This interview with Professor Eileen Barker explores her pioneering work in the sociology of religion, focusing on minority religious movements and the societal, legal, and governmental challenges they often face. As the founder of INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements), established in 1988, Professor Barker has spent decades bridging the gap between academia, law enforcement, and the public by providing unbiased, research-based insights into new religious movements.  This insightful dialogue underscores the critical importance of fostering dialogue and collaboration between scientists and government agencies.

Q: Professor Barker, as you know, the interview focuses on cases where researchers and scientists are victimized by society, law enforcement, or governmental agencies due to misunderstanding, moral panic, or mistakes. What do you think causes these situations?

EB: Well, it depends on the circumstances. There are always people who disagree or misunderstand, and sometimes doubts are deserved. In a healthy society, people ought to discuss and try to sort out these differences to determine whether it's a genuine misunderstanding or perhaps it’s occasionally an intentional misunderstanding. People have different interests, so they see and hear different images of reality and all that has to be sorted out. It will never be completely sorted out, but with patience and being prepared to listen to other people, quite a few of these things can be worked out.

Q: Have you ever experienced being attacked by society? 

EB: Yes. Frequently.

Q: Could you share a little about that?

EB: My work is not always popular because I study minority religions. People have different views, understandings, and beliefs about minority religions, and they often lump them together under the label “cults.” They assume that being labeled a cult means certain negative things will follow, usually bad things. "Cult" has been defined in many ways, but one common interpretation is simply "a religion I don’t like."

As a social scientist, when I try to explain what a cult—or, more appropriately, a minority religion—is like, I include aspects that people consider good, bad, or just normal. For example, most people aren't interested in what others eat for breakfast, but vegetarians or those with unique dietary practices might find it relevant. However, there are legitimate concerns about the harm some new religions can do. Minority religions, like majority religions, can do harmful or unlawful things, and it's important to point these out.

I have been attacked by individuals known as anti-cultists. In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, these groups were strongly opposed to new religious movements. They believed that anyone joining such groups had been brainwashed and hadn't made their own choice. My research showed that the so-called “brainwashing process” was neither irresistible nor irreversible. The majority—90%—of the people I studied said, “No, thanks, we don’t want to join the movement.” Of those who did join, half left within a couple of years as I discussed in my book The Making of a Moonie: Brainwashing or Choice? (I am impressed that this book was translated into Ukrainian and published in Ukraine during the war under the title "Як стають мунітами: добровільно чи їм промивають мізки?"). 

Over time, as new generations emerged, patterns shifted, about 90% of the children in the first cohort of the second generation left the movement. In contrast, members of the second cohort were more likely to stay, but by then, the movement had evolved and was no longer the same. So it was quite obvious that the so-called brainwashing techniques were neither irresistible—because the majority resisted, nor irreversible–because people who had joined did leave.

Those people who were carrying out deprogramming—that is, illegally kidnapping people from their religions and holding them until the captive person managed either to escape or to persuade them that they had renounced their faith—were legitimizing themselves by saying that they had been deprogrammed.

They didn’t like my research. They attacked me—not by arguing against my findings but by spreading accusations such as, “She’s been bought off by the Moonies,” “She’s receiving money,” or “She’s a fool.” The media criticized me too, often influenced by stories from deprogramming advocates with financial stakes in the controversy. 

There were also parents who were genuinely worried and confused, and I felt very sorry for them and tried to support them as much as I could.

Q: How did you approach finding a solution to such a difficult problem?

EB: It became so challenging that, in 1988, I established an organization called INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) to try and produce information that would be as objective and neutral as possible. Of course, my opponents claimed that neutrality meant not caring, but actually, it was because I cared very much, and because a lot of unhappiness was being promoted by misinformation and ignorance, that I thought it necessary to have reliable information.

Originally, INFORM was intended to be a network of scholars who were dedicated to studying new religious movements. However, because we had not only studied these groups but, in some cases, lived among them as part of our research, we were accused of being “contaminated” and “brainwashed” ourselves. Consequently, we were labeled “cult apologists.”

Furthermore, the British government provided us with startup funding, which enraged anti-cultists in Britain and abroad, as they had been unable to secure similar support. Despite this, the British government chose to back us. The mainstream churches, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, backed me and became our first patron. I knew him personally, and he spoke with representatives of other religions. On our Board of Governors, INFORM has always had representatives from the Church of England, the Catholics and the Methodists and other Free Churches.

Nevertheless, we faced numerous accusations, including misusing taxpayers’ money and only saying good things about ‘cults’ – which simply wasn't true. This period became known as the “Cult Wars” of the late 20th century, when the position between the two ‘sides’ was particularly intense. The only time we truly interacted was in court cases, when everything was painted in very black and white colours.

Q: Did you manage to resolve any conflicts or misunderstandings with the anti-cultists?

EB:  In 1998, I came to a realization. We, the so-called 'cult-apologists', had been criticizing the anti-cultists for lumping all new religious movements together without visiting them or speaking to their members—relying solely on information from worried relatives and former members, particularly apostates who spoke negatively about the groups. In reality, most of those who left were not hostile; they simply moved on, viewing their involvement as an experience they no longer believed in.

However, it struck me that we, as scholars, were guilty of a similar preconception. We were accusing the anti-cultists of never engaging directly with members of new religions, yet we ourselves were lumping all anti-cultists together without ever directly engaging with them.

I began attending conferences—not only in Britain, where I continued to be deeply disliked by most of the hardliners—but also in the United States. In 1998, I wrote to the largest cult-watching organization there and asked if I could attend one of their events. I received a polite response stating that the conference was open to everyone and that I was welcome to participate.

I decided to go. It was somewhat intimidating. The president, the executive director, and a few others were kind and spoke with me, but not everyone was as welcoming—one individual even spat at me. The keynote speaker changed her lecture to turn it into a direct attack on me. The next morning, I stepped into the elevator, and there she was. I greeted her with a “Good morning,” but she simply turned her back on me.

Several people would come and speak to me, mainly out of curiosity because they all thought I had horns and a forked tail.  However, whenever any of the prominent anti-cultists appeared, some would quickly pretend they hadn’t been talking to me.

Nevertheless, I have continued attending the conferences – now for over 25 years, and some have become close colleagues, collaborating with INFORM in several cases. 

Fairly soon, it became clear to me that we were asking fundamentally different questions. They were asking, “What harm do the cults cause?” while the scholars of religion were asking, “What are the new religions like?”

As I intimated earlier, our differing interests naturally led us to focus on different aspects of the subject. 

The “good anti-cultists,” as I would call them, were genuinely trying to help reduce the problems that some of the religions were creating, just as I believed that I, along with other scholars, was sincere in my work by trying to understand why some people could be attracted to the religions, what the religion’s beliefs and practices were like, why some people left their movements – and what the various social reactions were to the different movements.

Over time, the focus of anti-cult concerns shifted, influenced by various events, both internal and external to the religions. The media’s attention was shifting toward other issues,  the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath, which fueled Islamophobic sentiments. 

Additionally, the exposure of the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandals revealed that it wasn’t just minority religions involved in child abuse, but majority religions as well. As a result of these and other changes, things altered considerably, and I am no longer attacked as frequently as I once was—though some criticism persists even today.

Q: Have you ever experienced being attacked by law enforcement or governmental agencies? 

EB: In 1988, shortly after INFORM was established, there was a two-hour debate in Parliament – in the House of Lords – about the "danger of cults and why the government was providing taxpayers' money to Eileen Barker and INFORM, which, they argued, didn’t warn people and didn’t care.

Q: What role does the media play in creating moral panic? 

EB: I can share from my experience. Several television programs portrayed us in an unfavorable light, undoubtedly influencing public opinion with their sensational descriptions of the ‘evil, brainwashing, exploitative cults’. One particular TV show, though I can’t recall its name now, aired a weekly series exposing unscrupulous landlords, fraudsters, and other individuals involved in various unsavory deeds. At one point, I became "villain of the week." 

This television program was particularly unpleasant, though there were others that were nastier. However, sometimes, if they gave me an opportunity to reply to their questions without editing the answers to make a mockery of what I was saying, they didn't have such a sensational story And the paper or television channel would just drop the story as it was no longer such a ‘good story’.

We worked closely with the police, and, funnily enough,  I believe we have been responsible for securing more convictions of cult leaders than the anti-cultists. This was because we had good relations with the police, and they trusted us. If we flagged an issue, they would investigate it. In contrast, the anti-cultists would just claim, "Oh, they’re all brainwashed. They engage in child abuse, and they’re about to commit mass suicide," and so on. As a result, the police told us, “The anti-cultists don’t discriminate, we know what they are going to say, whereas INFORM says ‘This religion does X and Y but does not do Z etc.”

Gradually, the movements that had been of particular concern changed. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, I became interested in studying religion in Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia as part of the former Soviet Union. It was during this time that I first came to Ukraine and encountered many of your minority religions, largely through Professor Liudmyla Fylypovych , with whom I remain very friendly. She’s a good colleague, but there were others as well. 

Q: Have you ever been involved in any criminal cases due to your research, your studies, or misunderstandings from law enforcement agencies or members of society that led to you being taken to court?

EB: I haven’t been personally involved in such cases, though I’ve been called as a witness many times, often as an expert witness. There was only one instance where I was summoned when it was not in the capacity of an expert witness. It was a case involving a guru who claimed he was using sex to heal people, but he was actually raping them. He was a deeply unpleasant individual.

We at INFORM had received several complaints about him, and some of my contacts in the American anti-cult movement, with whom I had developed friendly relations, also alerted me to his activities. We informed the police and encouraged some of the complainants to speak to the police. While some were willing to do this, others were afraid to do so for various reasons.

We facilitated introductions between the willing complainants and the police while ensuring confidentiality for those who did not want their identities disclosed. INFORM has always guaranteed complete confidentiality unless we have explicit permission to disclose names or identifiable details.

We shared some of the information we had been given by such individuals with the police, but not their identities, so they couldn’t be interviewed or appear in court. 

But then the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) insisted that I must disclose the names of all complainants. One particularly aggressive prosecutor even attacked me by saying that it had been reported online that I was “worse than the Nazi doctors.” This prompted a sharp rebuke from the judge, who remarked, “Professor Barker is highly respected; you shouldn’t say things like that!”

I argued that the case wouldn’t have come to court at all if people hadn’t trusted us to maintain their confidentiality. The judge agreed, as did the jury and the DPP was ordered to cover our legal costs, which were substantial—around £20,000. That was a tremendous relief. Under British law, I believe only Catholic priests have the legal right to withhold confidential information. Technically, I could have faced prison—unlikely though that was—for contempt of court because I refused to divulge the names of some of the victims. That was the only time I ever found myself in such a precarious legal position. Incidentally, the guru received a 10-year prison sentence.

Q: There has always been a gap between science and society, as well as between science and law enforcement agencies or government institutions. INFORM, as I understand, worked to bridge that gap. In your view, what additional measures are necessary to improve the dialogue between science, law enforcement, and society?

EB: Speaking and, importantly, listening to each other really helps. Fostering dialogue and collaboration between organizations can make a significant difference. Sometimes gaining access to the research of scholars can be challenging, especially when they use obfuscating jargon, but we made efforts to address this by organizing lectures, including one for the Metropolitan Police. We also held seminars attended by officers from various police forces. 

Our relationship with the police was cemented just before the Millennium, when the police were concerned about people committing suicide due to expectations about the end of the world. Of course, nothing happened, but I had become close to one officer in particular, and we became good friends and he continued to work closely with INFORM. He’s retired now, but we still keep in touch.

He would know exactly who to speak to if, for example, we heard about a movement sending people abroad, where they then died in suspicious circumstances after leaving money to the movement. This happened in one case. He knew the right contacts to investigate such matters, although he himself didn’t handle overseas murders and investigations. While nothing came of this particular case, it illustrates how challenging it could be to find the right person for such an investigation. We were fortunate to have him, and when he retired, we were able to continue our collaborative work with another police officer whom he had selected as a special INFORM ‘liaison officer’.

Over the years, we’ve maintained strong connections with individual people in law enforcement, who trust us and come to us for help. The police might come to INFORM for advice on matters such as, “This group is planning a demonstration—do we need armed officers?” or “We’ve found someone who committed a murder, and we’ve noticed strange markings in his Bible—can you explain these?” or “A child’s body has been found in the Thames with no arms or legs, just the torso, no limbs—can you help us with this?”

In this instance, we had an anthropologist in our network who was able to help them locate the village or area where the young boy who had been killed came from. These are just examples of the variety of situations where they would approach us with their concerns, just as we would turn to them with ours. 

Much has changed since then. INFORM now receives far fewer inquiries from concerned parents and relatives, as public anxiety seems to have diminished and people are not quite as worried about some of the issues that they used to be. Furthermore, information is much more easily available than it used to be. Wikipedia has improved significantly. It can be a very useful first step, but one should always try to double-check the information. 

Q: So what happened next?

Initially, INFORM received most of its income, which went almost entirely to paying one of two staff, from an annual grant from the government. At one point, someone with ties to the anti-cult movement, was elected to Parliament. He was given the position in charge of cults and decided to cut our funding. However, another election came along fairly quickly, and he lost his seat, and the government restored our funding. 

Then the coalition government introduced ‘austerity’ in 2010 in response to the global financial crisis, and, like most other charities, INFORM no longer receives direct government funding. However, it does carry out specific projects that are government financed. These could be a project from the Home Office or another ministry. For example, the Department for Education could be seeking information about an application to set up a faith school and would want to know what the religion  believes, and what are its practices. We also receive funding for various other projects from various other non-governmental bodies.

By working together, building up trust for each other, and sharing our knowledge, it has usually turned out to be surprisingly beneficial for everyone involved.

Somehow, we have managed to remain solvent throughout the 37 years since I established INFORM – never, incidentally, accepting money from any of the new religions about which it might be asked for information. It has currently secured funding from various sources for the next three years. I have fully retired, and two of my former students, who have worked alongside me for over 20 years, are now running the organization. I am very pleased with the direction they are taking.

Things have evolved significantly. They are younger and bring fresh energy to the work. We also enlist highly skilled professionals for specific projects when needed. Additionally, we collaborate with the University of London’s Theology and Religious Studies department at London College, where INFORM’s office is based. We have PhD and Master’s students who work with us, contributing to our research while advancing their own academic pursuits.

We are fortunate to have more volunteers, interns, and helpers than we can accommodate. It creates a dynamic, vibrant environment where people are eager to contribute while expanding their own knowledge.

Q: Do you know of any historical examples or perhaps examples from your colleagues where they were accused by law enforcement due to a misunderstanding or mistake?

EB: I don’t think I do, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cases like that. As for my colleagues, we are a fairly small group of religious studies scholars specialising in new religions, though I don't know all the younger scholars. We've had unpleasant times in court, being cross-examined and misunderstood, and we’ve suffered at the hands of often unscrupulous media – but that's a different matter. We haven’t actually been the accused standing in the dock!

Thank you, Professor Barker, for sharing your experience!