (Barker, 2003, pp.
286–287)
Likewise, in a 2005 presentation (published in
2006) at a Finnish conference, Barker returned
to the question of free will, this time observing
that
the whole exercise of sociology assumes
that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are
all affected by the social situation in
which we find ourselves. ...The
problem is not usually to declare either
that a person is totally free of society or
11 Barker stated that, often, people use brainwashing
interchangeably with terms such as “menticide, mind-control,
thought reform, coercion, indoctrination, conditioning, conversion,
persuasion, socialization, re-education, influence or simply
changing one’s mind” (Barker, 1984, p. 135 [italics added]).
Singer with Lalich (1995, p. 53) included brainwashing amidst
“Terms Used to Identify Thought Reform.” The other terms were
thought struggle thought reform debility, dependency, and dread
coercive persuasion mind control systematic manipulation of
psychological and social influence coordinated programs of
coercive influence and behavioral control and exploitative
persuasion.
that (s)he is totally constrained by it, but
to assess the degree to which the
position of each is negotiable as part of
an on-going process of interaction that
affects both the individual and the social
environment. (Barker, 2006, pp. 11–12)
A central exercise of sociology, therefore, is to
identify and analyze the degrees of constraint
and negotiation strategies that people use in
organizational and interpersonal settings.
Some of those constraints can be quite severe, as
Barker realized after interviewing a convicted
terrorist who had been groomed to be a suicide
bomber. Based upon those interviews, Barker
concluded “that it was a series of social
variables that had the effect of controlling her
mind to what, it could be argued, was an almost
irresistible and irreversible degree” (Barker,
2013, p. 44 [italics in original] see Dubrow-
Marshall, 2010). Barker’s conclusion seems to
have been that the convicted terrorist had lost
almost all of her free will through social
processes that others would call brainwashing.
Moreover, similar social processes probably take
place with some “members of closed
communities” (Barker, 2013, p. 44). Again,
Barker revealed,
I have repeatedly been struck by how
they have insisted that they now felt
freer than they had before joining what
may seem to others to be an
authoritarian group severely restricting
the freedom of its members. On the
other hand, I have observed groups
which proclaim that they embrace total
freedom and that everyone can do just
whatever they choose when, in fact,
these “free souls” may be perceived to
be quite severely constrained in a
number of ways. (Barker, 2013, p. 45)
Social scientists who have studied people in
controversial groups variously called sects, cults,
or new religious movements have witnessed the
same contradiction that Barker did between
members’ own views about free will and choice
versus the researchers’ outside perceptions of
the (often) severe restrictions under which they
live.
precision,11 and that critics of groups used it
when they disapproved of a belief system to
which people had converted (Barker, 1984, p.
135 see Barker, 2003, p. 288). Some years later,
however, she offered observations about social
control and restraint that are central to an
understanding of free will within a sociological
perspective.
In her 2002 presidential address to the
Association for the Sociology of Religion (and
published the following year), Barker reminded
her audience that “the natural sciences describe
laws that clearly impose well-nigh insuperable
limits on our freedom” (Barker, 2003, p. 291).
Specifically, within the social sciences
(particularly sociology), “freedom and control”
were concepts
that lie at the very heart of the sociological
enterprise. [Karl] Marx, [Émile] Durkheim,
[Max] Weber, [Georg] Simmel, and [George
Herbert] Mead ...were all concerned with the
ways in which individuals are, variously,
enabled and restrained by the structures and
cultures within which they find themselves and
how they create, conserve, change and negotiate
those structures and cultures. (Barker, 2003, pp.
286–287)
Likewise, in a 2005 presentation (published in
2006) at a Finnish conference, Barker returned
to the question of free will, this time observing
that
the whole exercise of sociology assumes
that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are
all affected by the social situation in
which we find ourselves. ...The
problem is not usually to declare either
that a person is totally free of society or
11 Barker stated that, often, people use brainwashing
interchangeably with terms such as “menticide, mind-control,
thought reform, coercion, indoctrination, conditioning, conversion,
persuasion, socialization, re-education, influence or simply
changing one’s mind” (Barker, 1984, p. 135 [italics added]).
Singer with Lalich (1995, p. 53) included brainwashing amidst
“Terms Used to Identify Thought Reform.” The other terms were
thought struggle thought reform debility, dependency, and dread
coercive persuasion mind control systematic manipulation of
psychological and social influence coordinated programs of
coercive influence and behavioral control and exploitative
persuasion.
that (s)he is totally constrained by it, but
to assess the degree to which the
position of each is negotiable as part of
an on-going process of interaction that
affects both the individual and the social
environment. (Barker, 2006, pp. 11–12)
A central exercise of sociology, therefore, is to
identify and analyze the degrees of constraint
and negotiation strategies that people use in
organizational and interpersonal settings.
Some of those constraints can be quite severe, as
Barker realized after interviewing a convicted
terrorist who had been groomed to be a suicide
bomber. Based upon those interviews, Barker
concluded “that it was a series of social
variables that had the effect of controlling her
mind to what, it could be argued, was an almost
irresistible and irreversible degree” (Barker,
2013, p. 44 [italics in original] see Dubrow-
Marshall, 2010). Barker’s conclusion seems to
have been that the convicted terrorist had lost
almost all of her free will through social
processes that others would call brainwashing.
Moreover, similar social processes probably take
place with some “members of closed
communities” (Barker, 2013, p. 44). Again,
Barker revealed,
I have repeatedly been struck by how
they have insisted that they now felt
freer than they had before joining what
may seem to others to be an
authoritarian group severely restricting
the freedom of its members. On the
other hand, I have observed groups
which proclaim that they embrace total
freedom and that everyone can do just
whatever they choose when, in fact,
these “free souls” may be perceived to
be quite severely constrained in a
number of ways. (Barker, 2013, p. 45)
Social scientists who have studied people in
controversial groups variously called sects, cults,
or new religious movements have witnessed the
same contradiction that Barker did between
members’ own views about free will and choice
versus the researchers’ outside perceptions of
the (often) severe restrictions under which they
live.
