CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
"Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Latin" Parapsychology:
Underlying the Communication Barrier
Mario P. Varvoglis
Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Interactions Psi
Based
interviews
of French-speaking
researchers,
an
attempt is made to
determine some of
the issues which
may
contribute to communication and collaboration problems
in
parapsychology. It is argued that these problems reflect
broader
issues
than
just language
barriers.
American
parapsychologists are the most "successful" of parapsycho-
logists, in terms of organization, recognition, funding, and
social
standing.
Insofar
as
they
are
in
leadership
position, they
are
largely responsible for
defining
the
field's subject matter and
methods, as well as qualitative
standards
for
experimentation, journal reports,
and PA
membership. The situation has contributed to the creation of
hierarchical, rather
than peer-like, relationships within
the field, in which "Anglo-Saxon" parapsychology dominates.
This tends to alienate foreign researchers who disagree with
some of
the priorities or approaches of
their American
colleagues, and who do not wish to feel inferior to them. It
is suggested that, if we truly wish to improve international
communication and collaboration, we must come to recognize
the socio-economic, cultural and philosophical relativity of
our own approach, and
thus be more open to divergences"
in
style and philosophy within the field.
316
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
"Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Latin" Parapsychology:
Underlying the Communication Barrier
Mario P. Varvoglis
Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Interactions Psi
Problem? What problem?
In his JP paper "The language barrier in parapsychology",
Alvarado deplores
the
low
level of communication
and
collaboration
in
international parapsychology,
citing
in
Americans' limited awareness of research or publications
foreign countries, and foreigners' lack of participation
in
several
the PA and in Anglo-Saxon psi journals. He proposes
measures to counteract
these trends, including
the use
travel grants to encourage broader participation
in
U.S.
conventions, and increased efforts to locate and
translate
foreign publications.
But while focusing largely upon these "formal"
measures,
Alvarado also
cautions
that
more
basic
cultural
and
philosophical issues may obstruct quick and easy solutions.
In this context, the opening quotes of his article are quite
instructive, as they exemplify the divergence in
American
vs. European
perspectives on
the status
of
international
collaboration in the field.
J. B. Rhine states that there
is
"a spirit and vitality in
the research that is general
no sense
localized"
while
Tenhaeff
and
international and
in
darkly observes that "some (English and Americans) seem very
chauvinistic and seem
to believe that only the
researches
of
be
to
done in their country are important". Thus, in contrast
Rhine's cheery assessment, Tenhaeff, voicing the point
view of the continent, refers explicitly to "chauvinism"
on
the part of Anglo-Saxon parapsychologists; he seems to
implying that unfamiliarity with foreign works is based
on
cultural biases and is, hence, suggestive of darker dynamics
than mere ignorance.
My own interactions with a
number of
Europeans active
in
contemporary parapsychology
suggest
that
the
mood
in
continental Europe has not changed much in the decades since
Tenhaeff's statement.
Thus,
I
think
that
the "language
barrier" is just a facet of the communication problem in
parapsychology; indeed, it may be the least significant one.
My feeling is that if
we seek
to
address
the problem
through formal measures alone, without dealing with deeper
issues, we might end up reinforcing, rather than resolving,
alienation or mutual intolerance.
317
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
So in this presentation I would like to analyze some of
the
conflicts which may underlie the communication
barrier.
Toward this end, I compare the situations and mentalities of
two groups - American vs. French-speaking - in hope that
this will also clarify issues dividing broader groups in our
field
( "Anglo-Saxon"
vs.
"Latin",
or
"Northern"
vs.
"Southern" ) .
I
must
apologize,
in
advance, for
the
stereotyping
and
"flattening"
of individual differences
associated with this
kind of
work. In order to render
my
communication manageable
and relatively clear,
I
present
global trends which inevitably caricaturize reality;
I
hope
to be excused for
the multiplicity of exceptions
to the
trends described.
In order to gain some perspective on the French views,
I
exchanged with a number of researchers who are specifically
familiar with American parapsychology. These exchanges
were
informal, two-way discussions,
in which
I first
presented
the theme of this symposium,
and then asked individuals to
present their
opinions on
two
questions: what
specific
issues,
j f
any,
might
exist
between
American
for
Anglo-Saxon) and French (or
Latin) parapsychologists,
and
what factors or dynamics may underlie these issues.
In all, I was
able to exchange with 9 researchers:
Pierre
Janin, Remy Chauvin,
Jean Dierkens, Michel
Ange
Amorim,
Christine Hardy, Jean-Remi Deleage, Francois Favre,
Yvonne
Duplessis, and Yves Lignon. Given space limitations,
I
must
offer my own synthesis of what they have said, focusing upon
a few global areas which, I believe, contribute most to
the
communication barrier.
4
Socio-economic constraints upon research
After a year or two in France, one cannot help but feel that
French parapsychology is decades behind its counterpart
in
the U. S .; indeed, it is not clear if it makes sense to refer
to a "field" of parapsychology in this country. Recognition
of scientific parapsychology is very limited, and
external
support
practically
non-existent.
Research
efforts,
involving a few isolated investigators dispersed over the
country, are largely
self-funded, personal affairs. Little
distinction is made between a parapsychologist and psychics,
clairvoyants or healers: the
term "parapsychologue" can
be
used liberally by any "practician"
who wants
to attract
clients, and the media further confuse issues by presenting
a parapsychologist
on the same level with an astrologer,
medium, or dowser. Predictably, scientists in various fields
tend to dismiss as unimaginable the possibility of serious
parapsychological research. The situation is so bad, that
the French scientific
journal of
parapsychology is called
"Journal de Recherche en Psychotronique" -
"psychtronics"
being seen as less provocative a term than "parapsychology".
318
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
In short, French parapsychology is confronted
with
a
familiar vicious circle. The field is tainted with
negative
connotations, due to its lack of internal organization
or
cohesiveness
and
its
limited
means.
These
negative
connotations, in turn,
discourage scientists
from an open
identification with parapsychology, isolate
those already
active in the field, weaken efforts to organize the field as
a distinct discipline, and further remove any chance for
funding or respectability.
Why is the situation so "backwards" in France, one of
the
most developed and progressive countries in Europe?
A
partial answer, I believe, can be found by considering
the
socio-economic structure of the French scientific scene. The
socialists have been in power for less
than a decade,
but
centralisation has a very long tradition in
France,
and
extends beyond
social
services, utilities,
banks,
public
transport, etc.,
reaching into the core of the country's
intellectual and scientific activity. The national research
organisation, the Centre National de Recherche
Scientifique
(CNRS), has a hold on all branches of science, both within
the university
and
in other
centers,
and
essentially
constitutes a means for controlling the nature and
funding
of the scientific enterprise.
Centralised political and socio-economic structures have
proven to be a handicap for innovative research; they
are
tradition oriented, discouraging bold advances,
initiative
and change. For example, the universities and (to a
lesser
degree) the CNRS operate by a kind of "quota" system,
and
applying for a position is generally possible only following
the retirement of someone from the corresponding post. Even
then, approvals
must be collected by
a seemingly
endless
review
committee, which of
course
translates
into
a
preference for
known
quantities, not
for
newcomers,
and
certainly not for "strange"
topics like parapsychology.
It
must be recalled that the "rationalist" movement has a very
long tradition in France,
and
£
is strongly opposed
to
anything resembling religious, esoteric or occult claims.
This is perhaps why efforts to
explicitly establish
e.g.,
some
research within officially approved centers
-
the
university
1
have
generally
met with
insurmountable
resistance. Remy
Chauvin
was
unable to get
an official
parapsychology chair established, despite the support of one
Of the most powerful men in French industry and government.
My own attempt to enter the university and the CNRS through
the experimental
psychology department
was unsuccessful.
Christine Hardy
has
some
prospects
for
discreetly
establishing
some research,
in cooperation
with
some
university faculty
members; but even if
successful,
this
research would have no immediate access to funds, and
would
have to
remain hidden
behind
some
innocuous- looking
departmental "front". Yves Lignon, a math instructor,
has
succeeded in openly maintaining a small psi laboratory for a
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : 3CA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
1
1
J
d
st
on
ne
at
in
er
on
-al
_he
.le
=S,
be
act
ing
er,
Ids
DUS
hat
led
Cs"
"y"
e

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
number of years, at the University of Toulouse; however, the
laboratory's existence has never been officially approved
from the top, and the university's president openly denies
its legitimacy. The survival of this lab would appear to be
a paranormal feat, but can perhaps be explained by Lignon's
extensive relations in the media and a tacit
threat of
scandal, should anything happen to him.
What about less "formal", privately funded efforts? Although
tax-break
measures
have
been instituted to encourage
contributions to non-profit organisations,
they are still
not truly exploited; the French
are not as advanced as the
Americans
in
the
fine
tradition
of
donations
and
humanitarian foundations.
Thus, research
has been
largely
self-funded, and, invariably, short-term. Christian Moreau,
who had been keenly interested in dream telepathy and psi in
psychoanalysis, has long since abandoned parapsychology
in
favor of
psychiatry. Pierre Janin, the inventor
of
the
tychoscope, also left the field to pursue his clinical
interests full time. Rene Peoch,
who conducted a series of
successful anpsi studies
with Janin's moving-RNG
(the
tychoscope), has been progressively forced to abandon
field, and return to his medical practice. Christine
Hardy
the
to
and I, having established a modest laboratory dedicated
computer-RNG research, are feeling the financial pinch, and
are wondering how long we can finance our research. Remy
Chauvin has managed to get research done, over the years,
but he remains quite isolated, and is now forced to act as
his own subject in his experiments,
due to his remoteness
from major centers.
Besides lacking opportunities for conducting
research,
either within the system or independently of it,
French
parapsychology also lacks cohesiveness; there is no
single
organization which well represents the field. The "Institute
Metapsychique International" (IMI), once the well-funded and
internationally recognized center of psychical research,
is
broke, and plays practically no role in the field
today.
GERP, an interdisciplinary reflection group which
sustained
lively interest in parapsychology throughout the seventies,
had to fold. Its livelihood was too closely tied to a couple
of individuals and
thus could not be sustained once
they
decided to move on.
Recently, a new effort toward organizing the field has been
undertaken by Marc Michel, a co-worker of Yves Lignon. His
"Organisation pour la Recherche en Psychotronique" (ORP)
is
publishing a scientific parapsychological journal, and
has
organised a research congress and a number of work sessions.
But while these activities
are enhancing inter-researcher
cooperation and exchange, they largely depend, once again,
upon the good will and work of a single individual; they are
not sure to survive shifts in his life-situation.
320
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
The upper class and all the Rest
In general, then, the socio-economic conditions in France
render parapsychology a marginal, poorly organized activity,
with researchers facing
great difficulties
conducting
research,
or
even
establishing
the
legitimacy
and
desirability of such research. This, in turn, means
small
budgets, limited opportunity for cooperation and exchange
with others in the field, and, given the language barrier,
little exposure to contemporary Anglo-Saxon parapsychology.
By comparison
to
this
situation,
the
socio-economic
conditions
for
American
parapsychologists
are
quite
favorable: the
field is
well organized, enjoys a growing
recognition (even by the skeptics), holds regular national
and local conventions, involves research activites both
in
universities and in independent centers, and has concrete,
+
sometimes
shaky,
funding opportunities.
Similarly
-
though to a lesser extent - parapsychologists in northern
European countries generally
have
better
socio-economic
"status" than those in Latin countries.
4
Of course, French researchers welcome the relative
success
of American parapsychology;
it is
source of hope and
encouragement for them, and
constitutes a convenient
argu-
ment for the legitimacy of
their own research. At the
same
time, the higher "social
status" of American
parapsycholo-
gists indirectly introduces communication and collaboration
problems, insofar as it encourages hierarchical, rather than
peer-like relationships. The dynamic seems reminiscent
of
that between our
field, as a whole, and
"establishment
science" - only that in the present case it is American
parapsychology which is acting as the guardian of scientific
purity. Thus the Americans tend to define the
field's
nature, methods and objectives; inasmuch as they control the
PA and the most
important journals in the field, they
are
also in the position of enforcing their point of view. As a
result, the French seem forced to choose between adopting
the American style of parapsychology,
being ignored,
or
being labeled "marginal ".
I've discovered
that some
French prefer to follow
their
instincts rather than to feel like subordinates to American
parapsychology. As mentioned, the ORP of the Toulouse
group
has been attempting to promote cooperation and
exchange
between researchers through a series of "work-sessions". One
of the
first topics discussed in
these sessions was the
organization of a European congress (Euro-Psi), which would
serve
as
a launching point'
subsequent cooperative
research projects. The objective was to eventually establish
a trans-European association of psi researchers, which could
legitimatize parapsychology after 1992.
321
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
In response to this, I suggested that the basis for European
cooperation in parapsychology may already exist in the form
of the EuroPA. I proposed that the French coordinate
their
efforts with
the members
of the EuroPA, and
added
that,
insofar as participation in the EuroPA was restricted to PA
members, this would be a good
occasion for several
French
researchers to join the PA. As members of the PA, they could
more effectively elicit
the cooperation of other
European
parapsychologists, while
at the
same time
establishing a
more
prominent
French
presence
the
internationally
recognized organization of scientific parapsychology.
I proposed this during two different work sessions, and both
times the reactions ranged
from
cool to hostile.
The
arguments against my suggestion
were at no point clearly
from
a number of
side
phrased or
£
explicated.
Rather,
comments
and
snide
remarks,
I
gathered
that
these
researchers simply had no desire
to join the PA, to
adhere
to what they
perceived
as
an
American
(rather
than
international) organization. Surprisingly, the most negative
responses came not from the clinicians or anthropologists,
but from
those whose work falls most clearly within
the
Rhinean tradition of experimental parapsychology.
My initial
interpretation of all this was
that
I
had
stumbled upon a clear cut
case
of territoriality.
I,
foreigner (worse, an American) had invaded the territory
of
French parapsychologists, and, by suggesting that they
join
the PA and EuroPA, was challenging their
claim to fame
as
leaders in European parapsychology.
I
still
think this
interpretation is partly valid. However, I have since had a
rather personal taste of what it's like to be in the shoes
of a foreigner seeking to join the PA. This experience made
me realize that some tacit criteria underlie the explicit PA
admission
policies, allowing
for
discrimination
against
candidates who come from another culture, and have published
works
outside
the
officially
sanctioned
Anglo-Saxon
journals. Insofar as admission to the PA is controlled by a
committee largely representative of American parapsychology,
it is easy to see how
foreigners can come to the view
that
the PA is
in fact an
American, rather than international,
organization. It is also quite understandable that
they
would react aggressively when asked to seek PA membership.
Why should individuals who consider themselves prominent
in
their own country risk a humiliating rejection?
Of course,
it is possible to
defend the need for strict
criteria for PA membership, as well as the more general need
for strong leadership (hence, "hierarchical" relationships)
within the field. Given differences in recognition, in
numbers, and in funding, it could be argued that
American
parapsychology is, de facto, the leader in the field.
Money
translates
into
improved
research
conditions,
better
equipment, more talent, more extensive exchanges with
other
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
322

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
scientists, and so forth. Consequently, one could say
that,
live
it
or not,
the
Americans
have
outstripped
other
researchers in competence
and authority, and
have
the
responsibility of promoting
the field as
they see fit;
in
the interest of the field's progress they must exclude those
who don't measure up to the defined standards.
Needless to say, these kind of arguments are hardly apt to
promote communication and collaboration. More importantly,
they underestimate the cultural
relativity involved in
our
perceptions of "competence" and "progress". The criteria as
to what constitutes valid and significant psi research, and,
hence, as to who is and who isn't a "good" parapsychologist,
are not
universally agreed upon. To
the extent
to
which
French researchers view the priorities in a way
different
from the Americans,
they are bound to resent the
message
that the "American
model" is the only one acceptable. But
the
issues
here
clearly
transcend
socio-economic
considerations,
and
touch
upon
much
thornier
cultural,
psychological and philosophical divergences.
Cultural and psychological issues
I mentioned earlier that heavy, centralized bureaucracies in
France may impede
the evolution of
scientific inquiry
and
research. However, complementary to this bureaucracy, French
society is characterized by
a
tremendous
individualism.
People are in an informal but permanent struggle against the
establishment, and will go to
great lengths
to "beat
the
system", even when they don't have to.
This anti-conformism is also apparent
in the
intellectual
scene;
passion
and
expressiveness pervades
the
entire
culture, and not just the arts. Of course, when it comes
to
science, much
is
necessarily built upon the
modest
and
persistent work
of
technicians and specialists.
And ,
as
everywhere else
in
the
world,
most
scientists
are
conservative in nature and suspicious
of upstarts. Yet,
the
as
French pride
themselves
above
all
as
creators,
not
technicians or specialists; the image of
the free thinker is
far more of
an inspiration
than
that of
the
systematic
scientist. This is particularly true
now,
as the "New
Age"
voque has pulled a number of scientists from their
conven-
tional
tasks
and thrust
them
into
Kuhnian
shifts
and
currents,
Apart from the centrality of individualism and creativity in
French culture, also
of relevance
is the
trait of
ethno-
centricism.
Like
in
other
mediterranean
countries,
nationalistic pride is
pronounced; the French
do not
take
kindly to the idea that they may be playing second fiddle to
someone else. Of course, their self-image as independent and
superior was challenged by the enormous economic power
and
323
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
political influence
of the U. S.
in post-war
Europe. But
along with other European
civilizations, the
French
have
increasingly sought
to distance themselves from complete
loyalty to the U.S., and reaffirm their distinct
identity.
This tendency has been reinforced by the anti-conformist and
anti-authoritarian sentiments described above,
since the
U.S. has often been perceived as an over-dominating economic
and military force.
What does all this have to do with communication and
cooperation problems in parapsychology?
I
think that
a
number of our problems within
the field may have little
to
do with parapsychology per se, and
be strictly related
to
such cultural issues. The traits of our culture rub off
on
all of us, and, inevitably, affect
the kinds of relation-
ships we sustain with those from other cultures.
For example, the individualist and anti-conformist traits of
the French imply a desire to remain free, distinct,
and
unclassifiable - and, hence, a resistance toward invitations
to join groups and organizations. Such cultural traits
may
have been one of
the main reasons why
the French have
had
difficulty organizing parapsychology in their own country,
Coupled with the slightly paranoid sentiments vis-a-vis
American chauvinism (or imperialism), these traits probably
induce considerable psychological blocks vis-a-vis organiza-
tions such as the PA. But additionally, individualist and
anti-conformist
feelings could also
lead to resistance
toward methods, rules and standards "imported" from American
parapsychology - especially when these seem out of sync with
Latin values and traits.
American parapsychologists spend much energy organizing
the
field, defining its
subject matter and
standardizing
research methods and reporting styles. A good chunk of their
time may also be spent on formal budget proposals,
annual
reports,
or
public-relations
activities
(including,
responding to irresponsible critics). All these activities
move the field toward planned and
systematic, rather
than
a
spontaneous or improvisational research programmes. It is
trend which is entirely justified, inasmuch as the goal
is
to render parapsychology more "professional", and thus
more
it
apt to be welcomed by the scientific establishment. But
is a trend which has its price, as well; in other cultures,
researchers may see
little reason to orient themselves
in
the same direction.
The contingencies and constraints
are
not the same for those who work in isolation, without budget
proposals, annual reports, or Csicops axing the doors down.
There may therefore be little concern with standardization,
replicability, or
other
marks
of professionalism.
The
feeling might be that,
when it comes to psi 'research,
the
top priority is to creatively explore new directions -
even
at the risk of committing errors or wandering down
some
blind paths.
324
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
Of course, to the extent to which American parapsychology is
"calling the shots", the French (or Latin)
parapsychologist
is bound to be penalized for not following; inevitably, this
leads to a widening of the communication
gap. An example
here is provided by Remy Chauvin, who several years back
submitted an article to the JP, reporting
apparent
PK
Df
effects upon water congelation. Given
the
centrality
water
to
living organisms,
Chauvin considered
this
a
potentially important
finding,
worthy of
replication
and
further investigation. However, it seems that the JP did not
appreciate the "manual" measurement techniques used,
and
wondered why computer-controlled data collection and data
processing had not been adopted instead. To Chauvin, who had
spent many months devising his apparatus and collecting
results, this demand for computer-control seemed excessive
and irrelevant; not everybody is equally
able to
utilize
computers, and the latter are by no means necessary for good
research. He ended up publishing the article in the JSPR.
In
my interviews
with Chauvin
and some
other
French
researchers, I had
the impression that
there is a growing
rebelliousness vis-a-vis the American criteria for good
psi
research, or acceptable reporting styles; there is a desire
to
find
approaches
involving complementary
values
and
priorities. These feelings were of interest to me, because
they reminded
me of
similar
feelings
which
underlie
a
movement called "Latin management". As described to me by
a
well-known business consultant, it is an attempt to
gear
French managerial styles away from the dominant Anglo-Saxon
or American models, and to cultivate styles which are
more
consistent with mediterranean values and traditions. I
thus
wonder whether
some
of
the
communication
issues
in
parapsychology are part
of a
larger development
the
emergence of a "Latin
science", emphasizing individuality
expressiveness, personal implication, and human interaction,
rather than
standardization, detachment, objectivity,
and
formal means for regulating exchanges.
A paradigm conflict?
Since the writings of Kuhn,
we have
become
increasingly
sensitized to the central role of tacit motives, beliefs and
conceptual frameworks
in
scientific research.
Such
tacit
factors define
the questions
we consider
meaningful
or
significant, the tools and procedures we utilize to address
them,
and
the
responses we are
likely
to
find.
When
frameworks with
different
ontological
Dr
epistemological
premises collide, then the minimum we can expect is a lack
of
communication
and collaboration
between
the
groups
involved.
One of
the
most
obvious
obstacles
to
collaboration
in
parapsychology
is
the
metaphysical
"split"
Approved For Release 2003/09710 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700626001=2n

interactionist-dualism
and
monism.
Many,
not
most
American parapsychologists
are
tacitly
or
explicitly
committed to dualism. Even recent
theories,
inspired by
quantum physics, retain a distinction between the observing
consciousness and matter. By contrast, the French, who have
been struggling to rid
themselves of
their
cartesian
heritage, are generally hostile toward dualistic concepts,
and much more prone toward monistic worldviews - whether
materialistic or idealistic in nature. Thus, in seeking to
explain psi phenomena, they are more likely than
Americans
to use concepts
often found
in
the East or
in
Russian
parapsychology (like
"bio-fields" or "bioplasma")
and
to
explore the possibility of detecting "psi-energies".
Inevitably, of course, the differing worldviews lead to
clashes. To
many Europeans and Russians, dualism
seems
reactionary, like a left-over from the days of spiritualism.
On the other hand,
to most
American parapsychologists,
concepts like "psi energies",
and the work associated
with
these concepts, seem rather "marginal". But the two views do
not have equal opportunities
of expression; while
research
consistent
with
the dualistic viewpoint receives
much
coverage, some feel that the Americans are prone to
ignore
work which is more consistent with a monistic view. Yvonne
Duplessis, for example,
complains that her
work on
dermo-
optic perception did not receive the attention it deserved,
even though it is conspicuously relevant
to a substantial
amount of psi research (i.e., clairvoyance tasks with sealed
envelopes). When Carroll Nash sought to explore protocols
analogous to her own, he concluded that his results pointed
to something other than psi phenomena; the results were "too
good" to be based upon psi. Perhaps this is true. But to
those who assume that psi
is a subtle physical
energy,
rather than a "pure" mental phenomenon, this attitude seems
incomprehensible. It
translates to abandoning a promising
research lead, in favor of pre-established assumptions about
the nature of psi; and
it also implies the perpetuation of
parapsychology's isolation from "normal" science.
Another issue which may act as a divisive force in the field
is the very ancient and persistent confrontation between two
epistemologial frameworks: empiricism
and rationalism.
The
empiricist approximates truth by accumulating more and
more
data, relying upon these to diminish the "interference" of
erroneous ideas
and conceptions;
his preoccupation
with
methodological purity and replication reflects this search
for "hard facts". By contrast,
the rationalist seeks
to
approximate truth by constructing
increasingly compelling
theoretical structures. His focus is upon formal systems
or
semantics,
and
he is preoccuppied far more with
the
coherence of thought than its correspondence with data.
In
the U.S. ,
parapsychology
is
clearly
rooted
in
the
Approved For Release 2003/09/2 anear methods have been inspired
CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

F
largely by behaviorism, and thus, indirectly, by positivism
- both extreme expressions of the empiricist tradition. And
parapsychology in the U. S. continues to be modeled largely
after experimental psychology, emphasizing systematic data
collection and methodological purity and showing restraint
in modelization and theorizing. Similarly, the trend
toward
atheoretical terminology, (e.g., references to
"anomalies",
rather than psi) reflects
the data-orientation of American
parapsychology.
By contrast, French
parapsychologists,
while
certainly
empiricists, are nevertheless operating within
a culture
with a long rationalist tradition. Positivism has never been
warmly received in France, and it is unlikely that a
purely
behavioristic approach to psi phenomena could ever
really
take roots
there.
Not
surprisingly,
the concept
of
an
atheoretical
"anomaly" is nearly
intolerable;
it
seems
preferable to start out with some theoretical framework from
the outset, and view the facts as part of a meaningful grid.
The intellectual climate is such as to encourage
ambitious
theories, and
innovative
conceptual efforts;
it is
less
important that these be based on many facts, than that
they
be
internally coherent
and consistent
with
their
own
premises.
This' divergence
in
epistemological
outlooks
between
Americans and French could help clarify - though by no means
resolve - some disagreements regarding methods and
research
priorities. American
parapsychologists' preoccupation
with
polished experimental
protocols and near-perfect
controls
are consistent
with
the empiricist goal of seeking
out
"pure" data - facts which are so elementary and certain that
they cannot be said to be distorted by subjective opinion or
error. It is assumed that only such hard data can persuade
the skeptics of the reality of psi.
On the other hand, in the rationalist tradition, there can
be no such thing as elementary data, independent of premises
and frameworks. Data are not ends in themselves, but only
means intended to ascertain or clarify an existing theory or
model.
An
"anomaly",
even
well-demonstrated,
is
uninteresting if not embedded in a conceptual context
which
lends it meaning.
From this point of view,
methodological
sophistication, assuring data purity, though
laudable
in
terms of public relations (i.e., skeptics), is not the
most
important priority.
At
this point,
those
influenced
by
rationalist perspectives feel that there is no need for more
experimental "hard data"; what is needed is the integration
of all available clues in search of an understanding of
the
nature of psi.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
The climate in the U.S. is such as to encourage specializa-
tion, well-controlled laboratory research, and a good yield
of "solid" data - even if the effects observed are near the
327
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
-
vanishing point. The climate in France, on the other hand,
is likely to reinforce theoretical, phenomenological or
field work, and a courting after risky "macro" effects -
through studies with gifted subjects, clinical case studies,
anthropological and ethological investigations, and so on.
There is little doubt that the experimental approach is
more likely to gain us favors with hard-headed scientific
audiences, and an entry into establishment science; the
earlier mentioned successes of American parapsychologists
attest to this. However, the more adventurous approaches
have their own appeal. It may be these which, in some wild
chase over the landscape, will unveil the true forms behind
the walls of data, and satisfy our thirst for meaning.
Conclusion
We are all drawn to the ideas of communication and
collaboration. Communication implies enrichment, expansion
of knowledge, broadening of vision; collaboration suggests
the warmth of shared creativity, and promises levels of
achievement beyond the reach of isolated individuals. In our
field, especially, plagued as it is by chronic funding
problems and endless battles for recognition, communication
and collaboration are necessities, not just luxuries. But
neither communication nor collaboration "just happen",
automatically; they must be actively pursued and reinforced.
This is especially true when geographical, linguistic,
political, cultural, or philosophical factors obscure and
obstruct sharing and interchange.
I think it is clear, at this point, that differences in
parapsychology are inevitable and that, at this stage in the
development of the field, we cannot specify priorities,
objectives and methods which are universally preferable over
other ones. Our criteria for "good science" reflect specific
assumptions and values, which in turn may be culturally
bound, or the result of a particular historical tradition.
Consequently, in reflecting upon how better to communicate,
it is important we appreciate the relativity of our own
perspective, and develope a tolerance for, and respect of,
differences. Once we accept that all approaches probably
have some strengths, and some weaknesses, we may begin to
exchange more freely and make room for collaboration. After
all, to work together, we don't really need to speak the
same language; we just need to understand what the other is
saving.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700620001-2
328