Jump to content

eileen barker....religion

Milk Grenades

By Milk Grenades
in News

 Share

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Issac Brock

Issac Brock

Posted
Posted
In Eileen Barker’s, The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking?, she states that "although social reality exists independently of the volition of any particular individual, it can exist only insofar as individual human minds are continually recognizing it and acting as the media through which are processed the cultural ideas and meanings, and the roles and expectations that arise from and result in its existence." (Barker, p.7) To which she agrees with Wuthnow (1987). "if as social scientists we want to understand what is going on, we have no option but use ourselves as "a medium." A robot cannot do social science; it is not capable of Verstehen." By this, Barker is stating that as a sociologist of religion, it is important to take a lead role in understanding the phenomenon of new religions. This is important, because as a social scientist, it is important to provide an objective view of new religions, in agreement or in comparison with the views of other secondary constructions.

 

Barker argues that there are Primary and Secondary Constructions of Social Reality. "Primary construction of an NRM is the product of direct and indirect interactions between the members of the movement and, to some extent, between members and the rest of society...Secondary constructions are depictions of the movement that are offered in the public arena by sociologists and others, including the movement itself, about the movement." (Barker, p.6) According to Barker there are six major perspectives; sociologists and others involved in the scientific study of religion, members of the new religions themselves, the anticult movement, the media, the legal profession, and therapists. These secondary constructions were based on the impact and competition they posed with social scientists. These groups all describe and perceive the NRM from a different perspective dependent upon their own beliefs, interests, and or ideals.

 

Sociologists, "wish to present as accurate, objective, and unbiased an account as possible." (Barker, p.12) Although Barker says, the scientific study of religion will differ from person to person, they mostly agree on presenting a clear and accurate picture. According to Barker’s table, the interest and/or aim of Sociology of Religion secondary constructors is; unbiased and objective sociological description, understanding and explanation. "Social scientists have to "interpret" or "translate the primary construction so that their audience can understand what may have been incomprehensible when they were looking at the movement itself." Barker emphasizes other constructs of social science in which they, "exclude details that do no seem to be of particular interest, exclude theological judgments, remain methodologically agnostic, and, exclude their own subjective evaluations. However, Barker says, that the values of social scientists sometimes can and will affect the research. But to avoid doing so, one must be aware of the possibility and remain objective.

The goals of NRMs differ from those of other secondary constructors. They, "have an interest in gaining new members and, perhaps, political and financial or legal advantage by presenting a secondary constructions of their own primary reality in the public domain." (Barker, p.16) Because of these goals, they are more likely to portray themselves in the best light possible, focusing more on their good qualities rather than the negative.

 

The anticult movement, "includes a wide variety of organizations with members as diverse as anxious parents, ex-members, professional deprogrammers, and "exit counselors." (Barker, p.16) In contrast to NRMs, they construct an opposite perspective. Generally, their goals are to focus on the negative aspects of NRMs. While in competition with NRMs, their main competitors are social scientists, because it may be easier to attack the arguments of NRMs, they tend to find it much more difficult to dismiss the arguments of social scientists.

The media plays an important role in the way society views new religious movements. However, the media is constricted by time and place, and therefore the stories that do get released may not always be an accurate portrayal. "The media collect their data from sources selected for accessibility and the provision of good quotes," (Barker, p.19) and not necessarily for their factual or objective material. More importantly, information provided by NRMs isn’t always viewed as honest or truthful. The interests of the media are to provide a good story; get/keep readers, viewers, and/or listeners. (Table 1)

 

"The primary interest of the law as represented by a judge and, sometimes, jury, is to ensure that justice is carried out according to the law of the land. No attempt is made to present a complete or balanced picture of a primary construction, but only to point to those aspects that could be of relevance to the case." (Barker, p.20) The law is not concerned with truth, necessarily, but to some extent, who can argue their case more effectively. There are always two sides, and both, "argue for and against opposing versions of reality, either or both of which may be grossly distorted versions of a primary construction." (Barker, p.21)

 

The therapists’ perspective serves the best interest of the client. Their primary goal is to help the client to get better and to cope with ‘reality’ (Table 1) Therefore, it is not in their interest to construct or deconstruct the views of a new religion that their client is or was a member of, but to help the client with dealing with their own reality. The conflict with social scientists, "emerge, however, when counselors and therapists claim to know what a particular movement – or NRMs in general – are like through their client-focused work." (Barker, p.21) This becomes problematic when dealing with court cases, in the media, or in public meetings.

 

Barker believes these perspectives are competing with those of social scientists, and when it comes to information of NRMs, social scientists should not take a passive role, but instead pursue more active roles. She says, "the methods of social science (its openness to criticism and empirical testing and, above all, its use of the comparative method) ought to ensure that it produces a more balanced and more useful account than that of its competitors for seeing the way things are and the way things might be – not for deciding how they ought to be, but for implementing decisions about how they ought to be." She believes the logic of its [social science] approach is infinitely superior for producing balanced and accurate accounts of NRMs than is that of any of its competitors. (Barker, p.22)

 

Although she notes that there may be an interference between the person(s) studying NRMs, and even argues that in some cases there should be, the data collected by such person(s) is more valuable then those of their competitors. She argues for others to "make a difference," and says to other social scientists, "We ought to communicate so that we can be heard; there is no reason why we should not fight ignorance and misinformation when we see it." (Barker, p.25)

 

 

orly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HardyHarHar

HardyHarHar

Posted
Posted

Sorry. I like authors to convince me that they know acres more than they're telling. Be as flirtatious in your writing, SheRock, as you are in your posts. I can tell you have the talent to: A.) Read some abstract thing-a-ma-jig, and understand it; and B.) Write so that dumb people will understand you. Why not combine these two powers to create one unstoppabe force? As of now, your professional writing reads like a re-organization of the writers you write of, whereas your comments on 12oz are insightful and combatative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milk Grenades

Milk Grenades

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sorry. I like authors to convince me that they know acres more than they're telling. Be as flirtatious in your writing, SheRock, as you are in your posts. I can tell you have the talent to: A.) Read some abstract thing-a-ma-jig, and understand it; and B.) Write so that dumb people will understand you. Why not combine these two powers to create one unstoppabe force? As of now, your professional writing reads like a re-organization of the writers you write of, whereas your comments on 12oz are insightful and combatative.

 

well, this article i wrote was supposed to ammuse a professor, hence receiving an A...I didn't write it to be insightful and combatative.

 

if you want my real life opinion on scientology, or religion for that matter....well you'll have to wait until i'm bored and drunk enough, so i can babble and be witty and entertaining ;) :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAR

MAR

Posted
Posted

If you want to amuse a professor you should show him your funbags. Professors get tired of reading this kind of stuff real quick.

 

If you show the man your titties he will profess (see what I did there?) his gratitude and you will soar (see that one too?) to the top of the class with an "A+".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...