The Trickster and the Paranormal

by George P. Hansen

  There is one popular-style periodical in the U.S. that deserves special mention because it has been devoted exclusively to the paranormal for more than 50 years—Fate magazine. That longevity makes it highly pertinent to issues here. Fate was founded in 1948. For nearly all of its life, until the early 1990s, it was a digest-size magazine published on pulp paper. The cover art was often crude and lurid, especially in its early days. It carried tawdry advertisements for voodoo practitioners, lucky charms, removal of curses, and the like. Its format and production quality assured its marginality.

  The magazine’s content was mixed. There were credulous reports, along with some by professional parapsychologists, but what many people don’t know is that many skeptics published full articles in Fate. These included CSICOP members Susan Blackmore, L. Sprague de Camp, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Philip J. Klass, Larry Kusche, Lawrence Jerome, David Marks, Joe Nickell, James Oberg, Dennis Rawlins, Robert Sheaffer, Gordon Stein, and Marcello Truzzi. There were many critical and debunking articles by others as well. Fate is certainly more effective than Skeptical Inquirer in warning people about psychic scams because Fate is read by far more people likely to be prone to them.

  Ray Palmer and Curtis Fuller founded the magazine, and in 1955 Fuller bought Palmer’s share and became the sole owner. In 1989 ownership went to Carl Llewellyn Weschcke, who also owns Llewellyn Publications, one of the largest publishers of occult books.15 For its entire existence, the magazine was owned by individuals not a conglomerate.

  Though Fate meets the definition for being an institution, it still might be described as anti-structural. Its marginality and its ownership are factors in that. The surprising and ambiguous mix of credible, highly skeptical, and credulous articles were packaged in way that assured that Fate was outside the mainstream media. That formula has allowed the magazine to continue for more than half a century. In appearance, style, and content, it conforms to anti-structural characteristics. Fate, in its own way, marks the paranormal’s marginality.

  The Supernatural In Academe

  Academe does not totally neglect the paranormal. Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and folklorists are allowed to study beliefs about paranormal events, but there is a taboo against attempting to verify their reality. In academe today, serious consideration of the supernatural is almost exclusively limited to the arts and humanities. Yet even there we find ambivalence; the accounts studied are of “long ago” or “far away” and usually explicitly fictional (or metaphorical). The fact that no academic departments study the reality of the claims subtly implies to the students that the phenomena are not real.

  Everyone knows that universities have departments devoted to the sciences, but those outside academe often are unaware that many state-supported schools have long-established departments of religion. Despite the much-acclaimed warfare between science and religion, both have been incorporated into the academy. Science and religion are clearly demarcated. Science studies the empirical world, religion the spiritual. The paranormal, though, incorporates both; it is the middle ground. Spiritual beings that convey information about the empirical world subvert the boundary between science and religion.

  Laboratory-based parapsychology tries to test aspects of the supernatural, thereby suggesting that it is, at least in part, based in reality. Of course, such research is not long welcome in the academy. There are no extant university departments of parapsychology. In a few universities, occasionally a professor will teach a class on parapsychology, but this is done typically out of personal interest. The class rarely if ever becomes part of the established curriculum, and when the professor retires or loses interest, the course is dropped from the offerings. There are universities with classes, even a few for credit, teaching the development of psychic abilities. These are exceptions and are almost always in low-status schools or in temporary or experimental programs. None are firmly embedded as part of the formal academic establishment.

  Later chapters will give more detail about parapsychology in academe, but an illustration can be helpful. Discussion of paranormal phenomena sometimes provokes extreme reactions, and parapsychologists have frequently endured prejudice and unfair rejection of their work. An amusing example is seen in a review of the book Wondrous Events: Foundations of Religious Belief (1994) authored by James McClenon. The reviewer, William Sims Bainbridge, is a well known sociologist of religion, a former Harvard professor, and director of the sociology program of the National Science Foundation.

  Bainbridge’s review, less than a page long, appeared in the December 1995 issue of the highly respected Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR). It is a remarkable document, revealing a wonderfully primitive, visceral reaction. So much so, that after first reading his review, I almost wondered whether that style might be common in the pages of the JSSR, but it’s not. I checked. The 1995 volume reviewed 81 books, and only three others received strongly negative assessments. However, their reviewers clearly explained the deficiencies, and they completely avoided sarcasm and ridicule.

  More than just not liking Wondrous Events, Bainbridge denounced the “shriekingly bizarre events” it analyzed. So enraged, he was unable to articulate any substantive failing, though he implied that McClenon’s prose was a bit stilted (even though that is frequently taken as a badge of merit in academic circles). His most extended barrage was aimed at McClenon’s photographs of such things as fire walking and psychic surgery, claiming they were only appropriate for “a lurid exploitation paperback of the kind sold to subnormals at the supermarket checkout.” Bainbridge’s annoyance with the illustrations of psychic surgeons is remarkable considering that similar practitioners in innumerable cultures have been active for thousands of years and held prominent religious positions.

  Bainbridge was astute enough to realize that simply giving scientific attention to the paranormal automatically enhances its respectability. Thus he spoke of “the supermarket checkout” (home of the tabloids) and “subnormals”—rhetorical tactics guaranteed to reinforce the paranormal’s outsider status vis-à-vis the academy. Like the scatological stories of the trickster, McClenon’s graphic illustrations of the paranormal are unwelcome in polite company.

  Bainbridge’s review was aimed at more than just Wondrous Events, for near the end of it he asked: “How can the University of Pennsylvania Press publish the half of this book that is utter trash and still pretend to be an academic press?” Thus he targeted not only the author but any university press that might consider publishing similar works. At the end his text, Bainbridge’s name was followed not only by his affiliation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), but an additional, prominently positioned note called attention to that affiliation. No other review in the 1995 JSSR carried anything similar. The implications will not be lost on the readers as the NSF is a major funding source for academic research.

  In contrast to Bainbridge’s high status, McClenon has spent much of his professional career examining the paranormal. He is one of very few academics who have published original research on the subject in scholarly books and articles, and more than any other researcher I know, he has maintained extended, personal contact with paranormal practitioners and experiencers. McClenon teaches at Elizabeth City State University, a small school in the South whose student body is largely composed of low-income African Americans.

  Parapsychologists can point to other instances of prejudice, and in 1992 anthropologist David Hess published a number of accounts from them. He specifically discussed the notions of academic boundaries and their maintenance, and he compared parapsychologists with Marxists and feminists who also sometimes face opposition in the academy. There are parallels, but those groups have been far more successful in gaining tenured positions in universities than have parapsychologists. Further, Marxists and feminists are overtly hostile to establishment political views, and they represent a tiny fraction of the general population. On the other hand, parapsychology has no political agenda, and the pu
blic has enormous interest in it. The relative success of the Marxists and feminists compared with parapsychologists is striking.

  The ambivalence toward the paranormal is found even among academics who are sympathetic to it. This is nicely illustrated in an article titled “The Reality of Spirits: A Tabooed or Permitted Field of Study?” (1993) by Edith Turner, a University of Virginia anthropologist and the widow of Victor Turner. In 1985 she attended a healing ritual in Zambia and saw a spirit form emerge from the body of a sick woman. Later she had some ESP experiences herself. She was quite open about all these, but few anthropologists seem willing to acknowledge similar occurrences. Turner commented that she “began to see how anthropologists have perpetrated an endless series of put-downs as regards the many spirit events in which they participated—’participated’ in a kindly pretense.” She was frank enough to admit that “There seems to be a kind of force field between the anthropologist and her or his subject matter making it impossible for her or him to come close to it, a kind of religious frigidity.”

  Turner called for anthropologists to more fully participate in the cultures they study, but she also explained that if an anthropologist “went native” he or she was academically doomed. She seemed to want to portray this as a thing of the past, but clearly it is not. Going native, especially regarding the paranormal, has severe consequences for a professional career. Anthropologists continue to distance themselves from the phenomena, in order to maintain their status within academe. They explain away the paranormal in stilted, abstract, academic frameworks.

  The really telling aspect of Edith Turner’s article was that despite her plea for greater openness, she made only the scantest reference to similar paranormal experiences in our own culture. And of course she made absolutely no mention of parapsychology. This failure, whether inadvertent or deliberate, is a powerful example of what parapsychology faces.

  Summary

  This chapter can be summarized succinctly: paranormal phenomena and established institutions do not find each other congenial. This

  statement is best understood in conjunction with the material from which it was derived, so I will briefly review some of it here.

  The Association for Research and Enlightenment and the The-osophical Society were founded upon the works of Edgar Cayce and Helena Blavatsky, both of whom were famous psychics. The organizations now do not emphasize production of paranormal phenomena. The few institutions that directly provide psychic services, e.g., Spiritualist camps and telephone psychic hot lines, have very low status and are widely viewed as disreputable.

  Although kings, presidents, and CEOs have consulted psychics, the prophet, clairvoyant, healer, and psychic counselor hold no position within the modern, large, bureaucratic institutions of government, industry, and academe. Psychics, rather, are typically self-employed.

  Major institutions do more than ignore the paranormal, some work to marginalize it. Two of the most active are the entertainment industry and academe. Entertainment media frequently portray the paranormal in and as fiction. That consigns it to the realm of the imagination and subtly reinforces the idea that it need not be taken seriously. Academe addresses the paranormal and supernatural in literature courses. All universities have such classes, but none of them have departments that study the reality of the phenomena, and that sends an unstated message to the students. Academe is a product of, and an agent for, the rationalization and disenchantment of the world, and that entails marginalizing the paranormal. The efforts are sometimes overt, as with the Bainbridge review, but more often the pressures are exceedingly subtle, signalled by what is neglected, ignored, and left unmentioned (e.g., parapsychology in Edith Turner’s article).

  These examples confirm the anti-structural nature of the paranormal described in earlier chapters. It will be seen again in the next chapter on the organization of psychical research. Given the enormous interest and widespread acceptance of the existence of psi (according to any number of polls), the structural position of its practitioners within the culture is curious.

  These patterns of the paranormal are anti-structural, and they are easily overlooked precisely because of that. This condition has existed for millennia, and it continues today. Parapsychologists need to recognize that words of rational explanation are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the place of the paranormal in our culture. Further, it is altogether unrealistic to expect the scientific establishment to study the phenomena. Those who believe that parapsychology’s academic acceptance can be gained by presentation of evidence and rational discussion are simply naive. The problem is far deeper than ideology or belief. The evidence is ubiquitous that the phenomena inherently become marginalized. As a consequence, direct investigation of them can only be effectively conducted in the margins.

  CHAPTER 16

  Anti-Structure and

  the History of Psychical Research

  The histories of psychical research societies and parapsychology laboratories are stories of promising beginnings, rapid initial growth, encounters with tricksters, internal conflict, stagnation and decline. No such institution today can be said to be thriving, and virtually all extant are less impressive than in their early years. This anti-structural pattern is pervasive and is quite curious in light of the tremendous popular interest in the field. To put this in context, one only need remember that the movies Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghost (1990) each grossed well over $200,000,000. Interest from the media continues, and very few ordinary scientists or scientific laboratories ever receive the publicity given to psychical researchers. In my experience, a para-psychologist in an established laboratory may turn down more media appearances in a year or two than an average scientist may receive in a lifetime. This popular fascination with psychic phenomena is not a recent development; indeed paranormal and supernatural themes are found in some of the most influential art and literature ever produced. It is puzzling that all this attention does not translate into long-term institutional support for scientific parapsychological research.

  This state of affairs cannot be attributed to a supposed lack of practical applications for psi because many non-utilitarian endeavors obtain continuing support from established institutions. Drama, music, art, and literature all have strong sponsorship, and all universities have departments devoted to them. Much scientific research has little direct application and captures no public interest whatever, yet it garners steady funding, often from large bureaucracies. But there are applications for psychic abilities. Psychic detective work and psychic spying are widely known. The use of psi for healing is frequently reported.

  Even if one is a complete disbeliever and attributes all reports of psi to fraud and delusion, one still needs to explain the lack of establishment support in light of the massive public interest. After all, many forms of psychotherapy have flourished despite scant evidence for their efficacy. Commercial and academic empires have been built on them, and they have become institutions even while antagonizing others in the scientific establishment. There is even evidence that advanced training in therapy makes one a worse therapist, but such findings have little impact on the legitimacy granted psychotherapy by the establishment, including insurance companies, courts of law, academia, and government agencies.5 Similarly, billions of dollars have been expended on medical procedures that were later found to be of dubious value. In summary, even if all psychic phenomena were spurious, we would normally expect psi practitioners to be integrated into the bureaucracies of government, academe, and industry.

  The psychical research societies also subtly reflect this state of affairs. Even those organizations now provide little or no money for actual research, and what funding they do provide typically constitutes a tiny fraction of their budgets. Those who have published little research often hold political power within the societies.

  The major parapsychology groups illustrate the anti-structural pattern. Histories of the organizations are illuminating. (Let me be clear here. By parapsychology I mean
the study of psychic phenomena with scientific methods, followed by written reports that are submitted for review and publication in refereed journals.)

  SPR

  In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded and soon attracted some of the most prominent people in England. Members included: J. J. Thompson, discoverer of the electron; William Crookes, discoverer of thallium; Andrew Lang, the eminent folklorist; Arthur Balfour, a later prime minister; Camille Flammarion, noted French astronomer; classicist Gilbert Murray, physicist Sir Oliver Lodge, psychologists William James and William McDougall, and Nobel laureates: Henri Bergson, Lord Rayleigh, and Charles Richet; and these were only some of the presidents! Other members included: Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), Sigmund Freud, Marie Curie, J. Venn, Heinrich Hertz, William Ruskin, F. C. S. Schiller, William

  Gladstone, Alfred Tennyson, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Alfred Russel Wallace. Although most of the research was conducted by a small group of dedicated members, many prominent figures participated directly. They were not mere figureheads. Despite the activity of this stellar list, psychical research was not integrated into academia.

  In the early days, some of the most intense controversies swirled around the trickery of physical mediums. Many Spiritualist members of the society were offended by the exposés conducted by the scientists of the organization, and they left a few years after the founding. Although the SPR is still in existence, it continues to slowly decline, and its journal ranks as the poorest quality of the four major journals in the field. Yet to its credit, it has managed to publish its journal continuously since 1882.

  Duke And The FRNM